I miss you so much!
 |
| I like to visit with my son whenever I can. |
The U. S. Constitution and Sharia Law
Throughout the history of this world there really have only been two kinds of law. We have given these systems of law very descriptive and easy names to remember. They are Rulers' Law and People's Law. Every legal system can fit under one of these two broad banners. Under Ruler's
Law, the king or dictator makes the law. Under People's Law, the people make or accept the law by which they live. It is interesting that some of the most dominant kinds of legal systems have come about when it is claimed to emanate from God. Under Ruler's Law,
if the ruler can make the people believe he has a divine right to rule, he
can persuade the people to do about anything and the use of force
becomes acceptable to many people if done in the name of God. Under
People's Law, as was the case in Ancient Israel, when the people
accepted Jehovah as their King and accepted His laws as their laws, it
had a powerful persuasiveness to right actions. The major difference was
that there was no use of force.
Not even God would force a leader or laws on a people they did not
willingly accept, because He respects the agency of man. Religion has
been a powerful force throughout history in either types of law.
In following the example of Ancient Israel, America's Founders set forth
laws based on the laws of nature and of nature's God. It has catapulted
the United States to an unmatched position as the most prosperous and
freest nation on earth.
Now we are faced with the same kind of threat that has been seen in the
past-a system of compulsory laws which has the use of force at its very
core and which claims to emanate from God. It is called Sharia Law.
In 2010, an exhaustive study was published by a group of top security
policy experts concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our
time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as
Shariah. The study was designed to provide a "second opinion" on the
official assessments of this threat as put forth by the United States
government, which assessments included co-existence, accommodation, and
even submission. By permission, much of the following is taken from this
study.
*What is Sharia? *
The Arabic word "shariah," according to one modern English-language
student textbook on Islam, "literally means a straight path (Quran
45:18) or an endless supply of water. It is the term used to describe
the rules of the lifestyle ordained by Allah. In more practical terms,
shariah includes all the do's and don'ts of Islam." In other words,
shariah is held by mainstream Islamic authorities - not to be confused
with "radical," "extremist" or "political" elements said to operate at
the fringes of Islam - to be the perfect expression of divine will and
justice and thus is the supreme law that must comprehensively govern all
aspects of Muslims' lives, irrespective of when or where they live.
Shariah is characterized as a "complete way of life" (social, cultural,
military, religious, and political), governed from cradle to grave by
Islamic law.
While there are a few additional sources for sharia, the most notable
and authoritative is the Quran. In Islamic parlance, the Quran is
considered to be the uncreated word of Allah. According to Muslim
belief, it has existed since the beginning of time and was revealed by
the Archangel Gabriel in the 7th Century to the Prophet Mohammed in the
Arabic language of his homeland. It is interesting to note that the
verses in the Quran are not compiled in chronological order of
revelations but are organized from longest to shortest. This presents
confusion in trying to read the Quran. Also, there is really no central
authority to clarify or interpret the versus, so many are left to their
own understanding of the writings.
While many, many millions of Muslims around the world do not practice
their faith in a manner consistent with shariah, those who do practice
shariah have grounds for arguing that their version of Islam is the
authoritative one because of the Islamic doctrine of abrogation-which
holds that the later verses supersedes or abrogates the earlier ones. As
a result, the later verses become much more violent and forceful in
relation to non-Muslims. For example:
"Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and lie in wait
for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish
regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for
them; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Q 9:5)
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that
forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor
acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the people of the
Book [meaning Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [taxes on
non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Q 9:29)
*Shariah is Anti-Constitutional *
Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad (holy war) or
stealthier practices that shariah Islamists often refer to as "dawa"
(the "call to Islam"), shariah rejects fundamental premises of American
society and values:
1.
the bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law
for themselves;
2.
the democratic republic governed by the Constitution;
3.
freedom of conscience; individual liberty
4.
freedom of expression (including the liberty to analyze and
criticize shariah);
5.
economic liberty (including private property);
6.
equal treatment under the law (including that of men and women, and
of Muslims and non-Muslims);
7.
freedom from cruel and unusual punishments; an unequivocal
condemnation of terrorism (i.e., one that is based on a common sense
meaning of the term and does not rationalize barbarity as legitimate
"resistance"); and
8.
an abiding commitment to deflate and resolve political controversies
by the ordinary mechanisms of our democratic republic, not wanton
violence. The subversion campaign known as "civilization jihad" must
not be confused with, or tolerated as, a constitutionally protected
form of religious practice. Its ambitions transcend what American
law recognizes as the sacrosanct realm of private conscience and
belief. It seeks to supplant our Constitution with its own
totalitarian framework.
