Dept. of Justice says Islam is a religion but actions speak louder than words.

   
The fight over the planned mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee has entered the courts and the U.S. Dept. of Justice has just taken sides with the Muslims. Considering all the positive things our one-time Muslim occupant in the White house, Barack Hussein Obama, has said about Islam, the DoJ statement was hardly a big surprise. The newspaper actively covering this event is The Tennessean and they have publish several stories on this. I reprint two of the latest stories below the following arguments.

Because of our First Amendment rights, America has become the home of many cults that masquerade as religions. We have seen what happened in Waco, Texas where followers of David Koresh and the Branch Davidian ranch at Mount Carmel fought off the FBI and the followers of Jim Jones' American cult at the People's Temple committed mass suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. Islam is much the same only larger and older. Wikipedia defines the word "cult" as "becoming associated with things like kidnapping, brainwashing, psychological abuse, sexual abuse and other criminal activity, and mass suicide." We have seen in the news today all of these things associated with Islam, as well as terrorism against America and intolerance towards people of other faiths. All of these concepts of Islam stem from the words in the Qur'an.
 
A Federal law often quoted to justify the unfettered construction of any place of worship is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act  Pub. L 106-274, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. 

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) is most often cited as the legal right given to any religious group to sidestep local zoning laws to establish any place of worship.

Zoning and Land Use
In religious land use disputes, RLUIPA’s general rule is the most commonly cited and challenged section. It provides (in Section 1:)

   1. General rule. No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government can demonstrate that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly or institution

1. is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

2. is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

The key phrase that is underlined above says that the use of this law cannot be denied unless the government can demonstrate that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly or institution. Of course, we must ask why our government has chosen not to make such a demonstration. Here are a few reasons that should be given serious thought why an Islamic mosque should not be allowed in any community due to the compelling interests of the government. For the sake of argument, the most compelling interest of the government should be in the equal enforcement of the law.

1. If any group of people who promoted material calling for hate or discrimination against any other religion wanted to establish a place to do so, they would be denied the right to do so under existing laws.

2. If any group of people who promoted acts of pedophilia, underage marriage of pre-pubescent girls or child rape wanted to establish a place to do this, they would be denied the right to do so under existing laws.

3. If any group of people wanted to establish a location that espoused inhumane treatment of others calling for punishments of such barbaric proportions that they would be charged with serious crimes of violence, they would be denied the right to do so under existing laws. 

4. If any group of people who supported a legal opinion that espoused physical violence against women members of their group, they would be denied the right to do so under existing laws.

5. If any group of people who supported a legal opinion that called for acts of violence against family members who broke the laws of that group, they would be denied the right to do so under existing laws.

6. If any group of people wanted to establish a place in which to call for the overthrow of the government, even though such ideas may be considered freedom of speech, they would be denied the right to do so under existing laws.

All of the above conditions are proclaimed as aspects of the Muslim religion and Islamic Sharia Law and are in fact, commands to all Muslims issued by their Prophet Muhammad in the Qur’an and in the Hadiths and Siras. And Muslims are ordered to obey every one of these commands in the Qur’an and follow in their Prophet’s way of life or face eternal punishment in hell. No other established religion in the world today calls for any similar actions of its followers. Here are point by point examples:

1. Hatred of Jews and Christians and all non-Muslims:
Koran 8:37 and Koran 58:05  and  Koran 2:89-90.

2. The Prophet Muhammad takes a 6 year old girl in marriage and consummates it when she is 9 years old. From the Hadith of Bukhari, volume 5, #234  Bukhari vol. 7, #65:

3. Barbaric and inhumane treatments: Qur’an 05.033

4. Wife beating to make them obedient. Qur’an 004.034

5. The Islamic code of Sharia Law applied to family members has become known as Honor Killings. Also, Muslims who leave Islam and convert to another religion become apostates which is punishable by death. An apostate is also considered to be any Muslim who rejects any of the commands of the Prophet Muhammad: From the Hadith. "This is the command of the Prophet: 1. Any person (i.e., Muslim) who has changed his religion, kill him." Qur'an (4:89) and Qur'an (9:11-12) and other verses that seem to support the many Hadith demanding death for apostates are Qur'an verses 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66

The web site Religion of Peace points out these passages from the Hadith to authenticate Islam's view on Apostates:

Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Bukhari (84:57) - "[In the words of] Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."

6. The overthrow of all governments is a command that Muslims must follow. Also, Muslims are commanded not to follow any laws that adversely affect other Muslims. Muslims in our Armed Forces have said they will not fight against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the very words of the instructional Islamic web site Muslims Against Voting comes this explanation why there should be no government and no laws except those from Islam. 

