If we ever understand the spread of Islam into heretofore non-Islamic societies as the spread of Islamic law, rather than the spread of just another “religion,” we might actually perceive the danger it poses to our own law and liberty — and act accordingly. This means, for starters, halting Islamic immigration as a means of preventing the adoption of sharia by popular demand. As we can see in Britain, where sharia courts are now recognized by the government, a Muslim population of just 3 percent can produce a lot of popular demand. Whether this understanding comes in demographic time is the big question.
Meanwhile, back at the White House, it’s Ramadan time, which, of course, is universally treated and regarded as merely a religious holiday for the White House to celebrate with constituent-worshippers, OIC ambasaadors, even the occasional unindicted co-conspirator. But if we think beyond the generic notion of religious diversity and consider the specific ramifications ofIslamic law , questions begin to dawn. Some heretofore unimagined number of the guests supping with the president must be proponents of the spread ofislamic law, no? Even the spread of Islamic law… in the United States?
With the Islamic legal ramifications in mind, it’s worth noting the following synopsis of one of this year’s guest’s schlolarly work as presented in Answers.com’s entry on sharia. It’s not an argument in favor of sharia; it’s something else. This section of the sharia entry, credited to White House Ramadan guest Azizah al-Hibri from an article in U Penn’s law journal, argues that the US Constitution “may have possibly borrowed” from Islamic law.
Note: Contrary to Answers.com, Azizah al-Hibri is a woman. The excerpt follows:
Azizah Y. al-Hibri argues that American constitutional law may have possibly borrowed certain concepts from Islamic constitutional law. He [sic] compares the American constitution to the Qur’an, Sunnah and Constitution of Medina, such as the establishment of a federal government, the declaration of freedom of religion, the abolishment of guilt by association, the right to privacy, and matters such as common defense and peacemaking. He notes that while it is uncertain whether or not the American Founding Fathers had access to the Constitution of Medina, it is certain that they had access to the Qur’an (which protects some of the rights mentioned in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution), that Thomas Jefferson was familiar with Orientalist writings on Islam (including those of Volney) in addition to owning a copy of the Qur’an, that Jefferson spoke of avoiding the mistakes of previous civilizations, and that there were African American Muslim slaves from an Islamic legal background.
I particularly love this description of “the Islamic legal background” of Africans no doubt converted and traded by Muslim Arab slavers. It continues:
However, Thomas Jefferson was not involved at all in the Constitutional drafting, as he was the United States Minister to France from 1785 to 1789.
Tell ya what: TJ was as close to the “Miracle at Philadelphia” as the Koran was. Mama mia….Remember the good ol’ days of the “culture wars” when you could score all PC points necessary just by crediting the Constitution to the Iroquois Nation?