John R. Houk
© October 28, 2011
Compare the U.S. Constitution with Sharia Law. As an American you should become outraged. Most of the body of Sharia Law becomes irrelevant in America by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment)
In Sharia the religion of Islam MUST be established as the State Religion with all other religions (or lack of religion) not able to practice their faith openly or in many cases not at all.
A Dhimmi lives in fear of Islam but agrees that they will not resist political Islam and they will even support it. In return dhimmis can live safely. …
The Dhimmi was a unique invention by Mohammed. He created a new type of creature and that creature is a semi-slave. Dhimmis started with what Mohammed did to the Jews. He took their land and then let them work the land and the dhimmis paid a tax, the jhizya, that was half of their income. A Dhimmi was a kafir who lived in an Islamic country. The first dhimmis were the Jews, but Christians and others were added later.
… The laws were Islamic; the dress was dictated by Islamic law. A Dhimmi was not really free. For instance a church couldn’t ring its bells because bells are a sign of Satan, according to Mohammed. A Dhimmi couldn’t hold any job that made him a supervisor over Muslims. This limited rank in the military. If Christians wanted to repair the church, or Jews the synagogue, they had to get permission from the government. All of these laws are dreadful because they established a second-class citizenship; the dhimmi did not have civil rights. A dhimmi couldn’t sue a Muslim or prosecute a crime against a Muslim. This type of citizen had no power and had to pay a special tax–the Jhizya. The Koran says that the dhimmi had to pay the Jhizya. Classically when the Christian or the Jewish dhimmi came to pay their yearly Jhizya tax, they were humiliated– grabbed by the beard, slapped in the face, or made to kneel and give the money. They were humiliated because that was the Koran said to humiliate the dhimmi. (From The Dhimmi; Political Islam 10/28/11)
There is no religious freedom in Sharia Law!
Can Sharia Law abide this portion of the First Amendment: “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”?
Here is an example of American law bending toward dhimmitude by ignoring Free Speech:
In 2009 the toxic, politically correct atmosphere in the U.S. reached out and touched an American Christian group personally. The Christian Action Network (CAN) had its non-profit status revoked [SlantRight Editor: If this CAN link fails, GO HERE for story] and was fined $4,000 by the state of Maine in 2009 for “an inflammatory anti-Muslim message.”
CAN sent information to its members exposing schooling programs that took place in Byron, Calif., that required students to dress up as Muslims, chant “Praise be to Allah” and learn the Five Pillars of Islamic faith. The letter asked parents to sign a petition to the governor of their state to prohibit such Islamic teachings and activities in their public schools.
CAN eventually prevailed in court spending thousands of dollars to fight the precedent-setting fine for “insulting” Islam. (From: Sharia Law’s Threat to Free Speech; by Connie Hair; Human Events; 10/11/10)
Clearly the State of Maine’s attempt to label the Christian Action Network of partaking in “inflammatory anti-Muslim message” for exposing a School District in California for forcing students to learn Islamic precepts while denying the same learning of Christian or Jewish precepts. The Leftists that be in Maine were upset with CAN for encouraging their supporters in Maine to send letters to their Governor urging the same issue does not spread to Maine.
Everything inherent in the tenets of Islam is diametrically opposed to the U.S. Constitution:
Islam has no fundamental concept of Inalienable Rights as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Islam does not permit the individual to enjoy the freedoms of action and association characteristic of the Democracy that so many Western cultures currently enjoy today. Islam is a religion in name only because of a reference to “Allah” as their Deity. A well known fact is that Islam is a totalitarian ideology that rejects Democracy, personal freedom, and every other religion. The ideals of anti-Semitism and anti-Western Culture run rampant throughout Islam. The Laws of Man are meaningless and have absolutely no relevance in Muslim culture because they are without any direct reference to the Koran or Shariah Law and therefore they have no place in Muslim life. Islamic law is completely incompatible with Freedom, Democracy, or any other government where the people have an actual voice in government or the will of the people matters.
“True Islam permits neither elections nor democracy.”
— Sufi Mohammed, Muslim Cleric
(From Islam – A Religion Based on Terrorism; TargetOfOpportunity.com)
The webpage about Islam from TargetOfOpportunity.com is humongous. The whole page is about exposing the dark side of Islam that includes quotes that Muslim Apologists will tell you are from Radical Muslims. The webpage has an article about “Moderate Islam”. You should check it out. The point you should notice is that Islamic holy writings is the basis for Radical Islam. In essence the writings of Islam are anti-American anti-Constitutional tenets that would doom the America we know if it is allowed to spread like a culture ending cancer as it has in Europe. There is no freedom to express speech or to freely write truth in the press.
The Sharia Law of Islam would not permit the last portion of the First Amendment which stipulates as the rule of law: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Suppose Christians living in a Muslim land wanted to refurbish their Church or even build a new Church:
Egyptian Muslim leaders are caught in a storm of controversy after a human rights group confronted them about a fatwa (Islamic edict) that stated the building of a church is “a sin against God.”
