Most U.S. Muslims would trade Constitution for Shariah

[Black Lies Matter...]

Ben Carson’s comment that he would not support a Shariah-
compliant Muslim for president because Islamic law is
incompatible with the U.S. Constitution led to the former brain
surgeon’s roasting among media talkers and politicians of all
stripes.

He has been excoriated as “anti-Muslim,” “bigoted,” even “anti-
American” and unfit for office.

“For any candidate to suggest that someone should not be elected
president because of what he or she may believe is nothing short
of religious bigotry,” said Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., one of
two Muslim congressmen.

But what do American Muslims believe?

The Council on America-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which has
been most vocal in its calls for Carson’s withdrawal from the
GOP presidential race, claims to speak for American Muslims. The
organization has a long history of ties to terrorists, as
documented by WND’s “Rogues gallery of terror-tied leaders,” but
it is still treated by most U.S. media as the Muslim equivalent
of the American Civil Liberties Union.

According to a local newspaper report, Omar Ahmad, a founder of
CAIR, told a conference hall packed with California Muslims in
July 1998 that Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other
faith, but to become dominant.

The reporter paraphrased Ahmad saying, “The Quran … should be
the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted
religion on earth.”

When CAIR issued a statement in 2003 denying Ahmad made the
remarks and claiming the paper had issued a retraction, WND News
Editor Art Moore talked to the reporter and two of her editors
and found that they stood by the story. Moore then spoke with
CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, who repeated the claim
that the paper had issued a retraction. When Moore informed
Hooper that the reporter and the editors stood by the story, the
CAIR communications director ended the call. But he called back
a few minutes later saying he wanted to amend CAIR’s statement
to say that the Muslim organization was seeking a retraction.
Three years later, however, when the issue came up again, CAIR
still had not contacted the paper.

On April 4, 1993, Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis
Star-Tribune: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I
wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic
sometime in the future.”

Hooper appeared on Michael Medved’s radio show in October 2003
and stated: “If Muslims ever become a majority in the United
States, it would be safe to assume that they would want to
replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law, as most Muslims
believe that God’s law is superior to man-made law.”

In May 2015, WND reported that an informal survey of Somali-
American Muslims on the streets of Minneapolis showed widespread
support for Islamic law as preferable to U.S. law.

Other CAIR leaders also "express their contempt for the United
States," reports Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes.

Ihsan Bagby of CAIR's Washington office has said that Muslims
"can never be full citizens of this country," referring to the
United States, "because there is no way we can be fully
committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country,"
Pipes reported in his 2006 article, "CAIR Islamists Fooling the
Government."

Pipes also noted that Parvez Ahmed, who followed Ahmad as CAIR
chairman, touted the virtues of Islamic democracy in 2004 by
portraying the Afghan constitutional process as superior to the
U.S. Constitution. Ahmed was quoted in the Orlando Sentinel as
saying:

"The new Afghan constitution shows that the constitution of a
Muslim nation can be democratic and yet not contradict the
essence of Islam. During my meeting with a high-ranking Afghan
delegation during their recent visit to the United States, I was
told that the Afghan constitutional convention included Hindu
delegates despite Hindus accounting for only 1 percent of the
population. Contrast this with our own constitutional convention
that excluded women and blacks."

51 percent of U.S. Muslims prefer Shariah

There are now an estimated 3 million Muslims residing in the
United States as citizens or with permanent legal status, and
more than 250,000 new Muslim residents enter the U.S. per year
as refugees, on work visas and student-based visas, according to
the Center for Immigration Studies.

A poll commissioned in May 2015 by the Center for Security
Policy showed that 51 percent of American Muslims preferred that
they should have their own Shariah courts outside of the legal
system ruled by the U.S. Constitution. And nearly a quarter
believed the use of violent jihad was justified in establishing
Shariah.

"That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the
United States who believe that Shariah is 'The Muslim God
Allah's law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by
Jihad,'" writes Frank Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for
Security Policy.

SPLC says 'no worries'

Along with CAIR is another organization, the Southern Poverty
Law Center, which makes great strides to assure the American
people that Islamic law, or Shariah, is not something they
should be concerned about.

In its online document titled "Teaching Tolerance: What is the
Truth About American Muslims," the SPLC says Shariah is
essentially no different than any other religious code of
conduct and compares it to Judaism and Christianity.

SPLC asks: "Do American Muslims want to replace the U.S.
Constitution with Sharia?" And then provides the following
answer:

"No. American Muslims overwhelmingly support the U.S.
Constitution and do not seek to replace it with Sharia or
Islamic law. The vast majority of American Muslims understand
Sharia as a personal, religious obligation governing the
practice of their faith, not as something American governments
should enforce."

The American Catholic magazine delved into the issue in 2010
when it asked, "Is Sharia compatible with the U.S. Constitution?"

"The simple answer is of course, 'no,'" the magazine stated and
then listed 13 reasons why.

Number 4 on the list stated: "Instead of precedents and codes,
Sharia relies on medieval jurist’s manuals and collections of
non-binding legal opinions, or fatwas, issued by religious
scholars (ulama, particularly a mufti); these can be made
binding for a particular case at the discretion of a judge."

What do Muslim scholars say about 'democracy'?

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Sunni Muslim cleric and head of the
European Council for Fatwa and Research, is quoted in "The
Islamization of the West" by Patrick Sookhdeo, as saying:

"Islam entered Europe twice and left it. ... Perhaps the next
conquest, Allah willing, will be by means of preaching and
ideology. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword. ...
Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an
army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all
languages and in all dialects."

Well-known British Islamist Anjem Choudary spoke similarly in a
February 2010 interview with Iran's Press TV when he stated:

"Our objectives are to invite the societies in which we live to
think about Islam as an alternative way of life ... and
ultimately, as well, to establish the Shariah on state level."

William Wagner, writing for the Family Research Council,
addressed the issue now magnified by Carson in his article,
"Islam, Shariah Law, and the American Constitution."

"With the patient planting of new enclaves, the process of
establishing the parallel society and political system has
begun. Those behind this process seem willing to master an
understanding of the occupied country's government and legal
system, systematically dismantling it while building the
framework for an Islamic theocracy as its replacement. Such a
replacement, when complete, dogmatically declares a different
kind of absolute than the self-evident Truths, which undergird
the American Constitution."

http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/poll-most-u-s-muslims-would-trade-
constitution-for-shariah/