Tag Archives: United States Constitution

Homeland Security guidelines advise deference to pro-Shariah Muslim supremacists

Posted on by
7

images (41)

By Charles C. Johnson:

The Department of Homeland Security, which under Secretary Janet Napolitano has shown a keen interest in monitoring and warning about outspoken conservatives, takes a very different approach in monitoring political Islamists, according to a 2011 memo on protecting the free speech rights of pro-Shariah Muslim supremacists.

In a checklist obtained by The Daily Caller entitled “Countering Violent Extremism Dos and Don’ts” the DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties notifies local and national law enforcement officials that it is Obama administration policy to consider specifically Islamic criticism of the American system of government legitimate.

This policy stands in stark contrast to the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis’ 2009 memo “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” [pdf], which warned of the dangers posed by pro-life advocates, critics of same-sex marriage and groups concerned with abiding by the U.S. Constitution, among others.

The advice of the Dos and Don’ts list is far more conciliatory. “Don’t use training that equates radical thought, religious expression, freedom to protest, or other constitutionally-protected activity, including disliking the U.S. government without being violent,” the manual’s authors write in a section on training being “sensitive to constitutional values.”

The manual, which was produced by an inter-agency working group from DHS and the National Counterterrorism Center, advises, “Trainers who equate the desire for Sharia law with criminal activity violate basic tenets of the First Amendment.”

The checklist also advised against using moderate Muslim “trainers who are self-professed ‘Muslim reformers’” because they “may further an interest group agenda instead of delivering generally accepted, unbiased information.”

The manual advises trainees not to assume Muslim Americans are “using democratic processes, like litigation and free speech, to subvert democracy and install Sharia law.”

Read more at Daily Caller

 

 

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

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.

 

Media Miss Islamists at the National Prayer Breakfast

Posted on by
Reply
Sayyid Syeed

Sayyid Syeed

By :

Dr. Benjamin Carson captivated the media’s attention with his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, but another attendee deserved some of the spotlight: Sayyid Syeed, the interfaith liaison for the Islamic Society of North America, who was recorded in 2006 saying, “[O]ur job is to change the constitution of America.”

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) originates in the Muslim Brotherhood, but has been embraced on a bi-partisan basis. FBI sources reporting back to the mid-1980s identified it as a Brotherhood front. In 2007, the U.S. government designated ISNA an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism-financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation, listing it as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.

A 1991 Brotherhood memo, which describes its “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” likewise mentions ISNA and several of its components as its fronts. In 2009, a federal judge upheld ISNA’s designation as an unindicted co-conspirator because of “ample” evidence linking it to Hamas.

The same 1991 memo lays out how the Brotherhood network must “posses a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions,’ the art of ‘absorption,’  and the principles of ‘cooperation.’” It explicitly talks about using the “hands” of the “nonbelievers” to advance its agenda.

The work of ISNA and its allies in forging interfaith partnerships is undoubtedly a fulfillment of this directive. ISNA has used these interfaith relationships to slam its critics as “Islamophobes,” as it did at an event on January 15 at the First Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, D.C.

Sayyid Syeed, ISNA’s Secretary-General from 1994 to 2006, is now the Director of ISNA’s Office of Interfaith and Community Alliances. New footage has been released of him stating in 2006, “[O]ur job is to the change the constitution of America,” as seen in the film, The Grand Deception.

Syeed and ISNA were invited to the National Prayer Breakfast at which President Obama spoke. Syeed also addressed about 100 evangelical leaders during the Middle East/North Africa Prayer Breakfast. Dr. Mohamed Elsanousi, ISNA’s Director of Community Outreach, also spoke.

Read more at Front Page

How Should We Treat American Jihadists?

Posted on by
1

pic_giant_022313_AAA

It is not possible to wage an effective war against an international terror network while simultaneously foreclosing the possibility that American traitors will be killed in military operations.

