OTMLAW on Islamic Estate Planning

District Judge Rules in Favor Six Imams and Constitution

2009-07-27T12:36:00.000-07:00

June 24th marked a major victory for our clients in the "Six Imams" case, with Judge Montgomery issuing a sharply worded opinion and order which, for all intents and purposes, voided a law that would proliferate racial profiling and discrimination against minorities--particularly those of Muslim or Arab descent by extending immunity to law enforcement officers. In its written decision, the Court denied the defendant airport officers' motion for summary judgment, and affirmed an individual's freedom from unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment.

The Court clearly ruled that the actions of the Imams prior to their flight did not justify their detention and arrest, stating that "the right not to be arrested in the absence of probable cause is clearly established and, based on the allegations ... no reasonable officer could have believed that the arrest of the Plaintiffs was proper." The ruling explained, further, that the Imams were subjected to the "extreme fear and humiliation of being falsely identified as dangerous terrorists."

The defendants' motions were centered around a 2007 law passed by Congress directly in response to this case. The statute (6 U.S.C. 1104) was then signed by George Bush to be retroactively applied to this incident. The new law aimed to grant immunity to bystanders who reported suspicious activity. However, the language also granted vague immunity to law enforcement and airline officials.

In its decision, the Court denied the defendant airport officers their motion for summary judgment, stating that the new law did not extend any new immunity for law enforcement officers; law enforcement officers cannot violate clearly established rights, such as freedom from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and then hide behind broad statutory immunity.

Understandably, the case has generated a significant amount of debate on the power of law enforcement to limit personal freedoms in the name of security, especially in the context of air travel. Judge Montgomery's carefully considered opinion and order evinces a meticulous understanding of the relevant issues, taking special care to explain that "the specter of 9/11" cannot be used as an absolute excuse to suspend Constitutional rights and guarantees.

For a more comprehensive resource on the ruling or the case in general, read the CAIR press release.

Islamic Wills: A Primer

2009-07-15T10:31:00.000-07:00

Our article, Islamic Wills: A Primer, was recently published on Tri-State Muslim's website. You can read the entire article on their site

Remembrance of death and the afterlife is a cornerstone of the Islamic ethos. Nevertheless, when it comes to inheritance many Muslims living in the United States fail to make the arrangements necessary to ensure their legacy will pass under the precepts of Islamic Shariah law, and as a result their possessions will be disposed of in a manner suitable to the State, but not Shariah law. After one’s death, it is too late, in any American jurisdiction, for relatives to dictate to a court of law how the decedent would have wanted his or her possessions to be distributed. All jurisdictions, without exception, will ignore such pleas and apply their own laws of intestacy, laws that govern how an estate will be distributed upon death absent a will. Such laws will hardly conform to Shariah law.

In order to best illustrate how the laws of intestacy function, it is best to use the example of Husband, H, the decedent, who has not drafted a will during his lifetime. H dies survived by his wife, W, one son, A, and one daughter, B. H had an estate of $240,000 with no outstanding debts. According to Shariah law, W is entitled to one-eighth, or $30,000, and A and B share the remaining $210,000. Since A is male, he receives a share twice that of B. So A is entitled to $140,000 and B is entitled to $70,000.

If H died in New York, for example, the above distribution would be dramatically different under the intestacy laws of those states. W would be entitled to $50,000 plus one-half of the remainder, for a total of $145,000. A and B would share equally in the remainder, getting $47,500 each.

In comparing Islamic intestacy laws with those of New York, it is clear that the distributions are vastly dissimilar, but all parties are still represented. However, if H was survived by a mother or father, then they would also be entitled to one-sixth under Shariah law. Under New York state law, the distributions would be the same as above, and the parents would get nothing. Essentially, U.S. state laws permits disowning a blood relative, which is forbidden under Shariah law.

In order to prevent this, those wishing to comply with Shariah law should have a carefully drafted, enforceable will that upholds Shariah law under U.S. jurisdiction.

Read it all here.

Supreme Court Lets Stand Immunity in 9/11 Litigation

2009-06-30T07:15:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari to the plaintiffs in the ongoing 9/11 litigation. The denial affirms the decision of the Second Circuit holding that several foreign defendants cannot be sued in the U.S. under the exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA). Read the report from Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling that Saudi Arabia, four of its princes and other Saudi entities cannot be held liable for the September 11, 2001, hijacked plane attacks in the United States.

The justices refused to review the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in New York that the Saudi defendants were protected by sovereign immunity in the lawsuit brought by victims of the attacks and their families.

The appeals court had upheld a lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit claiming Saudi Arabia, four princes, a Saudi charity and a Saudi banker provided material support to al Qaeda before the September 11 attacks.

The victims and their families argued that because the defendants gave money to Muslim charities that in turn gave money to al Qaeda, they should be held responsible for helping to finance the attacks.

The appeals court ruled that exceptions to the sovereign immunity rule do not apply because Saudi Arabia has not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Department.

Attorneys for the victims appealed to the Supreme Court. They said the appeals court's ruling dramatically limited the ability of victims to recover damages for acts of terrorism committed in the United States.

But the Obama administration late last month urged the high court to reject the appeal. It said New York courts correctly concluded that Saudi Arabia and its officials are immune from lawsuit for governmental acts outside the United States.

The Supreme Court turned down the appeal without comment.

OTMLAW Presentation on Islamic Estate Planning

2009-05-29T15:03:00.000-07:00

Omar Mohammedi, Esq. and Tariq Hussain, Esq. delivered a presentation at the M.E.C.C.A. center in Manhattan, New York on Islamic Estate Planning on March 14, 2009.

We have included a PDF version of the PowerPoint presentation here. It is a good starting point on the discussion of legal, social and religious issues surrounding Islamic wills in America.

Download Here

Welcome!

2009-05-27T11:54:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the OTMLAW Blog maintained by the Law Firm of Omar T. Mohammedi, LLC.

The Law Firm of Omar T. Mohammedi, LLC provides services to its clients in a broad range of practice areas such as commercial/business transactions (e.g. buy/sell agreements, joint ventures, import/export, commercial real estate and intellectual property), international trade and investment, and civil litigation. The Law Firm of Omar T. Mohammedi, LLC is also one of the few firms actively practicing in the niche area of Islamic Estate Planning.

In this blog, we hope to share our experiences and opinions in various areas of law and life. If you have any questions for us feel free to ask them here or email us at info@otmlaw.com.