The Daily Record in Baltimore, Maryland recently published a story by Brendan Kearney that oddly seems to present a conflict between a bank employing Islamic Shari'ah law with its American investments and some black American borrowers and painting it as a racist issue. Sadly, the real story, that of Islamic law being imposed on American investors, is sidelined in order to pursue the race card. (Full story reprinted at BlackEnterprise.com)
As The Record reports, a black couple in Baltimore -- I identify their race because it is pivotal to how The Daily Record reports the story -- had contracted with the Church's Chicken restaurant chain to open a new outlet in Baltimore. Unfortunately for the entrepreneurial couple, as they were investing in their chicken outlet, Church's Chicken was purchased by Crescent Capital Investments Inc., the US affiliate of the Bahrain-based First Islamic Investment Bank BSC. And, upon the restaurant chain's purchase, these new Islamic corporate owners decided to institute Shari'ah laws upon their investments.
This caught the Beasleys new restaurant in a tough spot because pork products were on the morning breakfast menu for the Church's Chicken chain. Because Shari'ah law principles had been imposed on the Beasleys' new restaurant, they would be barred from serving their breakfast menu items, their corporate owners informed them. This barring from being able to serve their breakfast items, the couple maintains, contributed to the restaurant's failure and their eventual bankruptcy.
Where the racism charge comes in is that older Church's Chicken establishments, stores already open and operating, were grandfathered in and allowed to continue serving the pork food products. The new corporate masters decided that only new establishments would be barred from serving pork. As it happens, all the previous chicken restaurants in the area were owned by white people or people of other ethnicities besides black. As a result, the Beasleys imagined that the reason they were being prevented from selling the pork items on their menu was because of their race.
This race focus, however, completely misses the real issue here. The real issue is that a Muslim owned investment banking concern unfairly instituted Shari'ah laws on its American borrowers without due consideration. I should point out here, that I am on record as saying that Shari’ah based investing in the U.S. is not necessarily a bad thing. As long as the lender and borrower both agree to the terms of Shari'ah based investing and money lending, then what is the harm? If this new style of lending and banking operates in accordance with the religious tenets of both parties and both parties are in full agreement, we have no need to become alarmed. But, when an investment bank that takes possession of American companies begins to impose Shari'ah laws on its American customers, then we have a major problem.
And, if an investment bank cannot allow its customers to operate under normal American custom, then they should not be lending money and doing business with American customers who are not interested in submitting to Shari'ah laws.
The Beasleys did get a raw deal. But it isn't because they are black and for the paper to report it as a black issue is a misreporting of the crux of this story. The real issue here is that an Islamic bank is forcing Americans to submit to religious tenets against their will. This is completely unAmerican and marks a dangerous movement toward the destruction of American principles.
To illustrate, imagine buying a car from Ford and opening a Ford Credit loan account. Imagine then that a Muslim corporation buys Ford Credit and institutes Shari'ah lending laws upon that purchase. And then suppose that your newly Shari'ah-ized car loan owner gives you a call and tells you that your wife can no longer drive your car because your car loan is now Shari'ah centric and such a thing violates Shari'ah law? This, of course, would be an outrage against your freedom and liberty. This is a scenario that could possibly happen should Shari'ah law become pervasive in American investments and credit systems because of the infiltration of Islamic centric investment companies and banks.
After all, many Islamic nations are awash in petro dollars. It is not beyond imagining that they might use those powerful petro dollars to buy out US companies after which they could begin to force American companies to observe Shari-ah lending laws. Under this scenario we have a dangerous situation for American liberty and freedom. This could easily act as a Trojan Horse for implementing Shari'ah laws in the USA against American investors' and borrower's will.
Too bad the Daily Record pushed the pointless race issue and missed the bigger story.
