John R. Houk
© March 5, 2011
Sharia Law is the un-American aspect of Islam that needs absolute prohibition in the United States of America! The UK has already subjected itself to cultural suicide by allowing Sharia to be practiced by Muslims outside the rule of law that applies to everyone else in Britain. One of the glaring results is a slow awakening among those who are typically politically correct and have looked the other way as Sharia practicing Muslims have engaged in acts of violence that are not only culturally unacceptable but are prosecutable crimes even in pc minded UK.
UK’s Prime Minister David Cameron has gone public condemning multiculturalism as something that is not working. Prime Minister Cameron was pointing to the emergence of home grown terrorism among British Muslims. MP Jack Straw has alerted the British public that there is an epidemic of Muslims (Straw emphasized persons of Pakistani heritage) preying on young white girls and turning them into sex-slaves for other Muslims.
If multiculturalism is beginning to receive a bad rap in the UK (and Germany for that matter); then why would America allow Sharia Law to be practiced in America especially since many aspects of this particular Islamic law are obviously unconstitutional.
Oklahoma citizens overwhelmingly passed a law that would make Sharia Law or any other international law that contradicts the Constitution to be applied in Oklahoma. Of course a local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) went to the Courts to sue complaining Oklahoma’s law is unconstitutional with the U.S. Constitution. OK-CAIR talked a Federal Judge to stay the institutionalizing of the law until a Court decision arrives on Oklahoma’s law.
Here is a list of thirteen States that have followed Oklahoma’s excellent idea that I found on a website that believes anti-Sharia laws are “useless”:
3. ARKANSAS: Arkansas’s anti-Sharia bill is SB 97, which says that the “the recognition and enforcement (.PDF) of a foreign judgment or ruling is limited to the extent that its 33 enforcement would not directly conflict with the public policy of Arkansas.”
4. GEORGIA: Rep. Mike Jacobs (R) has introduced a bill that would “ban the use of Sharia law in state courts.” Jacobs says of the issue, “We’re seeing more of a feeling that Sharia law should be applied in domestic cases.” “Arbitration is a routine business exercise by people who are prepared to sacrifice some of their constitutional rights in return for reduced cost and expediency,” said Michael J. Broyde, a “member of the Beth Din of America — the largest Jewish law court in the country,” in response to the law. “[The bill would] incapacitate Georgia companies as they engage in international commerce.”
5. INDIANA: Indiana’s SRJ 16 would make it so that courts could not enforce a “law, rule, or legal code or system established and either used or applied in a jurisdiction outside the states of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the territories of the United States if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by this constitution or the Constitution of the United States.”
6. LOUISIANA: Louisiana passed a law guarding against “international law” being used in its courts in June 2010.
7. MISSISSIPPI: House bill 301 was introduced to ban “Mississippi courts from using foreign laws, including Sharia law, which is a guide to Islamic religious practice.”
8. NEBRASKA: Legislative Bill 647 aims to “prohibit Nebraska courts from using foreign laws in decisions.)” If passed, it will have to be voted on by Nebraska voters in 2011 because it is a constitutional amendment.
9. SOUTH CAROLINA: In South Carolina, Sen. Mike Fair (R) has introduced legislation to ban the implementation of Sharia law, saying there is “a need to clarify that cultural customs or foreign laws don’t trump U.S. laws.” He does admit, however, that his bill is “stating the obvious.”
10. TEXAS: State Rep. Leo Berman (R) recently introduced a constitutional amendment “prohibiting a court of this state from enforcing, considering or applying a religious or cultural law.” If the legislature passes the amendment, it will appear on the November 2011 ballot for Texas voters to approve.
11. SOUTH DAKOTA: South Dakota’s anti-Sharia bill is HRJ 1004, which says that no court “may apply international law, the law of any foreign nation, or any foreign religious or moral code with the force of law in the adjudication of any case under its jurisdiction.”
12. UTAH: Rep. Carl Wimmer (R) introduced a bill banning Sharia but then shortly withdrew it after being warned it could harm “international business,” admitting it was “too broad.” He is still looking for ways to ban Sharia.
13. WYOMING: State Rep. Gerald Gay (R) says his bill banning Sharia law is “a ‘pre-emptive strike’ to ensure judges don’t rely on Shariah [sic] in cases involving, for example, arranged marriages, ‘honor killings’ or usury cases.”
Thanks to: ColorLines for being the first website via the Google search engine to provide a list of States even though the writer of the post is obviously against such laws prohibiting Sharia from getting a toe-hold.
