Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You have to read this absolutely absurd article at the Worldnutdaily full of hysterical warnings about "Sharia-compliant insurance." They've got their panties all bunched up over a subsidiary of AIG marketing insurance to Muslims - and so soon after we bailed them out, which for some mysterious reason makes it even worse than they imagine it already is.
After American International Group Inc, or AIG, reached two major bailout agreements totaling $152.5 billion in taxpayer dollars, the company is stepping up its dealings with Islamic finance by offering Shariah-compliant homeowners insurance to the U.S. - outraging critics over AIG's support of a "discriminatory ideology, that is against equality, and that is against liberty."
OMG! Sharia-compliant homeowners insurance! That must be insurance that protects suicide bombers! Or insurance that offers benefits if someone has to behead their daughter for being found along with another man! Well, no. Here's what it actually means:
The Shariah-compliant policy is underwritten through RSC member company A.I. Risk Specialists Insurance, Inc., in conjunction with Lexington Insurance Co. and in association with AIG Takaful Enaya."Takaful" is based on Quranic principles of "Ta'awon" - or mutual assistance. The term originates from the Arabic word "Kafalah," meaning "joint guarantee." Similar to mutual insurance, where policyholders own a stake in the organization, members of a Takaful group pool their resources to help the neediest member, and losses are divided among them.
Wow, how....irrelevant. They're offering mutual insurance under a religious label to market to a specific group of people. I'm...shocked? Well no, and neither should anyone else be. Oh, but there's a crucial difference between this and mutual insurance:
Unlike mutual insurance, Takaful includes Shariah-compliant stipulations. It prohibits investment in companies that violate Islamic law by selling or promoting products such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling and even pork.
Why, that's an outrage. And it's totally different from companies that sell Christian investments, like the Timothy Plan, which promises to avoid investing in companies that Christians might not approve of:
The Timothy Plan is a family of mutual funds offering individuals, like yourself, a biblical choice when it comes to investing. If you are concerned with the moral issues (abortion, pörnography, anti-family entertainment, non-married lifestyles, alcohol, tobacco and gambling) that are destroying children and families you have come to the right place.The Timothy Plan avoids investing in companies that are involved in practices contrary to Judeo-Christian principles. Our goal is to recapture traditional American values. We are America's first pro-life, pro-family, biblically-based mutual fund group.
But by god, this is an outrage:
Jeffrey Imm of Family Security Matters and the Anti-Jihad League of America has written extensively on the subject, warning that AIG would expand its Shariah products in the U.S. He has even created a petition demanding the Federal Reserve, Securities Exchange Commission and Department of the Treasury require AIG to divest itself of its Shariah businesses."The Sharia legal codification is intended to enforce discriminatory and segregationist practices against women and non-Muslims and to suppress the liberties of those living in Islamic theocracies," Imm writes."... Sharia is incompatible with democratic values and the inalienable right that 'all men are created equal.'"
Yeah, as opposed to the Mosaic law that calls for putting women to death if they're not virgins on their wedding day and demands the stoning of homosexuals. These people simply can't get any more ridiculous than they are. And for real fun, take a look at the comments made by some of their astonishingly stupid readers.
Politics
Comments
Jeffrey Imm of Family Security Matters and the Anti-Jihad League of America
Okay, I have to know if this is one ridiculously titled group or two. I mean, I could certainly see myself as a member of "Family Security Matters" (manufacturing chastity belts I assume), but I wouldn't be caught dead at the "Anti-Jihad League of America".
Posted by: Odie | December 8, 2008 9:43 AM
Moreover, this has nothing to do with "legal codification". It's not illegal to buy non-sharia insurance even somewhere like Saudi Arabia. It's about individuals (or companies, presumably) in America who wish to take out insurance in a way that doesn't conflict with their religion, much as, say, observant Jews wouldn't want to buy insurance from a company that makes pork products.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | December 8, 2008 9:45 AM
"Pörnography"? Why the röckdöts?
