Jihad Watch: Sounds great! Now: who fits the bill?

January 8, 2008

Sounds great! Now: who fits the bill?

Recently a gentleman dropped in here to call me, Hugh, and some Jihad Watch posters various names, and to attack the site and our anti-jihad efforts on grounds so obviously spurious that it is not worth taking him seriously enough to answer at length. But he did offer one useful bit of information: a definition of what constitutes a moderate Muslim individual or group, courtesy the Rand Corporation (pdf here):

--Does the group (or individual) support or condone violence? If it does not support or condone violence now, has it supported or condoned it in the past?
-- Does it support democracy? And if so, does it define democracy broadly in terms of individual rights?

-- Does it support internationally recognized human rights?

-- Does it make any exceptions (e.g., regarding freedom of religion)?

-- Does it believe that changing religions is an individual right?

-- Does it believe the state should enforce the criminal-law component of shari’a?

-- Does it believe the state should enforce the civil-law component of shari’a? Or does it believe there should be non-shari’a options for those who prefer civil-law matters to be adjudicated under a secular legal system?

-- Does it believe that members of religious minorities should be entitled to the same rights as Muslims?

-- Does it believe that a member of a religious minority could hold high political office in a Muslim majority country?

-- Does it believe that members of religious minorities are entitled to build and run institutions of their faith (churches and synagogues) in Muslim majority countries?

-- Does it accept a legal system based on nonsectarian legal principles?

That all sounds great, and longtime Jihad Watch readers will know that those are exactly the kinds of things I have called for many times from sincere Muslim reformers. Now the burning question is: where is there a Muslim group that affirms all this, sincerely, and backs up its words with deeds?

Suggestions/nominations welcome. The Rand report itself goes on simply to suggest various kinds of people among which such groups may be found -- it is telling that it doesn't simply follow these criteria with a list of the Muslim groups that fit the bill, but instead lists a number of groups with suspect credentials. And the addled poster who pointed us all to this followed it up with a citation of the Robert Leiken farrago on the Muslim Brotherhood. Oops.

Posted by Robert at January 8, 2008 7:32 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Comments
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

"Now the burning question is: where is there a Muslim group that affirms all this, sincerely, and backs up its words with deeds?"

...hmmmm..let's see...there is ...nope, oh yeah..there is ...uh oh ..nope...how about...oops nope.....maybe the ...no.....

.....I guess I will just have to keep looking....

Posted by: exsgtbrown

at January 8, 2008 7:44 AM

Now the burning question is: where is there a Muslim group that affirms all this, sincerely, and backs up its words with deeds?

Suggestions/nominations welcome

You will never see them because they do not exist.

In their deepest heart and dream's they see Islam on the rise to dominate the world and gladly remain silent,stealth warriors until the time ls ripe for them to be more open and bloody about the false prophet mohammed's barbaric and violent teaching's.
The gentle sweet moslem of today(rare) transfom's into allah's executioner when Islam comes to dominate an 'infidel' country.
Meanwhile our devious and corrupt political leaders continue to aid and abet these destroyers of America.
This enemy know they have much help from the left and the right here in the U.S. to accomplish their goals.
Our country is commiting suicide for them and they can see what the blind,dumbed down American's cannot see.
Here's an example of this that the corrupt U.S. Government media has covered up so far.
Clintion gave the Chinese guidance technology so they could target our cities with multiple war heads.(Loral)and nothing happened.
The same continues under his cousin George Butch.
Treason ,corruption at the top does not bode well for our future.

exerpt;
Sibel Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator for the FBI, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency’s Washington field office.
She approached The Sunday Times last month after reading about an Al-Qaeda terrorist who had revealed his role in training some of the 9/11 hijackers while he was in Turkey.
Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of US officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions.
Among the hours of covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the US State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan.
The name of the official – who has held a series of top government posts – is known to The Sunday Times. He strongly denies the claims.
However, Edmonds said: “He was aiding foreign operatives against US interests by passing them highly classified information, not only from the State Department but also from the Pentagon, in exchange for money, position and political objectives.”
She claims that the FBI was also gathering evidence against senior Pentagon officials – including household names – who were aiding foreign agents.
“If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials,” she said.
Her story shows just how much the West was infiltrated by foreign states seeking nuclear secrets. It illustrates how western government officials turned a blind eye to, or were even helping, countries such as Pakistan acquire bomb technology.
The wider nuclear network has been monitored for many years by a joint Anglo-American intelligence effort. But rather than shut it down, investigations by law enforcement bodies such as the FBI and Britain’s Revenue & Customs have been aborted to preserve diplomatic relations.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece

Posted by: rocketman

at January 8, 2008 8:01 AM

I'm stumped as well.

