Blog 101 entitled Sharia, US Constitution Incompatible (dtd May 23, 2011) was admittedly quite lengthy.  It is an important topic and one to which full consideration was given.  I’d like to take this opportunity to summarize the key issues of that Blog.

 Key Issues

• Islam cannot work in America
• For a Muslim – living in America and being obedient to Allah are incompatible
• Unless Islamists can change the laws of America they should simply leave.
• As a community Muslims must obey Allah; they thus cannot obey the Constitution of the United States or, frankly, any democracy.
• Consultation by a Muslim can only be with the Quran, not the Constitution of the land.
• The ability to establish “civil law”, separate from the Quran, would violate the divine right and the laws established by the Quran.
• Sharia law must be the common law of the land in which the Muslim resides.
• The community (Umma) can decide political issues, that is, elect officials or revolt to change governance, but the established laws must be Islamic (Sharia) law.
• The Quran does not propose the people,  all,  men and women,  are equal.  No equality is equal to no democracy.
• Freedom of religion is not in concert with Islamist belief.
• Theocracy is not democracy; yet a desire of Islamists.  Even though we all agree that chosen leaders should be servants of God for the good of all. 
• Man can only judge man for what man deems wrong in a democracy, whereas under Sharia man can judge other men, or forgive, according to what a scholar interprets Allah’s judgment, his wrath, to be.
• What Allah Wills may not be what the Constitution requires, or citizens deserve.
• Natural laws to a fundamentalist Islamist are divine laws that are the Will of Allah personified, and need not be given any thought.  Science and Philosophy are not necessary.
• Thinking is forbidden as it would subject Allah or Mohammed to doubt.
• Human rights are not applicable for a Muslim under Sharia.
• In Islam it is all about obedience – obey Allah. It is about Submission.
• The demands of Sharia law, Islamic law,  is to surrender to fate and either succeed or despair in the Will of Allah.
• Allah is the ultimate authority; Allah is tyrannical, leaders in the Muslim world are tyrannical, thus power begets power.  People are to respect authority up the chain of authority; at the top of the chain is Allah.
• The power of Allah is transmitted through the Quran via Islamic scholars (ulema) and the leadership of Muslim controlled areas in the form of Sharia law.
• Rational thought is anathema.
• Thinking, questioning, raises and/or suggests doubts and according to Islamic law no one should ever doubt the uncreated Allah or the uncreated Quran.
• Any U.S. Judge by acceding to Sharia Law, even considering Islamic Law, would be adopting the Quran as the foundation of law, thus ignoring the Constitution.
• Allah’s law is between man and Allah, Allah the judge; Man’s laws should be between man and man, the fairness doctrine adopted and the more rational laws applied reasonably to society as a whole (that includes non-believers and believers in other religions) benefitting the good of everyone.  That is not how the Muslim thinks. 
• It is man than alters the good of man by enticements that cater to man’s sinful nature.
• Using Allah as a means to control others is wrong.
• Sharia Law is wrong; it gives little credence to human rights.
• Let the good of the commandments from God, Allah, be incorporated into the civil laws, the laws designed for the common good. This is the case for the Constitution of the United States.  Founded on principles obtained as a result of the biblical writings and reason applied to man’s responsibility, the Constitution of the United States is foundational and encompasses the freedoms and the rights of all individuals in a pluralistic society.
• A pluralistic society, a melting pot of viewpoints, religions, is not an objective of Islam.
• When the Holy Book of an Ideology calls for the followers to have enmity, hatred, towards all those not of the same belief, especially named groups such as Jews and Christians, there is no possible compatibility with the Constitution of the United States. How can such “hate laws”, a proclamation of Islamic law, be considered anything other than expressed hatred towards anyone that is not an Islamist.  The hate law exists in Sura 60:4 of the Quran.
• The rulers, leadership of the country in which the Muslim can reside under the shade of the umbrella of Islam, must themselves be Muslims, must believe in Allah, and must adhere to and administer Sharia law. 
• A Muslim cannot be lead by a non-Muslim; America is not to be their home until the President is a Muslim and Sharia Law is enforced.  In fact the highest authority in America is not the President, but a document – The Constitution.
• The Constitution would never have America compel a religion, neither Christianity nor Islam nor any other; it is the freedom to choose that is compelling.

