Outlaw Islamic Sharia (law): it SUPERSEDES our Constitution as the "law of the land"

Homeland Security
61

I do understand what secularism means Ethan. That’s why I worded it the way I did. The majority of people do not really view it as the true definition.

I fully support the policy as written for the reasons stated in the policy. The reality of what is happening must be looked at instead of trying to be nice. I’m sorry but the phobia and religious discrimination ideas are propaganda. There are times when it is appropriate to be afraid dictated by behaviors and what is taught. Being nice is going to get people harmed. If a book teaches people that they should lie to everyone in order to spread their goals we don’t base our decision on the lies but on what is being hidden and is harming people. The goals are incremental and the Countries which are led by the book are examples of what will occur. They are current not past situations.

It is about upholding the Constitution. I don’t believe a book that teaches people to overthrow governments is religion. I believe it is a war plan. That’s not ok.

I don’t support or believe in abusing women, raping women, making women sex slaves, murdering people because they refuse to believe in my religion etc. I don’t believe women should have to hide their faces and not be permitted to speak. I don’t believe women should be imprisoned because they didn’t wear a piece of clothing properly. The reality is this is happening in certain Countries and there is a book that is telling them to do it. That’s an issue that must be dealt with realistically. It is harmful to everyone including the people following that book not to call out the danger. So my stance on this issue is protective of all people. I will never support people who rape, enslave and murder or believe a book that tells them that is ok.

Currently a conference is scheduled to take place in Canada called “The Khilafah (Caliphate): Eliminating the Obstacles that are Delaying its Return”

The following is written by Dr. Antonio Graceffo, PhD, China MBA, is an economist and national security analyst with a focus on China and Russia. He is a graduate of American Military University

Hizb ut-Tahrir, founded in East Jerusalem in 1953 by Islamic scholar Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani, opposes the state of Israel and seeks to unite the Muslim world under a global Islamic caliphate, or khilafah. Over the decades, the group has expanded its presence to at least 45 countries, including Canada, the United States, the UK, and Australia. Despite its global reach, Hizb ut-Tahrir has been banned in many nations for promoting antisemitism and terrorism.

In promotional materials, the group invoked historical Muslim conquests and criticized Western “colonialist superpowers,” claiming the Muslim community (Ummah) must take political action to revive the caliphate. A spokesperson alleged the West fears the Ummah’s “latent strength” and dismissed the power of modern states, asserting the ultimate strength lies with Allah. Hizb ut-Tahrir, founded in.

According to a report by the Counter Extremism Project, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) seeks to establish a global Islamic caliphate governed by Sharia law, where all Muslims live under Islamic rule, positioning its Islamist ideology as an alternative to capitalism and secular democracy. The group employs a three-phase strategy: first, creating a core Muslim leadership; second, spreading its ideology to the broader Muslim community; and finally, achieving regime change through widespread public support, potentially facilitated by military intervention if soldiers adopt its worldview. Although HT officially eschews violence, its rhetoric supports jihad and endorses violence against Israel and Jews, whom it views as occupying Islamic lands.

The planned conference titled “The Khilafah (Caliphate): Eliminating the Obstacles that are Delaying its Return” fits into the second phase of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s (HT) strategy. This phase focuses on spreading its ideology to the broader Muslim community by promoting its vision of a global Islamic caliphate governed by Sharia law. Through events like this conference, HT seeks to disseminate its Islamist ideology, rally support among Muslims, and frame its vision as an alternative to capitalism and secular democracy. The conference serves as a platform to build ideological momentum and garner public backing, which is essential for the group’s ultimate goal of achieving regime change and establishing a caliphate.

HT’s anti-Western narrative blames Western policies for violence against Muslims, fostering a sense of grievance and victimhood among followers. This narrative, coupled with HT’s strict socio-political doctrine, has contributed to instances of radicalization. For example, a 15-year-old in Australia reportedly attended an HT event before committing a politically motivated shooting.