Is this a take home quiz?

I have a feeling that somewhere such a group exists...........maybe...............it might be like OJ's search for the "real killers".....................can anyone else think of one?

Posted by: tanstaafl

at January 8, 2008 8:02 AM

Rand is a very credible group. I'd love to see the studies and reports they have that aren't for public viewing.

Posted by: Bingo

at January 8, 2008 8:22 AM

I can testify that this is an incredibly efficient approach when debating the typical apologists: put the burden of proof on them. They always assume that this mythical, moderate Islam exists, without ever having put any thought into this assumption. The funny thing is, they have never thought they would be asked to point out moderate Islam, a moderate spokesman or reformer, a moderate Muslim group, or a country where this strain og Islam is practised. Never. I heartily recommend using this approach. See them squirm, see them get flustered or exasperated, see them getting 'Islam' and 'Muslims' mixed up - 'there are moderate individuals who think of themselves as Muslims, therefore moderate Islam must exist', and finally, see them making a hasty retreat from the debate when they have painted themselves into a corner.

For us with only a very superficial knowledge of these matters, this is the killer approach. Although we aren't able to debate at the level of Robert and Hugh, we can easily point to what we have learned here about abrogation, fiqh, the gates of ijtihad etc. We can point to numerous reasons to be against Islam. If they are so certain, they must at least be able to point out counter examples. But they can't. Gotcha.

Try it!

Posted by: anti-uffe

at January 8, 2008 8:29 AM

Robert-

Sometimes people tell you the truth, what they really believe, in spite of what they appear to say. The Rand Corp. definition of moderate Muslim is everything JihadWatch keeps calling for as it points out the reality of Jihad. Maybe the critic agrees with you.

On the reverse side, his criticism is similar to Bill Clinton's words of support for his wife ("I can't make her young, I can't make her, etc...") Do you think maybe Bill was telling us what he really thinks of Hill with his words of support? Maybe the critic's condemnation of The Two Outdoor Cats and JW is similar to Bill's words of support for Hillary.

Posted by: Frank

at January 8, 2008 8:30 AM

Of course all Muslims groups affirm these things. They also affirm that if you believe these things you must be killed or at least have parts of your body sliced off.

Posted by: TheOmegaMan

at January 8, 2008 8:45 AM

Now, where did I put my unicorn? (scratches head).

Like I said the other day, if any moslem says any of those things, they would be labled an apostate and killed.

Posted by: mrockroll1969

at January 8, 2008 8:57 AM

The basic idea is good, but I think the Rand guys fired too quickly; some of these points are misguided and play into apologists' and Islamists' hands.

-- Does it believe the state should enforce the civil-law component of shari’a? Or does it believe there should be non-shari’a options for those who prefer civil-law matters to be adjudicated under a secular legal system?
-- Does it believe that members of religious minorities should be entitled to the same rights as Muslims?

-- Does it believe that a member of a religious minority could hold high political office in a Muslim majority country?

-- Does it believe that members of religious minorities are entitled to build and run institutions of their faith (churches and synagogues) in Muslim majority countries?

Non-shari'a options? What's up with that? I mean, I know what's up with that by why on earth is Rand advocating this as some sort of normative or moderate approach? This is what is found all over the Islamic world. Even in Saudia Christians and Jews are permitted alcoholic beverages (in their own homes) and to not do the obligatory 5 daily prayers. The point is they CONSIDER such allowances to be a generous accommodation. In Pakistan they consider the society to be wide open and friendly to non-muslims...In "secular" turkey and Egypt look at how non-muslims are regularly persecuted and their attackers let off with a hand-slap.

