Implementation of unconstitutional Sharia Law in any location or application is an affront to the “rule of law” within the borders of the United States and our territories. Sharia Law violates Article VI of the Constitution which states,
This Constitution and the Laws of the United states which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives and all executive and Judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Most applications and interpretations of Sharia Law are incompatible with and Contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America, the supreme Law of the Land. Sharia Law qualifies as a Contrary, extra-constitutional Thing under Article VI. Additionally, Sharia Law judges would have to be followers of Islam. They would be subjected to an unconstitutional religious Test in violation of Article VI. This religious Test prohibition does not allow for any exception related to Amendment I of the Constitution. Islamist would contend that Sharia Law is necessary for free exercise of their religion. However, Article VI clearly states, This Constitution and the Laws of the United states shall be the supreme Law of the Land; any Thing (Sharia Law in this situation) in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Unconstitutional Sharia Law is also incompatible with the mores of our culture.
Finally, implementation of unconstitutional Sharia Law is a part of a plan, “civilization Jihad,” designed to convert western cultures into Islamic cultures. The mission statement of this plan follows:
The process of settlement is a Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers (Christians and Jews) so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
This plan must be thwarted throughout the United States.
Clearly, unconstitutional Sharia Law is incompatible with our “rule of Law,” cultural mores, and societal norms and should not be allowed under any circumstances anywhere in the United States of America or our territories.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Since Islamic terrorists are at war with the world, the United States of America should declare a radical Islamic terrorism war.
Since radical Islamic terrorists are at war, Jihad or holy war, with the world, the United States of America should declare a radical Islamic terrorism war. Many contend that the Islamic world would consider declaration of an Islamic terrorism war as a declaration of war against all of Islam. Although it is my intention that all Islam is not the target of the proposed declaration of war, it would serve to emphasize that Islam must be an active part of the solution to the Islamic problem, radical Islamic terrorism, which is a cancer in Islam and the rest of the world. These terrorists justify Jihad using the Quran and Hadith, two Islamic holy books. It is my contention, that if so called moderate Islam, is not part of the solution, all Islam, including nation states that allow teachers or institutions that support the theocratic, Islamist ideology, used to justify Radical Islamic Terrorism within their borders, is the problem.
Islam has been at war with the world for 13 centuries. After defeat of the Ottoman Empire, an Islamic nation, during WWI, Islam was subdued until the reestablishment of Israel in 1948. Subsequently, Islamic countries in the Middle East went to war with Israel and were also defeated. Modern radical Islamic terrorists began their Jihad because of this defeat. Israel was the first target of Jihad, but Jihad has expanded to other countries in the Middle East, much of North Africa, Europe, regions of Asia, southwest Pacific Islands, and North America. No single battlefield or theater of operation exists in the Islamic terrorism war being. These terrorists have bases of operation on five or six continents. From their bases of operation, radical Islamic terrorists strike both hard and soft targets including innocent civilians, law enforcement officers, and military personnel and targets.
Islamic terrorism war should be declared against terrorists who justify their acts of terrorism citing passages contained in holy books of Islam, claim to follow the tenants of Islam and teachings of Mohammed, and call themselves Muslims. radical Islamic terrorism is an ideology or philosophy of war waged against all who do not follow Mohammed. Radical Islamic terrorists do not have a single, unified, political, economic, theocratic, military, national identity, leader, or command structure. These terrorist do have a shared theology and Islamist ideology. They include both Sunni and Shiite Muslims who are also engaged in a sectarian, civil war, a Jihad for each side against the other. This civil war has also raged for about 13 centuries.
Consequently, an expanded definition and declaration of war is needed to defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism. The proposed declaration of war should strategically define the stages and nature of victory. Such a declaration has significant foreign policy implications and potential problems related to the fact that radical Islamic terrorism leaders and bases of operation are spread throughout the world. Therefore, the proposed declaration of war must contain careful limitations. The most significant limitation to the Islamic terrorism war declaration must be a requirement that the United States first seek cooperation and permission of the government of countries where radical Islamic terrorist leaders or bases are located. Countries where radical Islamic terrorist leaders or bases are located could also request the assistance of United States forces in their efforts to eradicate radical Islamic terrorism in their country. On the other hand, the proposed Islamic terrorism war declaration should also declare that countries harboring radical Islamic terrorists would be considered radical Islamic terrorism countries, if they refuse to allow the United States to attack any radical Islamic terrorism leader or base participating in an attack against the United States, our citizens, or allies. Careful delineation of these two issues would alleviate many of the potential problems arising from the proposed Islamic terrorism war declaration. It would also clearly define the potential consequences for any country harboring Radical Islamic Terrorists that attacked the United States, our citizens, or allies. Congress and the Commander-in-Chief should clearly define the consequences for countries refusing to cooperate in strikes against radical Islamic terrorists or bases located in their countries. Drone attacks, air strikes, and limited, proportional Special Forces raids like the Ben Laudon operation should be authorized by the proposed Islamic terrorism war declaration in uncooperative countries. Invasions and large scale military land operations against any country should require a declaration of war against an uncooperative country or alliance.
At the same time, the proposed declaration of war would allow great latitude regarding location, timing, method, and level of force used to combat radical Islamic terrorism. With the cooperation of the world and countries where radical Islamic terrorists are located, the Islamic terrorism war declaration would allow the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military and our allies to attack radical Islamic terrorists swiftly, proportionally, and decisively anywhere in the world. It is my opinion, that such a Islamic terrorism war declaration would be a catalyst to unite the world against the cancer of radical Islamic terrorism. Decisive leadership of this nature could convince many countries of the world to add their military to accomplish the goal of eradicating radical Islamic terrorism. Such a world coalition could finally end the insanity and carnage caused by radical Islamic terrorism.
In my opinion, every sound and important strategic decision made regarding foreign policy and the defense of the United States of America should consider every reasonable alternative. The question is, whether or not this proposed Islamic terrorism war declaration is reasonable.
To paraphrase a recent successful political candidate, since what we have been doing since the 9/11 attack and before has not worked very well to defeat radical Islamic terrorism;
What the h do we have to lose?
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Most applications and interpretations of Sharia Law are incompatible with and Contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America, the supreme Law of the Land. Sharia Law qualifies as a Contrary, extra-constitutional Thing under Article VI. Additionally, Sharia Law judges would have to be followers of Islam. They would be subjected to an unconstitutional religious Test in violation of Article VI. This religious Test prohibition does not allow for any exception related to Amendment I of the Constitution. Islamist would contend that Sharia Law is necessary for free exercise of their religion. However, Article VI clearly states, This Constitution and the Laws of the United states shall be the supreme Law of the Land; any Thing (Sharia Law in this situation) in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
