Monday, February 27, 2012

Sharia Compatible With US Constitution? Read This

US Imam Muzammil Siddiqi
Pushing Sharia in the US

The horrifying case of the Christian pastor who is sentenced to death in Iran is still hanging out there as the international community raises an outcry.

I hope you read the portions of the above article that describe Sharia's penalty for apostasy. Here in the US, Islamist leaders are actually attempting to sell the public and our leaders that Sharia is perfectly compatible with US law, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If you don't believe me, just read my account of the town hall in Garden Grove last Sunday at the Islamic Center of Orange County. Imam Muzammil Siddiqi told an audience (including me) that Shariah was in perfect harmony with our laws and Constitution. And there sitting at a table with him were none other than Maxine Waters, Loretta Sanchez, Judy Chu (all Democrat congresswomen), LA Sheriff Lee Baca, Pakistani Consul general Riffat Masood, the US Attorney for the Central District of California, Andre Birotte, and the chief of LAPD's counter terrorism squad, Michael Downing. Nobody from that exalted group tried to challenge that whopper.  As we speak, Siddiqi has two more presentations scheduled in April in which he will try to sell Sharia to a gullible audience.

This is why 13 states are attempting to pass legislation that would keep out Sharia or any other foreign law from their state constitutions. (They were denigrated for that by some of the above speakers.)

Here is one thing that is important in the issue. How could we acknowledge a code that would call for a death fatwa against an American Muslim because he or she decides to change religions? Are we to say to our Muslim citizens that certain protections will not apply to them because they are living under Sharia-in America?

No way.


Miggie said...

It looks like a resolution to the apparent conflict between Sharia Law and Constitutional Law. All they have to do is to change the crime from apostasy to rape and "other crimes" and they will be in complete accord.

We changed "Global Warming" to " Climate Control" and "Abortion" to "Freedom of Choice" or "Women's Health" and now "Contraception Rights." So what's the problem? We'll just change the name if what it is doesn't poll well.

Did we get this strategy from Iran or did they get it from us?

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Gary, you continue to have this entire question upside down.

ANY religious law can be practiced consistent with the U.S. Constitution, provided no attempt is made on the part of a religious hierarchy to exercise state power, or to subordinate the apparatus of government to itself.

Likewise, ANY religious law is in direct conflict with the First Amendment (among other provisions) when an attempt is made to elevate that law to coercive, enforceable, supremacy.

The wording of the Bible, and the canons of various Christian denominations, have not changed appreciably since the days when Christian ministers executed supposed witches, and government officials hanged men and women who questioned whether God is in fact a Trinity.

Nor has Jewish Scripture been amended since every man, woman and child in Jericho were slaughtered, and an entire Jewish family were stoned to death because the head of the family took a wedge of gold and some pieces of cloth.

However, the practice of these faiths has changed appreciably, and their relationship to the civil power has been markedly amended.

Shariah is nothing special. Yes, you can practice it within your mosque, family, to an extent even your business and social circles, so long as no general laws are broken or individuals coerced. No, you cannot enforce it on an unwilling person, or on the general community. Simple.