 Living a Lie in America

Unless the Constitution of the United States is modified to address Sharia law, and that would require giving up our freedoms, liberty, the human rights provisions of the Constitution, and the equality of all peoples, a Muslim in America is living a lie. A Muslim is allowed to live under such conditions as long as the focus and objective is to posture oneself to be able to introduce and enable Sharia Law creep to occur.  The lie is deceit, acting as an American and respecting America’s laws (superficially) while all the while intent on changing America for Allah.  Allah is the example for the Muslim as the best of Deceivers (Sura 3:54).  The goal is to always be a world All-for-Allah. 

 Muslims will be obligated to continue to attempt modifications in the laws of any democracy to accommodate Islamic law. Any accommodation mitigates the most important and critical elements of a democracy.  The strategy would be to posture for recognition of the desires of the Muslim to have their Islamic law accommodated for the purpose, as a minimum, of their micro-community. 

• They will classify themselves as a “minority” that is entitled to “special privileges.”
• They will create media attention using proclamations of persecution against their religion, and themselves, interpreting any expression of concern or negative opinion as “hate statements”. 
• They will seek legislation to protect their rights as they see them, at the same time limiting any objection of Islam or Islamic law.  Protecting the rights of the Muslim, Islamist, would at the same time mitigate the rights of an American under the Constitution.

 What I see as the alternative for a Muslim, especially the fundamentalist, the Islamist, is to

• Live a lie, apply taqiyya (lying for the purpose of achieving the objective of Islam)
• Find a new religion that accommodates their desire to live in a democracy, a country such as America and under the Constitution of that Country.
• Adopt and lead the cause for a more rational approach to Islam, which would involve interpreting the Quran in a less stringent fashion. This would require erasing Sura 60:4 (and others) from the minds of all Muslims and substituting a paragraph requiring love of neighbor regardless of their religion.
• Leave America, or any democracy, for a country more accommodating to their ideology.
• Stand-pat and use the tactics of taqiyya and organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood to engage in a program to change the nature of the society and democratic laws to that of Islam.

 Sharia creep and the Strategy of Conquest by the Islamists can be seen as already having an impact in countries such as Denmark, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and even in America.  This should be troubling to those who love Freedom. 

 The difficulty for the Muslim to change I see is akin to Palestine, especially Hamas, excepting Israel as a free independent state and living as a neighbor without pointing any form of weapon ever again at Israel, and in fact coming to their defense if there was an attempt to invade that country by an opposing foreign force.

 Incompatible

Muslim, Islam, Democracy, and the Constitution of the United States are not compatible.

Let Freedom Ring!!!

 Pray for Good

We pray the forces for good will always prevail, that reasonable minds will see the light of freedom and allow it to brighten everyone’s everyday life, and that eyes will open to the truth.  We pray that the right to volunteer for the pathway to salvation will prevail along with objective considerations given to other religions so that choices are made from the heart and not due to coercion or threat of harm, as God would want it.  May the parents and the community into which one is born provide an education that calls for love of neighbor, not hatred towards a religion, culture or collective body of innocent people, and then allows for independent thought and choice when old enough to strike out on one’s own.  May every citizen of the world use the gift of mind, intellect and conscious thought to find ways to improve on what God has revealed. 

 Severe punishment in the name of Allah may make Muslims Holy, but will they actually have a heart for God?

 May the truth prevail.  May those who suppress the truth or are in denial have a change of heart and discover Logos.  

