Friday, August 27, 2010


The proposed Islamic center a few blocks from ground zero got me to thinking.

That, and the Muslim hostess who insists on wearing her hijab instead of her Disneyland costume.

What the heck is going on in America?

I Googled up an article from the Office of International Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois. Entitled “Islamic Law, Myths and Realities,” the essay tells us that Islamic Law provides two ways to protect the five ‘indispensables’ of religion, life, intellect, offspring and property; moral education and deterrent punishment.

Deterrent punishment includes the full range of options available in our criminal justice system. And then some.

In the Islamic tradition, there is no separation of church and state. Islam is a theocracy, that is, a government controlled and operated by a self perpetuating oligarchy of religious leaders.

About a quarter of the Earth’s population is Muslim. They tend to gather in communities and impose their Shariah law, ignoring the civil and criminal laws governing the rest of the people.

Sort of like the Amish, only with knives and swords.

We have freedom of religion in America. It’s a fundamental right protected by our Constitution. But it’s not absolute.

If your religion says you should behead your wife if she chats it up with the milkman, the First Amendment isn’t going to keep you out of jail.

President Obama took a lot of flack for saying that America is not a Christian nation. Deservedly so, from a cultural standpoint.

But the fact is that the United States is not a theocracy. Our customs and our laws have come down to us through Christian civilization, but our nation was not founded by religious leaders.

The United States of American was founded by the people.

To be sure, the hand of the Almighty was there in Philadelphia. But not in the garb of the clergy. He was there in his role as the Creator of the universe and everything – and everybody – in it.

Our Constitution was Divinely inspired only in the sense that the Founders were using their God given intellects and free will to design a government which would in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “most likely effect their safety and happiness.”

The idea that God somehow ordains certain people, because of their lineage, or their education, or their wealth, or their holiness, or their sheer chutspah or charisma to be the rulers of the people simply does not sit well with Americans.

We believe that the people are sovereign. All the people. The young, the old, the black the white, the rich the poor, the smart and the dull. Male and female. Straight and gay. Hispanic and Anglo and Asian and everything in between. All the people.

I suppose there are some well meaning, loyal Americans who would change the First Amendment if they could. But if permitting Congress to establish a religion would mean overriding the sovereignty of the American people, and changing our form of government to an Islamic theocracy, it would be more than just an amendment. It would be the abolition of our constitutional system.

The University of Illinois paper urges us to open our minds and expand our knowledge base, and insists that Islamic Law can solve contemporary crime problems.

So could the mafia. So did Hitler.

I think we should fight like hell to save our country.


  1. Those of us who live and work in Manhattan have no problem with the Mosque at ground zero. Neither does our Jewish Mayor. This is merely another phoney issue the Republicans are using to raise money. Once the election is over it will be forgotten. The opposition to it will only drive more muslims to perceive the U.S. as an intolerant nature. We already have numerous hate crimes against muslims as a result of nuts like Beck, Palin, Hannity etc. More troublesome is that main stream Republicans are joining in. This is how the Holocost started; blame the Jews. We have more important things to worry about, Jobs Jobs Jobs. We lost our honor as a Country under Bush who lied us into a war with Iraq and sponsored torture. Where were you then my friend.

  2. Judge you're discovering why I am leading an effort to inform people about the incompatiblity of Sharia Law with the self-evident founding principles of our nation. Both cannot be right if they are diametrically opposed as they are. In Sharia Law, the testimony of one man is equal to the testimony of two women, there are countless other injustices and immoralities advocated, and pre-justified under Sharia. I seek to establish a No Sharia law in every state (not federal that would be illegal) prohibiting it from both public and private litigation. I am so proud of you, God Bless You.
    American Defense League (ADL) founder,
    Walter Brown Jr.
    NY Delegate ConventionUSA

  3. Here's a recent article that I republished describing the historical connections between Hitler and Islam via the Mufti of Jerusalem. G Man advocates a position only tenable for persons with no understanding of history. Ignore him, his rhetoric is wrong and the stuff of Neville Chamerblain. Trust your instincts, history, and the law.


  5. Great job Judge. Im originally from the great state of Michigan (Port Huron) my grandfather was a circuit court judge, Halford Streeter. He would be proud to know there are still patriots like you looking out for America.

  6. Michigan actually has the largest concentration of Muslims in the country.

    If ever someone wanted to impose Sharia on the nation, we would of course all fight it. That is not being proposed, however.

    The cleric building Park51, if he ever gets the money (and at last count, the second biggest shareholder in FoxNews is bankrolling him), is somewhat of a "Jesus seminar" kind of Muslim who picks and choses the parts of the Koran he favors. His thesis is not that he wants Sharia law here, but that much of civil society in the west already has many elements of Sharia Law. This is an interesting idea, and much in line with a book I read called the Political Teachings of Jesus, which contended that much of the politics of the Sermon on the Mount are present in western society as well. Considering that Sharia and Christianity are not very far apart in certain respects, the latter being based in part on the former and both based on the Torah, this conclusion should not be amazing to anyone who is not thinking with his flag.

  7. It has nothing to do with imam feisal abdul rauf's wants, it is religious obligation to do so. The truth is that imam feisal abdul rauf in is strongly in favor of implanting Sharia law in the US, his comments in Arabic are substantially different from the lies he tells in English. Ask any Muslim Cleric (do you know any, I do) if they are in favor of Sharia law for everyone...