(Logo credit: The Maryland Daily Record)




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Interesting Report
April 27, 2008 - 02:42 ET by geoff.galeNice piece, WTH. In some ways, I think it's good that these Sharia things are happening early on in the takeover attempt, because I think that it's things like Sharia-isation of loans that will make mainstream Americans will wake up and smell the bacon. While I appreciate your tolerance of the Sharia banking model, I think it's also important to note that only 1% of the US population is Muslim and that the pattern has been that, just as with the Beasleys in your report, the impact of the Sharia terms is most often not proactively disclosed by the lenders.
I've entertained some concerns that Muslim money will seep its way into the ownership of the media and add a further devious spin to what we see and hear.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
This is how it begins....
April 27, 2008 - 03:53 ET by Army BratThe goal of any good Muslim is to work to see that their is no religion but Allah. It begins with simple things. Where it ends, is up to us.
Happy Trails...
It would be useful to see the paperwork for the loan
April 27, 2008 - 07:52 ET by PamI too appreciate the work that WTH did, but I looked at it from a legal standpoint first.
Was the couple made aware of the upcoming change in policy prior to taking out their loan? If their loan predated any communication of the policy change, they are grandfathered in as well, and the suit has merit on that basis and a good chance of winning.
If the couple was made aware that they would need to change the menu, they really haven't a chance of winning no matter what color or religion.
Right...they are not
April 27, 2008 - 08:37 ET by motherbeltRight...they are not complaining about the restriction a la Sharia law; only that others got the pork OK and they didn't. If they were supposed to, they have a case, race-based or not.
You mean if a person suing
April 27, 2008 - 08:29 ET by Jack BauerYou mean if a person suing a company can't substantiate his claims he will lose.
Wow. Sorry, don't mean to be mean, but that's sort of the point isn't it?
The case is currently being litigated on that very point. We will just have to wait and see. But as Schlussel says, it would be kind of lame for the plainiffs to sue on that specific point and not have the goods to back up their claim.
Just sayin!
The case is currently
April 27, 2008 - 08:55 ET by motherbeltThe case is currently being litigated on that very point. We will just have to wait and see
True, Jack; we are just discussing and opining on the particulars.
Apparently the suit claims that (emphasis added)
The couple did not benefit from the grandfather policy allowing
the sale of pork even though their contract with the chain's former
owners, AFC Enterprises Inc., to open a location in Baltimore/
Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport's new terminal
predated the takeover and policy change, according to the suit filed
Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Baltimore
Reading Debbie Schlussel's take on this gives more info also (see flashman's comment below).
I don't take Debbie Schlussel's word on anything
April 27, 2008 - 20:52 ET by PamShow me the legal documents. Debbie tends to exaggerate
What are you saying Jack?
April 27, 2008 - 21:11 ET by PamHere is a very important portion of the case:
Again, the actual contract would be helpful, much more so than Debbie. With the right attorney, getting the case to trial is the easy part, proving the case is the hard part. Obviously, they were aware that pork would not be allowed at newly opened franchises, otherwise they wouldn't have stated that they were told they would receive a letter that other owners got. Fraud is one of the most difficult cases to prove, and unless they have documents or witnesses, it is unlikely they will be successful
Disclosure is always a problem
April 27, 2008 - 14:11 ET by geoff.galeDisclosure, in our litigious society is a problem. Most legal documents are far too densely written to be easily understood by the average person. I too would like to see the actual loan docs this couple signed. I suspect that they were typical docs that stretch on for pages and which obfuscate many of the implications of accepting the loan. While I can't speculate what language was used in this case, I can think of several ways of disguising a clause that would provide the ownership group the legal means to force the couple to change the menu that never make reference to pork or pork products.
I have long advocated for contracts that are written in such a way that the average person has a reasonable shot at understanding all of the implications of those contracts. I would also like to see lending institutions develop policies that require them to explain their intent in words that everyday people can digest.
When John Edwards talked about "two Americas", he was right - there are the lawyers and then there are the rest of us.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
Did you just say "smell the bacon"??!
April 27, 2008 - 10:32 ET by ThisnThatAll I can say is -- watch your back. And don't expect to get a loan.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
TNT
April 27, 2008 - 10:39 ET by BlondeI laughed about that too.
