Bill Federer gives detailed analysis of Muslim assimilation with American law
Should a nation grant freedom of speech to those whose ultimate goal is to abolish freedom of speech? Should a nation grant freedom of religion to those whose ultimate goal is to abolish freedom of religion? Do Sharia-practicing Muslims want to demand freedoms for themselves, but not grant the same freedoms to others?
Dwight Eisenhower faced a similar situation, warning in Time magazine, Oct. 13, 1952: “The Bill of Rights contains no grant of privilege for a group of people to destroy the Bill of Rights. A group … dedicated to the ultimate destruction of all civil liberties, cannot be allowed to claim civil liberties as its privileged sanctuary from which to carry on subversion of the government.”
Are the Quran and the U.S. Constitution compatible?
- The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion, yet Mohammad said “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). The Quran also states in Sura 4:89 “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”
- The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer, ringing church bells or say anything considered “insulting to Islam.” Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs among Muslims and cannot display a cross, Christmas decorations, or the Star of David.
- The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot repair places of worship or build new ones, they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings, they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.
- The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.
- The Second Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.
- The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.
- The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.
- The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Mohammad said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).
- The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting them from testifying in court against Muslims.
- The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” (Sura 5:38) A woman who has been raped is also punished “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2) Women can be beaten: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.
- The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Mohammad owned slaves.
- The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Mohammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).
- The 15th Amendment guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making the laws.
- The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Mohammad said “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)
- The 18th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”
- The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.
- The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to sell or drink wine and liquor openly.
One would assume that to swear upon a book implies believing what is in that book. As Mohammad was not just a religious leader, but also a political-military leader, Sharia Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political-military system.
Since no one has the authority to demand Muslims worldwide cease imitating the political-military example of Mohammad, when Sharia-practicing Muslims bow in prayer they are also pledging political-military allegiance to Mecca.
Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran that promotes different values presents a dilemma. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, wrote in the foreword of the book “Law in the Middle East” (1955): “Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge … reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis (direct opposite) of Western law.”
Brought to you by AmericanMinute.com.
Read it all and watch this related Federer post: