U.S. Constitution & Koran
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power to … provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States … .” Article II (presidential oath): “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Article II, Section 2: “The President shall be Commader in Chief of the Army and Navy of the Unied States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”
In the wake of the Ft. Hood massacre last year, president Obama rightly indicated that under no concept of religion would a deed such as that of Major Hasan be acceptable, i.e., that God would never order or condone cold-blooded murder. Yet, Major Hasan screamed “Allahu Allah” as he committed his heinous crime, attributing to his god, Allah, the order for his act. So…which did the president mean in his statement – Judeo-Christian God or Allah?
The Constitution is a written document setting up the U.S. government and, though it can be amended and requires interpretation as time passes, is set in concrete. The Koran is a document setting up Islam, which is remarked by Muslims and most everyone else as a religion. It is interpreted by Islamic scholars and functionaries as time passes but is also set in concrete and cannot be amended or otherwise changed. Accepted throughout the world is the fact as fixed in concrete in the Koran (see Surah 2,3,8, for instance) that Muslims are required to kill infidels (unbelievers in Allah), yet most Muslims do not carry out this requirement, though for widely differing reasons, undoubtedly among which is the risk of being caught.
Considering the responsibilities of both the Congress and the president, the question has to do with whether or not Islam is to be considered as a religion, with its adherents entitled to First Amendment protections. If it isn’t a religion – at least in this country – what is it and how should it be addressed? More to the point, if it demands that an adherent commit a crime, especially the crime of murder, has it become a secular instrument entirely and certainly not susceptible to consideration within the context of religion?
The answer to this question is in the affirmative. Neither the president nor a Congressperson would sit still for any First Amendment protection for the Klu Klux Klan or the Weather Underground (shades of Obama colleague Bill Ayers) or the Black Panthers, all of which outfits have demanded violence against those with whom they disagree, or even against the government itself. Without any question, the Koran demands violence of its adherents against anyone not a Muslim (including non-Muslim governments), is pervasive worldwide including among millions in the U.S., and consequently of its own volition advocates what are considered criminal acts in this and most other civilized countries.
This makes the Koran a purely secular instrument and Islam a movement, not a religion. More accurately, as taught and practiced by despotic Muslim leaders such as Iran’s Ayatollah Khameini and President Ahmadinejad, it is a terrorist movement advocating the overthrow of entire societies and/or governments, not to mention the murders of individuals, even within the ranks of its believers. Whole nations such as Iran, Algeria, Libya, Sudan and Yemen are governed officially by Muslims and therefore have become “killer nations” as demanded by the Koran.
Though the events of 11 September 2001 comprised the worst act of war ever perpetrated by anyone or any group on U.S. soil, the heinous murders carried out in the name of Allah throughout the world by jihadists on a daily basis give the lie to any Muslim claim that Islam is a religion, since in most countries murder is a crime. In Muslim law (Sharia, as practiced in Iran and Afghanistan), public-stoning-to-death is the penalty for certain crimes against Allah. If a mosque is built in New York City and the imam decides to have someone stoned to death, even within the confines of the mosque and not public, would the mayor or police commissioner do anything to stop a “relgious” observance?
The answer to that question, hopefully, is “yes,” though one can’t be too sure anymore since political correctness trumps every consideration, but if the president, Congress and all public officials are to operate within the oaths they take to see to the defense and welfare of this country, they must not treat Islam as a religion, meaning that it is not protected by the First Amendment. It is terrorism masquerading as a religion. The mosque should not be allowed at Ground Zero or anywhere else. The mosque in Hamburg, Germany, that was used by the planners of 9/11 has been closed by the German government (Washington Post, 09 August). The reason is obvious and hopefully not a lesson too late for the learning.
Last weekend was the 65th anniversary of the actual ending of WWII, with the surrender of the Japanese. The president celebrated it by extolling the virtues of mosque-building in Manhattan, where the “holy men” delivered the 2001 version of Pearl Harbor (nearly the same number butchered in each)…right to the Big Apple.
And so it goes.