Posted by: Squiddhartha | December 8, 2008 9:52 AM
I wonder who gets to wear the Wonder Woman costume at the Anti-Jihad League of America board meetings? :) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 8, 2008 9:58 AM
much as, say, observant Jews wouldn't want to buy insurance from a company that makes pork products.
Or like Catholics who wouldn't want to buy insurance from a company that invests in companies that manufacture birth control products.
But then we are talking about a group of folks who see the word "Muslim" and replace it with the word "evil terrorist bomber OMG OMG OMG!!!", so I doubt that even that analogy would be lost.
Posted by: NonyNony | December 8, 2008 10:04 AM
Odie - it's the title of an exciting new book or a film I think.
A bit like "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" or "Shadow Warriors II: Assault on Death Mountain", only this time it's "Family Security Matters and the Anti-Jihad League of America".
I fully expect the lot of them wear tights, underpants on the outside and cloaks made from bath towels.
Posted by: Captain Obvious | December 8, 2008 10:31 AM
"outraging critics over AIG's support of a "discriminatory ideology, that is against equality, and that is against liberty."
So, they are arguing for gay marriage rights, then, or do I presume too much?
Maybe this is the way to argue to wingnuts for gay rights? Tell them sharia law forbids gay marriage, and sharia is a "discriminatory ideology, that is against equality, and that is against liberty." Gay marriage, then = liberty and is part of the battle against Islam?
Maybe not so much.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | December 8, 2008 10:55 AM
Hey NonyNony* - actually the Vatican had, until the 1970's, a sizeable shareholding in an Italian rubber manufacturer - guess what one of the company's main products were? - DJ
*Hey NonyNo.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 8, 2008 11:03 AM
This sort of thing has happened in the UK too. There was a flap a few months ago when the Archbishop of Canterbury said that adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".
Of course, he was talking about its use in resolving financial and family disputes in Muslim communities where it doesn't come into conflict with British Law, but it's no surprise there was an uproar over his remarks.
The one danger I do see with this type of thing is the pressure Muslim women may be put under to conform with Sharia Law when involved in a dispute of some kind. The subservient place of women in many Muslim households could lead to more abuse if they are forced to conform to unequal and unfair Sharia legal standards as opposed to the protections available under British law.
Posted by: tacitus | December 8, 2008 12:07 PM
@tacitus:
Never fear, sometimes the smart wins:
In Ontario a couple of years ago there was a debate about the parallel Sharia court system that was starting to come into existence around the Ontario family/divorce/property practice.
In arguing for its legalization, proponents pointed to the Talmudic courts which had been settling such issues under official sanction for years.
The court agreed that the parallel system was a poor precedent and abolished it.
Of course they still pray to the Christian god in the Ontario Legislature, despite recent arguing, so they still have a way to go.
Posted by: Metro | December 8, 2008 1:12 PM
@DingoJack:
Ken Ham.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | December 8, 2008 1:16 PM
Eh, I think I'll pass, thanks.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 8, 2008 1:32 PM
So, heddle, do you always feel the need to point out that there are Obama-hating crazies out there too whenever the right-wing message boards you read begin to fill with outrage over Palin's treatment by the left?
Posted by: tacitus | December 8, 2008 1:46 PM
Paul,
You will not be forgiven for putting that image in my head.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 8, 2008 2:47 PM
Oops -- ignore my last comment -- wrong thread.
I wondered where it had gotten to!
Posted by: tacitus | December 8, 2008 3:06 PM
Those aren't röckdöts. It's the face little Timmy will make when he sees boobies on the Internet.
But I liked this part:
But... don't children have "non-married lifestyles"? Teenagers and young adults too? Is everyone not married living an immoral lifestyle that destroys children? Are they advocating marriages at birth? At conception?
Posted by: jpf | December 8, 2008 3:18 PM
As usual, the whole story is not even presented. Ed you quoted the following:
Unlike mutual insurance, Takaful includes Shariah-compliant stipulations. It prohibits investment in companies that violate Islamic law by selling or promoting products such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling and even pork.
You didn't bother to quote the sentence that follows:
Critics claim Shariah-compliant businesses are even opening doors to U.S. funding of Islamic extremism.