62

As a Muslim, I can assure you this is not true. The origin of this conjured term, Taqiyya, is a ruling that permits a believer to conceal his or her faith when under the threat of persecution or attack from forces hostile to Islam (Quran [Ch.16: V.106, Ch.3: V.28]). Because lying and deception are a grave sin in Islam, the word ‘Taqiyya’ connotes being ‘fearful’ and in fact conveys a commonsense notion present amongst all cultures and faiths – in a context in which someone is trying to kill you or others because of your beliefs, it is appropriate to hide those beliefs.

Sharia law, which has been misrepresented in media narratives, provides principles and guidance for Muslims to live their lives, such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, financial responsibilities, and most notably, interactions with the legal systems of the lands they reside in. It is also not coerced, nor does it supersede religious practices of non-muslims.

In Islam, obedience to the law of the land is a religious duty and a core principle. The Quran commands Muslims to remain faithful to Allah and the Prophet and the authority they live under: “O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority over you” (Quran [Ch.4: V.60])

Any country or government that guarantees religious freedom to followers of different faiths (not just Islam) must be owed loyalty. The Prophet Muhammad(SA) stressed this point when he said: " One who obeys his authority, obeys me. One who disobeys his authority disobeys me.'’ (Muslim)

Here is an article that provides a more in-depth explanation of Sharia, how Muslims apply it in their daily lives, and how fanatics misinterpret it and abuse it. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/understanding-sharia-intersection-islam-and-law

63

Islam is an ideology, not a cult, nor is it a religion. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life and government. Islam has pseudo religious, legal (Sharia), political, economic, social, and military components in its ideology. The pseudo religious component is a mask for the other components to hide behind. They have been conquering for 1400 years and will continue to war and jihad until they cease to exist or they take over the planet

This generations crusade is well under way with Islamic invasion of Europe and the west progressing well. The main question is will the west realize they have been invaded and act or will they simply surrender under the leftist liberal influence. Pray the people choose wisely because once a nation becomes Islamic it will quickly deteriorate into another third world violent nation, just like the rest of the Middle East. These are things you as a Christian need to know about Islam and Muslims. Allah IS NOT the same God who is worshipped by Jews and Christians. Allah is no more a God than the Golden calf of Egypt. Allah predates Islam by over a thousand years, and was a minor deity in the Temple of Baal, the Canaanite Sun God, who was worshipped throughout the Middle East. Baal (ba’al) was an ancient Canaanite and Mesopotamian deity associated with agriculture. He was believed to be the “giver of life” and mankind was dependent upon him for providing what was necessary to sustain the farms, flocks and herds. Allah was the moon god who’s sign was the crescent moon. Mohammad, born 570 years after the Birth of Christ, was very familiar with Judaism and Christianity and stole traditions from both religions to create his own cult. He took the named Allah for his God because it was familiar to Arabs across the region. This is why you so often see the symbol of the crescent moon associated with Islam, and on so many Islamic flags. Mohammad asked the Jews to recognize him as a Prophet from God, which they refused to do. Because of this Mohammad turned upon the Jews, and Muslims have hated and despised the Jews ever since. Mohammad warred upon the Jews, and slaughtered whole villages, decapitating the men, and selling the women into slavery. Mohammad himself set the example to his followers by demanding from his captors that they either convert to Islam or be put to death; a tradition that carries on even to this day. Upon Mohammad’s death in 632 A.D., a rift developed amongst Muslims as to who should succeed as leader of their cult. Thus you have multiple Islamic sects such as the the Shia and Sunni. Muslims following Mohammad’s example raped, pillaged and plundered their way across the Middle East and North Africa, Murdering those that would not convert to Islam. In the year 711 A.D., Muslims (called the Moors) crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and invaded Spain. In 827 A.D. the Muslims invaded Sicily, and in 847 A.D. the Italian port of Bari (occupied from 847 until 871), with Muslim raids reaching as far north as Rome and Piedmont. During this same time period, the Muslims invaded Europe in the east, first laying siege to Constantinople in 674–678 A.D. Muslims continued their depredations until In March 1095, Pope Urban II received an ambassador from the Byzantine Emperor asking for help against Muslim invasion and another siege of Constantinople. THIS is what prompted the Crusades of the middle ages, an attempt to put an end to Muslim aggression! The fact of the matter is that Europe was being invaded in both the East AND the West! Lets be clear, What we are seeing today in the Mideast, and elsewhere is not radical Islam. This is what Mohamed intended his ideology to be, and this is what Islam was when it raped pillaged and plundered its way across the Middle east, North Africa, and Invaded Spain and Europe with the intent of taking over the entire world. Let there be no mistake, it is the intent of Islam to take over the world. This generation Islam is using Hijrah which is Islamic jihad by immigration. As far as Islamists are concerned, these people aren’t considered refugees, they are jihadists. They are people who are coming to America and other western nations with the short term purpose of settling in the country until the time comes to overthrow and conquer the host nation.

