Thursday, February 9, 2017
Wolf in the Sheepfold
During the previous three Presidential administrations, our leaders have unwisely allowed wolves into our government, hence the title of this blog. Hopefully, the Trump administration will fully “drain the swamp” as he promised.
The Muslim Brotherhood, an unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Texas several years ago, has been able to place their operatives into positions of influence and power in the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama administrations.
This is in accord with a Muslim Brotherhood plan for what is called civilization or stealth jihad. The goal of jihad is to turn the Western world upside down by making it an Islamic world totally conforming to shariah law.
Shariah law is antithetical to the U. S. Constitution in every way. See the excerpt below from an important report prepared in 2010. The Constitution’s Article VI Supremacy Clause, which requires that the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the land” does not allow for any foreign laws to supersede it.
“We the People” created the Constitution; Supposedly, Allah created Shariah law and allows for no other human input. Islam is a complete system of political, military, societal, and religious interaction that is codified in shariah and allows only adherent Muslims to function in positions of authority. The U.S. Constitution is more egalitarian and allows for modification by “we the people.” Shariah is intolerant. The Constitution embodies religious tolerance and does not require any particular religious belief system.
An excerpt from Shariah: The Threat to America: An Exercise in Competitive Analysis: A report of Team B II (pp 223-228) is cited below.
Note: Team B II members include: Patrick Poole; Joseph E. Schmitz; William J.; Boykin; Harry Edward Soyster; Henry Cooper; Michael Del Rosso; Frank J. Gaffney Jr.; John Guandolo; Clare M. Lopez; and Andrew C. McCarthy.
The Founders and Islam
America’s earliest presidents best understood our founding principles. They were not only deeply involved with their formal adoption. They were professionally competent. When confronted with an Islamic threat, they took the effort to consult primary sources and to conduct competent analysis of that threat.
The first Muslim member of the House of Representatives [Keith Ellison, a convert from his Catholic upbringing to Islam at the age of 19] recently made a spectacle of being sworn in on a copy of the Quran, rather than the Bible. He deflected some criticism by using one owned by Thomas Jefferson. Unremarked in all the controversy that ensued was the reason why our third President came to own a Quran.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England, met with the emissary of the Islamic potentates of Tripoli to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, regarding the demands for tribute being made at the time by the so-called Barbary Pirates.
Afterwards, Jefferson and Adams sent a four-page report to the Congress describing this meeting. The relevant portion of their report reads:
We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.
The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
After this, Jefferson read the Quran in order to know his enemy. That knowledge of his adversary led to his doctrine of “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”
John Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams, whose formative years coincided with the founding of the republic, offers further insights into the early presidents’ views on this subject. Like many Americans, he took an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, when faced with an Islamic enemy, he understood his obligation to be educated on the factual aspects of the principles, doctrines, objectives, jurisprudence and theology of shariah that comprised his enemy’s threat doctrine.
John Quincy Adams’ 136-page series of essays on Islam displayed a clear understanding of the threat facing America then – and now, especially from the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude. Regarding these two topics, Adams states:
…[Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind….The precept of the Quran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that [Mohammed] is the prophet of God.
The vanquished [dhimmi] may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute.”
As the essential principle of [Mohammed’s] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.
This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen [Muslim] towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Quran. The document [the Quran] does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the necessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to them – the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted character of the two religions.
The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike – all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war – it has softened the features of slavery – it has humanized the intercourse of social life.
The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse.
As we have seen . . ., Adams’ analysis of the meaning of jihad is validated in the English-language translation of the authoritative 14th Century text, Reliance of the Traveller – A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. This book reveals in its opening chapter on Jihad:
o9.0 – Jihad. Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.…The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Quranic verses as: (1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Quran 2:216); (2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Quran 4:89); (3) “Fight the idolaters utterly” (Quran 9:36); …I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is the messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for rights of Islam over them.
In conclusion, it is clear from the writings of several of our earliest presidents, as well as the texts of the nation’s founding documents, that American principles are not at odds with – and imperiled by – some “radical” or “extreme” version of Islam. Rather, it is the mainstream doctrine of shariah that constitutes the threat to the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it enshrines.
That incompatibility has several practical implications: For one thing, the shariah legal code cannot be insinuated into America – even through stealthy means or democratic processes – without violating the Constitution’s Article VI Supremacy Clause, which requires that the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the land.”
For another, those who advocate the imposition of shariah in America must be considered ineligible to serve in the military, or hold state or federal office, insofar as Article VI requires them to swear an “oath…to support this Constitution” – not any other legal code, like shariah. The same disqualifier would appear to govern with respect to immigrants or would-be naturalized citizens.
Lastly, advocacy of and engagement in jihad, of even the dawa [Non-violent] variety, for the purpose of imposing shariah, supplanting the Constitution and overthrowing the government it mandates would – as a practical matter – constitute a felony violation of the U.S. Code’s prohibitions on treason, sedition and subversive activities.
From its founding, America has had a great tradition of tolerance and inclusion, on a mutual basis. Our latter day tendencies, however, for cultural diversity, political correctness and unreciprocated ecumenism – all seen by our enemies as submission and the subject of the following chapter – must not be allowed to create vehicles for our national destruction at the hands of those all-too-willing to use our civil liberties against us toward that end. In World War II, Americans would never have proposed that fascist or Nazi doctrine had some political or moral equivalency with American principles. We rightly identified the two as being completely and unalterably at odds. Today’s mortal peril, shariah, must be viewed and treated the same way.
. . . the relevant, seminal texts concerning shariah are available in English from online booksellers and in mosque bookstores across America. It is, consequently, inexcusable for our political elites to be ignorant of the doctrines that guide shariah-adherent organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American Islamic Relations, the North American Islamic Trust, etc. as well as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and their ideological cousins.
Even more reprehensible is the willingness of some among America’s elites, and it would appear even a subset of its elected leaders, to accede to these groups’ increasingly insistent contention that shariah is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, based on shariah’s tenets, its core attributes – especially its intolerance of other faiths and disfavored populations and its bid for supremacy over all other legal or political systems, there can be no confusion on this score: As the Framers fully understood, shariah is an enemy of the United States Constitution. The two are incompatible.