Did you know that shariah-compliant banking, which also is a growing area in the banking industry, requires giving of a certain percentage of revenue to charity? And where do you think this money is going to go? United Way? The Salvation Army? Hardly. It will go to Muslim charities, many of which will fund terrorist activities.
Shariah is incompatible with our system of government and we should not be encouraging its adoption in this nation. In Britain it has progressed to the point where it is emerging as a parallel legal system.
The thing I find most ironic is how you all bash Christians as being supposedly backward and intolerant, yet you apparently have no problem with Shariah law growing in presence in the United States. If you really cared about women's rights and the rights of gays, etc, you would bash this shariah-compliant nonsense as much as you bash Christians.
Posted by: mroberts | December 8, 2008 3:26 PM
Evidence? (Neo-con paranoia is disallowed).
Posted by: tacitus | December 8, 2008 3:48 PM
tacitus, do you seriously find it unbelievable that donations to an Islamic charity might end up in the hands of terrorists??? Judging by what you said, it appears that you could never fathom the possibility of something like that happening.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/ARticles/Read.aspx?GUID=9876D480-1E6C-46EC-AA3C-851A46FBF9FF
Posted by: mroberts | December 8, 2008 4:05 PM
mroberts: The thing I find most ironic is how you all bash Christians as being supposedly backward and intolerant, yet you apparently have no problem with Shariah law growing in presence in the United States.
Except that Shariah law isn't growing in the US, and there is nothing about "Sharia compliant insurance" that would enable Sharia law to grow, so the direct comparison to criticisms of the Religious Right to enact their own religious values into law isn't really apt.
Posted by: Chiroptera | December 8, 2008 4:07 PM
Really chiroptera?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/04/treasury-submits-to-shariah/
I'm sure you will dismiss this as well. The crazy thing is that if it were Christians demanding some kind of Christian banking (not that there really is such a thing) I could only imagine the howls of protest on this blog.
Posted by: mroberts | December 8, 2008 4:12 PM
WorldNetDaily having a conniption because they saw the word Muslim in a marketing segment description? Say it isn't so! They would never do that!
Earlier this year they wrote with outrage about special, Ramadan themed Coke cans being sold in Muslim countries and the company allowing its Muslim employees to take time off for religious activities like praying.
Because obviously, selling Christmas themed Coke cans in Europe and the Americas every year since 1890 and giving employees Christmas Eve and Christmas Day off is so much more different compared to the preferential treatment those evil Muslims are getting on one of their holiest times...
Posted by: Greg F | December 8, 2008 4:14 PM
Don't be so obtuse. I questioned (and highlighted) your use of "many of which" to imply that most Muslim charities are fronts for terrorist organizations. Just because a few have been discovered doesn't mean that you are likely to be funding terrorists if you donate to a Muslim charity -- there are probably tens of thousands of them around the world, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with terrorists.
So, again, where's your evidence that "many" Muslim charities funnel money to charity? If you can't come up with any, then your comment is just a baseless right-wing smear of the millions of generous Muslims who donate to worthy causes every year.
Posted by: tacitus | December 8, 2008 4:29 PM
mroberts:
The Washington Times is pretty much known to be where WorldNutDaily writers go when they finally pass their Freshman Composition class.
That said, there's very little substance in that article. There's no details of exactly what policies the Treasury is considering, not any analysis on how these policies are going to lead to an imposition of Sharia on the US.
At any rate, it is one thing to be critical of government policies. It is entirely different thing when insurance organizations simply allow people a choice on how their insurance policies are done.
Posted by: Chiroptera | December 8, 2008 4:31 PM
Facts really are obnoxious little pests, aren't they?
Posted by: James Hanley | December 8, 2008 4:38 PM
"Yeah, as opposed to the Mosaic law that calls for putting women to death if they're not virgins on their wedding day and demands the stoning of homosexuals."
Wow. Hyperbole much?
Go to Saudi Arabia or Iran and bang another mans wife and see what happens. Or tell them you're gay. Now do that anywhere in the west.
Compare results.