Now....have you noticed the latest advert on the right here? muslim.com
I know NB has advertiser subscribers...but seriously, this is just kind of twilight zonish.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde
April 27, 2008 - 10:48 ET by ThisnThatI did notice that ad, and fired off a few question to myself like "is this a joke", or "has Newsbusters been taken over"? It sure is strange.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Well, as I said
April 27, 2008 - 10:56 ET by BlondeI think NB has ad subscribers, and this is one of them.
I like this one a whole lot better (even though it admittedly is strange for this site) than the porn looking chicks that have occupied that space lately. I sometimes click over to NB at work while doing big data dumps out of the mainframe, and those big boobs made me rather uncomfortable....oops, I see they're back.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
blonde
April 27, 2008 - 11:19 ET by shawn228The Christina Rici one is tame compared to Tila Tequilas. Maybe the mastheads thought NB needed some "sexing up"?
I've joined! Those babes in
April 27, 2008 - 11:08 ET by Jack BauerI've joined! Those islamo-babes in full burkas are really HOT!.. must be about 130 F in there!
LOLI find it creepy that
April 27, 2008 - 11:28 ET by LastlibertarianLOL
I find it creepy that the model they chose looks so much like a pre adolescent boy.
Oh, my pic looks like Gina
April 27, 2008 - 11:47 ET by Jack BauerOh, my pic looks like Gina Gershon when she played the slutty, head-scarfed, Hasidic Jew, Dry Cleaner in Curb Your Enthisiasm.
Must be luck of the draw!
Sharia Investments (I refuse the Apostrophe)
April 27, 2008 - 04:36 ET by harry flashmanBy extension then - had the Dubai Ports deal gone through, could the owners/managers have placed sharia considerations on the exportation or imporatations of pork products.
How about literature they didn't like or any other infidel merchandise drop-shipping through their network?
Now "Sharia" investment?
Is that a camel hairy nose I see poking under my tent?
or go farther still
April 27, 2008 - 12:06 ET by TjexciteWhat would happen if the islamic company bought out a normal banking company with a loan with a farmer. This farmer sells the evil pig and has for years, if not generations. He will loses everything. If the sale of pig is against all. When will the "west" have to kill all pigs just to capitulate.
WTH -- actually Debbie
April 27, 2008 - 05:54 ET by Jack BauerWTH -- actually Debbie Schlussel has also written about this, and she supports your thesis on the creeping acceptance Sharia law in the US -- and across Europe, of course.
Though she thinks both points have equal importance. The unacceptable tenets of Sharia Law being slid into the US, and the underlying racism of the case.
But you are correct in that the newspaper does deliberately ignore the important point on Sharia "law." As with |Clinton/Obama, race trumps all.
According to the facts as published, the black couple bought their franchise prior to the "Islamic" bank buying the company, and they were the only owners not granted a "grandfather" clause. But even that is pretty outrageous that there should be ANY prohibition on non-Muslims selling pork products.
Schlussel
-
April 27, 2008 - 08:52 ET by dahliatraversH'mm. So maybe the Daily Record got it half right. There is racism; they just forgot to say that it is on the part of the Islamic bank. Can we get a definitive statement from Arcapita (love how they changed their original name) that they do not consider the Beasley's "abeed"?
This thing is disturbing on
April 27, 2008 - 09:25 ET by Jack BauerThis thing is disturbing on many levels -- but I too am astounded that the Islamic issue isn't getting more play in the press.
How can anyone can go along with a general principle that even a private company has a right to impose a religious test on an open to all restaurant selling food. It's not a halal enterprise -- it's a food outlet open to all.
If it was a specific halal or even kosher restaurant then sure, it's reasonable to expect that it doesn't sell pork products. That's its reason for existence. If the company wants to set up a "halal" franchise, then go for it. But don't buy up US restaurants selling US food, which includes pork, and order them to adhere to the Islamic religious instruction for halal meat.
