Archive for the ‘Securing Religous Liberty’ Category

This is a 38 page instruction manual CAIR put together to help Muslims and Islamic groups to push for so-called “religious liberty.” In other words, this manual is CAIR’s instructions how to get Shar’ ia implemented. The manual is in PDF form at the bottom of this article. CAIR provided a so-called expert about Islamophobia to explain the horror of what would happen if Shar’ ia is outlawed.I decided to answer some of the expert’s false accusations.

Every Muslim Brotherhood organization squeals about islamophobia. CAIR’s manual is no different but I thought it would be interesting to point out the ignorance in this little report. My response will be in red.

“American Muslim reflections on Islamophobia, as manifested by efforts to pass laws that target Sharia, in the United States occur in full recognition that virtually every minority in our nation has faced and in most cases continues to face discrimination.

Bo: Notice that the author correctly claims that this is about Shar’ ia. What is important is that this author does not limit Shar’ ia which can only mean that they are using the term in the fullest since of what Shar’ ia is. Notice the continual whining. The term minority refers to numbers alone. It is true that minorities have suffered in America and we are working on rectifying those issues. But Islam does not belong as a minority despite its small numbers. The minorities to which the author refers did not FORCE their views on the populace as does Islam.

In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Eraiii, James McPherson reports on English Protestant Americans’ suspicion of German and Irish Catholic immigrants to the U.S. in the nineteenth century. Americans of the Jewish faith have been subjected to vile stereotypes and other abuse. During the 2012 election cycle we see Mormonism being attacked.

Bo: What are the differences which destroys the author’s argument?  First, not a single group has a doctrine of violence and jihad against the host nation to impose their religo-political views. Islam does. Second, every one of these groups believe in and uphold our Constitutional values while Islam lies about the compatibility of Shar’ ia and the Constitution.  Third, we can search history and come up with examples of Catholics and Mormons who actually contributed to the evolution of our country which you can search all you want and you will not find a single example of a Muslim who does so well unless you count the Somalia taxi drivers. No, I don’t think so.

One might be forgiven for asking why an American Muslim should be opposed to bills that purport to ban Sharia and what impact such a bill will have on the lives of American Muslims. It is not as if American Muslims are clamoring for the United States to abrogate the Constitution and substitute in its place Sharia.

Bo: What a fool! Shar’ ia and the Constitution are not even in the same universe. The fact is Muslims are clamoring for this to happen through the courts and legal systems. This is taqiyya at its finest. The very thing the author tries to deny is exactly what Islam is trying to do.

How would a ban on Sharia affect our lives?
First, it subjects American Muslims to unequal treatment insofar as government regularly uses religious traditions to inform how a person’s estate should be distributed after death, how a business contract should be enforced, and what religious accommodations an employer is obligated to provide an employee.

Bo: What a joke. First, American law is sufficient for all the issues the author mentions. Shar’ ia is not necessary. What the author is concerned with is the religious aspect of Islam. Demanding the use of Shar’ ia in American courts will be used to force employers to allow Muslims extra benefits like mini-mosques and prayer times. The author is deceptive as well. Banning Shar’ ia will also ban issues like child-marriage, women being second class citizens, women being second-class citizens in the judicial system, wife-beating and Shar’ ia taking precedent over the Constitution.  

In these situations, it is appropriate and perfectly compatible with American law to refer to relevant religious traditions. These bans on Sharia—the religious traditions of Islam—would prevent American Muslims from using their faith to inform their lives in the same way that other religious communities in America do.

Bo: This is true. But other religious communities don’t teach jihad against non-Islamic entities so Islamic jihad puts Islam at a disadvantage.

The second effect of attempts to ban Sharia is that they suggest to our fellow Americans that Islam is something dangerous. Why else would a state legislator be trying to pass a law placing restrictions on the religious traditions of Islam while leaving all the other faiths in the United States untouched? And this suggestion is not made so subtly. Representative Don Wells of Missouri compared Sharia to polio. Another lawmaker, Representative Rick Womick of Tennessee, called Islam a “political-militaristic religion.” The lawmakers that have introduced these bans on Sharia, as well as the anti-Muslim activists and organizations supporting them, know exactly what they are doing: stirring up fear and animosity against American Muslims.

Bo: Good for these politicians. We need more of them and we need to support those willing to stand up for our Republic. Yes, these politicians do know what they are doing. Protecting our Republic from enemies within and without and one of these enemies is Islam. I mean seriously, which Qur’ an passage should I quote that shows Islam is hostile to all non-Islamic entities? Qur’ an 9:5; 29-32 as well as hundreds of other passages and whole chapters! The purpose of outlawing Shar’ ia is to place limitations on Islam that is necessary for other religious faiths because Islam is an inherently violent religio-political entity. Ah, but of course the Muslim Brotherhood will not tell the American public the truth so we must.

PDF: Securing Religious Liberty Handbook