The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > General > General Posts

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-09-2018, 07:05 PM
HARDCORE HARDCORE is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,096
Distinctions
Contributor 
Exclamation Over a Million American Muslims Want Sharia Instead of The U.S. Constitution

https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/the-...and-sharia-law

RSS
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:

the bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law for themselves;

the democratic republic governed by the Constitution;

freedom of conscience; individual liberty

freedom of expression (including the liberty to analyze and criticize shariah);

economic liberty (including private property);

equal treatment under the law (including that of men and women, and of Muslims and non-Muslims);

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

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.
__________________
"MOST PEOPLE DO NOT LACK THE STRENGTH, THEY MERELY LACK THE WILL!" (Victor Hugo)
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 11-10-2018, 09:29 AM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,602
Question Interesting Piece - HC

Being born and growing up in the states is one thing.

But not sure if the immigrants adhere totally to the U.S. Constitution or if parts of it conflict's with their religious teachings? Becoming an American or US Citizen has it's own laws - so there may be a conflict of interest with their acclimatization based on their religious teachings.

Which takes precedence? How is this issue addressed during immigration or do they ever discuss this with the immigrants?

Do they understand that when they take the oath of becoming an U.S. American Citizen? Which charter governs their primary understanding - and does the U.S. confirm they can have their rights to religious practices "but" it can not conflict to the law of the land - or the rules so written by the US Constitution?

Is that point made perfectly clear or totally understood?

How far does Freedom of Religion go? Do we apply any restrictions on certain religious practices and how is this monitored?

Boats
__________________
Boats

O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-10-2018, 09:37 AM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,602
Default

The U.S. Puts 'Moderate' Restrictions on Religious Freedom
A new Pew study reveals complex questions about First Amendment rights.
By: EMMA GREEN - JAN 28, 2014 (Don't know if its current or accurate?)
RE: https://www.theatlantic.com/national...reedom/283331/

(HC - I found this article religious rules of sorts)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is the first line of the first amendment in the United States Constitution; religious freedom was clearly a legal priority of the men who drafted the Bill of Rights. Yet, 225 years later, the Pew Research Center's Religion and Public Life Project has said the United States places a "moderate" level of restrictions on religious practice compared to the other countries in the world. According to Pew, the U.S. saw a marked increase in hostility toward religion starting in 2009, and this level remained consistent in the following years.

What does this rating actually say about the state of religious freedom in the United States? At first glance, one might assume this is bad news for religious folks in the land of the free, but that may not actually be the case. Especially in comparison with the rest of the world, the United States still has fairly robust protections for spiritual practice.

To get a sense of how the United States stacks up against other countries, take a look at Pew's interactive chart of religious restrictions in the world's 25 most populous countries from 2007 to 2010. If you select "2009" in the list of years at the top of the graph, find the circle representing the U.S., and then select "2010," you'll see a noticeable increase in the country's level of religious hostility. The two axes represent two separate rankings: "government restrictions," which is a tally of legal actions that have limited religious practice in some way; and "social attitudes," which is a measure of negative or violent attitudes that citizens have expressed toward their religious peers.

In the introduction to the chart, Pew's researchers specifically noted that the U.S. ranked among the least restrictive of the included countries. But when the group isn't limited to the countries with the largest populations, the U.S. doesn't seem to fare as well. America has harsher restrictions than roughly 130 other countries. Places allegedly more free than the U.S. include Serbia, Haiti, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo—not exactly traditional strongholds of democracy.

This is the first sign that there's more to these rankings than one might guess on a first glance. Brian Grim, the lead researcher on this report, explained why it might actually be a good sign that the United States was ranked as more restrictive than some countries with historically weak track records on freedom.

In these kinds of places, a low government restriction score "could point to the fact that there aren't a whole lot of mechanisms in place to regulate anything in society," Grim said. "In some places, there just aren't government policies—the government isn't active."

What's different about the United States, he said, is that there are structures in place to address grievances: If a church community feels like it's experiencing discrimination, it can file a complaint with the Justice Department. Having a "low" level of restrictions is not very meaningful in unstable countries with weak or failed governments.

This isn't the case for all of the countries that got lower rankings than the United States. Grim pointed to Ireland as an example of a strong state with very low levels of government restriction on religious practice. "Even though there's been some favoritism of the Catholic Church, they have a long history of respecting the freedom of religion," he said. Still, Ireland's low ranking is at least partly explained by an accident of geography: Sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, which is technically part of the United Kingdom, doesn't count against the country's score, even though it is somewhat religiously motivated and historically tied to Irish independence.

The most interesting point of comparison Grim offered was France. Restrictions against body coverings, like the burkas and niqabs worn by some Muslim women, have raised the country's restrictions rating, placing it just above the United States in the "moderate" category. But, Grim said, some in France believe that the ban on religious garb actually promotes freedom: When the government was debating a ban on headscarves in public schools in 2004, French politician Fadela Amara argued that "the veil is the visible symbol of the subjugation of women."

This kind of tension also exists in the United States. Grim explained that local government decisions affected the country's rating quite a bit: Countless zoning laws, rulings on property rights, and restrictions on tax dollar use shaped the U.S. score. These weren't always clear-cut cases of religious restriction, either. "Sometimes there's a clear intent to try and keep a religious group out," Grim said. "Sometimes, it's more of a financial decision: [A city government might think], if we let this big church buy property in the center of the city, we're going to lose tax revenue."
__________________
Boats

O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.