Posted on 10/19/2010 12:28:21 PM PDT by betty boop
Is the U.S. Constitution “Sharia-Compliant?”
By Jean F. Drew
Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf recently declared that the U.S. Constitution is “Sharia-compliant.”
Rauf is the Egyptian-born Muslim cleric who is spearheading the construction of Park51, originally named Cordoba House, a planned 13-story Islamic community center and mosque to be located just two blocks from the World Trade Center, the site of the most devastating attack on the American people in the history of our nation. He claims that Park51 is being built to promote greater cultural understanding and tolerance among the various religious communities in America.
In short, he holds himself out as a great champion of First Amendment religious liberty, a claim that he evidently hopes will assuage all fears that there is some nefarious purpose behind this mosque being built at this particular site, so fraught with agonizing memories of the September 11, 2001 Jihadi terrorist attack on America. More than 200 employees of the company I then worked for, based on the 87th floor of the WTC’s South Tower, perished that day.
Maybe some wishful thinkers out there were placated by the Imam’s assurances of peaceful intent, which he tried to underscore by his suggestion that, in effect, Islamic sharia law is compatible with our system of individual liberty under equal laws and equal justice. That is, with our basic American rule of law, the Constitution. After all, why can’t we all just get along? So the more clueless Americans out there are disposed to take the Imam’s statement in good faith, supposing him to have offered it in good faith.
But note Rauf didn’t say that the U.S. Constitution is sharia-compatible or that sharia is compatible with it; he says it is sharia-compliant. That is, he posits sharia as the standard of law to which the Constitution must be brought into conformity. He won’t say this out loud; but the logic of his statement speaks for itself. It would likely take a political revolution or a successful invasion of our country (militarily or demographically) to bring about this result. But Islam is patient, believing that Allah is on its side. So, unlike most Americans — who want a quick fix for any and every problem or controversy — Islam takes the long view.
As an aside, we should remember that throughout history, victorious Muslim invaders have had a practice of building mosques on the sites of their victories. This practice is both a “victory yell” and a signal to the rest of the world that “we’re here, and we’re here to stay; we’ll never retreat from here.” The Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, for example, was erected on the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, the place where the First and Second Temples are generally accepted to have stood.
We need to remember that historically, Islam has been a militant religion; it converts by the sword, not by (say) baptism. Also we need to recognize that Islam regards any territory it has invaded (either militarily or demographically) as its own forevermore. Even though Islam was driven out of Spain after many centuries of occupying it, the Islamic world still regards Spanish territory as its own. It simply needs to be reclaimed, and will be in Allah’s own good time.
Indeed, Islam believes the same thing about human souls: It’s a “Hotel California” kind of thing — “you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.” Once a Muslim, always a Muslim. The penalty for converting to another religion — i.e., for committing apostasy — is death.
So much for religious toleration! Of course the First Amendment cannot be “compatible” with such a view, let alone “comply” with it. By now we should begin to suspect that things may not be exactly as Imam Rauf has claimed them to be. To make this entirely clear, we need only consider what sharia is.
Fundamentally, sharia is devoted to personal status law, a set of regulations that pertains to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody. None of these are federal matters under the Constitution. In a nutshell, the Constitution is about securing and protecting the natural (inalienable) rights of all human individuals equally, under just and equal laws. These laws are not “respecters of persons”: It doesn’t matter what gender you are, or your race, sexual orientation, religious persuasion, or economic status. Nor is the Constitution concerned with micromanaging personal moral and family life by means of religious authority and sanction.
Which is what sharia claims the authority to do.
Sharia means “path” in Arabic. What is meant by this is sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. “It is derived primarily from the Quran and Sunna — the sayings, practices, and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. Precedents and analogy applied by Muslim scholars are used to address new issues. The consensus of the Muslim community also plays a role in defining this theological manual.”
Note that last statement — the “consensus of the Muslim community” plays a definitional role. This evidently is the entire extent of sharia’s “democratic” bona fides. Unfortunately, there are many parts of the Muslim world today — e.g., Afghanistan and North Africa — that appear still mired in the mores and folkways of people living in the seventh century. How else is one to understand the very widespread practice of “honor killings?”
