Islam in the United States

Nation of Islam in relation to Crime and Race

Nation of Islam is included in the Encyclopedia of Race and Crime (1), beginning with: The term Black Muslims refers to the Blacks in America who belong to the Lost and Found Nation of Islam in the West. The Nation of Islam, or NOI, as it is popularly known, was founded July 4, 1930, in Detroit, Michigan, upon the appearance of a man identifying himself as W. D. Fard. The importance of this topic for race and crime lies in understanding the phenomenal growth of Islam, particularly in the Black community, as well as Islam’s widespread presence in the penal institutions of North America. The term Black Muslim was popularized after the publication of C. Eric Lincoln’s book Black Muslims in America in 1960. However, even though others use this name, members of the Nation of Islam do not describe themselves in this way, and they see themselves simply as Muslims. [1]

Islamic Law and Saudi Law in American Courts

From Standard Chartered Bank v. Ahmad Hamad AL Gosaibi and Bros. Co., 2014 WL 96219 (N.Y. trial ct. Jan. 10, 2014):

“Defendants assert that they have standing to move to quash the instant subpoenas on the ground that the subpoenas seek all contracts between Pepsi and the defendants, documents which, they claim, include confidential proprietary information about defendants’ bottling operations. In support of their claim defendants submit the affidavit of Eric L. Lewis, Global Legal Coordinator for defendant-judgment debtor Ahmad Hamad A1 Gosaibi & Brothers Company (“AHAB”)….

Defendants contend that compliance with the subpoenas would expose Pepsi to civil and criminal penalties under the laws of Saudi Arabia. In support they offer the unsworn affidavit of AHAB’s Saudi Arabian lawyer, Dr. Eyad Reda, who claims that absent consent of the account holder or royal or agency order, Article 19 of the Saudi Banking Control Law and Shari’ah principles of privacy prohibit disclosure of banking information to any third parties.

In opposition, plaintiff’s expert, Muddassir H. Siddiqui, alleges that Article 19 prohibits such disclosure only by parties who come into possession of banking information during the performance of their duties under the Saudi Banking Control Law. He notes that since Pepsi does not operate as a bank under Saudi Law and is not an agent of the Saudi Arabian Money Authority, Article 19 imposes no restrictions on. Pepsi. Moreover, he contends, Saudi law and Shari’ah law obligate a Saudi debtor to fully disclose its assets to its creditors. Thus, Pepsi’s disclosure pursuant to the subpoenas is consonant with Saudi law.

The Court accepts the opinion of plaintiff’s expert. He supports it with specific citations and a copy of the Banking Control Law. Defendants’ expert fails to specify what “parties” are subject to the requirements of the Saudi Banking Control Law and fails to specify the Shari’ah principles of privacy on which he relies.

[Footnote: Whether Shari’ah law is “law” or religious traditions that differ among Muslims is a factual issue (see, e.g., Awad v Ziriax, 754 F Supp2d 1298, 1306 [WD Okla 2010], aff’d 670 F3d 1111 [10th Cir 2012]). Moreover, as Standard notes, New York courts generally do not permit a party to avoid disclosure in response to a subpoena on the basis of religious laws or rules. (Matter of Congregation B’Nai Jonah v Kuriansky, 172 AD2d 35, 38-39 [3d Dept 1991]).

Defendants’ citation of Richbell Info. Servs., Inc. v Jupiter Partners L.P. (32 AD3d 150, 156 [1st Dept 2006]) does not support their contentions. That case concerned pre-trial discovery from a party, not, as here, post-judgment discovery of judgment debtors’ assets. Moreover, as noted, the requested disclosure would not be prohibited under Saudi law or Shari’ah principles.”

The court adds:

“[W]hen the State imposes “an incidental burden on the right to free exercise of religion” we must consider the interest advanced by the legislation that imposes the burden, and that “[t]he respective interests must be balanced to determine whether the incidental burdening is justified” (La Rocca v Lane, 37 NY2d 575, 583 [1975], citing People v Woodruff, 26 AD2d 236, 238 [1966], affd 21 NY2d 848 [1968])…. [In performing such balancing,] substantial deference is due the Legislature, and that the party claiming an exemption bears the burden of showing that the challenged legislation, as applied to that party, is an unreasonable interference with religious freedom. This test, while more protective of religious exercise than the rule of Smith, is less so than the rule stated (though not always applied) in a number of other federal and state cases.”

Religious Law in American Courts

Islamic Law in the American Legal System

Resources

Notes and References

Entry about Nation of Islam in the Encyclopedia of Race and Crime

Comments

One response to “Islam”

International

December 19, 2017

I see that after a lot of deliberation, the Court followed the old, “Apply the rules of the jurisdiction of the tribunal that the case is in.”

I remember being involved in a horrifically complex civil suit involving foreign law, which required both sides to hire numerous experts and teams of translators. Anyway, there was some crucial early questions as to whether the law of other jurisdiction even supported some of the tort claims in question and after a lot of time and expense, the trial court (here) stated that, amazingly, the tort laws of the foreign jurisdiction could be harmonized with the tort laws of New Jersey, so we would just use New Jersey law.

Islam