I have just added Translating Jihad to my recommended blog list and am posting this translation from a document issued by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America. It concerns their thoughts on the applicability of US law on Muslims living in America and has been submitted to Translating Jihad by the Center for Security Policy. I note that one of the participating jurists is one Yassir Fazaqa of the Orange County Islamic Center, which is headed by Muzammil Siddiqi, of whom I have often written. Just recently, this center hosted a town hall, whose main theme was that Shariah law is perfectly compatible with the US Constitution-as stated that day by Siddiqi. Siddiqi of course is the proud recipient of Rusty Kennedy's Orange County Human Relations Commission Community Leader award last year.
http://www.translatingjihad.com/2012/03/assembly-of-muslim-jurists-of-america.html
With all the controversy floating around about applying Shariah law in the US, documents like these are helpful to the public debate. Following the US Constitution and US law in America is not a pick and choose proposition.
6 comments:
It appears that this translation group is quite selective. One could read 100% of their work, and conclude that Islam is nothing but "intolerance, totalitarianism, and jihad." That is because they don't translate any other kind of Muslim text. Further, they offer "the gist" of the translated document. One must then wonder what they left out.
Taking the translation at face value, there is no indication as to what this "Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America" really amounts to. I once organized a Coalition for Educational Reform which sent out questionnaires to local school board candidates, compiled the answers, and distributed them. The coalition consisted of me and my best friend (who was student council president at the time).
Is this assembly a self-appointed body of men who offer their opinion? Is it representative of the thinking of all Muslims in America? How many Muslims, if any, take their documents as authoritative? Thanks to the First Amendment, two Muslims meeting in a phone booth could call themselves the "Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America."
The "controversy" over Sharia law in American is a contrived boogey-man. There is no possibility of any version of Sharia being enforceable in American courts, without the approval of two thirds of both houses of congress and three fourths of the state legislatures.
But there are Christian parallels: Paul wrote 'dare any of you, having a controversy between yourselves, go to the authorities, and not to the saints?' Same principal: we will live by our own law as brothers in faith, not by the secular law. Satmar and Hassidic sects sometimes try to do the same.
I recently spoke to a local Muslim business owner. We were talking about the imminent recall of our governor, but wandered into recent events in the Middle East. He said the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is being foolish grabbing allt he constitutional offices for themselves. The government must represent the whole nation, including all varieties of Muslims, and also the Christian population. I believe this man is more representative of Muslims in America.
God bless you, Siarlys. How is life on Sunnybrook Farm?
What we are talking about here is a long-range venture over generations that would be accomplished by changing demographics, da'wa and jihad. Of course, we won't live to see it. Children growing up in Europe today may live to see it.
Here is just one quote from the translation:
"· It is required for a Muslim to be hostile to courts which rule by man-made law, and to dislike them.
· Do not freely choose to refer another to those courts for judgment. Doing this freely without compulsion is what Allah revealed: “They want to refer to the tyrant for judgment.” Note that He said ‘they want’.
· If you were wronged and you demand your rights which are guaranteed by the Shari’a, and you have no other recourse but to go to the man-made courts, and you have hatred in your heart for the courts, you are permitted to do so. "
I think practically all Muslims in Europe feel this way and a vast majority of those in the U.S. as well. It is naive not to be Islamophobic.
I wouldn't know how life is on Sunnybrook Farm, Gary. You live in La-La Land. I live in the Great American Heartland.
Think of what America looked like demographically in 1776. Think what it looked like demographically in 1900. In 1950. Do you really expect me, or anyone with any sense, to get worked up about a "long range venture over generations" to secure a stated goal by "changing the demographics"? Such a project, if it existed, would be apt to go awry with unanticipated consequences long before it came to fruition.
We survived the invasion of the Irish Catholic hordes. We survived a Jew being confirmed for the Supreme Court. We survived the arrival of La Cosa Nostra among other Italian immigrants. We will certainly survive an obscure document respected by almost nobody from a mutual appreciation clique calling itself the "Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America."
P.S. Do you have ANYTHING of substance to offer in support of your premise, or is resort to off-topic insults merely another indication that you can't defend your post in any meaningful way? Do you have ANY answer to the question of how substantive this Assembly is? For all I know, it is about as real as the "Learned Elders of Zion" and their Protocol.
Another point about this organization that gives guidance to Muslim attorneys and others is that they are the ones who set the agenda, define the terms, and give directionality to the students in your other thread about the BDS effort at UC. The UC students don't come up with these principles. They are practically illiterate. They take their philosophy and causes from organizations like this.
You think any of the UC students really give a crap about Palestine or know anything of the history of the place? They don't even know when WWII was. But they sure know how to protest and they know their grievances.
.
Premise: students are functionally illiterate.
Therefore: They can't be thinking up anything for themselves.
Therefore: Someone is writing their leaflets for them
Ergo: This obscure so-called Assembly must be doing it all.
If you believe that, I have a new interpretation of the Zappruder film I know you'll fall for immediately. And don't forget to reread the Protocols. It might all be true.
Post a Comment