Marriage and divorce are the most significant aspects of sharia, but criminal law is the most controversial. In sharia, there are categories of offenses: those that are prescribed a specific punishment in the Quran, known as hadd punishments, those that fall under a judge’s discretion, and those resolved through a tit-for-tat measure (i.e., blood money paid to the family of a murder victim). There are five hadd crimes: unlawful sexual intercourse (sex outside of marriage and adultery), false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, wine drinking (sometimes extended to include all alcohol drinking), theft, and highway robbery. Punishments for hadd offenses — flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution — get a significant amount of media attention when they occur….
Despite official reluctance to use hadd punishments [in some Muslim countries], vigilante justice still takes place. Honor killings, murders committed in retaliation for bringing dishonor on one’s family, are a worldwide problem. While precise statistics are scarce, the UN estimates thousands of women are killed annually in the name of family honor…. Other practices that are woven into the sharia debate, such as female genital mutilation, adolescent marriages, polygamy, and gender-biased inheritance rules, elicit as much controversy. There is significant debate over what the Quran sanctions and what practices were pulled from local customs [that] predate Islam. Those [who] seek to eliminate or at least modify these controversial practices cite the religious tenet of tajdid. The concept is one of renewal, where Islamic society must be reformed constantly to keep it in its purest form. “With the passage of time and changing circumstances since traditional classical jurisprudence was founded, people’s problems have changed and conversely, there must be new thought to address these changes and events,” says Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris, head of the comparative jurisprudence department at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Though many scholars share this line of thought, there are those who consider the purest form of Islam to be the one practiced in the seventh century.
One thing is very clear about sharia: It does not afford equal protection of the law to women, nor to non-Muslims, nor to homosexual persons; and certainly not to slaves. Sharia still permits and even regulates human chattel slavery. How the federal Constitution can be made to “comply” with this situation without invalidating itself and thus the rule of law on which American jurisprudence depends remains a mystery.
[When] you accept Sharia as the [legal] code, you accept the whole notion of citizenship that comes with it. You divide society in two: the people of the [Koran] and the non-Muslims. Here you create a hierarchy of citizens: Christians, Jews, and traditional believers [i.e., Muslims]. The hierarchy is applied to power — if you are Muslim you are more likely to have more legal rights under Sharia law than non-Muslims — so the implications [of Sharia] go beyond the criminal code.
Speaking as an American woman, the most deeply shocking and offensive aspect of Islam has to do with customary relations between the sexes. A woman is not a “person.” She is the chattel of the male members of her family.
“There is nothing in the Koran, the book of basic Islamic teachings, that permits or sanctions honor killings. However, the view of women as property with no rights of their own is deeply rooted in Islamic culture. Tahira Shahid Khan, a professor specializing in women’s issues at the Aga Khan University in Pakistan, wrote in Chained to Custom, a review of honor killings published in 1999:
“Women are considered the property of the males in their family irrespective of their class, ethnic, or religious group. The owner of the property has the right to decide its fate. The concept of ownership has turned women into a commodity which can be exchanged, bought and sold.”
Honor killings are perpetrated for a wide range of offenses. Marital infidelity, pre-marital sex, flirting, or even failing to serve a meal on time can all be perceived as impugning the family honor.
Amnesty International has reported on one case in which a husband murdered his wife based on a dream that she had betrayed him. In Turkey, a young woman’s throat was slit in the town square because a love ballad had been dedicated to her over the radio.
In a society where most marriages are arranged by fathers and money is often exchanged, a woman’s desire to choose her own husband — or to seek a divorce — can be viewed as a major act of defiance that damages the honor of the man who negotiated the deal.
Even victims of rape are vulnerable. In a widely reported case in March of 1999, a 16-year-old mentally retarded girl who was raped in the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan was turned over to her tribe’s judicial council. Even though the crime was reported to the police and the perpetrator was arrested, the Pathan tribesmen decided that she had brought shame to her tribe and she was killed in front of a tribal gathering.
The teenage brothers of victims are frequently directed to commit the murder because, as minors, they would be subject to considerably lighter sentencing if there is legal action. Typically, they would serve only three months to a year.
Officials often claim that nothing can be done to halt the practice because the concept of women’s rights is not culturally relevant to deeply patriarchal societies.