    That's right a Saudi Prince bought a share in Fox News and the WSJ in order to control the message from the opposition, not sure how having the same person bankroll the mosque, not to mention close ties to the Sharia Center at Harvard and paying for Obama's education make much of a case against what I am suggesting. At last count his networth was $33 billion dollars, the mysterious $220 million that Obama took received in sub $200 contributions is very suspect considering there are only 300 million people take out ~60 million minors and divide by two you get 120 million potential contributors so that means that virtually every democrat sent at least one ~$200 donation to obama, or somebody with billions of dollars decided to put their boy in the white house. Doing the math $220 million/$33 billion = nothing%, you got a lot to learn Michael and regurgitating the NYT is not going to cut it...

  8. There are extremists in every religion. Consider the Catholics in Northern Ireland who have tried over the years to use terrorism to fight for their independence from England. They did not endear themselves to the Protestants there or abroad. But their position, of course, did not mean that all Catholics were in favor of terrorism. Not all Muslims, either here or abroad, support the terrorism being perpetrated in the name of Islam. Nor are they all cheerleaders for the imposition of Sharia Law. When other Americans display outright prejudice against American Muslims based solely on their religion, no matter how peace-loving and patriotic they are, it only feeds into the perception outside this country (and within it) that we are at war with Islam rather than at war with the terrorists. We are playing right into the hands of the terrorist recruiters. I recently saw a 60 Minutes story about a program aimed at disabusing young Pakistanis that the United States is anti-Islam, the goal being to dissuade them from getting caught up in the brewing extremism there. But no matter what the focus group presenters said, most of these men stuck with their position that Americans want to destroy Islam. My thought was that they might consider a program to disabuse Americans of that notion first. I firmly believe that if everyone railing against Muslims in general right now had one close friend (or even an acquaintance) who is Muslim, the tenor would be decidedly different. I think we need to avoid the hyperbole of an imposition of Sharia Law in America and focus on supporting our own Muslim citizens who, like us, value the rights guaranteed to the people of this great country.

  9. The problem is that Islamic religious text demands extremist behavior. You're mixing apples and tractors Jean. In one case (Islam) religious texts tell them that it is their duty to commit what we consider to be crimes, in the other case (Christianity) we have people committing immoral and illegal actions that are in conflict with religious doctrine.

    Islam has a bloody 1400 history because it's a bloody religion, you should study the Koran a bit before assuming that it is a peaceloving religion, it most certainly is not. I have a number of scholarly apostates that you can talk with if you would like to hear the truth. Hate the sin, and love the sinner. I hate evil, Islam is evil. You defend what you don't understand. My heart breaks for the countless millions that suffer under this tyrannical system, it is the holocaust of our time. At the risk of supporting a holocaust you might want to check a little deeper into the facts before you weigh in on the side of evil. I have no intention of forcing anyone into a religion but I do recognize a holocaust when I see one, and I don't want to counted as having given tacit approval when I face the Lord. I have enough sins to answer for already.

  10. Save our country from what?

    I think it was Pogo who said, "We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us."

    The mosque is to be several blocks away; the project had been in progress several years before 9/11... only now people tend to get incensed because they read it as an affront sequel to 9/11.

  11. To the extent that we fail to recognize the threat we face and people with absolutely no understanding of the situation facilitate the advancement of a cunning and determine enemy, Pogo was correct we are our own worst enemy.
    Try reading about Islamization of Europe and the US Nick, that should answer your question. Unfortunately, we face many threats and focusing on our own tyrannical government alone is not sufficient. It's like worrying about the painting your house when there's a gunfight raging on your street, both are important only one is urgent...

  12. liberals love to talk about how opponents of the mosque make things worse and are islamophobes, whatever the hell that means. They fail utterly to take into account that Muslims have been living and thriving in this nation for years without a problem. So, suddenly, if we oppose something a Muslim intends to do, we are hateful bigots and islamophobes. So, it appears that, to the liberal mind, a single disagreement on a single issue negates years of acceptance and assimilation of muslims into American culture. Could it be that there are certain Muslims who do not wish to be integrated and assimilated and wish to impose their theocratic vision on this noble Republic? Can a liberal conceive of such a notion? If they could, how would they respond, I wonder?

  13. Here's what you're defending Michael and Jean,

    Shariah, often referred to as "Islamic Law," is in actuality a legal doctrine based on the Quran and Hadiths (sayings and acts of Mohammed), but one which goes far beyond what Westerners would regard as religious matters or routine legal matters.

    Shariah covers all aspects of life, including criminal law, domestic law, statecraft and warfare (Jihad). Shariah encompasses personal ethics and legal issues, religion and state governance, this world and the afterlife. Shariah is said to enforce the will of Allah, as opposed to the will of humans. Shariah regulates belief, speech and religious practice, criminal and legal matters, and other fields including finance and war. There is no such thing as a separate secular authority or secular law under doctrinal Shariah, since religion and state are not distinct, but are one.

    Shariah is a code which is best known for being the law of the land in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, three nations with some of the most horrible human rights records in the world. It is no coincidence that these three nations are also heavily involved in Jihadist terrorism.

    Shariah can be accurately described as reactionary, deliberately vague and, in its implementation, barbaric.

    Shariah mandates as a religious obligation:

    •Violent jihad against non-Muslims to establish Islam's rule worldwide (known as the caliphate).
    •The killing of apostates from Islam.
    •The killing of adulterers and homosexuals.

    Any person or organization promoting Sharia is involved in Sedition, not exactly what you want to be supporting...