Category Archives: Constitution vs. Sharia

The Guarantee Clause: Congress’ Duty to Oppose Theocracy in the United States

Posted on by
1

082411_koran-constitution-lgBy Robert M. Petrusak:

[Editor's note: New Gingrich has called for a Federal ban on Sharia law in America.]

Theocracy is inherently oppressive and contrary to America’s core values. It regards God as the sovereign and source of law. It therefore places the coercive power of the state–including interpretation and enforcement of law–in the hands of believers. It excludes non-believers from the body politic and brings them suffering. In total contrast, the Declaration of Independence regards God not as a source of coercive power, but as a guarantor of inalienable rights including liberty and equality. The Declaration states that government derives its sovereign authority or “just powers” not from God, but “from the consent of the governed.” This concept of popular sovereignty is reflected not only in the preamble of the Constitution, but also in the “Guarantee Clause” of Article IV, Section 4 which obligates the federal government to preserve a republican form of government in every state. The Constitution also precludes theocracy through the First Amendment’s ban on laws respecting establishments of religion or prohibiting “free exercise” of religious beliefs.

Political Islam or “Islamism” is theocratic. It may be defined as a belief that Islam should control society and politics, not simply personal religious life. Accordingly to the eminent scholar Bernard Lewis, the ideal Islamic polity recognizes God as sole sovereign and law-giver and assigns believers the task of spreading His revelation until the entire world accepts it. This is to be achieved by extending the authority and membership of the community that follows God’s law, the Shariah, which deals with the acquisition and exercise of power and the duties of ruler and subject. [1] Accordingly, Shariah is not simply a prescription for exercising personal belief through activity such as prayer and diet. It is a system of laws that affects the conduct of both believers and non- believers in Islamic theocracies. More ominously, expansion of the community that regards God as sovereign suggests contraction and disempowerment of the community which does not.

Political Islam therefore challenges the United States Constitution, particularly its embrace of liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty. There is concern that this challenge includes not only violent terrorism but an ideological struggle against non-Islamic courts and legal systems and the principle that the people, not God, are the source of political and legal authority .There is similarly concern that Islamists seek to establish “functionally Islamic governments” in every nation [2] and that toward this end, they will create divisive alternative communities by insinuating Islamic rules of conduct for the temporal world into courts and other institutions. There is even concern that Islamism will limit traditional free speech through application of its restrictions on defamation of religion or blasphemy. [3]

Such concerns have resulted in “anti-shariah legislation” in various states and subsequent court battles over whether such laws violate the constitutional rights of Muslims. However, such concerns raise issues of national importance because efforts to make public institutions Shariah-compliant may violate not only the First Amendment’s provisions on religion or free speech but also the Fourteenth Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution. The former guarantees due process and equal protection; the latter proclaims the supremacy of federal statutes, treaties and constitutional provisions. Moreover, Article IV, Section 4 creates an affirmative federal obligation to guarantee a non-theocratic, “Republican Form of Government” in every state.

The very essence of republican government is the belief that sovereignty rests with the people. [4]. Our Constitution is derived exclusively from the people and alterable only by them through elected representatives. Similarly, elected representatives and elected or duly-appointed judges, not religious leaders, enact and interpret our statutory law. [5] These principles of popular sovereignty support the Article IV guarantee of republican government and are related to the concept of equality. Thus, the guarantee clause would be invoked in the struggle against slavery and in the post-Civil War struggle to include freed slaves in the body politic. [6] In this regard, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection evolved from our concept of republican government, [7] and a state that denies this fundamental right similarly violates Article IV, Section 4. The introduction into American courts, of laws or legal principles derived from a sovereign God or religious texts cannot be tolerated and the federal government has a clear responsibility to keep theocracy out of state courts and other public institutions.

Read more at Right Side News

Related

Muslim Group Calls for ‘Litigation Jihad’

Posted on by
1
Group from Sankore Institute of Islamic-African Studies International

Group from Sankore Institute of Islamic-African Studies International

The objective of the “litigation jihad” is more than freeing Muslims from jail. It’s a strategy to institute Sharia law in the U.S.

By Ryan Mauro:

The website of the Sankore Institute of Islamic-African Studies International (SIIASI), based in Pittsburgh, P.A., calls on Muslims to engage in “litigation jihad” as a means of moving the U.S. towards Sharia law. The anti-American group had its offices raided by the FBI in 2006.

“The United States has long held Muslim political prisoners within its federal, state and now privatized penal colonies. It is by waging a litigation jihad [sic] in the US penal system that some redress can be made in the international community as well. It is for this reason that Muslim inmate legal actions in the US courts constitute the front line of defense of Islam,” SIIASI says.