Remember always Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. Lying is encouraged in Islam when things are not going their way. So when a Muslim says only extremists follow the Koran keep this in mind. Two forms are;

Kitman (dissimulation)- Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32(that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”

Taqiyya (obfuscation) is an Islamic term whose shifting meaning relates to when a Muslim is allowed, under Sharia law, to lie. In other words Taqiyya is an Islamic doctrine which allows Muslims to deceive non-Muslims.
http://muslimfact.com/bm/terror-in-the-name-of-islam/islam-permits-lying-to-deceive-unbelievers-and-bri.shtml

Because their Allah is a moon god, derived from Baal, hence the crescent moon & star symbol of Islam as evidenced in the web site:www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm. Muslims in the United States have engaged in the mode of Jihad called stealth jihad, like the terrorist organization CAIR does, where they garner sympathy for themselves in various ways waiting on the day they can increase in sufficient numbers to engage in defensive jihad, which I think they have already started in the US. Defensive jihad is where they try to get those they managed to garner sympathy from, usually Liberals, Hollywood actors and Democrats in the United States, to fight for them politically, legally, militarily, physically and any other conceivable way you can think of. Like indoctrinating students into Islam in elementary, middle and high schools. Soon, when their numbers are large enough, they will start offensive jihad where they openly kill us, which there are already examples of recently like San Bernadino etc. Under the Koran, or Quran, you have one choice, convert or die. They say you can pay the penalty, or tax, and not convert, but they will enslave you and eventually kill you anyway. That is the reality of ISLAM. Not what our leftist Liberal Democrats who suffer from Islamophalia say. Our Liberals are cowards and will be killed in just as many numbers. For the Liberals Political Correctness is helping the Muslims defeat us. Muslims are counting on us being too stupid to figure that out, there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, as they are ALL called upon to engage in the activities listed above by their own books the Koran and Hadith, or at least support it through silence.

There is no such thing as “Islamophobia” because a phobia is an irrational fear. And It is not irrational to fear someone who is a pedophile and wants to murder you, rape you or take away everything you ever loved or worked for. So, there is no such thing as Islamophobia, period. There is however such a thing as Islamophilia though. Look it up. They are the ones falsely calling people Islamophobic.