What next -- they will start saying any Christian franchsie owner is not allowed to wear a cross?
There is no demonstration
April 27, 2008 - 10:01 ET by NL207There is no demonstration of Racism in this case.
The constraint placed upon the restaurant was with regard to the service of pork products by admission of both the Beasleys and Islamic lenders. Beasley's color had zero to do with this. Sharia had everything to do with it. The grandfathered restaurants were most probably grandfathered because the Islamic bankers consulted with their lawyers who told them they would not be allowed under US law to "revise" these previous franchise agreements. I would speculate that their lawyers told them the Beasley contract was not finalized and could be amended.
Apparently, none of these reporters bothered to investigate whether any restaurant franchises were sold after the Beasley's was, and if there were, were they not subjected to the pork restriction as well. If this proves to be the case, it will be nearly fatal to the Beasley's case and completely discredit the reporters who are race baiting here. I see nothing in the reporting about this.
If there prove to be later franchises sold and they do contain the pork restrictions, then the entire court case will hinge on whether the new owners are bound to honor the agreement made by AFC Enterprises with the Beasley's prior to the sale of AFC Enterprises. Personally, I think they should be bound by the terms of the AFC Enterprises agreement with the Beasleys. When a business is sold, the business laws of most states require the new owners to honor all existing contracts and assume all debts and obligations along with the assests. This is certainly the case in my state.
Sorry NL, but I don't know
April 27, 2008 - 10:21 ET by Jack BauerSorry NL, but I don't know how you can confidently make the assertion that there was definitely no racism?
Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. But no one had read all (or any?) the evidence yet have we?
The plaintiff if claiming there was, and as Debbie Schlussel has explained, that is the basis of their claim. The claim is being litigated.
That claim is that they, the Beasleys were the only francisees not allowed to sell pork products. That the only difference beyween themselves and all the others is that they were black.
Shouldn't we wait to see what the outcome of the case is before offering definitive statements? It sounds very possible to me. Not to others. Fair enough.
Just because there are many bogus and venal clains of "racism" made by people looking for a quick and easy buck; does not mean all claims are bogus and venal does it?
Sometimes people are actually disriminated against because of skin color. Look at African-Americans who are self-confessed conservatives, like Clarence Thomas.
Happens all the time to them by leftists.
I think I said the facts
April 27, 2008 - 13:34 ET by NL207I think I said the facts presented demonstrate no racism on the part if the Islamics.
Their issue was the serving of pork and pork products, prohibited by the Koran, in a restaurant they franchised. No where have the Beasley's or any of their apologists in the press shown that the Islamists' motive in imposing this constraint on the Beasleys was racial. This Islamists claim their motive was theological. The Beasleys calims that because all of the grandfathered restaurants were franchised by whites and other enthicities other than Black, this constitutes racism. The fact that all of these other restaurants were franchised before the Islamists took over is conveniently pushed aside by the Beasleys and the press in favor of the race bomb.
All of this does not rule out the possibility there are other facts not in evidence here that suggest racism was indeed the motive. I am merely stating that what the media have published so far does not demonstrate racism.
And I am merely stating
April 27, 2008 - 13:42 ET by Jack BauerAnd I am merely stating that the "facts" Debbie Schlussel has printed DO indicate racism.
The fact you are ignoring Schlussel's reporting doesn't negate it.
What am I ignoring?
April 27, 2008 - 13:55 ET by NL207What am I ignoring? Schlussel failed to demonstrate that any franchise sold after the Islamists took over was allowed to sell pork or pork products.
Her entire discsussion focused on the grandfathered businesses continued sale of these items. This is a matter covered by state contract law, which Schlussel has simply ignored in favor of race-baiting. The Islamists could not void those prior contracts to restrict the sale of pork. Why? I would suspect it is because they are franchises. The Islamists bought the franchisee. They did not buy the actual pre-existing franchises. Their relationship with those prior franchises was governed by a contract entered into by AFC Enterprises which they could not modify. The Beasleys appear to have not actually purchased their franchise until after the Islamists had purchased AFC Enterprises. Hence, the Islamists were able under Maryland law to "alter" the deal. The Beasleys could have said no and not followed through with the purchase. This is just like a closing on a real estate deal. Either party can back out subject to the limitations of the purchase offer at any time up until the moment of closing.
