Islam is a religion and under 1st Amendment rights every Muslim has the right to worship as they wish in the US. To deny Islam this right is unconstitutional. It is misunderstood though that because Islam often presents itself as a purely religious entity we must always cater to their every whim. Untrue. Islamic public prayer is a political demand. Islam expects the State to serve its need, not vice versa. When Muslims shanghai streets in prayer it appears religious but it is in reality a political statement. This is Sharia. Demand for Islamic prayer in public schools (in light of the fact Christian prayer is frowned upon) is in reality imposing Sharia.
There is a difference in Islam between ease of prayer (darura) and demand/necessity of it as dictated in the Qu’ran and Hadith (called tayseer). The truth is Kafir or non-Muslims do not need to give political concessions to religious demands. It is outlined within their own holy writ this way. Sharia has two dualistic principles when it comes to Islam being under duress or needing to use dissimulation (Al-Taqiyya). When Islam cannot practice pure Sharia Islam lightens the demands in Sharia. It is called darura which means “to make easy” and it is a form of al-Taqiyya. When environments do not allow pure sharia to be used Muslims are NOT obligated to pray five times a day and they CAN eat pork. In other words, on a whim, Muslims can decide that which is forbidden can be become permitted without fault to them. That means halal (Sharia food laws) can be ignored at least temporarily whenever they deem it necessary. If a Muslim cannot pray on a prayer rug in school or State buildings then it CAN be done later without being disobedient to Allah.
In other words: If a Muslim cannot pray in the street, school or a government building, it can be done later. This means that when Islam insists on these things they are “wants” not “necessities” or required by Islamic belief. That means when a Muslim forces Sharia into the US legal system claiming discrimination they are fraudulently forcing unnecessary Sharia politically into the US judicial system. Therefore their actions are deliberate meant to undermine the system.
Sharia lays out the complete strategy for immigration into a Kafir nation like America. Sharia demands the enforcing of Sharia in a host nation by parasitic Sharia through things like al-Taqiyya and dhimmitude. Islam first arrives and announces peaceful intentions with “Abrahamic brothers” the Christians and Jews. They “build bridges” to the non-Muslim community. Once entrenched via size of populations/electorates they begin to place political Sharia demands on the system even though religiously they aren’t required to. Once people resist they are labelled bigots, racist and anti-Muslim. Most often these communities know nothing of the dualistic nature of Islam. Non-Muslims believe if they are accommodating they will be able to reform Islam and bring them around to a democratic way of life. If that was the case Islam would’ve assimilated to Western civilization over the last 1400 years. We need to allow history to be a teacher here. Sharia cannot be reformed. Islam views the US Constitution inferior/subordinate to the political authority of Sharia.
Let that sink in.
Let us be brutally clear here: Article 6 of the US Constitution says that the Constitution is the highest law of the land and cannot be subjugated to any other legal code. It is the rudimentary claim of Sharia that it will be the highest law of any land until all are converted, enslave or killed. When we say Islam can be integrated into the American system those stating that fact are either ignorant simpletons or they are being deceptive liars. Sharia is completely incompatible with the US Constitution. Sharia’s political component must be accommodated or it is not real Sharia.
No comments:
Post a Comment