My Blog List

Monday, July 25, 2011

Frankie's Back

The responsibility lies squarely on our own shoulders for allowing Sharia law to supplant our constitutionally based secular law.  We established the precedent by creating parallel sets of laws and methods of enforcement.  Despite the Constitution’s guaranties and prohibitions, habeas corpus, probable cause requirements, and due process went out the window with the Patriot Act.  The state can detain people for extended periods without filing charges against them. 

Police can take people into custody illegally, using contrived policies, by handcuffing them without lodging any formal complaint.  Michigan judges came up with the Orwellian ruling that a law prohibiting race and gender discrimination constitutes race and gender discrimination.  Legislative social engineers and their moral twins in black robes have manipulated us into an untenable position; we have no rational argument against Sharia law.

An expert in such matters, a New Jersey attorney, describes Sharia as a methodology through which a jurist engages the religious texts—the Quran and the Sunna—to ascertain divine will.  Therefore, each judge spontaneously invents each decision based upon subjective beliefs and interpretations, similar to Justice Sotomayor’s wise Latina hustle.  This Council on Foreign Relations article points out that fundamentalist Muslims use Sharia law to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence.  Sharia law also allows for family honor killings.

Australians are grappling with the inherent contradictions between their codified laws and Sharia practices.  Polygamy is illegal in Australia, as is marriage of underage women and children.  Nevertheless, Australia accepts valid Muslim polygamist marriages, lawfully entered into overseas,...with second and third wives and their children able to claim welfare and other benefits…Australia has allowed a parallel legal system—operating against its own statutes as a sort of illegal ‘shadow system’—to take hold.

Muslim men can take prepubescent girls as concubines, bring them into that country, and claim them as welfare recipients.  These circumstances are shockingly similar to practices found in the US.  Here, adult males impregnate girls too young to give legal consent, leave them in the lurch subsisting on food stamps, and abandon them to live in crime-ridden housing projects.  Government officials tacitly approve it and taxpayers are on the hook for it.  Who are we to condemn behavior that we facilitate and perpetrate?

In the US, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are lobbying for the sort of treatment that we accord everyone who qualifies for affirmative welfare.  They want the legal privilege of engaging in polygamy with multiple child brides, arranged marriages, subjugation of women, and the power to disallow legal gay marriages.  They want privileges and benefits that are not universally available and without having to bear commensurate responsibilities. 

CAIR and the MB rightly ask how, in our nation of demographically determined multiple legal systems, can we justify denying them the same legal entitlements that we accord to people for merely having melanin positive skin or having two X chromosomes?  We created and perpetrated the Frankenstein, so by what sort of justification can we cry foul now?

May your gods be with you.    

No comments:

Post a Comment

Rational civil discourse is encouraged. No vulgarity or ad hominem attacks will be posted.