So where is the racism?
Schlussel
April 27, 2008 - 22:15 ET by PamShe tends to ignore anything that might negate her writings. According to one of Warner's links, they weren't grandfathered in because they had not opened.
Thanks
April 27, 2008 - 12:35 ET by Warner Todd HustonI wasn't aware Debbie wrote on this. I first published this one that I have here on NB over at the New Media Journal on the 24th (the day before she put hers up), so hers wasn't out there yet when I got mine up. Thanks for the link.
When does a frog realize that the water will kill it?
April 27, 2008 - 06:29 ET by Ole_SargeLike a frog that was sitting in cold water that is slowly raised to a boil - when will the Leftists realize that it is too late and we on the Libertarian, Conservative and Right of Center side ARE NOT THE ENEMY.
While in Kuwait, I had some Kuwaitis that asked why American Christians will not side with them over much of Islam's condemnation of "western" (Leftest Liberal Secular Hedonistic) culture?
If the Left so enbraces Islamic Culture go live there, go work there, go ahead and just try to do it.
They think Evangelical Christians are bad, they only pray for your soul, Islam will take your head.
Like a frog that was
April 27, 2008 - 06:42 ET by motherbeltLike a frog that was sitting in cold water that is slowly raised to a boil......
Good analogy. This is why I say "Sharia law- not by conquest, but by capitulation."
In the whole story, it becomes clear that the Beasleys are claiming that other franchisees were allowed to serve pork products under the "grandfathering" tradition.
According to the complaint, the Beasleys had been assured they would be receiving the same letter Arcapita had sent to other existing franchisees, which said the parent company would not be collecting royalties on pork products.
But "approximately one week before" the Beasleys' May 18 opening, the suit states, Arcapita informed them that, as new franchisees who had not yet opened, they may not serve pork, which Islam considers unclean.
So that is the basis of their claim.
But the larger picture, being ignored by the MSM is...just how far are we going to be willing to accomodate Muslims and Sharia law?
You are not getting the
April 27, 2008 - 09:58 ET by NL207You are not getting the Left. We, that is, Classical Liberals, libertarians and Conservatives are indeed the enemy. We support the premise that the rights of the individual are pre-eminent over the powers of the state. The Left rejects this notion. They support the ascendency of the state or collective over the rights of the individual. Where these two collide, the leftists will invariably support the state.
The Islamofascists are theocrats. They have merged the power of state with the power of God. The indiviual and his rights are entirely subordinate in this structure. In any matter where the power of the theocracy conflicts with the rights of an individual, that individual is labeled a heretic and is subject to execution.
In this context, it is easy to see how American leftists find more in common with the enemies of America than they do with their fellow Americans who are libertarians or conservatives. The Left shares a basic philosophical premise with the enemy. It is also easy to see how conservatives and libertarians think leftists are the enemies of America. If one accepts the notion that America is the pre-eminence of the rights of the indivudual over the power of the state, then the leftists ARE the enemies of America.
Caribou Coffee too
April 27, 2008 - 08:41 ET by FirmwormYou won't see me eating Church's or drinking Caribou Coffee.
http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/caribou.asp
WTH, WTH?
April 27, 2008 - 10:31 ET by ThisnThat"I am on record as saying that Shari’ah based investing in the U.S. is not necessarily a bad thing".
Open your eyes, WTH. It's not just about shariah investing. It's a whole culture. And, everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) associated with this culture is rooted first and fore most in the Koran. Koran first; everything else second. This leads to the inevitable consequences mentioned throughout this thread: Women can't drive; no one can sell pork products; you can't get a loan without quoting the Koran; no loans to Christians; and the list goes on.
