I have come to firmly believe it’s time to re-think allowing Moslems to serve in our government, in any capacity local, state and federal. Recent statements made by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rep Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), have proven they do not represent American interests, let alone American values. Another Moslem, Andre Carso, is from Indiana and represents the 7th Congressional District (Indianapolis). Former representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) stepped down from that position and serves as his state’s Attorney General. He, too, is Moslem.
“But”, you might say, “…isn’t it just as un-American to deny a citizen who wishes to serve the ability to do so, based on their faith? Wouldn’t that be fundamentally unconstitutional?” To answer that question, let’s take a brief look (only because of space considerations in a short article…) at the so-called “faith” in question.
Islam cannot be regarded as a religion. While it calls itself the “religion of peace”, that is nothing more than a propagandist misinterpretation of the word Islam. There is no direct Arabic to English meaning of “Islam”, but loosely translated it means “peach through submission”. Well, in Western culture, when you obtain peace by submitting to someone/something, it’s called total surrender.
Islam is nothing but totalitarianism masked as a religion. The definition of totalitarian is: “relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.” When a Moslem in our government takes their oath of office by placing their hand on a copy of the Quran, they are pledging to serve Islamic principles and not American values. Some of those “principles” include the following:
Sharia law overrides any man-made law. It is derived from four sources: the Quran, the authentic hadith, analogical reasoning (or qiyas) and juridical consensus (or ijma). There is a complicated set of rulings involving ethical standards developed by many scholars over several centuries. This involves ethical standards as well as legal norms, and aims to control living actions in five categories: the mandatory, the recommended, the neutral, the abhorred and the prohibited. With interpretive variations between Islam’s two main factions, Sunni and Shia, there is no real correlation of law comparable to Western legal systems.
Islam views the Quran as the primary source of knowledge. Primary education is often carried out in schools attached to Mosques. Madrassas are institutions of higher learning, first established as far back as the 11th and 12th centuries. Islamic education is based solely on the teachings of the Quran, but doesn’t function under any standardization as practiced in Western culture. In many societies, including some of the more “modern” Islamic nations, only males are allowed access to education.
Under Islamic banking, the concept of Marabaha, or cost-plus financing, is the driving economic engine. This system is where the seller provides the cost and profit margin of an asset. This is not an interest-bearing loan but a form of credit sale under Islamic law. All Islamic banking is based on non-profit banking. Profits are made through equity participation which requires a borrower to give the bank a share of the profits instead of interest. All of this is outside of American free-market economics. It is controlled by Islamic law and is not subject to oversite or regulation.
Islamic “principles” also include Islamic social order, which in many mid-Eastern societies (including the more modern ones), basic human rights are denied to females. Education, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, freedom of choice and freedom of expression are only applicable and enjoyed by males.
There is also no religious reciprocity under Islam. We allow their Mosques to flourish here, but how many Christian churches or Jewish synagogues are in Saudi Arabia? Empirically, ask yourself these questions:
If Islam is the “religion of peace”, then why:
…isn’t there a Pride Parade in Mecca?
…why can’t a person leave Islam as a faith without being threatened with death?
…why are non-Moslems (or “infidels”) to be killed?
…why is Islam so easily offended by practically everything?
Going back to my starting premise, I firmly believe that no Moslem should serve in our government. At the very least, I’m also looking at the concept that no foreign-born individual should serve in our government either.
Article Two, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states that only a natural-born citizen of the United States “…shall be eligible to the office of President.” The 22nd Amendment limits the President to two terms in office. Why can’t these standards also be applicable to members of Congress?
Under the 14th Amendment, loss of a person’s U.S. citizenship is possible if fraud in the naturalization process was present. Citizenship can also be revoked if there is affiliation with any anti-American organization within five years of the naturalization process. Once again, why can’t we apply these laws as written?
Given the recent statements from Rep Omar, who is foreign-born and raised in an Islamic country, it’s past time to take a very serious look at allowing non-natural born citizens to serve in our government. We need to equally apply the standards under which the President serves to members of Congress.
No American citizen should be forced to be before a judge or a Congressional committee where a Moslem serves. You are not regarded as equal under the law by a Moslem. Remember, you are an “infidel” and worth only of death. You would be viewed, questioned and judged by the standards of the Quran on which they took their oath.
While the anti-American hatred and rhetoric out the mouths of Omar and Tlaib is their own doing, it’s the Democrats as a party who are ultimately responsible for allowing it in the first place. In so doing, the Dems have shown that they can no longer be trusted with any leadership.
In closing, here’s a homework assignment. Start paying attention to everything you see around you. As you drive to or from work, school, or whatever, take note of the shopping centers, the small businesses, the restaurants and bars, the schools, churches, the sports stadiums, and other athletic fields; the parks and other public recreation spaces. Pay attention to all of it. Why? Because under Islam it would all disappear. You would not only lose the ability to patronize your favorite store, restaurant or bar, or support your favorite team, you would also the ability to choose NOT TO, if you so desired. More important than the venues and establishments themselves is the ability to choose or not to choose to participate. Under the Islam that Rep Omar and other like her want to bring, you would lose your freedom of choice.
Start thinking empirically and pay attention… while you still can.