True submission to Allah (swt) means that He (swt) has sovereignty over all of our affairs and that we willingly submit to Him (swt). Since He (swt) is the Sovereign and we are His (swt) humble slaves, this means that we must refer to His (swt) guidance in all that we do. The issue of drafting laws to repeal or replace what Allah (swt) has revealed in the Quran, and through the practice of the Prophet Muhammad (saw), is to actually worship that entity – be it a scholar, a government, or another individual or institution. Just as we are forbidden from worshipping idols, we are also forbidden from granting anyone besides Allah (swt) the right to rule. This affirms the idea that we recognize that we need guidance from Allah (swt). That is, guidance is not restricted to the ritual acts of worship but extends to every single action. Allah (swt) has revealed:

Muslims in America represent only 1.3% of our population and therefore have not acquired the numbers to become vocally opposed to our way of life and our laws. That is not the case in Great Britain where a much large population of Muslims live. And in Europe the situation is much worse. In England Muslims routinely demonstrate to replace British law with Sharia.

In his excellent article entitled Quran vs. Constitution: Why they're incompatible, William J. Federer spells out each contradiction between the United States Constitution and Islamic Sharia Law by citing each Article and relative verses from the Qur'an.

President Barack Obama stated in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009: "When the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the … Holy Quran."
The dilemma is: How can one swear to defend something upon a book that promotes the opposite?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet the Quran states in Sura 4:89, "Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them."

In Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57), Muhammad said: "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him."

Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to "dhimmi" status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst Muslims and cannot display a Cross or a Star of David.

The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge "the freedom of speech," yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells.

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away "the right of the people to peaceably assemble," yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot build any new places of worship or repair any old places Muslims have destroyed; they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings; they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

The Second Amendment states, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to "quarter" someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill — and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures," yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

The Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law," yet Muhammad said, "No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel)" (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a "public trial by an impartial jury" and the Seventh Amendment states "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting a non-Muslim from testifying in court against a Muslim.

The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no "cruel and unusual punishments inflicted," yet the Quran states:

"Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done — a deterrent from Allah" (Sura 5:38).

A raped woman is punished:

"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication — flog each of them with a hundred stripes" (Sura 24:2).

Women can be beaten:

"If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them" (Sura 4:34).

Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.

The 13th Amendment states there shall be no "slavery or involuntary servitude," yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Muhammad owned slaves.

The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens "equal protection of the laws," yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law.

Referring to Jews as "the People of the Book," Muhammad said: "They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine" (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).

The 15th Amendment guarantees "the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," yet the fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making their own laws.

The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived." Muhammad said, "Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29).

The 18th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."

The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.

The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law prohibits non-Muslims from selling or drinking wine and liquor openly.

One would assume that to swear upon a book implies believing what is in that book.

As Muhammad was not just a religious leader, but also a political and military leader, Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political and military system.

Since no one has the authority to demand Muslims worldwide cease imitating the political/military example of Muhammad, when Muslims bow in prayer they are also pledging political/military allegiance to Mecca.

Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran that promotes different values is a dilemma worthy of a presidential explanation.

William J. Federer is the author of the best-selling book What Every American Needs to Know About the Quran: A History of Islam & the United States.

Here are the pertinent parts of the two relevant news stories from The Tennessean web site:

Murfreesboro mosque debate: U.S. Department of Justice says Islam is a religion
Department says Rutherford County runs the risk of violating civil rights laws if it doesn't treat Islam as a religion

BY BRIAN HAAS • THE TENNESSEAN • OCTOBER 18, 2010
The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday waded into the debate over a proposed mosque near Murfreesboro on Monday, saying that Islam is a valid religion.


The department on Monday filed a brief in a lawsuit challenging the proposed mosque, arguing that Islam is an officially recognized religion and warning Rutherford County officials that treating Islam as anything other than a religion could violate civil rights laws.

Opponents of the mosque have filed suit against Rutherford County officials, accusing the county of not properly notifying the public about the proposal. The lawsuit also argues that Islam is not a valid religion, but a political movement that is looking to supplant U.S. laws with Muslim laws.

Legitimacy of Islam at heart of Murfreesboro mosque suit

By Bob Smietana • THE TENNESSEAN • October 3, 2010

MURFREESBORO — My God is better than your God.

That's the dispute at the heart of recent hearings in a lawsuit aimed at derailing the new Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. What started as a zoning issue has turned into a fight over theology and the role of government in recognizing religion.

Mosque opponents say that Islam is not a real religion. They argued in a Rutherford County courthouse last week that the world's second-largest faith, with its 1.6 billion followers, is actually a political movement.

Opponents say local Muslims want to replace the Constitution with an Islamic legal code called Shariah law. Joe Brandon Jr., a Smyrna attorney representing a group of mosque opponents, argued that the proposed mosque is not a house of worship. He said the Rutherford County Planning Commission erred on May 24 when it approved the mosque.

"Shariah law is pure sedition," said Brandon in his opening statement Monday.

If followed literally, the Qur'an and Sharia Law are pure sedition. As another former Muslim once said, "The Qur'an is like a tank of gasoline, all it takes is a spark of faith to set it off." Mosques in every country including America have become recruiting grounds for terrorists. Many mosques are using textbooks from Saudi Arabia that preach the radical Wahhabi point of view that opposes all Western culture.

A study conducted by the NGO Freedom House found Wahhabi publications in mosques  in the United States. These publications included statements that Muslims should not only "always oppose" infidels "in every way", but "hate them for their religion ... for Allah's sake", that democracy "is responsible for all the horrible wars of the 20th century", and that Shia and certain other non-Wahhabi Muslims were infidels.