Even if sharia is not the state law, if it is a primary legal paradigm there is trouble for non-muslims. A moderate will reject religious law as a fundamental paradigm or openly advocate strict measures to guarantee the rights and equality for those to which it does not apply. But I seriously question whether equality is possible when different laws apply to different groups in a society. Any state-sanctioned "shari'a law" or even the quasi-shari'a we see throughout dar al Islam, is bad news.

Would Rand consider a group moderate if they advocate replacing the U.S. constitution with Shari'a Law, plus some amendments allowing non-muslims to live without the various religious restrictions of shari'a? What about the movements in Brittain, Europe and Canada to get a foot in the door for sharia by implementing restricted versions of the Shari'a for the muslim communities, under the sanction of the government? No thanks.

Similarly with allowing dhimmis to hold public office. Iran loves to parade its token dhimmis. I had a conversation with a fellow who claimed that Iran was far more committed to rights for religious minorities than the west because they GUARANTEED a seat in the government for christians. The PA does the same -- government positions for religious minorities as a dog-and-pony show of tolerance. In the historical caliphates it was a common practise to raise Janissaries who were non-muslims to high military and political position. These folks were generally children of conquered non-muslim populations who were brainwashed at a very young age and raised with the purpose of ruling over or brutally suppressing the very people from which they came -- an irony that seems to appeal dearly to islamists, the idea that you can take a non-muslim population and turn their people on each other like a caged dogfight. I believe they regard it as a sort of entertainment. Come to think of it, don't we see a number of these janissaries operating openly in our society? Read about Vlad the Impaler, a prime example of how, through their training in violent ideology, kids of the conquered can be psychotically damaged and grow into worse tyrants and psychopaths than their evil masters.

While building and running churches, synagogues etc is a fine thing and better than one has in a strict shari'a state, once more many Islamic societies trot out their accommodation of religious minorities as proof of their openness and tolerance, while those minorities are slapped with dozens of restrictions and heavily persecuted. Can they practise openly? Are they given equal time and treated fairly in the official school curriculum religious studies programs? Can they proselytize in the same way as muslims? Can they distribute literature publicly? Can they preach openly against beliefs (such as Islam) with which they disagree, or are they shackled in what subjects they can address?

Posted by: Archimedes2

at January 8, 2008 9:44 AM

I just can't think of a single group. Perhaps they could make themselves known? Seriously.

Posted by: DaveMate

at January 8, 2008 10:22 AM

Archimedes,

IMHO you are right about those points. How can anyone thinking of sharia (whatever the shape, exclusions and ammendments)in a western country be a moderate? Just a reminder:

--Does it believe the state should enforce the laws enforcing the leading role of the communist party?

-- Does it believe that non-communists should be entitled to the same rights as communists?

-- Does it believe that a non-communist could hold high political office in a communist country?

etc.

And now from RAND report:

"U.S. and Western network-building activities are now regarded as one of the key reasons for the West’s victory in the Cold War...there was a broad political consensus inside the United
States and in some allied countries, notably Great Britain, on the need to fight Communism in its political and ideological, as well as military, manifestations. This consensus lasted for almost twenty years, allowing both overt and covert support for networking efforts to continue
without domestic political interference. This was despite the fact that many journalists, lawmakers, and intellectuals were well aware of
covert funding for some of these programs."

If similar consensus is not built regarding islamization, we will just keep watching the Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian civilization decline and degrade. We will go silently into the night of sharia and demographic conquest. And we wold have lived in a world we did not deserve.

Posted by: Excommie

at January 8, 2008 10:33 AM

That list is impossible, and I mean literally. We all know this because a moderate Muslim could never be a true Muslim since some on that list would violate Mohd's teachings.

Posted by: Silly Allah

at January 8, 2008 10:46 AM

Damn. Talk about a project. Can't we just be given the job of actually finding "white" holes? Let's start off easy to loosen up rather than jumping in head first.

Posted by: Kevin

at January 8, 2008 10:55 AM

"Recently a gentleman dropped in here to call me, Hugh, and some Jihad Watch posters [...]"

Link?

I don't have the time to keep up with the site. A link to the thread this happened on would be helpful.

Posted by: hope_and_justice

at January 8, 2008 11:04 AM

Hope and Justice:

It's in the comments field here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019465.php

-- although I confess that I still haven't had a chance to read his long exchange with Hugh.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch

at January 8, 2008 11:10 AM

"Now the burning question is: where is there a Muslim group that affirms all this, sincerely, and backs up its words with deeds?"