The difference is that in the west the xtian nut case scripture is not law enforced by the state. Sharia is in many nations.
Sharia IS fundamentally incompatible with American legal ideals. Just as xtian fundie positions are.
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your daily reprost of nutdaily news stories.
Posted by: Ian Kennedy | December 8, 2008 4:49 PM
Ian Kennedy:
Remind me again what Saudi Arabian state terrorism has to do with an insurance company allowing its clients to choose policies that conform to their moral beliefs.
Posted by: Chiroptera | December 8, 2008 4:53 PM
Is this Anti-Jihad League of America for real? It sounds like a bad joke. So, for that matter, does the Timothy Plan.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | December 8, 2008 5:07 PM
How does selling Sharia-compliant insurance establish Sharia in U.S. law any more than selling Kosher salt establishes Talmudic law?
Posted by: DaveL | December 8, 2008 5:22 PM
Were you under the impression that sharia-compliant banking was being sold to westerners? Ridiculous. It's obviously being targeted towards (observant) Muslims, who of course are likely to support Muslim charities anyway. Do you actually think a large western company like AIG, with all the scrutiny it's subject to, is more likely to funnel money to islamic terrorists than the individual muslims it markets these products to?
Posted by: DaveL | December 8, 2008 5:28 PM
Wow. Hyperbole much?
No, in fact. Mosaic law is pretty damn explicit about both of those. No hyperbole involved.
Posted by: Skemono | December 8, 2008 6:27 PM
"Sharia is in many nations."
Feel free to name them.
Posted by: Ian Gould | December 8, 2008 6:28 PM
Ah good old Washington Times, going the extra mile to warp anything and everything into nonsense. The issue in question was the State Department studying how Islamic countries do banking in accordance to Sharia law in order to make sure they're not missing any possible money laundering schemes because they don't know all the quirks of the regional financial system.
But seriously, it's impressive how inept and intellectually corrupt one has to be to turn a hunt for terrorists into a supposed adaptation of Muslim law in banking. I mean this is a pretty deep level of dishonesty...
Posted by: Greg F | December 8, 2008 10:04 PM
Ah good old Washington Times, going the extra mile to warp anything and everything into nonsense. The issue in question was the State Department studying how Islamic countries do banking in accordance to Sharia law in order to make sure they're not missing any possible money laundering schemes because they don't know all the quirks of the regional financial system.
But seriously, it's impressive how inept and intellectually corrupt one has to be to turn a hunt for terrorists into a supposed adaptation of Muslim law in banking. I mean this is a pretty deep level of dishonesty...
Posted by: Greg F | December 8, 2008 10:07 PM
whoops... sorry about the double post, not sure how that happened.
Posted by: Greg F | December 8, 2008 10:09 PM
Good grief, screaming about the possibility that Muslim charity money might go to terrorists is about the same as saying that Christian charity money might go to THEIR terrorists, like the Army of God. Or the KKK. Or some nutbar sect like the Branch Davidians. I'd say the percentages of how much money donated goes to looney tunes causes are probably the same for all faiths and ideologies.
But of course to the typical Muslim-fearing titty baby, OUR nutters aren't nearly as bad as THEIR nutters, even if ours not only blow up OUR buildings, but also shoot OUR doctors, or stockpile chemical weapons to use on OUR people. Maybe ours don't fly airplanes into buildings (yet), but you can bet it's only because they didn't think of it first. Maybe they'll get over it and copy it anyway. It wouldn't be beyond them. They're that stupid and that hateful and that fucking insane.
These Ay-rab race-baiters get their panties in a knot over the stupidest things.
Posted by: Aquaria | December 9, 2008 1:26 AM
@ Ian Gould:
I suppose I'll take the bait. Saudi Arabia is the most obvious, followed by Iran. At least Pakistan and Mauritania also have Sharia courts. Even in most of the nominally secular Muslim-dominated countries (e.g. U.A.E., Malaysia) the laws are influenced, to varying degrees, by Islam.
Now whether any country follows, in full, any given Imam's pedantic definition of Sharia is another matter, but, for me, a country's word that it's a theocracy is more than sufficient to judge it one.