This is what Muslims believe

  1. Rape, Marry and Divorce pre-pubescent girls. Quran 65:4
  2. Have sex slaves and work slaves. Quran 4:3, 4:24, 5:89, 33:50, 58:3, 70:30
  3. Beat sex slaves, work slaves and wives Quran 4:34
  4. Have 4 Muslim witnesses to prove rape. Quran 24:13
  5. Kill those who insult Islam or Mohammed. Quran 33:57
  6. Crucify and amputate non-Muslims. Quran 8:12, 47:4
  7. Kill non-Muslims to guarantee receiving 72 virgins in heaven. Quran 9:111
  8. Kill anyone who leaves Islam. Quran 2:217, 4:89
  9. Behead non-Muslims. Quran 8:12, 47:4
  10. Kill and be killed for Islamic Allah. Quran 9:5
  11. Terrorize non-Muslims. Quran 8:12, 8:60
  12. Steal and rob from non-Muslims. Quran Chaprter 8 (booty/spoils of war)
  13. Lie to strengthen Islam. Quran 3:28, 16:106
  14. Fight non-Muslims even if you don’t want to. Quran 5:51
  15. Do not take non-Muslims as friends. Quran 5:51
  16. Call non-Muslims Pigs and apes. Quran 5:60, 7:166, 16:106
  17. Treat non-Muslims as the vilest creatures deserving no mercy. Quran 98:6
  18. Treat non-Muslims as sworn enemies. Quran4:101
  19. Kill non-Muslims for not converting to Islam. Quran 9:29
  20. Extort non-Muslims to keep Islam strong. Quran 9:29

Terrorists are not perverting Islam. Terrorists are doing exactly what Islam’s founder did. The islamic texts call on muslims to emulate him. All you have to do is read …

1 Like
64

@Mjghumrawi people like @DRSE and @DiveMaster are ousting themselves by cherry-picking from the Jewish and Christian doctrines that exist in the book of Matthew and Deuteronomy as I stated in direct text above.

If you include all religious doctrines that support the ‘unity-imperialist’ ideology, as @robokoch (who btw has a legendary tag it you read it out) put it, than it would still be an unconstitutional proposal. The systematic form of government you think that is original to Islam is actually just called a theocracy, and Judaism, Chalcedonian, Orthodox, Catholic, or form of Protestantism, they’ve all at one point prepetuated the exact thing you think is Islam-centric.

They’re all millennia old ideologies that are incompatible in whole with our Constitution. 1870s assimilation of the West is a great example of Christian imperialism utilized within our republic. Israel’s territorial annexation of North Gaza and forced removal of said population is a great modern example of Abrahamic imperialism.

They clearly have not read the arguments made through the citing of the direct proof that all Abrahamic religions have the same doctrines, and that it is Unconstitutional to outlaw religious practices, of which anything defined as Islam is; along with the Supremacy clause protecting the direct rise of anti-Constitutional policy.

The only way they’d take over our government is through direct conflict, which is much easier with open borders. We need not subvert rights, but protect ourselves and our ideologies with weaponry. Violent actions get violent reactions.

You all seek to erode the rights of the People. If an official seeks to lie, than the People must demand through peaceful organization their resign.

You know where this leads, the erosion of our rights through subversive means (untrustworthy politician) has one solution, and it’s not through a continuation of subversive policy. It’s a very 1776 solution.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” -Benjamin Franklin

65

I do want to point out that Islam does not define a systematic form of governance. It, however, emphasizes the principle of collective decision-making that involves deliberation and consultation, Shura, which applies to diverse systems of democratic governance. It allows the people to participate in the decision-making process and helps create a society that engages actively with leaders. It can take the form of elected councils and referendums, for example.

The Quran [Ch.42: V.38] encourages Muslims to consult with each other to decide their affairs, not only in the governing system but also in the order of everyday life, i.e., family, work, economy, and society…

Ideologies abuse religious doctrines to justify their limitations. However, religions are not defined by such ideological limitations; rather, they define principles, values, and morals shared across faiths and cultures that prioritize the essence of humanity, individual freedoms, and harmonious societies.

1 Like
66

Unfortunately, you have formed this skewed perception of the 2 billion Muslims who share this world with you. You point out 20 verses about war (there are 123 verses to be exact), which are taken out of context, and dismiss the 6,225 verses embedded with lessons of mercy, justice, harmony, love, and forgiveness.

I invite you to visit one of these countries one day, like my family’s ancestral land, Lebanon, and see for yourself. I guarantee you’ll be enchanted by the love and warmth you’ll experience, plus you’ll have the best food ever!

1 Like
67

It seems to violate our bill of rights for all individuals… that should be an easy one to fix…

68

If you can’t follow American laws and customs then you shouldn’t be in America. PERIOD. You either assimilate into our beautiful melting pot or get out.