 Grace and Peace

 *                      *                          *                               *

Note:  First Amendment Trumps Sharia in Dearborn

In of all places, Dearborn, Michigan. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2:1 on Thursday May 26, 2011 (in GEORGE SAIEG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DEARBORN; RONALD HADDAD, Dearborn Chief of Police ) that Dearborn, and its police department, violated the free-speech rights of a Christian evangelist by barring him from handing out leaflets at an Arab-American street festival last year. The court’s two judge majority opinion concluded:

On the free speech claim, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants and its denial of summary judgment to the plaintiffs. We thereby invalidate the leafleting restriction within both the inner and outer perimeters of the Festival. –  The restriction on the sidewalks that are directly adjacent to the Festival attractions does not serve a substantial government interest. The City keeps those same sidewalks open for public traffic and permits sidewalk vendors, whose activity is more obstructive to sidewalk traffic flow than pedestrian leafleting is. Moreover, the prohibition of pedestrian leafleting in the outer perimeter is not narrowly tailored to the goal of isolating inner areas from vehicular traffic. The City can be held liable because the Chief of Police, who instituted the leafleting restriction, created official municipal policy.

Elaborating on the issue of Dearborn’s liability for depriving George Saieg, an American Christian pastor of Sudanese descent, of his first amendment rights, the judges opined:

The City may be held liable for the restriction of Saieg’s free speech rights that the leafleting restriction caused. A municipality is liable if a constitutional injury results from a policy or custom “made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694–95 (1978). In this case, the City approved the Festival “subject to . . . the rules and regulations of the Police Department.” R. 47-13 (Ex. M: Council Resolution)…Chief Haddad described the leafleting policy as his department’s policy, subject only to the approval of the city council and the mayor. R. 47-11 (Ex. K: Haddad Dep. at 95–96) (stating that “the police department will supply the standards that must be met,” such as the “prohibition of individuals handing out . . . materials on the public sidewalk”). The police department’s leafleting policy, made with the authority that the City Council delegated to it, fairly represents official City policy. Therefore, Saieg may hold the City liable for violating his First Amendment right to free speech.

Most remarkably, the majority opinion of Justices Moore and Clay included a salient observation revealing how these judges understood the Sharia-based objections to non-Muslim proselytization which motivated Dearborn’s attempt to abrogate Pastor Saeig’s freedom of speech—mainstream Islam’s continued rejection of freedom of conscience:

Saieg also faces a more basic problem with booth-based evangelism: “[t]he penalty of leaving Islam according to Islamic books is death,” which makes Muslims reluctant to approach a booth that is publicly “labeled as . . . Christian.” R. 48 (Ex. A: Saieg Dep. at 75). Saieg believes that evangelism is more effective when he can roam the Festival and speak to Muslims more discreetly.

Roberta Aluffi Beck-Peccoz, Associate Professor of Comparative Law at the University of Turin, made this rather understated assessment of contemporary Islamdom’s strict opposition to the proselytization of Muslims by non-Muslims—rooted in the Sharia, and ultimately, the grave offense of “ridda,” or apostasy from Islam, deemed “treasonous” against the Muslim community, and punishable by death under Islamic Law—published in 2010:

Islamic States have always strongly opposed this specific freedom [i.e., freedom of conscience as per the first amendment of the US Bill of Rights, or more specifically article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights], claiming that it contravenes Islamic Law. [Note: It does, and that is why the 57 Muslim Nation Organization of the Islamic Conference drafted and ratified the antithetical Cairo Declaration which insists upon having Sharia exert supremacy over all “manmade” law!]…Moreover they express fear that proselytism represents a kind of foreign interference in their internal affairs. Consistently, Islamic States do not favor proselytism; they sometimes tend to restrict it even in its lightest forms, such as the simple expression of one’s intimate beliefs…Proselytism is perceived as a major threat to the coherence and cohesion of the umma [i.e., the global Muslim community]: it can lead to ridda [apostasy from Islam] the paradigm of political treason, or fitna, the temptation, the civil war involving doctyrinal dissensions…

 Read the entire article by Andrew Bostom On May 29, 2011 @ http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2011/05/29/first-amendment-trumps-sharia-in-dearborn/