The objective of the “litigation jihad” is bigger than freeing Muslims from jail. It continues:

“Every successful Muslim litigation passed in the U.S. courts, is a standardization and recognition of the Islamic shari’a….but more importantly it is a perfecting and refining of the United States constitution.”

The organization states that the jihad should lead an “internationally recognized SOCIAL CONTRACT between the United States and its Muslim national minorities; which is consistent with the shari’a, but does not challenge the sovereignty of the United States.”

Don’t be fooled by the moderate costume disguising the extremist language.

SIIASI’s leader, Imam Muhammad Shareef, regularly refers to the U.S. as “Amerikkka.” He preaches against democracy and in favor of violent jihad. In 2010, Shareef condemned the “the pseudo-religion redefined by the pacifist “imams” who deny the obligation of jihad and who have deluded their followers into the fruitless activity of supporting democratic constitutional government.”

He then quoted Mohammed, the founder of Islam, as saying “There is coming upon man a time when some of the religious scholars will say, ‘This is not a time for jihad.’  For whoever comes upon that time, then know that the most blessed action during that time will be jihad.”

********

In the wake of the Boston bombings, we must not focus only on the acts themselves, but the ideology that drove them. The anti-American ideology it espouses is the egg from which jihadists hatch.

Read more at The Clarion Project

Bad Moon Rising: The Sharia Law Bans

Posted on by
Reply

-1968136017Center For Security Policy:

Against the backdrop of the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a heightened interest in the role of Islam in American society and the subsequent clash of civilizations remains.  Specifically, public concern continues to grow across the country about the use of Sharia Law, or Islamic Law, within American courts.  As a result, well over a dozen state legislatures have introduced or passed legislation that prohibits or limits the use of Sharia Law or foreign law in state courts.  These bills have taken two distinct forms: Sharia-specific and facially-neutral bills.  Regardless of classification, these legislative efforts have triggered a number of constitutional concerns, with critics arguing that the bills violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.  Critics argue that the laws have a sectarian purpose and an effect of advancing one religion at the expense of another and thus fail the Supreme Court’s jurisprudential test.  Moreover, these critics argue that the laws burden the practice of religious faith. Indeed, this debate has undeniably opened a Pandora’s Box of constitutional concerns. Meanwhile, the bills’ proponents vigorously reject the accusation that the bills are hostile to Muslims or religious freedoms.  They argue that the bills are designed to proactively safeguard the secular constitutional role of government by prohibiting religious influence, specifically that of Sharia Law.

A Guide to Shariah Law vs. the Constitution

Posted on by
3

constitution_quill_penIn 2011, the Center for Security Policy assembled a 2 page flyer that succinctly explains the differences between the rights guaranteed in the US Constitution and Shariah.

‘A Guide to Shariah Law vs. the Constitution‘ is available as a downloadable PDF file. The text is provided below.

ARTICLE VI : THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND

CONSTITUTION:  ARTICLE  VI:   “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”

SHARIAH: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah.” a1.1, UMDAT  AL-­SALIK or The Reliance of the Traveller, commonly accepted work of Sha- riah jurisprudence); “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia,” SEYED QUTB; “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” SEYED ABUL A’ALA MAUDUDI

 

FIRST AMENDMENT : FREEDOM OF RELIGION

CONSTITUTION:  FIRST AMENDMENT:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

SHARIAH: “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” QURAN  4:89   “Whoever changed his [Is- lamic] religion, then kill him,” SAHIH AL-­BUKHARI,  9:84:57.  In historic and modern Shariah states, Shariah law enforces dhimmi status (second-class citizen, apartheid-type laws) on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, building or repairing churches, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells; if dhimmi laws are violated in the Shariah State, penalties are those used for prisoners of war: death, slavery, release or ransom. o9.14, o11.0-­o11.11, UMDAT AL-­SALIK

 

FIRST AMENDMENT : FREEDOM OF SPEECH

CONSTITUTION:  FIRST AMENDMENT: Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech.”
SHARIAH:  Speech defaming Islam or Muhammad is considered “blasphemy” and is punishable by death or imprisonment.

 

FIRST AMENDMENT : FREEDOM TO DISSENT

CONSTITUTION:  FIRST AMENDMENT: “Congress cannot take away the right of the people to pe- tition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

SHARIAH: Non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give com- fort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

 

SECOND AMENDMENT : RIGHT TO SELF-­DEFENSE

CONSTITUTION:  SECOND AMENDMENT: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

SHARIAH: Under historic and modern dhimmi laws, non-Muslims cannot possess swords, firearms or weapons of any kind.