69

Ethan you are responding to lies instead of the reality.

All you have to do is look at UK to see what is going on. There are plenty of videos which prove that your stance is dangerous.

It is not a religion. It’s a war plan. The idea is to integrate into the Country and get into positions so Sharia can be passed. There are videos of people saying it. There are also videos of people in the US speaking in facilities that follow that book teaching it and praising what happened on Oct 7th.

It’s not a religion when it is a war plan.

If people want to remove the war plan from the book and documents and teachings that should be done yesterday. As of now it is not a religion. It’s a war plan. The Muslim Brotherhood put this all in a document in the 1980’s also. They have a 100 year plan to implement it. This is now not years ago. The focus needs to remain on the people and documents that are actively behaving in a certain manner. That includes those who are in a phase to spread their plan by recruiting people under the guise of a peaceful community that makes decisions together (unless of course you are female or not part of that community - then you are opinionless). All you have to do is look to the Countries that are led by these documents. Refusing to see those facts is dangerous.

When I see people talking about how they can’t marry 9 year old girls in the US because of the laws at this time but that is ok because a 9 year olds hips are large enough to handle a grown man, that’s not a religion. It’s abuse. It’s a sickness and it’s harmful. I will not support it. It is against the law and that law should not change by implementing Sharia law.

In addition, when I see people saying things like “This land does not belong to Americans, it belongs to Allah” “Establishing Sharia’s law is Freedom for mankind, humanity” it further confirms intentions.

I support this policy on this platform. That’s not going to change because that is the right thing. I don’t support abuse of any kind. I don’t support plans to overtake our Constitution.

This policy is pro Constitution and therefore I support it. Hidden attacks on our Consitution are still attacks.

70

There was a law passed in Texas due to tribunals being set up trying to over-rule US laws.

Texas House Bill 45

71

Nothing of what I’m saying is based in lies. Quote it, and tell me what I’m blinded by. I fully understand that this version of Islam is radical, and seeks to destroy the ideas of religious freedom and practice in the US.

You and I can identify their goals, means, and actions. Through our current system, they are barred from the actions that you suggest they will succeed at. We are not the UK, it’s a lot easier to take over their parliament because of their close ties to their former empire, and the faults in their monarchial system of governance.

I understand the ped mentality, and the complete lack of rights for women. These actions are already illegal.

NONE of this negates the 1st Amendment. Regardless of this happening now, NOTHING will ever warrent a subversion of human rights.

Nothing.

If Organized Islam is invading, it’s up to us, as the People, to not vote them into office, and uphold our current legislation, which in courts should already be considered illegal (child marriage, murder of heretics/infidels), as the argument of preventing them from taking these actions through a Sharia Law ban is redundant, and an attack on religious practice. If you wanted to prevent the action they were taking rather than their religion as a whole, this thread would list out what they shouldn’t be able to do, yet all it states is a ban on Islamic practice and Quran based Oaths (which I already stated that any religiously based Oath is Unconstitutional).

What in Sharia Law isn’t already illegal that needs to be? Once you have thay figured out, create a new, less tyrannical proposal that outlines what the people can’t do-because what they can do, is practice Islam.

Hidden Attacks on our Constitution should not be met with a subversion of our rights. Nor should someone be barred from taking an Oath on whatever text they wish.

If this proposal was written in a manner that outlawed certain aspects of what Islamic law perpetuates that is Unconstitutional, than it would still be redundant, as murder, freedom of expression, child marriage, etc. are already laws

This is comparable to banning Neo-Nazis from protesting or running for office, Or Christians because the follow Deuteronomy or Matthew. YOU CAN’T DO IT. It’s their right as People. ‘Their gonna try to lie and get into office to subvert our rights!’ Dude this is already happening with our Political Parties, You think Joe actually practices Catholicism? Yea right, liar.

This proposal is authoritarian, deep fried in fear.