Another State is joining the fold. Tennessee legislators are attempting to pass an anti-Sharia Bill. That would make Tennessee the 14th State that has awakened to the fact that Sharia and the U.S. Constitution are contradictory in regard to the unalienable rights of humanity.
The other 13 States have tried to be as politically correct as possible to keep their anti-Sharia laws separate from the Disestablishmentarian Clause and the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment; viz., “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Sharia Law is part of the religion of Islam and Constitutionally Congress (and therefore State Legislatures also) can neither establish a religion nor prohibit the free exercise of a religion. This is a thorny issue in the consciousness of Americans. The other 13 States handled the separation from the Disestablishmentarian Clause (etc.) by writing the law to prohibit matters of Sharia Law and international being used as State Judiciary precedent in matters of deciding law civil or statutory. The meaning being that if Sharia or international law differs from the U.S. Constitution or the State Constitution, no judicial ruling may be considered to override constitutional documents based on foreign laws or the political aspects of Sharia in particular. The concept is to purely keep the law secular and have no interference in an individual’s personal practice.
The Tennessee Senate and House Bills (SB 1028 and HB 1353) takes the matter a step further. There is an actual chance that the practice of Sharia Law in matters of worship incites violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the U.S. government; that practice then would be a felony punishable by a fine and/or up to 15 years in prison.
Tennessee is tackling the thorny issue that Islam is more than a theological religion, but is also a political religion. The Tennessee anti-Sharia Bill attempts to sift through the theological to shake out the political that indeed promotes the overthrow of the U.S. Government, limits Free Speech, Religious Freedom, Free Choice, Free Thought, gender equality (i.e. equal rights for male and female), actually incites violence toward non-Muslims, incites violence toward Muslims that break Sharia (e.g. apostasy, adultery, thievery, etc.) and if you are a Moral Relativist Sharia would mean death for homosexuals and transgender freaks.
I may disagree with Leftist economics and political utopianism as well as the practice of homosexuality but I do not wish their death. AND as a Christian (regardless of idiotic acts in the name of Christianity), God’s Word forbids the killing of people because of ungodly thoughts or practices. In the Biblical Scripture those judgments are taken care of by God at the Last Judgment. A Christian’s duty is to share the Good News that Jesus Christ has delivered humanity from the evil darkness of Satan’s world system that is separate from God’s Kingdom. The world system is temporal and God’s Kingdom is spiritually eternal. The Founding Fathers intended Christian Principles and Christian Morality to be the measuring stick of the rule of law in America. However, there is a vast difference between the Christian example paradigm and the Islamic mandate of an active paradigm of Islam/Sharia to be impressed in the rule of law.
The theopolitical nature of Islam unites the temporal community with Allah’s spiritual authority as one system managed by Allah on both plains meaning as the temporal end evolves a Muslim is obligated to take Islam to the world. Like the Borg of Star Trek, resistance is futile. You will be absorbed into the Ummah collective or you will be enslaved to its rules or you will die. Minus my diatribe against Political Islam, the Tennessee SB 1028 and HB 1353 isolates the portions of Sharia that would be in essence – unconstitutional.
The Leftist multiculturalists, Islamic apologists and duped American clergy that have viewed Tennessee’s anti-Sharia law as an infringement on religious freedom are saying things such as:
Siddiqi says says (sic) he’s not unusual among his fellow Muslims.
“…and Sharia demands, that I follow, and obey, the law of the land and the country in which I live.”
The bill would outlaw… Sharia, making it impossible to practice Islam.
Sharia law, like the Christian Bible and the Jewish Talmud, tells its adherents how to live their lives in an ethical fashion.
… Rabbi Kliel Rose, of the West End Synagogue. Rabbi Rose says he is speaking for himself and from the Jewish tradition.
“…so this has far-reaching effects. So first it’s Sharia, and then it’s Halaka, Jewish law. So as an observant Jew, you know, I have reasons to be very fearful of what’s to come, if this is passed.”
Remziya Suleyman, policy coordinator for the Tennessee Immigrant Refugee Rights Coalition
This debate is in no way about Sharia, or Islam. It is about whether our state government will uphold their values, of our constitution, and refrain from telling Tennesseans which is a good, and a bad religion.
Rev. Joseph P. Breen, a Catholic priest, joined the group.
I’d like to read you just a few words, not only of how I stand, but the way the Catholic Church feels. Our country was founded as a place of religious freedom, a refuge for those who were persecuted for their beliefs. Religious diversity is a basic right of everyone. As a Catholic, I share the belief with others that all religions have the same civil liberties. Unjust legislation against any religion is an assault on us all.