The controversy began when the president of the Egyptian Union Human Rights Organization, Dr. Naguib Gabraeel, asked the Fatwa Council about a statement found in a textbook at Cairo University on inheritance and execution of wills.
Students, both Muslims and Christians, were taught “it is forbidden for a person to donate money for what would lead to sin, such as donating in his will money towards build[ing] a church, a nightclub, a gambling casino, towards promoting the alcohol industry or for building a barn for rearing pigs, cats or dogs.”
The council replied by affirming the law found in the textbook and issuing a fatwa on it.
Included in the fatwa is an explanation on why it is a “sin” to build a church. According to the fatwa, Christians believe salvation is achieved through belief in Jesus as Lord while Muslims don’t. Muslims believe that Issa [Jesus in Arabic] “is a slave of Allah and His Messenger, and that Allah is one.”
The Islamic edict said God did not have a son and that Christianity deviated from absolute monotheism. Therefore, a Muslim is forbidden to donate funds towards a building that does not worship Allah alone.
The author of the textbook, Mohammed el-Maghrabbi, said it is sinful for even a Christian to devote money in his will towards building a church because it would be considered in Islam as separation from God.
In other words, it is illegal for even non-Muslims to offer money in their will towards building a church or synagogue.
After receiving the shocking response by the council, Gabraeel and a delegation from his human rights group visited the Grand Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi of the famous Al-Azhar University, a chief Sunni Islamic learning center in the world.
Tantawi contradicted the council and said “sharia does not prevent Muslims from donating to the building of a church, as it is his free money.” He also went on to say sharia law does not interfere with other faiths “because religion, faith and what a person believes in is a relationship between him and his God.”
Immediately after Tantawi’s statements were publicized, there was a backlash from the Muslim community and he revoked his statements less than 24 hours after the visit by the human rights delegation. Tantawi claimed the delegation had misunderstood him, even though everything he said was recorded and sent to media outlets and uploaded on Coptic advocacy web sites. (From Egypt Muslim Council: Building of Churches is ‘Sin’ Against God; By Ethan Cole; The Christian Post; September 1, 2009)
Egypt has the largest concentration of Christians of any other nation in the Muslim Middle East (including North Africa). If Sharia Law trumps the secular Egyptian Constitution just imagine how much more intolerant other Muslim nations are that have a deeper affinity to Sharia Law would have with Christians building Churches to meet peacefully to practice their religious faith.
There is no freedom to assemble in Muslim nations if those assembling have a non-Muslim air pertaining to their assembly. The article above also demonstrates that a non-Muslim has little to zero right to petition the government for redress to a wrong. A government in a Muslim nation will either persecute the non-Muslim for daring to ask a redress pertaining to grievances or will be ignored if a Muslim nation has a pseudo-secular rule of law such as in Egypt.
Why in the world would anyone in the West especially in the United States of America even consider allowing a theopolitical legal system like Sharia Law even a little toehold in American jurisprudence? You would think even Leftists would be hip to the stupidity of Sharia adulterating the American rule of law, right? I mean the Left are the guys so big on making sure religion (cough … err … Christianity) has no part with anything to do with any kind taxpayer related function, right?
The moronic Left through activist Judges in the name of multicultural diversity and the Leftist imagination of the Living Constitution (pro-Living Constitution and Anti-Living Constitution) has used every legal maneuver to reverse the will of State voters that have passed laws to ensure that NO foreign jurisprudence can be used as judicial precedent by American Courts (at least on the State level). The intent of not allowing foreign jurisprudence into the American rule of law is aimed at Sharia Law however most bills and State Constitutional Amendments had the forethought to NOT ALLOW foreign jurisprudence like say a precedent from the International Court.
Unfortunately many State and Federal Judges have been allowing Sharia Law to creep into America by either outright allowing Sharia precedents into the American rule of law or wear blinders to legally not recognize an Islamic Sharia act occurring in America by refusing to read the merits of the Islamic religious nature of crimes committed in America.
Recently a Florida State Appeals Court upheld the ruling of State Judge Richard Nielsen to allow a decision based on Sharia Law. I have to give that State Appellate Court a little credit though. Its decision was purely based on the merits of the law. Judge Nielsen ruled that a dispute between Muslims over the control of money should be allowed according to the arbitration both sides agreed to for a ruling. The losing side of the arbitration went to litigation. Essentially Judge Nielsen did not rule in favor of the defense or the plaintiffs as much as he ruled with the agreed upon arbitrator.
The problem that Judge Nielsen made for American jurisprudence is that the arbitration was entirely based on Sharia Law. Judge Nielsen’s ruling essentially gave Sharia a toehold in Florida State’s legal system. Judge Nielsen’s ruling can actually be used as a precedent in future cases involving the acceptance of Sharia Law as precedent even if the precedent is unconstitutional.
Although the Florida Appellate Court validated Judge Nielsen’s ruling, it did so by shelving the plaintiff’s petition by not even looking at the danger of Sharia Law. The Appellate Court should have examined the petition! Ruled in favor of the arbitration decision, BUT specifically spell out the ruling was based on the merits of the law and NOT Sharia Law.