Show

ISLAM: Is It REALLY Compatible with the United States Constitution?

Author Bill Federer gave a strong defense for the assertion that Islam is incompatible with the Constitution:

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in “Democracy in America,” 1840, Vol. II, Book 1, Chapter V: “Mohammad brought down from heaven and put into the Koran not religious doctrines only, but political maxims, criminal and civil laws, and scientific theories. The Gospels, on the other hand, deal only with the general relations between man and God and between man and man. Beyond that, they teach nothing and do not oblige people to believe anything. That alone, among a thousand reasons, is enough to show that Islam will not be able to hold its power long in an age of enlightenment and democracy,”

Specifically, which Amendment is incompatible with the Quran? Just the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 21st Amendments. If the Quran is incompatible with the Constitution, and adherence to its doctrine violates multiple provisions and laws therein, how can we allow Islam to run free within our borders or give it the same protections afforded peaceful religions? The answer is we can’t.

We should live and let live, you say? Please tell me the part of the Constitution or any law in this country that lets people mutilate the genitalia of little girls. Oh, you didn’t know it’s being done right here, right now, in the United States?

The CDC states that the massive increase in the monstrous practice of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is “wholly a result of rapid growth in the number of immigrants from FGM/C-practicing countries living in the United States.” Virtually all of the countries listed by the CDC were dominated by Muslims.

Sally Kohn, Rachel Maddow, Hillary Clinton, and all feminist banshees, where in the hell are you?
It’s not just that Islam is allowed to operate, it’s given preferential treatment: Our schools take militant opposition to Christian and Jewish holidays and traditions based on the grossly misinterpreted “separation of church and state,” but welcome Muslim prayers rooms?

Forgive me if I’m not familiar with Idaho law but it would seem that underage boys raping and urinating on a five-year-old girl – while filming the incident — would earn them long prison sentences with the likelihood of being tried as adults. Guess not. Let’s not ignore the fact that the judge in the case issued an unconstitutional, post facto gag order.

The Quran poses a governing problem. Our first Muslim Congressman, Minnesota Congressman and Deputy Democratic National Committee Chair Keith Ellison (who blocked me on Twitter) swore his Oath of Office upon the Quran. More Federer:

Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran that promotes different values presents a dilemma. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, wrote in the foreword of the book “Law in the Middle East” (1955): “Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge … reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis (direct opposite) of Western law.”

No, I don’t care if only a small portion of the world’s Muslims are violent jihadis. At 1.6 billion, even if five percent are sharia-bound militants, that’s 80 million people – more than the combined population of the top 196 cities in the US – who deserve a quick death. What if it’s 25%? That’s more people than all of America, by a long shot.

We must do the following:
• Halt immigration from all Muslim countries, and tell everyone why
• Give Islam the same status we give Satanism: Practice it if you wish; it is your First Amendment right. But if you and your fellow zealots threaten the United States or our citizens, if you use the First Amendment to subvert our laws under the Constitution, we shut you down. If we can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded movie house, why would we allow Muslims to actively threaten us with their words?

If a serious threat were incompatible to only one Amendment, such as a single state banning Fourth Amendment due process, the issue would rightfully face wall-to-wall news coverage, protests, arrests, trials, and (sad to say) violence, so what does it say when our political leaders yawn — even genuflect — at a religious, social, and economic ecosystem that demonstrates how ill fitted it is to live in the same space as freedom?

I admit a sizable amount of concern that doing any of the above would violate an American citizen’s constitutional rights, but I make the distinction regarding the rights of jihadis, and jihadis have no rights. If you’re Muslim, start reforming your religion and fellow Muslims now. Another option, convert to Judaism or Christianity. And as Dennis Prager says: Imams, tell your flock that if they persecute or murder in the name of your religion, not only will they not go to paradise, they go to hell.

photo credit: Excerpted from: scottmontreal Muslim family at Bill 94 protest via photopin (license)

Share if you agree the tenets of Islam are in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

Michael Cummings

About the author, Michael Cummings:

Michael A. Cummings has a Bachelors in Business Management from St. John’s University in Collegeville, MN, and a Masters in Rhetoric & Composition from Northern Arizona University. He has worked as a department store Loss Prevention Officer, bank auditor, textbook store manager, Chinese food delivery man, and technology salesman. Cummings wrote position pieces for the 2010 Trevor Drown for US Senate (AR) and 2012 Joe Coors for Congress (CO) campaigns.

View all articles by Michael Cummings

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.