The above excerpted samples are from a Muslim, a Jew and a Roman Catholic Priest and are located at: Religious Groups Fight Together Against Anti-Sharia Bill; by Joe White; Nashville Public Radio; March 01st, 2011.
Ed Brayton found on Science Blogs (February 26, 2011 10:35 AM) says:
But of course, every group of Muslims will claim to be Sharia-compliant. Because Sharia just means “following the Quran.” But there are radically different versions of what that requires, just as there are in Christianity. So this means the AG of that state has to investigate every single Muslim group in the state without any actual reason to suspect that they’ve done anything wrong. 4th Amendment? Silly liberals, that doesn’t apply to Muslims!
The Fourth Amendment Reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
An unreasonable search and seizure would be without a search warrant. So the real question from a Leftist would be, “What is the probable cause for a reasonable search relating to Sharia Law?”
If it is against the law to plan the overthrow of the U.S. Constitutional government, that might be a probable cause, right? If in the practice of Sharia Law a Muslim individually or severally conspires to do harm and violence claiming that such a conspiracy is the duty to submit to Allah; that might be probable cause, right? If a Muslim utilizes Sharia Law to divorce rather than constitutional Law, that divorce might not be enforceable, right? In Sharia, it only takes a male Muslim to say “I divorce you” three times and it becomes a done deal. When the male performs the triple talaq (i.e. “I divorce you”) it must be understood Muslim theologians look down on divorce and have instituted various waiting periods. Also many Muslim nations have modernized Sharia talaq to fit national social rules; nonetheless the male can still divorce simply because he has become displeased with his wife. Waiting periods officially are for the purpose of reconciliation; the actual reason is to discover if the wife is pregnant or not. If she is pregnant she is entitled material support for the child. If she is not pregnant she is on her own and returned to her family. The Sharia penalty for thieving is amputation (WARNING-graphic video); a probable cause investigation if a Muslim organization takes it upon itself to punish someone for stealing is warranted, right? Sharia Law is the excuse for Honor Killing. This Muslim practice occurs when there is the perception that family honor in the face of Allah and the ummah has been distained. To restore honor typically a male family member such as the father or the brother (but women have been known to cooperate in this practice as well) takes it upon himself to kill the offending person which usually a female but males have been known to receive this honor retrieving wrath as well. The practice is illegal in many Muslim nations BUT most of the time is NOT enforced. The Honor Killing practice has begun to occur in Europe and America with greater frequency. The irony is the MSM has deemed the label of Honor Killing is not pc and have avoided pointing out this kind of murder in America as part of the religious practice of Islam. Muslim apologists have tried to convince American multiculturalists that Honor Killing is not a part of Islam or Sharia Law but of a cultural setting from Muslims that have a heritage from such a nation where Honor Killing is practiced. You know though that is hogwash. If there is more of a cultural connection than an Islamic Sharia connection it is because a Muslim nation of origin allows a greater measure of the penalties of Sharia to be practiced.
I found a concise description of the actual reality of the violent nature of Sharia Law that demonstrates there is controversy among Muslim scholars as to an update evolution of Sharia, keeping Sharia in it 7th century purity and how much is actually derived from the Quran:
Despite official reluctance to use hadd punishments, vigilante justice still takes place. Honor killings, murders committed in retaliation for bringing dishonor on one’s family, are a worldwide problem. While precise statistics are scarce, the UN estimates thousands of women are killed annually in the name of family honor (National Geographic). Other practices that are woven into the sharia debate, such as female genital mutilation, adolescent marriages, polygamy, and gender-biased inheritance rules, elicit as much controversy. There is significant debate over what the Quran sanctions and what practices were pulled from local customs and predate Islam. Those that seek to eliminate or at least modify these controversial practices cite the religious tenet of tajdid. The concept is one of renewal, where Islamic society must be reformed constantly to keep it in its purest form. “With the passage of time and changing circumstances since traditional classical jurisprudence was founded, people’s problems have changed and conversely, there must be new thought to address these changes and events,” says Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris, head of the comparative jurisprudence department at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Though many scholars share this line of thought, there are those who consider the purest form of Islam to be the one practiced in the seventh century.
The key to understand the above quoted paragraph as to comprehend the Islamic technical terms of hadd and tajdid.
Hudud (Arabic , also transliterated hadud, hudood; singular hadd, حد, literal meaning “limit”, or “restriction”) is the word often used in Islamic literature for the bounds of acceptable behaviour and the punishments for serious crimes. In Islamic law or Sharia, hudud usually refers to the class of punishments that are fixed for certain crimes that are considered to be “claims of God.” They include theft, fornication, consumption of alcohol, and apostasy.