*America's Founders and Islam *
America's earliest presidents best understood these founding principles.
They were not only deeply involved with their formal adoption, but they
were professionally competent in explaining them. When confronted with
an Islamic threat, they took the effort to consult primary sources and
to conduct competent analysis of that threat.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France, and John Adams,
ambassador to England, met with the emissary of the Islamic potentates
of Tripoli to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, regarding the
demands for tribute being made at the time by the so-called Barbary Pirates.
Afterwards, Jefferson and Adams sent a four-page report to the Congress
describing this meeting. The relevant portion of their report reads:
"We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds
of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no
Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends
who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.
"The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their
prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who
should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it
was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could
be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners,
and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was
sure to go to Paradise."
John Adams' son and our sixth president, John Quincy Adams, whose
formative years coincided with the founding of the republic, offers
further insights into the early presidents' views on this subject. Like
many Americans, he took an oath to uphold and defend the U.S.
Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, when faced
with an Islamic enemy, he understood his obligation to be educated on
the factual aspects of the principles, doctrines, objectives,
jurisprudence and theology of shariah that comprised his enemy's threat
doctrine.
John Quincy Adams' 136-page series of essays on Islam displayed a clear
understanding of the threat facing America then - and now, especially
from the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude.
Regarding these two topics, Adams states:
"...[Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a
part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind.... The
precept of the Quran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that
[Mohammed] is the prophet of God.
"The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute.
As the essential principle of [Mohammed's] faith is the subjugation
of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false
doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.
"The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by
force.
"This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the
infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Quran. The
document [the Quran] does not attempt to disguise it, nor even
pretend that the enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any
other than the necessary consequence of the hatred borne by the
Mussulmen to them - the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of
the contrasted character of the two religions.
"The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the
extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise
of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians,
which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it
alike - all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in
the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in
the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon
them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has
mitigated the horrors of war - it has softened the features of
slavery - it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The
unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to
insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful
upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by
the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of
their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without
trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an
open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The
Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse."
In conclusion, it is clear from the writings of several of our earliest
presidents, as well as the texts of the nation's founding documents,
that American principles are not at odds with - and imperiled by - some
"radical" or "extreme" version of Islam. Rather, it is the mainstream
doctrine of shariah that constitutes the threat to the U.S. Constitution
and the freedoms it enshrines. That incompatibility has several
practical implications: For one thing, the shariah legal code cannot be
insinuated into America - even through stealthy means or democratic
processes - without violating the Constitution's Article VI Supremacy
Clause, which requires that the Constitution "shall be the supreme Law
of the land."
Even more reprehensible is the willingness of some among America's
elites, and it would appear even a subset of its elected leaders, to
accede to these groups' increasingly insistent contention that shariah
is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, based on shariah's
tenets, its core attributes - especially its intolerance of other faiths
and disfavored populations and its bid for supremacy over all other
legal or political systems, there can be no confusion on this score: As
the Framers fully understood, shariah is an enemy of the United States
Constitution. The two are incompatible.
Sincerely,
Earl Taylor, Jr.
Source: Guandolo, John; Gaffney, Frank; Lopez, Clare; McCarthy, Andrew;
Cooper, Henry; Brim, Christine; Del Rosso, Michael; Coughlin, Stephen;
Woolsey, Jim; Boykin, William (2010-09-22). Shariah: The Threat to
America. Center for Security Policy Press. Kindle Edition.
*Please note:* Printed and mailed copies of our newsletter are sent
monthly as a Thank You to our regular donors. For others of you who wish
to get a free electronic copy of our newsletters, please go to our
website, www.nccs.net <http://www.nccs.net/>, and share with us your
email address. You will receive the newsletter via email.
National Center for Constitutional Studies
37777 West Juniper Road
Malta, ID
83342
US