By Andrew C. McCarthy:

If a plane full of 200 American citizens is hijacked by foreign jihadists, the law does not tell us whether the president should shoot down the plane or let it be plowed into a skyscraper and kill 3,000 American citizens. It is the kind of excruciating decision that war makes necessary. Legal niceties do not tell us how to resolve it.

That is the problem with our debate over the treatment of U.S. nationals who join the enemy’s forces in wartime — most urgently, over the targeted killing of our fellow citizens. We want the legal answer. But the legal answer is not going to help us. Under the Constitution, Americans who join the enemy may lawfully be treated like the enemy, which includes being attacked with lethal force. That, however, tells us only the outer limits of what is permissible. It does not tell us what we need to know: What should we do?

The government’s war powers must be boundless, at least in theory. We must be able to marshal all our might to repel any conceivable existential threat. Yet the Constitution, the sole legitimate source of the government’s power to levy war, is, quintessentially, the citizen’s protection against aggression by that same government. Thus, the tension between government’s war powers and the citizen’s fundamental rights is a conundrum. It simply cannot be resolved with finality.

Neither side of our debate is satisfied with that. We want fixed rules. But fixed rules work only if they answer every conceivable hypothetical. So the debate lurches inexorably to worst-case scenarios.

Read more at National Review

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the executive director of the Philadelphia Freedom Center. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, which is published by Encounter Books.

See also:

Report: Majority of Convicted Terrorists in U.S. Are American Citizens (dailybeast.com)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2190907262001/report-al-qaeda-still-thriving-inside-us?intcmp=related?playlist_id=922779230001

Disarming Americans, Arming Terrorists

Posted on by
3

obama-libya-copy-450x350By

While the White House was busy drafting proposals to ban assault rifles, the last of the regulations imposed on Saudi travel to the United States after September 11 were being taken apart. While some government officials were busy planning how to disarm Americans, other officials were negotiating the transfer of F-16s and Abrams tanks to Muslim Brotherhood-run Egypt.

Obama is unwilling to trust Americans with an AR-15, but is willing to trust a genocidal terrorist group with Abrams tanks and F-16 jets. The F-16’s M61 Vulcan cannon can fire 6,000 rounds a minute and the 146 lb warhead of its HARM missiles can do a lot more than put a few dents in a brick wall. The Abrams’ 120 mm cannon can penetrate 26 inches of steel armor making it a good deal more formidable than even the wildest fantasies of San Francisco liberals about the capabilities of a so-called “assault rifle.”

While Obama has not been willing to respect the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights, he was willing to arm a terrorist group whose motto is, “The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal.” If a High School student wrote that on his Facebook page, he would be in police custody within the hour, but an international organization and national government that trades in such rhetoric gets devastating firepower from our government… free of charge.

In addition to giving the Hezbollah-run government of Lebanon two hundred M113 Armored Personnel Carriers, Obama deliberately turned a blind eye while Al Qaeda and other Islamist rebel groups in Libya received arms shipments from Qatar. Those weapons included a good deal more firepower than anything you can buy at Wal-Mart and later made their way to Mali and Syria. More weapons made their way into the hands of Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Whether any of these weapons were used in the assault on the Benghazi mission is unknown, but entirely possible.

While the Al Qaeda attackers at Benghazi were heavily armed, with the complicity of the Obama Administration, the Americans had been forced to abide by Libyan gun control laws, because while Obama was willing to bomb a country and help arm its terrorists, he wasn’t willing to allow embassy security personnel to flout firearms law in a city ruled by terrorist militias. Instead the terrorist militia of the Muslim Brotherhood was hired to provide security for the Benghazi mission… with tragic results.

There has been a great deal of ink spilled about Nancy Lanza’s irresponsibility in keeping guns around the house; but what of Obama’s irresponsibility in sending guns to Mexican drug lords and jets and tanks to Muslim terrorists?

Based on his track record, Obama believes that it is safe to send weapons to Mexican drug lords, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda terrorists, not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood, but that it’s far too dangerous for an American to own a clip that can hold more than 10 rounds.