The only way you could get me to stand down, is to rewrite the proposal in a manner that issued restrictions on the actions that they are taking, rather than a practice as a whole.

Why don’t you list what restrictions we could include rather than and outlaw of a proclaimed religious practice. But i doubt it, because everything that you’re suggesting is either already law, or Unconstitutional. If any of you actually supported the Constitution you would see that this (outlawing religiois practice) is the wrong path to salvation. By ending one religious agenda, you forward others and subvert the very thing you claim to protect.

You argument that Sharia Law is not part of a religion is simply not valid, as I have stated primary sources of how Judaism and Christianity support the exact same values as what suggest we are in danger from, except the child marriage, which is against the law → without either part of those practices being outlawed. Time is relative, these groups that have not cast aside their old beliefs should all be held to the same standard, Israel or Iran.

Maybe I should start organizing a sect that supports the worst parts of the religion, just for the sake of religious freedom, while also following US law.

At this point, you must be blinded by propaganda telling you to fear an ideology because yours may not be strong enough without authoritarianism. It is strong enough, it’s set up to handle this. NONE of you are using the abilities granted to you by the Constitution to stop our politicians from funding these radical groups, let alone letting them in our country.

The problem is not religious radicals that simply cannot succeed against our ideology, it’s the politicans you think you can trust to spend your money, manage your security and diplomacy.

Anyone who support this policy proposal, but also supports Israeli expansionism and ethnic cleansing, or the continuation of similar radical religious practices is a hypocrite and a bigot.

I fully agree with the existence of threating ideologies. I refuse to subvert the rights of People. I may disagree with what they practice, but I would die to defend their right to practice it. Of course this statement ignoring any illegal action they could take, or liberties of another that they should infringe upon.

I’m highly disappointed in all of you, who claim to seek protection for our Constitution, yet you all directly seek to subvert it yourselves.

72

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/understanding-sharia-law/#:~:text=No%20official%20document%2C%20such%20as,and%20not%20with%20national%20laws.

Sharia Law has existed for centuries (7 Centuries), to say it was written in the '80s shows how little research you have done. It’s one of the major points of division in the Islamic practice.

Islam could be viewed as the ‘conservative’ response to ‘progressive’ Christian values, and the Arabic reapproach towards Judaism and Abrahamic traditionalism. They’re all the same thing.

To outlaw this practice, is to outlaw a religion. Sharia Law is already highly debated in Islamic society between the several sects, let the religious fued amongst themselves. You serve to bring that conflict here, even moreso than radical groups that we could have prevented becoming equipped enough to take action. Yet we armed them.

73

I’m glad you’re persistent. CFR was created by NWO “promoters” David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski in June 1973; it’s a total Globalist front. So, publishing their propaganda will not convince anybody who knows what the CFR really is about anything.
Below is a link to a video interview with the son of Hamas FOUNDER, Mosab Hassan Yousef who exposes the TRUTH that the Islamists do NOT follow an “Abrahamic religion” but a twisted authoritarian political ideology whose goal is to either rule or destroy the world in the process. Who do you think knows more about the goals of imperialist political Islam, you or he? I hope you will open your mind to him and learn. Here’s the link:

2 Likes
74

I watched the full video, here’s what I got.

  • He doesn’t respect ‘Muslims’ who pose as a peaceful culture, because Islamic-Arabian culture in itself is violent.
  • He doesn’t trust ‘Muslims’ because of the perpetuated culture of shame, and the need to hide the truth for self preservation
  • He seeks to reform the religion, just as there have been reforms in Western religion, as he said no God is above his individuality, and any God that would treat himself, the ra pe victim, and the ra pist the same is unjust.
  • He sees the Abraham Accords as the correct path/mentality towards religious/regional peace.
  1. He confirmed Islam is a religion, of which is in dire need of reform.
  2. He confirmed that the State of Palestine and the State of Israel cannot exist without the destruction of each other and thus society due to their shared ‘unity’ ideology and stance.
  3. Islam being a religion, has protection under our Constitution.
  4. The Laws of, and Culture of the United States differ, and directly contradict the Islamic culture he describes here.
  5. He confirmed Tyrants in positions of power will always abuse religious doctrines for personal gain, Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
  6. Everything he described as wrong in Islamic society, also happens here, and is illegal. The moment crimes aren’t being prosecuted in the US like abuse charges, murder, neglect, ra pe; you’ll have bigger issues that will require a very 1776 solution.

