Monday, April 29, 2013

Another observation on how Muslims feel about our form of government.

I am not a big fan of the word "democracy" as I am often reminded that this word does not appear once in either The Declaration of Independence or The United States Constitution. And furthermore, many of our Founding Fathers had many criticisms about it. John Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, championed the new Constitution in his state precisely because it would not create a democracy. "Democracy never lasts long," he noted. "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself." He insisted, "There was never a democracy that 'did not commit suicide.'"

James Madison, who is rightly known as the "Father of the Constitution," wrote in The Federalist, No. 10: "… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths." The Federalist Papers, recall, were written during the time of the ratification debate to encourage the citizens of New York to support the new Constitution.

But today, the word "democracy" has come to mean the rule of the majority as in our election process and the way our lawmakers pass laws. So it is interesting to note that Muslims throughout the Middle East also oppose democracy but for entirely different reasons as in this quote from a CNN story from Pakistan about their upcoming elections.
Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud has told Pakistanis to stay away from the elections.

"We are not in favor of democracy, democracy is for Jews and Christians," he said in recent propaganda video.

"They are intended to divide Muslims; we want the implementation of Sharia (law) and for that jihad is necessary," he added.
The word "secular" is also not a word that I use in my vocabulary because it is not self-descriptive, at least not to me. While I acknowledge that others use the word correctly to mean not of a religious nature, as in, of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations, I prefer to say "man made" as is our form of government. But when a Muslim uses the word secular, this is what they mean.
The Pakistani Taliban, in a statement obtained by CNN, took responsibility for the bombings at the offices of candidates in Peshawar and the Orakzai Agency.

The Taliban said it targeted secular candidates, but many parties have been hit by the increasing violence.

"A man cannot be secular and Muslim at a time. These are two different doctrines in nature," the statement said.
So just how do Muslims in America feel about our "Man-made" government? How do they feel when they take the oath of citizenship to become Americans when they must swear to uphold The Constitution? Oh yeah, they have an excuse not to tell the truth, a religious reason to lie under oath, they call it Taqiyya. We call it Perjury.

Taqiyya – the command to lie to non-Muslims.
Muslims are allowed to deceive non-Muslims if it helps Islam. For non-Muslims this principle, called Taqiyya is another surprising concept of Islam. While most other religions speak highly of truthfulness the Qur’an instructs Muslims to lie to non-Muslims about their beliefs and their political ambitions to protect and spread Islam. There are many examples of today’s Islamic leaders saying one thing in English for the Western press and then saying something entirely different to their own followers in Arabic a few days later. Deceiving the enemy is always useful in war and Islam is at war with the non-Islamic world until the whole world follows Shari’a Law. All non-Muslims living in non-Islamic states are therefore enemies. So deceiving Westerners is totally acceptable – even encouraged – if it can forward the goals of the spread of Islam.
Want to know more? Hear it from the horses mouth. Here are two Muslim web sites that discuss how Islam opposes man-made governments.

The Myth of Secularism:
Religion and Politics are Mutually Constitutive
M. A. Muqtedar Khan

Islam Online
Secularism in Quran
Published: 21/08/2011 12:44:00 AM GMT
This brings up an interesting conundrum for American Muslims - or, actually, for every American except Muslims. If Muslims are prevented by their so-called religion from pledging allegiance to a man-made government then what can be said about Muslims who have been elected to these governments? In particular, I am referring to Muslim Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota. In November 2006, Democrat Keith Ellison won election to the House of Representatives in his Minnesota district. When Ellison took office he became the first Muslim member of Congress. After his election Ellison announced that he planned to utilize the Qur'an rather than the Bible at the upcoming Congressional swearing-in ceremonies. This leads to the question of the intent behind Keith Ellison's oath. If he places his hand on the Qur'an (which says there shall be no governments established except under the laws of Allah), then where does his true allegiance lie? Likewise, John Brennan, Barack Hussein Obama's new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, is also a Muslim. Here is a passage from an article about the swearing in ceremony of John Brennan from The American Thinker, March 26, 2013.

John Brennan's Spooky Swearing-In

By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison
John Brennan then proceeded to take the Oath of Office, as administered by Vice President Joe Biden. Director Brennan then did something no other officer has done, something that occasioned its own measure of controversy. Brennan was sworn in on an original copy of the Constitution. It was a very august occasion, to be sure, but it was also a mysterious one.

For the man who will be America's spymaster, it was an odd move for him to stir up trouble. If spies are said to be "spooks," our top spy's action was, well, "spooky."

Civil libertarians left and right were quick to point out that the 1787 Constitution did not include a Bill of Rights. Critics were right to be vigilant , especially when our spymaster has been so intimately associated with choosing targets for drone attacks. The Fifth Amendment says "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." That guarantee should certainly apply to Americans here at home. Similarly, the Fourth Amendment's safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures need to be underscored.

But there was little notice of the fact that the First Amendment provides for No Establishment of Religion. This was conspicuously not a part of the Constitution that Brennan chose to swear to uphold.

The Constitution of 1787 did not afford that guarantee, but it did give all Americans protection from religious tests for office. Thus, even without a Bill of Rights, Article VI, Sec. 3 provides that: " religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
As a result, Brennan's opponents on Capitol Hill scrupulously avoided questioning him about his religion. That was as it should be. We have consistently opposed such religious tests when applied to men and women of our faith. 
Still, John Brennan fueled rumors when he defended jihad as a legitimate expression of Islam. He has spoken of  "our Saudi partners." If they are our partners, then he should have been asked why the Crown Prince Abdullah refused Vice President Al Gore's personal request in 1998 for U.S. access to al Qaeda's financial chief, Madani al Tayyib. According to the official 9/11 Commission Report, "U.S. never gained this access" to the man who might have unraveled the plot against the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. 
Here's something else very spooky about the Brennan Oath: How can you take an oath on the Constitution to defend the Constitution? Normally, one takes an oath with his hand on a Bible, or a Koran, on some other Scripture one holds sacred. Taking an oath to defend the Constitution by putting your hand on the Constitution is a skyhook. It is supported by nothing else. It neatly avoids the central question: Is this a valid oath? Can we rely on a person who creates such a stir by the simple act of taking an oath of office?
John Brennan speaks eloquently of "the Majesty of the Hajj." This is the pilgrimage taken by devout Muslims to Mecca. It is a pilgrimage in which no non-Muslim is allowed to take part.
Read more:
My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.

No comments:

Post a Comment

No foreign language comments allowed. English only. If you cannot access the comments window send me an email at