Well, America is not a “deeply patriarchal” tribal society, and probably isn’t interested in becoming one, in undergoing the sort of cultural devolution that would be required to produce such an exotic bloom on American soil.
Nonie Darwish, a Muslim “apostate” (she converted to Christianity), has a challenge for Imam Rauf: She wants to know whether his claim that the Constitution is sharia-compliant “is truthful or a fraud.” And so she has compiled a little list of sharia practices, and invites the Imam to show in what way each is conversant with American constitutional jurisprudence. She indicates her list is not exhaustive — it contains only 33 items out of the plethora of sharia practices. Here is Darwish’s list:
1. Jihad [is] defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” … the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.
2. A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power, meaning through force.
3. A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking, and in some cases of rape.
4. A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.
5. It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.
6. A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave, and a male.
7. The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.
8. A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.
9. A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an [apostate] 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber, [which makes] vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.
10. A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.
11. Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.
12. Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.
13. Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply [with] Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.
14. It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.
15. A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.
16. Banks must be Sharia-compliant — that is, they are forbidden to charge interest.
17. No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweeper or bathhouse attendant. A woman in a low-level job such as professional funeral mourner cannot keep custody of her children in the event her husband divorces her.
18. A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslim minority.
19. Homosexuality is punishable by death.
20. There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and [be] consummated at age 8 or 9.
21. Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.
22. Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.
23. There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.
24. A woman inherits half what a man inherits.
25. A man has the right to have up to four wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.
26. The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.
27. A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.
28. The testimony of a woman in court is [worth] half the value of a man’s.
29. A woman loses custody of her children if she remarries.
30. To prove rape, a woman must have four male witnesses.
31. A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.
32. A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body, which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face [to show] and some don’t.
33. A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for a wife who kills her husband so caught, on the presumption that he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”
The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the U.S. constitution.
Of course, Ms. Darwish has gotten it backwards — on Rauf’s suggestion, the Constitution is what complies with sharia, not the other way around.
Nonetheless it should be obvious that sharia and the Constitution cannot be reconciled. Sharia cannot be accommodated under the Constitution. So it becomes a matter of which legal system will “win in the end.”
I imagine that Imam Rauf is placing his bets on sharia law, not on the Constitution. I further imagine that his Park51 project is designed as a showcase and training center for the Islamic point of view, including sharia. There’s less religion here than there is activist, militant, hegemonic politics….
America would cease to be America, our Constitution would be utterly gutted, our greatest principles held in contempt, were Islamist culture to be established on our shores — and most particularly the legal culture of sharia.
It would be the ultimate “Death to America!”
But isn’t that what the jihadis usually say? And what they really want?
©2010, Jean F. Drew
Actually, Sharia will need to be Constitutionally compliant if Muslims wish to live here in peace. It’s just not going to work the other way around without someone being badly disappointed and miserably unhappy.
Again, I make no distinction between “moderate muslims” and those who strap bombs to mentally retarded girls....It all springs forth from the same poisoned well.....
You obviously confused mine with a different post.
I see nothing in the Bill of Rights that could not (and would not) be usurped by sharia, from freedom of religion and speech to protection from illegal search and seizure to equal protection under the law. The two forms of government cannot co-exist.
Thanks for the beep, boop. Illuminating, as always.
Clearly, Rauf is spewing the classic Islamist propaganda.
Compatible?
Islam is a medieval cult that is not able to agree on whether moslem females should be allowed in its mosques.
Open and casual intermingling of the sexes is prohibited in Shariah; hence, it will not be permitted for women to go to the Mosque in such a context…Therefore, Muslim women should understand that praying at home is just as equal in the sight of Allah to men praying in the Mosque.
http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/wompraymosq.htm
Somewhat related - Obamacare may have been written to be Sharia compliant. With an op-out clause for Muslims not forced to buy health insurance.
The Infestation Grows
By
“Overwatcher”
The Muslim infestation of America is growing, spreading with epidemic quickness and proportions, almost unchecked. This is a time to know and understand the problem, not to ignore it and hope it will go away. The creeping cancer simply cannot and will not simply “coexist” alongside the American way of life, the American culture, the American greatness.