It's worse than 'Islam is not moderate', Allah is not moderate. There is no way to worship and obey Allah, in moderation. For a muslim to think that they can worship Allah in moderation, is shirk, and apostasy. Their personal opinion trumps Allah's edicts, placing themselves egoistically on a higher level than Allah. Now, learned readers here know what Allah thinks of that kind of stuff, and so do muslim's, which is why you may see some bumping Allah's line drawn in the sand, but none dare cross it...

Posted by: duh_swami

at January 8, 2008 11:30 AM

How much money did the Rand Corporation spend on this study? And does it say anything about the word "Islamofascism"?

Next time such a study, with such conclusions, is needed by the American government, I hope they will contact me. I suspect Rand did it for a few hundred thousand dollars, or maybe a cool million. But I promise to be the low bidder.

I'll do it for $1600. That's just about the cost of a new Energy-Star* refrigrator. The door of the 22-year-old Whirlpool Regal, you see, no longer closes tightly, and it's losing a lot of coolth.

Well, all right. I could go as low as $1500. But that's it.

Posted by: Hugh

at January 8, 2008 11:35 AM

Hugh...sometimes those doors can be adjusted.
I tied the fridge door shut with a rope for six months before a friend adjusted it in five minutes.
But broken is broken, so good luck...

Posted by: duh_swami

at January 8, 2008 11:50 AM

Posted by: Excommie at January 8, 2008 10:33 AM

Mostly agreed - but to paraphrase Clint Eastwood, "Deserves got nothing to do with it."

Posted by: George Mc.

at January 8, 2008 11:56 AM

And here is another thing which doesn't help us here in the West and exposes how Muslims are corrupt and ready to accept bribery:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7176807.stm

When will we ever learn not to trust Muslims, and when will we finally realise just how treacherous they are? How many more of our troops must be killed to capture this lowlife, only for him to bribe his way to freedom and a second or third chance to kill? If he is captured again, he should be killed on the spot. And, lastly, how come he can tell his story to the BBC without fear? Isn't this saying a lot about THAT organisation?

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683

at January 8, 2008 12:06 PM

I have one more criteria that is important to me.
Do members of the group advocate or support replacing the U.S. Constitution with ANYTHING else?

Posted by: MP

at January 8, 2008 12:11 PM

Hugh

At least your fridge is not from your landlord who refuses to get a service to repair it! Hum... he is from Pakistan and a muslim... maybe...just maybe... that is the reason!

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

at January 8, 2008 12:12 PM

The $64,000 question in my mind, having read the criteria, is 'would the vast majority of moderate Muslims accept a person or group of persons as Muslim if they proposed all the above criteria'. I think the answer is a resounding 'no' and at the very least, the vocal minority would be labeling such people as 'infidels, apostates or hypocrites'.

The west needs to get over itself and understand that our definitions of words aren't universal. Our ideas about 'conservative', 'progressive' and 'moderate' don't have the same meanings or any meaning, for that matter, to people living in Islamic culture. We're trying to analyze and understand another culture through our own cultural concepts. This is a fundamental flaw in most of the effort so far.

We need to stop trying to fit them into the slots of our own culture and need to see them as they fit into their own cultural gestalt. The prime example we all complain about is the meaning of the word 'Peace'...

We're never going to get anywhere until a broad spectrum of people in our culture have a meaningful understanding of THEIR culture. Frankly, common people are disinterested in it and members of the legislative aned executive branches ( including leading members of the State department, whose primary career goal should be to have that very understanding ) don't feel the need to really make the effort to see the world through Islamic eyes.

We make stupid mistakes and invoke Rosa Parks for the Palestinian shitheads because we don't make the effort to a) listen to what they are really saying b) to understand what the words mean in their Islamic context.

This site does wonders to clear up both errors, but getting it into everyone's awareness is difficult. Willful ignorance and self-absorbed indifference are the two biggest enemies our culture is up against - and they are US.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses

at January 8, 2008 12:16 PM

Hugh,
On the fridge issue, two words. Duct tape.;)

Polls and studies. Also known as useless info to all but politicians and pundits. I don't need a poll or study to tell me that muslims in general despise western culture and those who live in it. This study by Rand is a waste. Why don't they take the money and commission a study to determine just how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin? At least that would answer a centuries old question. We already know the the definition of a moderate muslim. There are none.

