Read this report of sharia in a Pennsylvania court by AFLC Advisory Board Member Andrew C. McCarthy.
AFLC’s co-founder, David Yerushalmi, drafted American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) because of the threat of Civilizational Jihad where the sharia faithful seek to impose sharia as the law of the land by stealth and by violence. Specifically, ALAC was intended to prevent constitutionally objectionable laws from being introduced into state courts.
The secular left and the Muslim Brotherhood sharia faithful, like CAIR, yelled: “No need. There is no sharia in U.S. courts. It is a solution in search of a problem.”
Yet, research by the Center for Security Policy, of which Yerushalmi is general counsel, found dozens of cases where state courts were depriving U.S. litigants of their constitutional protections because one side insisted on applying sharia.
Indeed, a famous case was in New Jersey where a state trial judge would not issue a restraining order against a Muslim man who repeatedly raped and beat his wife because the man, said the judge, was merely following sharia-Islamic custom. Yes, per sharia, the woman is the chattel of the man and may not deny him conjugal rights.
Well, once again, the secular trans-nationalist left and the Muslim Brotherhood sharia faithful yelled foul. This was an exception. This doesn’t happen.
Think again.  A Muslim man attacked a Halloween marcher in a parade in Pennsylvania because the man was dressed up as a zombie Mohammed. The man’s defense in his assault trial: sharia made me do it. The judge, a veteran who had served in Iraq and converted to Islam, AGREED. If you commit a criminal assault in the name of sharia and its blasphemy laws, the First Amendment is trumped and you go free.