First of all, Islam does not mean “peace.” Salaam means “peace.” Islam means “Submit!” Furthermore, there are only three permissible ways for a non-believer, that is, an infidel, to submit: 1.) Convert to Islam. 2.) Continue as a second class citizen subject to the whims of Muslims, and paying protection money (Jizzya) on demand. 3.) Die. I don’t like any of those choices. Do you?
A Muslim is an adherent of Islam, one who embraces its teachings and doctrines. There is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim – it is a myth, made up to placate stupid, politically correct wannabes, that is to say, “multicultural” imbeciles. Is there such a thing as being just a little bit pregnant? Either you are, or you are not. It’s the same thing – either you are a Muslim or you are not.
A Muslim’s supreme governing law is Sharia’ Law, Islamic Law. In America the supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution. Sharia’ Law is at odds with our Constitution. Muslims are here not to embrace and adopt the supreme law of this land; they are here to supplant it with their own supreme law - pure and simple. Andrew Whitehead, courageous patriot, on his website, www.anti-cair-net.org, has posted a quote by the Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Omar Ahmad: “Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” What further need have we of witnesses?
The United States Constitution and Sharia’ Law are mutually exclusive. They cannot both exist in the same place at the same time. One or the other must go. Make no mistake about it, Muslims in America are actively working to ensure their system is the one that becomes and remains operational in this great land of the (formerly?) brave and free. Perhaps, still brave, but will we remain free of this plague that seeks to overrun this land? No, we will be overcome if we do not recognize what is going on, face up to what is going on, and deal with it decisively. No matter what our delusional “leaders” may say in our overbloated federal government (as Ted Nugent calls it, “Fedzilla”), this is a warfare. Maybe not a shooting one yet ...
America has always welcomed legal immigration. People have come here from every country on earth, and they have embraced and adopted their new land where they are free to be all they can be. They have become Americans and have contributed marvelously to this nation’s greatness. However, Muslims come here not to assimilate, (see Omar’s quote again) but to infect and infest. As Andrew McCarthy has explained in his book, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, Muslims have adopted a “voluntary apartheid,” whereby they purposely do not integrate into American society. They adroitly exploit our system of laws in order to thwart us and to gain advantage after “politically correct” advantage, after every “multicultural” nonsensical advantage they can dream up. It is truly an infestation we are witnessing. But, is it not astounding that we are allowing it to happen right here and right under our very noses? This is especially disturbing after watching it happen all throughout Europe, (soon becoming Eurabia), especially in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden, and France. There are numerous “no go” areas in those lands where the police and fire personnel are afraid to venture, because control there is in the hands of the immigrant “youths.”
According to a comment made on the Atlas Shrugs website at www.atlasshrugs.com “It looks like the French government may have to update their official websites to include more than the following: French in France can’t go to 751 areas designated Muslim-Only areas. Note: The French are kind enough to list the areas, as well as provide detailed maps, of where non-Muslims mustn’t go in France.” I guess France truly doesn’t belong to the French any longer, as it appears the French have surrendered once again. Unfortunately, similar areas are presently developing and festering throughout the United States. Armed Muslim enclaves exist in many localities across the country. One example is “Islam(a)berg,” near Buffalo, New York. There are many, many more compounds strategically developing across the land. (Nay, I wear not the hat of tinfoil. I just have eyes to see, and ears to hear.).
This terribly dangerous condition I am trying to describe is rapidly approaching “super nova” status. Let me preface the danger with a few facts. Saul Alinsky wrote the infamous Rules for Radicals in 1971. Alinsky was a communist through and through, and much worse. He taught his armies of community organizers to go forth into the various neighborhoods across America and to organize the people in order to divide them and cause them to serve “the greater good.” Unfortunately one of Saul’s greatest disciples is the “present” President of the United States, Barak Hussein Obama. This is the one who most frequently voted “present” as a United States Senator from Illinois, which essentially meant that he was not doing his job. As a U.S. Senator he also, quite probably in violation of the Logan Act, (as McCarthy also mentions in his book on jihad), spent quite a bit of time “in his native Kenya,” actively and aggressively working on behalf of Obinga Odinga, (Ramma Lamma Dinga). He was actively organizing the Kenyan communities, but clearly along the lines of and consistent with an anti-United States agenda. This was not lawful activity for an official of the United States government. Of course, the Obama-worshipping incompetents who call themselves mainstream media journalists gave “the One” a free pass, and didn’t deem it newsworthy enough to report his shenanigans dutifully to the American people. To do so would have been contrary to their constant practice of slobbering all over him, gushing forth with his greatness. “Hope and Change.”