As for AIG offering Sharia-compliant insurance, I don't see why it's any worse than food manufacturers selling items certified as Kosher, or marketing in some way to Christians, or what have you.
I personally happen to think Islam is a particularly pernicious superstition, and that its current mainstream resembles fundamentalist Christianity, but this does seem like a non-issue even to me.
Posted by: Escuerd | December 9, 2008 2:37 AM
"the laws are influenced, to varying degrees, by Islam."
Yes just as the laws of most European and American countries are influenced "to varying degrees" by christian doctrines.
Sharia law applies in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, and some parts of Pakistan and Nigeria.
The "Sharia Courts" in places like Mauritania have extremely limited jurisdiction over civil matters like inheritance and divorce and in any case can be overridden by the secular authorities - because the last thing dictators want is independent courts of any sort.
Add up the population of the countries that actually apply sharia and it comes to around 10-15% of the world's Muslim population.
When sharia isn't applied to around 85% of the world's Muslims I find the idea that its somehow going to be imposed on non-Muslims living outside those 5 or 6 theocracies too absurd to take seriously.
Posted by: Ian Gould | December 9, 2008 3:35 AM
"In Britain it has progressed to the point where it is emerging as a parallel legal system."
Erm, I feel a little like Bill Hicks when people make crazy statements like this.
"I look out my window and... where's this shit happening, man?"
I live in Britain, Roberts, and I can categorically assure you that you are talking pish.
Posted by: Matthew | December 9, 2008 6:58 AM
@ Ian Gould:
That is also disgusting if you ask me. It doesn't make Islamic influence in the laws of mostly Muslim countries any less disgusting.
The Christian influence at least seems to have waned further (these days) than the Muslim influence in countries where they're the majority. There's no question that the latter tend to be less progressive than the former, even if they aren't nominal theocracies.
Feh, I'm not worried that Sharia is going to be imposed on me any time soon, living in the U.S. But that doesn't mean I can't denounce it as a disgusting set of principles that I'd be happy to see abolished everywhere (not that I expect that to happen).
Posted by: Escuerd | December 9, 2008 8:12 AM
Escuerd, the subject of this thread is the hysteria being promoted by WND about the supposed looming threat of Sharia in the west.
Posted by: Ian Gould | December 9, 2008 9:04 AM
Speaking of anti-Muslim hysteria: anyone else struck by the similarity between the current riots in Athens and the riots in Paris a couple of years ago - and the different way they're being covered in the US media.
I'm sure the much less hysteric tone of the coverage has nothing to do with the fact that it's good decent white Christian teens currently torching buildings in Athens.
Posted by: Ian Gould | December 9, 2008 9:08 AM
mrroberts would be much more honest (like that will happen) if he openly stated what his posts indicate:
he hates people who look different from him
he hates people who worship differently from him
he hates people who pick and choose which parts of their religion they observe (although I
doubt he follows EVERY dictate of his bible)
he hates the fact that, unlike the countries he mentions, rights are extended to those
he hates (which seems to be almost everyone)
Posted by: dean | December 9, 2008 9:39 AM
By English standards (i.e. by the standards of the land of his birth), Sullivan is nothing but a right-wing conservative. He is a Thatcherite after all, he idolizes her, and she ran the most right-wing government in Britain in my lifetime, and probably in my parents' lifetime (that's 80 years).
The British political spectrum isn't as muddied by the social/economic divide there is in the USA, and there aren't that many libertarians either.
Posted by: tacitus | December 9, 2008 10:09 AM
As another UK citizen, I also feel compelled to point out that this statement is total bollocks.
Posted by: Dunc | December 9, 2008 10:40 AM
Dunc, admit it you're just a degenerate politically correct Euro-commie who's been terrorised into silence by the PC thugs and the Tottenham Taliban.
Posted by: Ian Gould | December 9, 2008 10:47 AM
Shariah investment products are clearly unacceptable because all investment funds are morally required to invest in pork belly futures.
Posted by: MPL | December 11, 2008 3:22 AM