 

FIFTH, SIXTH & SEVENTH AMENDMENTS : RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND FAIR TRIAL

CONSTITUTION:  FIFTH AMENDMENT:  “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or other- wise infamous crime… without due process of law.”  SIXTH AMENDMENT:   guarantees a “pub- lic trial by an impartial jury.”  SEVENTH AMENDMENT:  “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”

SHARIAH:  “Muhammad  said,  ‘No  Muslim  should  be  killed  for  killing  a  Kafir  (infidel).’” HADITH SAHIH AL-­BUKHARI   Non-Muslims are prohibited from testifying against Muslims.  A woman’s testimony is equal to half of a man’s.

 

EIGHTH  AMENDMENT :  NO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

CONSTITUTION:  EIGHTH AMENDMENT: “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

SHARIAH:  Under Shariah punishments are barbaric: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” QURAN 5:38   A raped woman is punished: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes” SURA 24:2

 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT : RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUEPROCESS

CONSTITUTION:    FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT:  “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Shariah: Under dhimmi laws enforced in modern Shariah states, Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims before the law.  Under Shariah law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law.

How the U.S. Constitution prohibits Islamization

Posted on by
3

constitution_quill_pen

Shoebat Foundation:

The premise, long used by stealth jihadists, is that the U.S. Constitution gives them the right to build mosques in the U.S. and spread Islam. Retired Attorney Publius Huldah recently spoke at an Act for America event in Fayetteville, TN and dismantled that premise.

February 18, 2013 Act for America Chapter in Fayetteville, TN from Publius Huldah on Vimeo.

 

Senior Cleric for American Muslim Group: Islamic Punishment for Apostasy Is Death

Posted on by
Reply

1799416114

Center For Security Policy:

Originally published at Translating Jihad

Dr. Hatem al-Haj, a senior committee member for the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), confirmed in the below fatwa from July 2011 that the Islamic punishment for apostasy is death. A couple of things stand out to me about this fatwa.

First, this fatwa was taken down from AMJA’s website as far back as October 2011, along with other fatwas on the same topic, possibly in response to an article written by my colleague Andrew Bostom exposing the rulings in that same month. (See the fatwa on archive.org, while the link on AMJA’s website is broken.) So either AMJA changed their minds about the penalty for apostasy; or, more likely, they just don’t want non-Muslims seeing what they really think on controversial topics. If that’s the case, then what else are they not telling us?

Second, the question that leads to the fatwa is tellingly not asking what the ruling is on apostasy, but rather how to explain this ruling to others, including non-Muslims. While Dr. al-Haj confirms that the penalty for apostasy from Islam is death, he also recommends that when explaining this to others, you should start with the caveat that this is something which should only be carried out in a Muslim country through the court system.

AMJA likes to hide behind that caveat, but at the same time they encourage Muslims in the United States to use the American legal system in order to establish Islamic law (see here and here). So isn’t it fair to assume that Dr. al-Haj and AMJA would like to eventually make death for apostates the law of the land here in the United States as well?

See my translation of Dr. al-Haj’s fatwa below (see the original Arabic on his website):

The Ruling on the Apostate, and How We (Should) Explain It to Others

23 July 2011

Question: In view of the questions which we have been receiving in the Islamic centers these days, we ask you, sirs, to please explain how to respond to these questions, which are about the ruling on the apostate and his punishment.

Answer: Praise be to Allah, and peace be upon the Apostle of Allah.

I think you should begin by explaining that this is one of those things which is entrusted to the judicial systems in Islamic countries, and not to individuals in these countries or any others. Then make clear that the courts will examine these situations and decide them based on several factors.

But the ruling in the shari’a is death for men (who commit apostasy) according to all four (mainstream) schools (of Islamic jurisprudence). It is the same punishment for women according to most of the schools, but according to the Hanafis it is only imprisonment. This is according to the sayings of the Prophet (PBUH):  “Whoever changed his religion, kill him”; and also, “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am Allah’s apostle, except for one of the following three:  a murderer, an adulterer, and one who leaves his religion and separates himself from the community.”

This firm ruling is not the only option for the imam, for he can rule otherwise, if there is benefit (in doing so). The evidence for this is the apostasy of some in the time of the Prophet (PBUH), on whom the ruling was not carried out. For (the Prophet) said the following about those who apostatized from the Muslims and joined the Quraysh:  “Whoever departed from us and went unto them, Allah has banished.”