I truly do not know if Barak Hussein Obama is a Muslim, and a non-natural born United States citizen who is illegally occupying the Oval Office. His own wife, Michelle, has stated publicly that Barak’s native country is Kenya. Why would she make a statement like that if it weren’t true? I don’t know. We have seen pictures of him outfitted in his native Muslim dress. He attended Muslim schools in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country on earth. He stated to an Egyptian official in a one-on-one meeting that he is indeed a Muslim. His father was unquestionably a Muslim, which according to Islamic Law meant the male child was also a Muslim. His school records from Indonesia indicate his religion as Muslim. Obama has publicly stated that the most beautiful sound on earth is the Muslim call to prayer. Why did he bow down to Saudi Arabian royalty? Question after question. What is the truth in this matter?
This might possibly explain why it is now the official policy of the United States government, and all its far reaching, ever-expanding bureaucratic tentacles, not to mention the term Islamic terror or Islamic terrorists or Islamic terrorism. It is no longer the War on Terror – it is the war on “man-caused disasters.” We must not speak ill of Islam, but we must praise its numerous cultural and scientific achievements and accomplishments. Why, even our own NASA has been charged with bringing a space program to the Muslim world and to extol the wondrous virtues of Islam.
This president treats our stated enemies much better than he treats our all-time greatest ally, the Nation of Israel. He bows to our enemies and betrays our friends. No wonder it looks hopeless. The willful, deliberate failure of our federal government to protect our borders is a disgrace – and a “clear and present danger” to our security and well-being. It appears that Hezbollah is now assisting the Mexican drug cartels in their latest string of car bombings in Juarez. This is a direct dereliction of duty on the part of the United States Chief Executive Officer, the Commander in Chief. It is a violation of his oath of office by which he swore to uphold and to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. This blatant failure is an impeachable offense, and should be brought to bear immediately. If you are not even allowed to name the name of the enemy, you are doomed. You have lost. This is the terrible danger I fear. “The One” who loves Muslims so much won’t allow us to name Islam as the enemy. What does that tell you about him?
It’s time to call in the exterminator. (We can’t call in the terminator – we see how much help he has been to the troubled state of “Kaleefohniya”). Make these vermin leave voluntarily, or involuntarily. But, leave they must. Of course, a “bleeding heart” liberal type would probably try and argue that we should allow them to remain if they swear allegiance to the United States Constitution (not that a liberal gives a damn about the U.S. Constitution). But, there are two problems with this approach: 1.) A true Muslim cannot subject or subordinate Islamic Law, Sharia’ Law, to anything else on earth. So, this would therefore require a Muslim to renounce Islam. We know what the penalty for that is (it rhymes with, “I will cut your head off”). 2.) The widespread, common Islamic practice of Al Taqqiyyah, which is lying or swearing falsely, just to further the cause of Islam. So, if a true Muslim were to swear allegiance to the United States and its Constitution, it would be, ipso facto, a lie! Remember the principle of mutual exclusivity. Muslims don’t assimilate. They encroach. They are encroachers. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim except in the eye of an uninformed, wishful-thinking, politically correct, multicultural liberal-minded public. The moderate Muslim exists in the land of the tooth fairy and assorted other fairies.
The danger I am trying to emphasize can be illustrated by a line from an old Bella Lugosi “Dracula” movie from the late 1930s. In the film, Professor Von Helsing stated that, “The greatest strength of the vampire lies in the fact that so few people believe he exists.” (No, I don’t believe in vampires; I’m just trying to illustrate a point). The greatest strength of the “moderate” Muslim is that so many people want to believe he exists. He doesn’t exist. Believe me. Your life is at stake! Wake up. Let us put out the evil from among us!
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman wrote that there are sheep – and it’s okay to be a sheep; just recognize that you are a sheep. Then there are wolves that come to tear and destroy the sheep. And, there are sheepdogs who seek to warn and protect the sheep. The sheepdog is always on the lookout for wolves. He is not afraid to defend the sheep. From his www.killology.com website, an article “On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs,” (From the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman).
