Bill Federer gives detailed analysis of Muslim assimilation with American law
On Nov. 21, 1620 (NS), the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact and began their Plymouth Colony. Five years later, in 1625, the Pilgrims filled two ships with dried fish and beaver skins and sent them back to England to trade for much-needed supplies.
Governor William Bradford wrote in his “History of the Plymouth Settlement 1608-1650” (rendered in Modern English by Harold Paget, 1909, ch. 6, p. 165-7): “The adventurers … sent over two fishing ships. … The pinnace was ordered to load with corfish … to bring home to England … and besides she had some 800 lbs. of beaver, as well as other furs, to a good value from the plantation. The captain seeing so much lading wished to put aboard the bigger ship for greater safety, but Mr. Edward Winslow, their agent in the business, was bound in a bond to send it to London in the small ship. … The captain of the big ship … towed the small ship at his stern all the way over. So they went joyfully home together and had such fine weather that he never cast her off till they were well within the England channel, almost in sight of Plymouth. But even there she was unhappily taken by a Turkish man-of-war and carried off to Saller (Morocco), where the captain and crew were made slaves. …
“Thus all their hopes were dashed and the joyful news they meant to carry home was turned to heavy tidings. … In the big ship Captain Myles Standish … arrived at a very bad time … a plague very deadly in London. … The friendly adventurers were so reduced by their losses last year, and now by the ship taken by the Turks … that all trade was dead.”
Muslim piracy had dominated the seas.
In 1605, St. Vincent de Paul was sailing from Marseilles, France, when he was captured by Muslim Turks. He was sold into slavery in Tunis, North Africa. Fortunately, St. Vincent de Paul was able to convert his owner to Christianity in 1607. He escaped to Europe where he started a religious order to help the poor.
Between 1606-1609, Muslim pirates from Algiers captured 466 British and Scottish ships.
Giles Milton wrote “White Gold: The Extraordinary Story of Thomas Pellow and North Africa’s One Million European Slaves” (UK: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, 2004). In it, he told how in 1625, Muslim corsair pirates sailed up the Thames River and raided England. They attacked the coast of Cornwall, captured 60 villagers at Mount’s Bay and 80 at Looe. Muslims took Lundy Island in Bristol Channel and raised the standard of Islam. By the end of 1625, over 1,000 English subjects were sent to the slave markets of Sale, Morocco.
In 1627, Algerian and Ottoman Muslim pirates, led by Murat Reis the Younger, raided Iceland, carrying into slavery an estimated 400 from the cities of Reykjavik, Austurland and Vestmannaeyjar. One captured girl, who had been made a slave concubine in Algeria, was rescued back by King Christian IV of Denmark.
In 1631, the entire village of Baltimore, Ireland, was captured by Muslim pirates, led by Murat Reis the Younger. Only two ever returned. (Des Ekin, “The Stolen Village: Baltimore and the Barbary Pirates,” O’Brien Press, 2006).
Thomas Osborne Davis wrote in his poem, “The Sack of Baltimore” (1895):
The yell of ‘Allah!’ breaks above the shriek and roar;
O’blessed God! the Algerine is lord of Baltimore. …
By 1640, hundreds of English ships and over 1,500 British subjects were enslaved in Tunis and in 3,000 Algiers. As centuries passed, the U.S. Navy and Marines fought the Muslim Barbary Pirate Wars, 1801-1805 and 1815, freeing hundreds of American sailors held captive.
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in “Democracy in America,” 1840, Vol. II, Book 1, Chapter V: “Mohammad brought down from heaven and put into the Koran not religious doctrines only, but political maxims, criminal and civil laws, and scientific theories. The Gospels, on the other hand, deal only with the general relations between man and God and between man and man. Beyond that, they teach nothing and do not oblige people to believe anything. That alone, among a thousand reasons, is enough to show that Islam will not be able to hold its power long in an age of enlightenment and democracy, while Christianity is destined to reign in such age, as in all others.”
President Barack Obama stated in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009: “When the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the … Holy Quran.”
The question is: Can one swear to defend a man-made Constitution of laws upon a book that claims to be filled with superior divine laws, and which instructs faithful followers to subversively lie to make it superior?
Dr. Irwin Lutzer reported in his book “The Cross in the Shadow of the Crescent” (2013) of a Muslim demonstrator in Dearborn, Michigan, holding a sign stating: “We will use the freedoms of the Constitution to destroy the Constitution!”
Sharia-practicing Muslim organizer Anjem Choudary of Islam4UK stated, as reported in the London Daily Express, Oct. 15, 2009: “We have had enough of democracy and man-made law. … We will call for a complete upheaval of the British ruling system … and demand full implementation of Shariah in Britain.”
The United Nations adopted “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Dec. 10, 1948, recognizing such basic human rights as:
- Freedom of opinion and expression
- Freedom to change religions
- Right to education
- No slavery
- No forced marriages
- No torture
- No inhumane punishment
The leaders of 57 Islamic countries rejected the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, forming their own group called the OIC – Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
The OIC passed in 1990 the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” affirming Shariah law as supreme, with:
- the death penalty for those leaving Islam
- punishing women who are victims of rape
- allowing men to be polygamous
- permitting wife beating
- censoring speech insulting Islam
Should a nation grant freedom of speech to those whose ultimate goal is to abolish freedom of speech? Should a nation grant freedom of religion to those whose ultimate goal is to abolish freedom of religion? Do Sharia-practicing Muslims want to demand freedoms for themselves, but not grant the same freedoms to others?
Dwight Eisenhower faced a similar situation, warning in Time magazine, Oct. 13, 1952: “The Bill of Rights contains no grant of privilege for a group of people to destroy the Bill of Rights. A group … dedicated to the ultimate destruction of all civil liberties, cannot be allowed to claim civil liberties as its privileged sanctuary from which to carry on subversion of the government.”
Are the Quran and the U.S. Constitution compatible?
- The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion, yet Mohammad said “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). The Quran also states in Sura 4:89 “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”
- The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer, ringing church bells or say anything considered “insulting to Islam.” Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs among Muslims and cannot display a cross, Christmas decorations, or the Star of David.
- The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot repair places of worship or build new ones, they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings, they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.
- The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.
- The Second Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.
- The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.
- The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.
- The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Mohammad said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).
- The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting them from testifying in court against Muslims.
- The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” (Sura 5:38) A woman who has been raped is also punished “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2) Women can be beaten: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.
- The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Mohammad owned slaves.
- The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Mohammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).
- The 15th Amendment guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making the laws.
- The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Mohammad said “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)
- The 18th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”
- The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.
- The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to sell or drink wine and liquor openly.
One would assume that to swear upon a book implies believing what is in that book. As Mohammad was not just a religious leader, but also a political-military leader, Sharia Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political-military system.
Since no one has the authority to demand Muslims worldwide cease imitating the political-military example of Mohammad, when Sharia-practicing Muslims bow in prayer they are also pledging political-military allegiance to Mecca.
Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran that promotes different values presents a dilemma. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, wrote in the foreword of the book “Law in the Middle East” (1955): “Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge … reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis (direct opposite) of Western law.”