Posted by: Kevin

at January 8, 2008 12:27 PM

Is this a take home quiz?
I have a feeling that somewhere such a group exists...........maybe...............
- posted by tanstaafl

Is this an open book exam? I have the Koran open, any hints on what pages I can find the answers?

Does CAIR care to answer the Rand report on ‘moderate’ Muslim groups?... No?

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours

at January 8, 2008 12:28 PM

Hey, he said we were bad, hateful people.
'Cause "reverend" Sutter said so too.

Posted by: interestinconundrum

at January 8, 2008 12:29 PM

If we're to take the statement about 'condoning violence' seriously and literally, then nobody of any religion would qualify, it seems.

Putting that piece of it aside, from what I've been reading about Maher Hathout and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, it would seem that they meet, or come close to meeting, the criteria set out here.

If this criteria is to be the gold standard of responsible religious conduct, then it seems to me that devout adherents of strict, Orthodox Judaism would be ruled out of compliance as well, at least insofar as restoring a halachically ruled Torah state in the land of Israel is concerned which is part and parcel of normative Judaism.

Also, I would point out that faithful Catholics would have had a hard time with meeting a number of these standards prior to the Second Vatican Council.

Posted by: fairuzfan

at January 8, 2008 12:36 PM

"Recently a gentleman dropped in here to call me, Hugh, and some Jihad Watch posters various names, and to attack the site and our anti-jihad efforts on grounds so obviously spurious that it is not worth taking him seriously enough to answer at length. But he did offer one useful bit of information: a definition of what constitutes a moderate Muslim individual or group, courtesy the Rand Corporation (pdf here):"

It occurs to me that this gentleman is like the anti-smoking "moralists" who really hit and bully some soft target (some guy smoking on a park bench) but avoid facing really dangerous threats (jihad, e.g.). He would not pull this act with CAIR, etc. He must have felt safe.

Posted by: Frank

at January 8, 2008 12:47 PM

The bottom line is Democrats and Leftists are willing to accept Islamic terrorism and Sharia as a de facto reality here in America. It's an assault on our way of life, Western culture, and democratic principles... All of which, the Left never embraced unless it's Socialist in nature.

What a shame. What a powerful shame.

Oh, and let's not let the Republicans off the hook, either. They're willing to turn a blind eye to religious hypocrisy/apartheid in order to turn a buck.

That's immoral, and vile.

The 5th column is real, and it's persistant. The cancer will only grow. There will be no political will to excise it. Asi es la vida corrupta do los politicos aqui.

Posted by: antishock8

at January 8, 2008 1:04 PM

Robert,

What about this group:

http://www.freemuslims.org/

From reading their stances certain issues:

Modern Islam
The Free Muslims Coalition believes that the Koran only provides general principles of governance which leaves the faithful with substantial flexibility to modernize popular Muslim practices and beliefs.

Democracy
The Free Muslims cautions that imposing democracy on the Middle East without first promoting secularism and destroying terrorism may lead to the creation of Islamic extremist states that will ultimately reject the democracy that brings them to power.

Terrorism
The Free Muslims believes that fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world. There is no room for terrorism in the modern world and the United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism in order to avoid another tragedy, along the lines of 9-11.

Economic Development
The Free Muslims wants to integrate the community as a whole into the global market in order to improve people's standard of living and reduce the number of people who sympathize with extremism and terrorism because of their inability to gain a minimum level of prosperity.

Israel/Palestine
No issue evokes the passion of Muslims and Arabs as much as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is so important to Arabs and Muslims that every terrorist group from Morocco to Indonesia that seeks legitimacy and a following, places the "liberation" of Palestine at the forefront of their agenda.

Don't Blame the "Jews"
Another disturbing trend that is heavily propagated by extremists and accepted by many naive Arabs and Muslims is the blaming of all Muslim problems on the "Jews." There are numerous examples for this but most recently news broadcasts out of Iraq quoted Iraqi victims of violence who blamed the bombings on Jews or a Jewish conspiracy.

