| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| American battlefield: must we assume Muslims are Sharia-compiant? | |
| 2009-08-17 | |
According to Ms. Myrick, some of the officials seemed to discover for the first time that there are practitioners of Islam who do not embrace the seditious tenets of Shariah -- and who were extremely concerned about the government's almost exclusive reliance on those who do. Fortunately, decisions in federal court in recent weeks may produce some urgently needed policy course-corrections. Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff in the Eastern District of Michigan recently cleared the way for accelerated and wide-ranging discovery in connection with a suit brought by a Michigan Iraq war veteran, Kevin Murray, against the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve Board. Mr. Murray is challenging on constitutional separation of church-and-state grounds the practice of a U.S. government-owned company, the insurance conglomerate American International Group Inc., promoting Shariah-compliant products. It seems likely that the depositions that will now be taken by Mr. Murray's legal team -- securities litigator and Shariah expert David Yerushalmi and attorneys at the Thomas More Law Center, led by its director Richard Thompson -- will shed important light on the federal government's understanding of authoritative Islam's seditious program. It may also reveal the extent to which U.S. officials have, with their failure to comprehend the true nature of the threat we face, acted, either wittingly or unwittingly, in ways that have enabled it to metastasize further. Whether through the revelations of this lawsuit or through the work of influential legislators like Ms. Myrick, the time has come to recognize that even if we insist we are not at war with Islam, many of the authorities of Islam are at war with us. Only by so doing can we connect with and empower our natural allies in this war -- Muslims who want to enjoy liberty in a Shariah-free America. And only by so doing, do we have a chance of prevailing. Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for The Washington Times and the host of the nationally syndicated Secure Freedom Radio. | |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #4 It should be noted that we are missing a bet by not encouraging, or even subtly directing, a "reformation" in Islam, that would afford Muslims a doctrinal ability to distinguish themselves from Wahabbis, Salafists and their violent and Philistine ilk. The key to this being done is a criticism of the "tafsir", the huge body of commentary and explication of the Koran, which is open to criticism where the Koran itself is not. This would officially amount to a rejection of the bulk of the cultural traditions that are ascribed to, but not actually in the Koran, that were added later. And this would be an aggressive action, that people who embraced such "corruptions" go against the "enlightening nature" of Islam, and are primitive tribalists. From there, it goes to outright hypocrisy, such as redefining the obvious. "Here, where Mohammed says to 'Kill the Jews!", what it *means* is that we should not be as violent as them. Kill the violent Jew within each of us. Not actually kill Jewish people." It is a fraud, of course, but it is also an opportunity for Muslims to escape the onerous and murderous doctrines, yet still call themselves Muslim. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-08-17 18:33 |
| #3 That works for me, Richard. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-08-17 16:29 |
| #2 "who do not embrace the seditious tenets of Shariah " The article seems to imply there are two groups of muslims. WRT Sharia and sedition, there are in fact three. A. Muslims who comply with Sharia, and read it in a way that justifies sedition, like you know, going to afghanistan to fight americans. B. Muslims who comply with sharia by not eating pork, praying 5 times a day, etc but who ignore or reintrepret anything that calls for sedition C. Muslims who dont comply with Sharia, but still consider themselves Muslim ("reform" muslims?) Surely we should not discriminate against group C. However we should not ignore the existence of group B. As for AIG, its sounds like someone wrote a mortgage in such a way as to comply with sharia provisions against charging interest (by creating quasi-fictional equity interests) and AIG insured those loans. I dont see how that has anything to do with sedition. I dont see how that implicates church and state - presumably the mortgage as written simply reflects an equity structuring rather than a conventional loan, and makes no explicit reference to sharia. If I make a contract to supply someone with all kinds of meat, but only the meat of animals with cloven hooves that chew their cuds, and make no reference to the laws of kashrut, is enforcement said contract a violation of church and state? I dont think so. Certain people keep coming up with novel legal doctrines that would have made Earl Warren blush in their battle against Islam. Imagine if Mr Gaffney had written this "many of the authorities of Judaism, such as the leaders of Kahane Chai, are at war with us. Only by so doing can we connect with and empower our natural allies in this war -- Jews who want to enjoy liberty in a Halacha-free America. " I think we would all recognize it for the vile trash it is. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-08-17 16:17 |
| #1 How about if we just say that we are at war with all who declare themselves at war with us and who want to kill us? |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2009-08-17 15:23 |