What am I missing here? Did you watch the video? He highlighted and hammred out my points. Just because you all fear the result of Islamic-Arabic culture, doesn’t mean you should subvert the Law of the Land. You give them further motivation at best.

People have religious freedom in the US, and the laws and doctrines of said creeds do not supercede the US Constitution, per the 1st Amendment and the Supremacy Clause.

If the government begins to change those two things, I suggest you stockpile ammunition, rather than outlaw a religion. (you already should be)

Since two people have referenced the Globalist agenda which has ties to the Rockefellers etc. Can’t you see that you’re drinking the cool-aid too? Religions serve to divide us with conflict. Division makes us easier to conquer. Yes focus on this foreign religious conflict while we indebt you, replace your jobs with machines and foreign workers, subvert your freedoms under our indefinitely changing definitions of terrorism, and poison you to make a quick buck.

This entire thread is a threat to a tolerant society, upheld by laws, order, and individual liberties.

75

@robokoch

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2019-0102/CDP-2019-0102.pdf

The UK has some 80+ Sharia Law courts, that manage civil disputes, uphold Sharia values and even have councils that dish out desicions.

THIS should be what this proposal promotes, if anything at all. Religious courts of ANY kind are unconstitutional.

If the people in this thread feel as though you are at threat from Islamic legislation and enforcement of religious values, than you should outlaw the organization of any religious body as a judicial body

All Courts are established by Congress, restrict Congress from making any religiously oriented justice system. Citing Sharia Law Courts as an example, not using Islam as a rallying point, or suggesting people be restricted to Bible-Oaths.

76

I don’t really feel like this is necessary due to the separation of church and state and any act to try and circumvent this should go to the Supreme Court. I for one am for less laws, less government and constitutional powers being recognized as they stand without amendments to recognize already established rights and separations.

1 Like
77

I don’t recall seeing Islam mentioned in the Constitution or Federalist Papers—always learning something new! While I support religious freedom, I’m not comfortable with different laws for each religion. Practices like FGM, child brides, and honor killings are incompatible with our society. We see what’s happening overseas and certainly do not want to see the same happen here.

Ensuring our Constitution enforced is essential. Enforcement is the problem.

Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Federalist Papers specifically mention Islam. However, there are a few related points worth noting:

The Constitution:

  1. Freedom of Religion: The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (ratified in 1791) guarantees freedom of religion, ensuring that Congress cannot establish a national religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. This broadly protects all faiths, including Islam.
  2. No Religious Tests: Article VI of the Constitution explicitly states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This provision reinforces religious inclusivity.

The Federalist Papers:

The Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to promote the ratification of the Constitution, do not explicitly mention Islam. These essays focus on governance, federalism, and constitutional design rather than specific religious doctrines.

Context:

While Islam is not mentioned explicitly, some founding fathers were aware of Islam and referred to Muslims (often called “Mahometans” at the time) in discussions about religious freedom. For example:

  • Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the Quran and emphasized the importance of protecting religious freedoms for all, including Muslims.
  • George Washington expressed support for inclusivity, mentioning religious protections for groups such as “Mahometans” in his correspondence.

The absence of specific mentions in these founding documents reflects their broader focus on principles of governance and universal protections rather than singling out particular religions.

1 Like
78

Yep, the only mention I made above, was that Thomas Jefferson’s Idol, John Locke, wrote about religious tolerance for Islam in England, prior to the revolution.

Thanks for reiterating my stance @JupiterOne .