And that means that Obama doesn’t think much of the moral character of Americans, but thinks a great deal of Muslim terrorists.

This double standard is the defining motif of this administration. A handful of mass shootings is enough to deprive all Americans of their constitutional rights, but the worst act of mass murder of Americans is not enough to deprive Saudi Muslim students looking for a good flight school of their visas.

Even while Obama and Biden are pushing more background checks for gun owners, Saudi students will undergo fewer background checks. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama vowed to stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. But when the political winds shift in an ugly direction toward gun owners, then Obama can be found blowing on the fan.

Read more at Front Page

See also:

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

Sixty Percent of US Muslims Reject Freedom of Expression

Posted on by
2

By Andrew Bostom:

After violent Muslim reactions to the amateurish “Innocence of Muslims” video, which simply depicted a few of the less salutary aspects of Muhammad’s biography, international and domestic Islamic agendas have openly converged with vehement calls for universal application of Islamic blasphemy law. This demand to abrogate Western freedom of expression was reiterated  in a parade of speeches by Muslim leaders at the UN General Assembly. The US Muslim community echoed such admonitions, for example during a large demonstration in Dearborn, Michigan, and in a press release by the Islamic Circle of North America.

Now the results of polling data collected by Wenzel Strategies during October 22 to 26, 2012, from 600 US Muslims, indicate widespread support among rank and file American votaries of Islam for this fundamental rejection of freedom expression, as guaranteed under the US Constitution. The first amendment states, plainly,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

When asked, “Do you believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?, 58% replied “no,” while only 42% affirmed this most basic manifestation of freedom of speech, i.e., to criticize religious, or any other dogma. Indeed, oblivious to US constitutional law, as opposed to Islam’s Sharia, a largely concordant 45% of respondents agreed “…that those who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges,” while 38% did not, and 17% were “unsure”.  Moreover, fully 12% of this Muslim sample even admitted they believed in application of the draconian, Sharia-based punishment for the non-existent crime of “blasphemy” in the US code, answering affirmatively, “…that Americans who criticize or parody Islam should be put to death.”

Also, consistent with such findings 43% of these US Muslims rejected the right of members of other faiths to proselytize to adherents of Islam, disagreeing, “…that U.S. citizens have a right to evangelize Muslims to consider other faiths.” Additional confirmatory data revealed that nearly two-fifths (39%) agreed “…that Shariah law should be considered when adjudicating cases that involve Muslims, ” while nearly one-third (32%) of this American Muslim sample believed “…Shariah law should be the supreme law of the land in the US.”

These alarming data remind us that despite intentionally obfuscating apologetics, Sharia, Islamic law, is not merely holistic, in the general sense of all-encompassing, but totalitarian, regulating everything from the ritual aspects of religion, to personal hygiene, to the governance of a Muslim minority community, Islamic state, bloc of states, or global Islamic order. Clearly, this latter political aspect is the most troubling, being an ancient antecedent of more familiar modern totalitarian systems. Specifically, Sharia’s liberty-crushing and dehumanizing political aspects feature: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties—including freedom of conscience and speech—enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.

And the US Muslim data mirror global Islamic trends. Previously, the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (subsequently renamed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC])—the largest voting bloc in the UN, which represents all the major Muslim countries, and the Palestinian Authority—had sponsored and actually navigated to passage a compromise U.N. resolution insisting countries criminalize what it calls “defamation of religion.” Though the language of the OIC “defamation of religion” resolution has been altered at times, the OIC’s goal has remained the same—to impose at the international level a Sharia-compliant conception of freedom of speech and expression that would severely limit anything it arbitrarily deemed critical of, or offensive to, Islam or Muslims. This is readily apparent by reading the OIC’s supervening “alternative” to both the US Bill of Rights and the UN’s own 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, i.e., the 1990 Cairo Declaration, or Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam.

Read more