This, indeed, is a bad thing, and any statements like yours will be stretched by these people into justifications for their behaviour. It's bad for America.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
The UK ignored Islamiic influences on their society in general..
April 27, 2008 - 13:15 ET by Army BratLook at where they are now. How long before the next suicide bombing there? Not long I fear.
The same crap is beginning here...
Sharia law in TEXAS COURTS for Christs sake....
1.The Parties agree to arbitrate all
existing issues among them in the above mentioned Cause Numbers in the
appropriate District Court, which includes the Divorce Case, the child custody
of the [sic] Noor Qaddura and Farah Qaddura, the determination of each party's
responsibilities and duties according to the Islamic rules of law by Texas
Islamic Court.
http://www.2ndcoa.co...
You don't lose your country overnight...I love the frog anology...perfect.
The water is heating...
Happy Trails...
The Texas Islamic Court
April 27, 2008 - 13:31 ET by ThisnThatWow. I wonder if WTH is in agreement with that, too? And if you can get away with this, then what's wrong with that polygamist enclave in Texas? Why can't they just do what they want, as long as they declare it to be in accordance with their "religous law"?
You're right -- the water is heating, and we build slippery slopes by accepting a little bit here and a little bit there because it's "not too bad".
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Texas' case against the
April 27, 2008 - 13:43 ET by NL207Texas' case against the Polygamists is flimsy. I think Texas will eventually lose in a debacle. Their first major hurdle will be the anonymous phone tip that led to he raid. If the authorities are unable to produce the tipster or any factual evidence other than that seized in the raid, to backup the tipster, I think the "evidence" siezed in that raid will be disallowed at trial. With that disallowed, I think the People's case collapses.
And this Texas Islamic Court and its activities, especially where they are in conflict with Texas Family Law, as they certainly will be, constitutes a violation of equal protection under the law. The FLDS will have lawyers arguing exactly this if they lose any criminal or family law proceedings stemming from this raid.
ThisnThat
April 27, 2008 - 15:24 ET by Warner Todd HustonUm, WHAT does banking have to do with divorce laws again? And WHY should it be expected that I'd be simple minded enough to accept Shari'ah divorce laws just because I don't have a problem with banking practices being put in place when all parties in the deal are in agreement with those practices?
Further if you are so foolish as to believe that I have no problem with creeping Shari'ah, you haven't spent much time trying to discover my feelings on the issue. In fact, Robert Spencer even quoted one of my pieces in one of his past New York Post articles.
Before you stat making blind, hateful assumptions of people's positions, it might be a cool idea to try and check out what they've said in the past. Just a little advice there, sparky.
Lastly, if you want to know WHY I had no problem with Shari'ah banking practices, ya might just look up the article I wrote on it two years ago or so.
Or, you could just wallow in your false and uninformed assumptions.
Your decision.
WTH
April 27, 2008 - 21:04 ET by ThisnThatWallowing works for me, especially since I'm always full of false and uninformend assumptions.
Get a grip, will ya?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
I love that...
April 27, 2008 - 21:40 ET by Warner Todd HustonI love it when a person makes claims against you and then has the temerity to say "get a grip" when his claims are proven false.
I have an idea. Instead of telling people to "get a grip" perhaps an apology for your gross assumptions and accusatory claims would be a better move?
Naw, don't think
April 27, 2008 - 22:06 ET by ThisnThatNaw, don't think so. You haven't proven a thing. All you've done is get angry, and frankly, I don't care that much.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
I am glad you admitted your
April 27, 2008 - 22:30 ET by Warner Todd HustonI am glad you admitted your penchant for going off half cocked without anything to back your statements. Honesty at last. It's good. Let it fill you.
Thanks for playing.
Porked
April 27, 2008 - 18:31 ET by ZuccoZoidMakes you wonder why an Islamic based company would invest in a franchise that sells products (pork, etc.) explicitly banned by their own religion - the opening salvo in a new wave of attacks against us? I'd like to see the author of this piece pursue this further.