It’s okay to be a sheep, but remember that wolves love sheep. Also keep in mind that the sheepdog can’t be everywhere.
In the case of another Islamic attack upon these United States of America,
apply “Insecticide” liberally at: 21 25’14.14”N 39 49’45.23”E elev.318m
The Infestation Grows
By
“Overwatcher”
The Muslim infestation of America is growing, spreading with epidemic quickness and proportions, almost unchecked. This is a time to know and understand the problem, not to ignore it and hope it will go away. The creeping cancer simply cannot and will not simply “coexist” alongside the American way of life, the American culture, the American greatness.
First of all, Islam does not mean “peace.” Salaam means “peace.” Islam means “Submit!” Furthermore, there are only three permissible ways for a non-believer, that is, an infidel, to submit: 1.) Convert to Islam. 2.) Continue as a second class citizen subject to the whims of Muslims, and paying protection money (Jizzya) on demand. 3.) Die. I don’t like any of those choices. Do you?
A Muslim is an adherent of Islam, one who embraces its teachings and doctrines. There is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim – it is a myth, made up to placate stupid, politically correct wannabes, that is to say, “multicultural” imbeciles. Is there such a thing as being just a little bit pregnant? Either you are, or you are not. It’s the same thing – either you are a Muslim or you are not.
A Muslim’s supreme governing law is Sharia’ Law, Islamic Law. In America the supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution. Sharia’ Law is at odds with our Constitution. Muslims are here not to embrace and adopt the supreme law of this land; they are here to supplant it with their own supreme law - pure and simple. Andrew Whitehead, courageous patriot, on his website, www.anti-cair-net.org, has posted a quote by the Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Omar Ahmad: “Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” What further need have we of witnesses?
The United States Constitution and Sharia’ Law are mutually exclusive. They cannot both exist in the same place at the same time. One or the other must go. Make no mistake about it, Muslims in America are actively working to ensure their system is the one that becomes and remains operational in this great land of the (formerly?) brave and free. Perhaps, still brave, but will we remain free of this plague that seeks to overrun this land? No, we will be overcome if we do not recognize what is going on, face up to what is going on, and deal with it decisively. No matter what our delusional “leaders” may say in our overbloated federal government (as Ted Nugent calls it, “Fedzilla”), this is a warfare. Maybe not a shooting one yet ...
America has always welcomed legal immigration. People have come here from every country on earth, and they have embraced and adopted their new land where they are free to be all they can be. They have become Americans and have contributed marvelously to this nation’s greatness. However, Muslims come here not to assimilate, (see Omar’s quote again) but to infect and infest. As Andrew McCarthy has explained in his book, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, Muslims have adopted a “voluntary apartheid,” whereby they purposely do not integrate into American society. They adroitly exploit our system of laws in order to thwart us and to gain advantage after “politically correct” advantage, after every “multicultural” nonsensical advantage they can dream up. It is truly an infestation we are witnessing. But, is it not astounding that we are allowing it to happen right here and right under our very noses? This is especially disturbing after watching it happen all throughout Europe, (soon becoming Eurabia), especially in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden, and France. There are numerous “no go” areas in those lands where the police and fire personnel are afraid to venture, because control there is in the hands of the immigrant “youths.”
According to a comment made on the Atlas Shrugs website at www.atlasshrugs.com “It looks like the French government may have to update their official websites to include more than the following: French in France can’t go to 751 areas designated Muslim-Only areas. Note: The French are kind enough to list the areas, as well as provide detailed maps, of where non-Muslims mustn’t go in France.” I guess France truly doesn’t belong to the French any longer, as it appears the French have surrendered once again. Unfortunately, similar areas are presently developing and festering throughout the United States. Armed Muslim enclaves exist in many localities across the country. One example is “Islam(a)berg,” near Buffalo, New York. There are many, many more compounds strategically developing across the land. (Nay, I wear not the hat of tinfoil. I just have eyes to see, and ears to hear.).