This is not something that was invented by Islam, but rather the ruling on the apostate is also in the Law of Moses (PBUH). The following is from the Book of Deuteronomy:

“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the Lord thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.”

It is well-known that those who worshiped the calf were ordered to be killed. In the Book of Exodus 32:28, it mentioned the killing of 3,000 of the Levites for their apostasy:  “And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.”

In explaining this issue to non-Muslims, you need to be wise and honest. May Allah help you.

Allah Almighty knows best.

Dr. Andrew Bostom: Muslim Leaders Seek Sharia in the US:

 

 

Related articles

Dallas CAIR Director: “Muslims Are Above the Law of the Land.”

Posted on by
4
Mustafa Carroll

Mustafa Carroll

By Daniel Greenfield:

I for one welcome this new CAIR policy of honesty and openness. Any day now, maybe one of their directors will admit what they truly stand for.

A Council on American-Islamic Relations leader told a crowd at a rally for Islam that members of the faith should not be bound by American law.

“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.

The rally in Austin was part of a nationwide effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events. The event included a speech by a representative of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, who declared that Texas was an awful place and that Islam was the answer.

“Why did Muhammad say that he would not rest until the Koran was the law of the land?”

“Islam does not have Texas in the current condition, the current socio-political condition that Texas is in. What is this condition that Texas is in? Why is Texas on the brink, when you look at Texas in comparison to 50 states, education, percent of population graduating from high school is 46, high school completion rate is 46, the scholastic assessment rate, the SAT score in Texas is 47, the percentage of population with no health insurance in Texas is first, those without health insurance Texas is first. When you look at the state of a child in Texas, the percentage of uninsured children, Texas is first… etc etc

You shouldn’t be filing legislation against Islam, when you look at Texas, Islam is not the problem. Islam is the solution. Allah Akbar.”

Clearly when we look at the literacy rates and health insurance rates in the Muslim world, we cannot help but see that Islam is the answer. That is assuming the question is how can we make Texas more like Somalia or Egypt.

Herman Mustafa Carroll had defended terrorists, perhaps on the same theory that Muslims are superior to the law of the land.

“I think you can only blame Hamas for so long. It takes two to tango. And I think, you know, that what we’ve heard for a number of years is this terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, was not just Hamas.”

“Look at the true cause of the terrorism. It’s not somebody is reading a book, reading a Quran, and then go out and say, ‘Well, the Quran told me to blow this up. I’m gonna blow it up.’ The cause, the root cause of terrorism is oppression. The root cause of terrorism is oppression.”

Oddly quite a few terrorists seem to read that book and blow people up. Others read the book and declare that Muslims are above the law of the land. It sounds as if these two phenomena share a common root cause.

 

Related articles

The Formidable Islamist Minority in America

Posted on by
Reply

flag as hijabBy Ryan Mauro

A summary of polls about the ideological makeup of the Muslim-American community shows that the majority is moderate, but there is a formidable minority influenced by Islamist doctrine. A significant number are refusing to give answers or are still figuring out where they stand on issues like terrorism and Sharia Law.

The number one question is how many Muslim-Americans support terrorism. A 2011 Pew poll found very little support for Al-Qaeda, with only 2% viewing the terrorist group very favorably, 3% somewhat favorably and 11% somewhat unfavorably. About 70% view Al-Qaeda very unfavorably, an increase of 12% since 2007.

There are 2.6 million Muslim-Americans, a number that is expected to rise to 6.2 million by 2030. This means there are 130,000 Muslim-Americans who will admit that they view Al-Qaeda favorably and that assumes there are no supporters among the 14% who did not answer the question. Plus, the survey did not poll support for Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups.

Only 1% of Muslim-Americans say violence against civilians to defend Islam is “often” justified. About 7% say it is sometimes justified and 5% say it is rarely justified. Approximately 81% say attacks on civilians are never justified. Of course, the definition of “civilian” varies. Hamas supporters, for example, argue that there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian. The survey did not poll support for attacks on soldiers.

The 2007 Pew poll found that about 49% feel mosques should stay out of politics and about the same amount feel the Koran should not be taken entirely literally. The survey concluded that Muslim immigrants are more moderate on this issue than those who were born here.

“Native-born Muslims express overwhelming support for the notion that mosques should express their views on social and political matters. By contrast, a large majority of foreign-born Muslims—many of whom are from countries where religion and politics are often closely intertwined—say that mosques should be kept out of political matters,” the report said.