The punishments vary according to the status of the offender: Muslims generally receive harsher punishments than non-Muslims, free people receive harsher punishments than slaves, and in the case of zina’, married people receive harsher punishments than unmarried.
In brief, the punishments include:
· Amputation of hands or feet (for theft and highway robbery without homicide)
· Flogging with a varying number of strokes (for drinking, zina’ when the offenders are unmarried or not Muslims, and false accusations of zina’)
Tajdid is the Arabic term for “renewal.” In formal Muslim discussions, this term refers to conscious efforts to bring about the renewal of religious faith and practice, emphasizing strict adherence to the prescriptions of the Qur˒an and the precedents of the prophet Muhammad. The foundation for this usage is a widely accepted tradition in which Muhammad is reported to have said, “God will send to this umma [the Muslim community] at the head of each century those who will renew its faith for it.” Persons engaged in this activity of renewal are called mujaddids.
Although there have been disagreements over the details, and over which Muslim leaders were deserving of the title of mujaddid, the basic understanding of the importance of renewal has been remarkably constant throughout Islamic history. In the course of the history of the human community of Muslims, Muslims recognize that the actual faith and practice of the people sometimes departed from the ideal defined by the Qur˒an and the model of the Prophet. Muslims believe …
Note that tajdid is an application is used by Muslims who desire to modernize Islam and by Muslims desiring a return to the purist Islam of the 7th century. In essence “renewal” works both ways for Muslims.
You get the picture! The political aspects of Islam must be separated from the theological religious aspects. Just because Muslims or Muslim Clerics say all of Sharia is religious does not make it so. Someone needs to wise up and write legislation to declare the parts of Islam/Sharia that is political must be separate from the religious. Then religious Freedom for Islam remains under the First Amendment protection of the Free Exercise of religion. Then there should be less Left Wing panic about 4th Amendment probable cause in searching and seizing.
Keep in mind that a majority Islamic organizations and Mosques receive their literature and information from Wahhabi Saudi sources and places linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. These sources are not exactly a paragon of renewal in updating Sharia to modern forms of transforming Islam to a more peaceful religion.
This knowledge of Sharia Law definitely means the Tennessee Bill to make portions of Sharia a felony as it relates to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law essential to protect American Constitutional Rights of Life and Liberty.
And yet it is a thorny issue that definitely will require clarity. Both Multiculturalists and Muslim apologists do have a point with the First Amendment right that sweepingly says that Congress shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of Religion. And yet again, You must realize that the context of the word “religion” to the Founding Fathers referenced the various Confessions of Christian sects or denominations rather than the practice of non-Judeo-Christian religions. Also I am certain that a few open minded Founding Fathers also had in mind Judaism and unwittingly Islam. Even today scholars of a secular mind place Judaism, Christianity and Islam as part of the Judeo-Christian strain of religion.
Original Intent constitutionalists and the family values Christian Right view the context of religious freedom of being able to practice and worship even though Jewish, Muslim and any religion force the ceasing of Christian worship in the name of multiculturalism. Believers in Original Intent and Christian Values also would resist atheists and secularists wishing to impose Moral Relativity and Secular Humanistic values in such a way that Biblical Morality would be illegal. An example is homosexuality. Biblical Christians believe homosexuality is unholy deviant sin; thus a Christian business should not be forced to hire a homosexual or perhaps demands that a homosexual lifestyle NOT be taught as normal and acceptable in Public School. So also teaching multicultural diversity in understanding different cultures should not be forced down the intellectual throat of Christian children.
The first course to bring clarity will be through the judicial system. The problem with the judicial system it has somehow become bloated with multicultural Living Constitution Liberals who disdain constitutional Original Intent. In my view Conservative America’s judicial system will be unable to bring balance on the issues inherent in Congress not establishing a State Religion, making laws prohibiting religion, enforcing Free Speech and so on in application to Islam’s Sharia Law.
This will come down to the Amendment process, the Constitutional Convention process or social disorder in which the government will break all kinds of Constitutional Law to bring order. I am convinced this will lead to a Leftist dictatorship or to a Right Wing dictatorship which will in turn eventually erupt into either America’s second Revolutionary War or its second Civil War depending if the rebellion is based on groups of people or the States. I should say if it gets that far, there is the danger of a strong foreign power flexing its muscles and step into the fray to take over governing thus making all Americans losers.
Think of Rome invading Greece, Egypt and the Land of the Jews by the request of some ruler who hoped to gain advantage over local rivals. Let us pray this scenario does not play out and that Constitutional controversy will be settled by the Amendment process as the best case scenario.