This terribly dangerous condition I am trying to describe is rapidly approaching “super nova” status. Let me preface the danger with a few facts. Saul Alinsky wrote the infamous Rules for Radicals in 1971. Alinsky was a communist through and through, and much worse. He taught his armies of community organizers to go forth into the various neighborhoods across America and to organize the people in order to divide them and cause them to serve “the greater good.” Unfortunately one of Saul’s greatest disciples is the “present” President of the United States, Barak Hussein Obama. This is the one who most frequently voted “present” as a United States Senator from Illinois, which essentially meant that he was not doing his job. As a U.S. Senator he also, quite probably in violation of the Logan Act, (as McCarthy also mentions in his book on jihad), spent quite a bit of time “in his native Kenya,” actively and aggressively working on behalf of Obinga Odinga, (Ramma Lamma Dinga). He was actively organizing the Kenyan communities, but clearly along the lines of and consistent with an anti-United States agenda. This was not lawful activity for an official of the United States government. Of course, the Obama-worshipping incompetents who call themselves mainstream media journalists gave “the One” a free pass, and didn’t deem it newsworthy enough to report his shenanigans dutifully to the American people. To do so would have been contrary to their constant practice of slobbering all over him, gushing forth with his greatness. “Hope and Change.”
I truly do not know if Barak Hussein Obama is a Muslim, and a non-natural born United States citizen who is illegally occupying the Oval Office. His own wife, Michelle, has stated publicly that Barak’s native country is Kenya. Why would she make a statement like that if it weren’t true? I don’t know. We have seen pictures of him outfitted in his native Muslim dress. He attended Muslim schools in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country on earth. He stated to an Egyptian official in a one-on-one meeting that he is indeed a Muslim. His father was unquestionably a Muslim, which according to Islamic Law meant the male child was also a Muslim. His school records from Indonesia indicate his religion as Muslim. Obama has publicly stated that the most beautiful sound on earth is the Muslim call to prayer. Why did he bow down to Saudi Arabian royalty? Question after question. What is the truth in this matter?
This might possibly explain why it is now the official policy of the United States government, and all its far reaching, ever-expanding bureaucratic tentacles, not to mention the term Islamic terror or Islamic terrorists or Islamic terrorism. It is no longer the War on Terror – it is the war on “man-caused disasters.” We must not speak ill of Islam, but we must praise its numerous cultural and scientific achievements and accomplishments. Why, even our own NASA has been charged with bringing a space program to the Muslim world and to extol the wondrous virtues of Islam.
This president treats our stated enemies much better than he treats our all-time greatest ally, the Nation of Israel. He bows to our enemies and betrays our friends. No wonder it looks hopeless. The willful, deliberate failure of our federal government to protect our borders is a disgrace – and a “clear and present danger” to our security and well-being. It appears that Hezbollah is now assisting the Mexican drug cartels in their latest string of car bombings in Juarez. This is a direct dereliction of duty on the part of the United States Chief Executive Officer, the Commander in Chief. It is a violation of his oath of office by which he swore to uphold and to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. This blatant failure is an impeachable offense, and should be brought to bear immediately. If you are not even allowed to name the name of the enemy, you are doomed. You have lost. This is the terrible danger I fear. “The One” who loves Muslims so much won’t allow us to name Islam as the enemy. What does that tell you about him?
It’s time to call in the exterminator. (We can’t call in the terminator – we see how much help he has been to the troubled state of “Kaleefohniya”). Make these vermin leave voluntarily, or involuntarily. But, leave they must. Of course, a “bleeding heart” liberal type would probably try and argue that we should allow them to remain if they swear allegiance to the United States Constitution (not that a liberal gives a damn about the U.S. Constitution). But, there are two problems with this approach: 1.) A true Muslim cannot subject or subordinate Islamic Law, Sharia’ Law, to anything else on earth. So, this would therefore require a Muslim to renounce Islam. We know what the penalty for that is (it rhymes with, “I will cut your head off”). 2.) The widespread, common Islamic practice of Al Taqqiyyah, which is lying or swearing falsely, just to further the cause of Islam. So, if a true Muslim were to swear allegiance to the United States and its Constitution, it would be, ipso facto, a lie! Remember the principle of mutual exclusivity. Muslims don’t assimilate. They encroach. They are encroachers. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim except in the eye of an uninformed, wishful-thinking, politically correct, multicultural liberal-minded public. The moderate Muslim exists in the land of the tooth fairy and assorted other fairies.