Perhaps the most surprising findings were related to social issues. The Pew 2011 poll shows that 39% feel that homosexuality should be accepted by society, an increase of 12% from 2007. On the issue of multiple wives, a Wenzel Strategies poll released in October found 22% support allowing polygamy.

The findings related to Sharia Law and specific elements of Islamist doctrine were less comforting.

The Wenzel poll found that almost 40% strongly or somewhat agree that Sharia Law should be the supreme law of the country. A slight majority oppose that proposition, with 35% strongly disagreeing and 18% somewhat disagreeing. However, when presented with a more refined question about what to do if Sharia conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, 70% would follow the Constitution and only 9% would follow Sharia Law. About 21% were undecided.

There is high support for restricting freedom of speech in compliance with Sharia Law.

About 59% feel that criticism of Islam or its founder is not permitted under the First Amendment. Only 41% disagreed. Shockingly, 52% strongly or somewhat support criminal charges against those that criticize or parody Islam, while 33% oppose it. Nearly 15% strongly or somewhat support executing critics of their religion. About 70% strongly oppose it and around 11% only somewhat oppose it.

Only about 30% believe that Americans have the right to encourage Muslims to leave their faith. Around 45% disagree. Note that this question isn’t about whether people should proselytize to Muslims. It’s about whether doing so is a constitutional right.

The polls indicate that the Muslim-American community is more moderate than its counterparts overseas on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A 2011 Gallup poll found that over 80% support a two-state solution. However, the 2011 Pew poll shows only 61% believe a two-state solution that respects the rights of Palestinians is possible. About 20% feel it is impossible, matching Gallup’s result.

The Wenzel poll directly asked Muslim-Americans whether Israel has a right to exist. About 46% strongly agreed that it does and 21% somewhat agree. Only 8% strongly disagree, essentially supporting the elimination of the state of Israel. Another 8% somewhat disagree that Israel has a right to exist and 16% were unsure.

Read more at Front Page

CAIR-Michigan Goes After the U.S. Constitution

Posted on by
6

314x211xKjXy3NpNaSlL_png_pagespeed_ic_YlKoX2LOrJby: Clare Lopez

There they go again. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has just put out an Action Alert that takes direct aim at the Constitution of the United States.

At issue is the Michigan state legislature’s House Bill No. 4769, which looks likely to pass in coming days. Quite simply, that bill states that no foreign law may take precedence over American law or Michigan state law in a Michigan court room.

The key provision of the bill is Section 2, which says:

“A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.”

That’s it. Seems pretty straightforward and entirely in keeping with Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

“This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”

So why would CAIR call on its members to oppose legislation that protects all American citizens, upholds the U.S. Constitution and in no way interferes with the right of any individual to freely exercise his or her religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment?

CAIR (a Muslim Brotherhood front group) points to the answer in its own words. Its Action Alert decries “discrimination on followers of a minority faith” and terms the legislation “anti-Islam,” even though there is no mention of Islam or any other faith in the bill.

There’s also no mention of any specific foreign law, just the general proviso that if ever there is a conflict between any foreign law – be it French law, Islamic law, Japanese law, Zambian law or any other – and U.S. and/or Michigan state law, it is the American law and the Michigan law that will prevail.

So, then, in what way is such legislation “anti-Islam”?

It would seem that CAIR is saying that Islam is not just a religion, but actually a legal system (hint: it’s called “sharia.”) This is quite forthcoming of them, because in fact, of course, Islam is not merely about diet/fasting, devotion, prayer, worship, pilgrimage, and proselytizing (Da’wa), which are completely 100% protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. No, as CAIR is rightly pointing out, Islam is also a “complete way of life,” encompassing a legal, military, political, and social system. The name of that “complete way of life” is sharia (Islamic law), which governs every aspect of a Muslim’s life and actually forbids a separation between faith and governance. It is unlawful under sharia for a devout, practicing Muslim to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.”

The CAIR Action Alert against Michigan’s pending legislation perhaps unintentionally illustrates this in a most instructive way. The reason the Muslim Brotherhood and all other sharia-adherent Muslims cannot accept that sharia provisions that conflict with U.S. law be superseded by Constitutional law in American courts is precisely the notion that Islamic law must dominate all other laws on earth in every respect.

Of course, this sort of legal supremacism is not only in direct contravention of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution; if acted upon, it arguably also could be grounds for a charge of sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, or misprision of sedition.

Read more at Radical Islam

Dr. Andrew Bostom: Muslim Leaders Seek Sharia in the US

Posted on by
2