Shariah is supposedly spiritual guidance for moderate Islamists. It is said to be faith not politics. Muslims can choose how much of it they want to follow. However, Shariah law is the reason women are stoned and gays are hung.
What we now see is the rise of radical Islam which seeks to make Shariah into a political force and inflict it on the world as the sole political power through a global jihad. The movement exists in our own country.
Shariah is mentioned in the Koran only three times and much of what we are reading about Shariah comes from relatively recent texts written according to extreme ideologies like Wahhabism and Deoband.
However, according to a Washington Post survey, almost 80 % of the mosques in America are now controlled by the Wahabbis, and some 60% of British mosques are now controlled by the equally hard-line Deoband. They don’t speak for most Muslims but they are.
For this reason comparing Shariah law to the U.S. Constitution is not only dangerous, it is a false comparison. One is a religious law, the other is political.
When Mr. Obama says ISIS are not Islamists, he should be saying ISIS are radical Islamists. In an effort to bully people into accepting that most Muslims are moderate, he is stating the absurd.
ISIS are Islamists – evil ones.
Shariah is meant to serve the spirit and the Constitution is our rule of laws which separates church and state.
Why is Shariah law then being sold as compatible with our U.S. Constitution if the plan is NOT to force it on the United States as a political force, perhaps by stealth? Some will say it is for understanding but is that the case when many imams are selling it as a political power?
If one reads Shariah laws today, they are clearly political and they are clearly not compatible with our freedoms here in America. Read the Shariah Constitution yourself on this link
On February 19, 2012 a townhall meeting at the Islamic Society of Orange County in Garden Grove, California tried to portray the American Constitution and Shariah law as almost interchangeable.
The event was cosponsored by the ISOC and the Council of Pakistan American Affairs. Several speakers spoke at the event including Muslim leaders, law enforcement officials, and local prominent politicians.
The following is one critique:
Listen to Anjem Choudry, an extremist who has radicalized youth in Britain unimpeded until recently when he was arrested but then released on bail:
We are watching radical Islam take over in the Middle East. The dangers of allowing Shariah law into the political realm have never been clearer.
On September 25, 2012, in an address before the U.N. in which Mr. Obama inaccurately blamed an obscure Internet video for the attack on the Benghazi consulate, Mr. Obama said this:
I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video,” and concluding with the accurate kicker, “There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.
Then, this questionable postscript:
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims.
Then there is this:
in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.
He sounds like he is calling free speech into question.
Most endangered under Shariah law is free speech. We only need to look at Egypt to see what a “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood member thinks it should be.
Mr. Obama fully supported Mohammed Morsi, the short-lived president of Egypt. Morsi was repeatedly sold as a moderate by our administration as is Rouhani in Iran.
In the 1980’s, before Mohammed Morsi, an avowed member of The Muslim Brotherhood, went back to Egypt, first as a professor and later as a dictator, he received a doctorate in engineering from the University of Southern California. He then taught as an assistant professor at California State University, Northridge.
Even then, he expressed disgust over our freedom of speech because it allowed others to be insulted. He was an original PC advocate.
By May, 2012, Morsi was asked What about Christians under his regime and he said, “They need to know that conquest is coming, that Egypt will be Islamic, and that they must pay jizya or emigrate.”
The jizya is the additional Islamic tax, or financial tribute, required of non-Muslims.
Christians were treated harshly under Morsi though the brutality towards them in Egypt continues albeit with less severity.
Politicized Shariah law demands it.
Morsi formed a dictatorship based on Shariah law – a supposedly moderate version. He closed down the free papers, jailed journalists and took over every facet of government save Parliament which he was about to do when he was arrested after the people rose up.
In 2012, Morsi came to the U.S. to lecture us about our “free speech.”
In September 2012, Morsi told the U.N. that insults to the Islamic prophet Muhammad are part of an organized assault on Muslim religious and cultural values and cannot be brushed aside.
In January 2013, he cracked down on free speech.
TV host Bassem Youssef, 38, one of Egypt’s most popular TV satirists, known as Egypt’s Jon Stewart, was accused of insulting President Morsi by parodying his speeches. By March 2013, he was in jail.
Moris brought other cases against outspoken media personalities. TV stations were closed down and journalists imprisoned and tortured.
One journalist was convicted and jailed for writing, “I don’t see a president ruling Egypt. I see someone called Mohammed Morsi, a criminal evading justice, who is hiding in the presidential palace.” That would be tame by U.S. standards as Jonathan Turley said.
This is moderate Shariah law as promised by Mohammed Morsi.
We need to keep it out of the political realm, yet radical Islamists are currently forming their own political party which you can read about here.
Listen to this one spokesperson claim that Shariah law is closely aligned with the Constitution – go to the 02:36 mark:
Maxine Waters said the same thing two years ago. She said that fear tactics accusing Muslims of trying to spread tenets of Shariah into our government has spurred legislation to ban Shariah.
Then, after saying Muslims aren’t trying to push Shariah law on Americans, she said the American Constitution and Shariah do not conflict.
Having two sets of laws – Shariah and the U.S. justice system – is in of itself a conflict.
A former member of Alton Nolen’s [the American beheader] Mosque talks about the deception promoted by some leaders of some Mosques:
In this next clip, Andy McCarthy talks about the threat of radical Islam in the U.S. after responding to the person speaking on the previous video clip:
Read more about this Mosque on this link.
If Muslims find solace in Shariah spiritually, that is for them to decide, but, politically, it must never be accepted in this country.
The first thing we need to do is excise Shariah finance from our banks and our colleges. We need to monitor the court systems closely when they back up Stealth Shariah over rules regarding “special accommodations” that clearly violate the rights of others and infringe on our laws. We mustn’t give in to PC and the radicals who demand we never criticize Shariah and radical Islam.
There needs to be a clearer definition of Islamophobia. It can’t mean that we are silenced when it infringes on America’s freedoms.
Moderate Muslims – we need to hear from you!