The danger I am trying to emphasize can be illustrated by a line from an old Bella Lugosi “Dracula” movie from the late 1930s. In the film, Professor Von Helsing stated that, “The greatest strength of the vampire lies in the fact that so few people believe he exists.” (No, I don’t believe in vampires; I’m just trying to illustrate a point). The greatest strength of the “moderate” Muslim is that so many people want to believe he exists. He doesn’t exist. Believe me. Your life is at stake! Wake up. Let us put out the evil from among us!
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman wrote that there are sheep – and it’s okay to be a sheep; just recognize that you are a sheep. Then there are wolves that come to tear and destroy the sheep. And, there are sheepdogs who seek to warn and protect the sheep. The sheepdog is always on the lookout for wolves. He is not afraid to defend the sheep. From his www.killology.com website, an article “On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs,” (From the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman).
It’s okay to be a sheep, but remember that wolves love sheep. Also keep in mind that the sheepdog can’t be everywhere.
In the case of another Islamic attack upon these United States of America,
apply “Insecticide” liberally at: 21 25’14.14”N 39 49’45.23”E elev.318m
Checking your legal briefs ping
God’s going to have to forgive me for what I think about this guy and his opinion.....
A big FU to islam and their pedophile prophet...
The following terms come to mind:
Military intelligence.
Just as Communism was actually projection of Russian (and Chinese) power, so modern Islam is actually a projection of Saudi (and Iranian) power. Making this a First Amendment question is just as misguided as thinking the Cold War had anything to do with economics. The stated goals are a distraction from enemy action.
It would be best not to nuke Mecca or Medina, but use MOABs on the palaces of Riyadh and Tehran. Stop the flow of money to madrassas and terror cells worldwide, stop the threat from Islam.
Oh my, by your direction, I know just what to see here, and how you feel about it, mrreaganaut. I so share your concerns!
Hopefully no MOABS nor nukes will be imposed. [I do not forget the problem of innocent civilian casualties in any targeted area.] Perhaps this possible eventuality can be most surely avoided by folks just simply following your advice:
Stop the flow of money to madrassas and terror cells worldwide, stop the threat from Islam.It's the start of some new thing.... Thus — perhaps — the future of Plaza 51/Cordoba Mosque is already dead in the present moment, in a certain way.
Now to realize that thought... to understand it.
JMHO, FWIW.
Thank you ever so much for writing, mrreaganaut!
I wonder if liberal interpretations of the First Amendment are sharia compliant?
Thank you ever so much, Overwatcher, for your absolutely outstanding contribution to this discussion!
I particularly appreciate your astute analysis of evidence (a/k/a direct experience), then/thus articulated in eminently rational language.
There were reports from Germany today about the sheer unassimilibility of Turkish Moslems (now 5 million or so in the country), which has led to a state in which certain Muslim communities have effectively declared themselves independent of German law, AND are literally armed against it. They reject the law of their "adopted" country, in favor of the law of the country they came from — Shari'a law, the law of Islam wherever it is, in all its permutations.
That is to say, such people are totally unassimilable into the culture of their adoptive country. For the adoptive country to ignore such hard facts suggests that the adoptive country will soon enough cease to be the country that the national people — the We the People [see the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution] — now living would even recognize.
German police power retreats from this situation, which it seems to me undermines the safety of the German public.
Perhaps the same situation is developing here, in America....
People please pay attention!
Thank you oh so very much, Overwatcher, for writing!
Thanks for the pings.
Great points.
I hope so, too, but there are so many "turn the sand to glass" nuclear comments on these types of threads, that I thought some restraint might show that I'm serious about what might have to happen. Don't forget that conventional bombing of cities (not sparing civilians) was necessary in WWII. I specifically mentioned the palaces with the idea of restraint and minimizing unnecessary casualties.
Most important, far more than any specific military tactics, is the realization that religious liberty is not what we should be discussing when the Islamic threat comes up: follow the money.
Oh, and thank you for such a polite response!
I appreciated your post and felt compelled to share my essay with you. Btw, I used to be an Arabic linguist for the National Security Agency a long time ago.
I guess the “elite” Leftists hate America so much, they are willing to get into bed with the Islamists. Perhaps they hope to be eaten last.
My best to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.