In a case spotlighted as an example of “creeping Shariah” in the United States, attorneys for a Tulsa, Okla., police officer have asked for a summary judgment because a police official inside the department testified the officer was punished for exercising his rights.
Fields sued when he was punished with a two-week unpaid suspension and a demotion for refusing department orders to attend an event at an Islamic mosque in which officers observed Islamic worship services, heard an explanation of Islamic beliefs and were proselytized.
As a Christian, Fields believed the order violated his rights to freely exercise his own faith, but the department determined he was refusing a lawful order and punished him.
In the brief, they point out that Maj. Julie Harris, Fields’ immediate supervisor, “candidly admitted during her sworn testimony that the police department retaliated against [Fields] for exercising his constitutional rights.”
She told the department’s internal affairs investigation looking into Fields’ actions, “If somebody had some deep, deep, deep religious conviction, and as long as there was no crime that they needed to investigate, there’s no need for me to force this (Islamic mosque attendance) on anybody.”
Chief Charles Jordan
She concluded that the charges against Fields should not be sustained, according to the brief, and later “was subjected to retaliation” herself because of her statement.
The brief reveals that during depositions in the dispute, Harris was asked, “Do you believe the department took adverse action against [Fields] for exercising his rights?”
“Yes,” she responded.
She also was asked, “If you believe Capt. Fields had a deeply held religious conviction opposing that order, [then] he would have a right to oppose that order based on that conviction?”
Again, she responded, “Yes.”
The city police department did not respond to a WND message requesting comment on the developments.
Robert Muise of the AFLC told WND the case is an example of the enforcement of Islamic religious law, or Shariah, across the nation today through various courts, orders and precedents.
He noted that in Fields’ case, never before had officers been ordered to attend a so-called “law enforcement appreciation day,” until the local mosque leaders decided to hold one. Then, the attendance became mandatory.
“This is indirectly the enforcement of Shariah, where if you say anything that’s contrary to Islam, it’s blasphemy and punishable,” Muise explained.
“This is very anti-Christian and an attack on Judeo-Christian values.”
“It’s almost stealth jihad,” he said.
Muise said it wasn’t until the last few years that he’s encountered such actions in the U.S. But he’s also battled similar conditions recently in Dearborn, Mich., and other locations where Islam is given precedence over other faiths.
“All of these discussions about hate speech and signing onto these U.N. charters and transnational rules and regulations to guard against hate speech … these are just enforcement of Islamic blasphemy laws. We have the First Amendment for a reason,” he said.
He said in Fields’ case, the officers was punished for refusing to attend another faith’s worship service and be proselytized.
The motion was filed in federal court in Oklahoma, where the case is scheduled for a hearing in November.
“In light of the undisputed facts and controlling law, Capt. Fields is entitled to a judgment in his favor that the city and its senior police officials violated his clearly established constitutional rights by ordering him to engage in conduct that was contrary to his Christian beliefs and then punishing him for not obeying the unlawful order,” said Muise.
The order for Fields to attend the mosque event was in February 2011. The event was held March 4, 2011, a Friday, which is the “holy day” for Islam.
The legal team explained, “The so-called ‘appreciation day’ included ‘Mosque tours,’ which involved religious proselytizing, meeting ‘Local Muslims & Leadership,’ watching the ‘weekly congregational prayer service,’ and receiving presentations on Islamic ‘beliefs,’”
The complaint notes the Tulsa organization is affiliated with the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America – both “unindicted, co-conspirators and/or joint venturers in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial.”
ISNA, the case explains, is the “largest Muslim Brotherhood front in North America.”
The Tulsa organization has had featured speakers such as Imam Siraj Wahhaj, “a Shariah-adherent Muslim who promotes the destruction of Western civilization and the creation of an Islamic caliphate,” according to the lawsuit.