Tbh @Victoria I agree that this whole proposal is redundant; that the US supreme court would handle these issues, but just read the arguments made above :man_facepalming:

Thus the reason my most recent response included the only viable option for this type of proposal (which is still redundant), which is legislation outlining what types of courts Congress can establish (being secular based courts) and how to take an Oath (which is already technically outlined in the 1st Amendment, these people just don’t like to read).

79

For me, the bottom line is:

  1. What’s the point in having an “Oath” at all when you know in advance that a certain group of people are lying when they take it?
  2. Of course, anyone can lie when they take it. But when one is a member of a group that has vowed to overthrow the government and the people allow them to be elected to public offices, isn’t that like sanctioning the attempted overthrow of one’s government and freedoms?
  3. Of course, if the laws against violating the Oath were actually upheld (or “watchdogs” went after their bonds), then we wouldn’t need to outlaw certain political groups whose agenda is openly to overthrow the Constitution. In which case, I agree, the proposal would be “redundant.”
  4. So… your proposal re “secular courts” is, as you say, also redundant since the courts are not supposed to take religion into consideration in their workings anyway. But, some framers believed "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Was Adams’s belief correct? Does the successful functioning of the Constitution depend upon the virtuous / ethical nature of the people it governs? If so, and we “must” keep “religion” out of the equation from where does our “morality” come?
  5. How do we ensure that members of groups who open vow to overthrow the Constitution and enforce their so-called “religious” authoritarianism are not allow to run for or occupy positions in our government… local, state or federal?
  6. I’m curious, what do you suggest we do about this? Britain Sharia Law - With 85 Sharia courts, UK becomes western capital for Islamic rulings - India Today
    Thanks again for your comments.
80

An age old invalid argument. Also the topic of almost every state sponsored religion in Europe during the Age of Enlightenment.

Religion doesn’t equal morality. Morality comes from human nature, as does depravity.

Than why don’t you make this your proposal? If the enforcement is the issue, than you should be enforcing the Law rather than restricting our rights.

Our Entire ideology is built upon government being Tyrannical, and preparing for it to become tyrannical again.

Make a proposal about upholding oaths, and enforcement of punishment. If no one is getting punished, get up and do it yourself.

This is a generalization. Actions speak louder than words. Watch the video you shared. That man is Islamic, and seeks to reform his religion, as it doesn’t accept him, and hides from shame. He isn’t a liar.

You just shared a video that directly identified the internal conflict that is happening within Islam. Lots of these people aren’t like this, and we have laws in place to protect from this. If the person is lying like you suggest they will, the people would be sanctioning the promises they made during their campaign, and should take proper response to them not following through with what they promised.

Some believed Africans and Natives weren’t people, thus the 3/5ths Comprimise. Society changes and evolves. Yes the success of our government and retention of our rights hinges on the morality of our populous, yet as I stated above, religion does not equal morality. As All three Abrahamic religions support immoral actions. Morality can be found in every religion. Depravity can be found in every religion.

The People. Guns. If they’re openly vowing to overthrow the Constitution, first off, they didn’t lie. Secondly, if they openly vow such a thing, they wouldn’t get elected, due to the moral mentality of the populous. Third, if they got elected illegally, then it’s time to reinstate your Constitution, by he same means as your fore-Fathers. 1776 style.

As for your 6th point, that link is the entire reason I suggested secular orientation of courts by Congress, also to give you somthing valid.

You’re ignoring the fact that the UK has also established just as many Beth Din (Jewish courts) which are still unconstitutional. Why don’t you add that? Or is it just Islam youre after. It’s redundant, as the Supremacy Clause and the 1st Amendment restricts the establishment of a religion and upholds the Constitution as the highest Law of the land → meaning any decisions made in said courts could be easily overruled by any US court.

The REAL bottom line is our unapportioned Representatives and taxes, which are treasonously used to fund foreign religious/ideological conflicts around the globe. Your politicans are paid-for actors through special interest lobbying, they rake in millions on the suffering of others. Including Americans.

This entire proposal is a distraction from the founational solutions that the US needs.