Women's Rights
The Free Muslims Coalition strongly believes that equality for Muslim women is essential to the development of the Muslim world and to the defeat of extremism.

I've not done any digging but on the surface they seem above board.

Posted by: Paper_Tiger

at January 8, 2008 1:12 PM

On this "gentleman's" blog one searches in vain for a single explanatory reference to the Qur'an, ahadith, tasfir and sira. One does, however, find this:

"We must enlist the aid of moderate Muslims to defeat the Jihadists, and to accomplish that, we must demonstrate that changes are being made. The firing of an ideological extremist like Stephen Coughlin sends the right kind of message to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan who are not our enemies, and simply want the same things that we do - the freedom to live and worship in peace."

Given that this "expert" never showed up here before Coughlin was fired, and given his provocateur stance, I can't help but wonder if his objective was to help his fellow intelligence communitarians "send the right kind of message" to the Muslim trolls and operatives that are known to peruse Jihad Watch.

Posted by: Papa Whiskey

at January 8, 2008 1:25 PM

his fellow intelligence communitarians
posted by papa whiskey

Look a little father at the content of his website.
Calling him a member of the intelligence community is like calling Jessica on Murder She Wrote a police officer.

Posted by: Aunt Bea

at January 8, 2008 1:51 PM

LOL Hugh

I don't know how to say this. I recall your response to the poster in question, something about "tit of government", not sure if that is exact. To counter, don't sell yourself so cheaply. We all need to make a living (me included). If you got a contract to do a study charge what you are worth (I hope more that a refrigerator).
------------------------------

I like what 'A_Plague_on_Both_Houses' and others have commented on the subject of different cultures and words used. I thought of this phrase, "To call a Muslim moderate (moderate by western definitions) is like saying the color red is sour (in the Muslim world).

I have over the years talked to people about faith and belief in God and Jesus. One of the hardest things is word definitions. I (naively) assumed one meaning of a word or idea and later realized another meaning was taken.

Jer 17:9
The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

vجيري 17:9
القلب هو اكثر من كل شيء آخر خادعه وياءسه المرضى ؛ الذي يمكن فهمه؟

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL!

at January 8, 2008 2:02 PM

Paper_Tiger,

Let's take the info you found at face value. Can they therefore be called muslim? When all that they state is in clear violation of the koran? As it has been stated here before and often, if one edits the koran to remove the negative aspects of the book, all you would have left is a front and back and no pages. But it must be remembered that the koran alone is not the basis for islam. The hadith and sura are also key factors in islam. Hence the statement that "moderate" muslims are only muslims who fear leaving islam under penalty of death. However, let's hope that the info you found is indeed heart felt by that group. But at some point they have to realize that they are no longer muslim.

Posted by: Kevin

at January 8, 2008 2:58 PM

Can anyone explain to me why although a President can be charged with crimes against the constitution, no-one else is?

I hold it to be self-evident that Sharia law and the American Constitution are incompatible.

Democracy does not mean the majority is always right.
Majority voting is constrained by constitutional principles.
A Constitution is there to prevent the dangers of elected dictatorship, to stop those who would use democracy to dismantle democracy.

An American President, Richard Nixon, was forced to resign for perceived crimes against the American Constitution.

America fought a Civil War in order to protect the Constitution, in which over half a million people died.

Soldiers pledge allegiance to the constitution; is it not time that civilian citizens did as well and were actually held accountable if they broke their pledge?

All Americans have citizenship under certain constitutional limits, what is essentially a contract of citizenship.

If you try to set up Sharia law does it not mean you have broken your contract of citizenship?

Would it not be legal and right for the American Government to revoke that citizenship?

If America’s soldiers uphold the constitution isn’t it about time that it’s politicians and lawyers did the same?

The first Amendment covers elements of Islam which can genuinely be classified as religious i.e. the right to pray to a deity called Allah.
It does not cover elements of Islam which can be genuinely be classified as a political system i.e. Sharia law

Should not laws be introduced to defend the constitution, making it compulsory for those who advocate Sharia law to be re-settled in a country of their choice where they can live in a Sharia State?

Posted by: Odyessus

at January 8, 2008 4:16 PM