When a foreign national buys a piece of property in America, it is commonly understood that such property does not then fall under the sovereignty of that foreigner's government. It is commonly understood that the United States of America retains sovereignty over that property. This presents us with a problem when it comes to the Nation of Islam because that common understanding is not shared by it's followers. If we are truly tolerant of other religions we would recognize the legal aspects, within a religion, of an individual's duty to their God.
The Nation of Islam is a nation without borders. It is composed of the followers of Islam. Islam is not just a religion, but rather a complete system of government. It's followers consider themselves to be Muslims first and any nationality second. (As do most Christians and followers of other religions consider themselves to be followers of their religions first.) Under the Islamic system, our commonly held belief that property is not transferred to the sovereignty of an external government is incorrect. Under the legal system of Islam, property purchased by a member becomes the property of Allah - in perpetuity, unless otherwise stated in the purchase agreement. (I'm not sure that stating otherwise in the purchase agreement can nullify this transfer, but hope that it is true as I have read that caveat emptor applies to the seller being unaware of said transfer. This implies that it could be addressed in the purchase agreement. I hope that any readers with better information would share.)The principle of caveat emptor applies. There are agencies within the Nation of Islam whose purpose is to record the transfer of property into the possession of members of the Nation of Islam to be held in trust for Allah.
This poses a problem for America. While Americans, in general, hold that an individual has a primary duty to their God and the right to worship freely, we tend to forget that there are natural limitations on the right to worship. Those limitations are the same as the limitations on our other rights, namely that our right to practice our religion ends where such practice begins to infringe upon the rights of our neighbors. Is it an infringement of our rights, as a nation, to allow the followers of Islam, whether American in nationality or not, to purchase land when that purchase results in a transfer, in the minds of the purchasers and the records of their scribes, of sovereignty over that land?
It seems a folly to allow the members of a group of people to purchase American land at all when their motives may be to transfer the ownership/sovereignty of that land to an entity other than the nation in which that land is located. To put restrictions on the buying and selling of property seems an extreme and possibly unconstitutional solution. It would not be unconstitutional or extreme, however, to recognize that Islam is a governmental system as well as a religious one while protecting our national interests with a law preventing the transfer of sovereignty upon the mere act of purchasing property. That America has not done so already seems more a function of a general ignorance over the tenets of Islam than a self-destructive display of religious freedom at all costs. Freedom without limitation is not freedom, it is license. It is not respectful to the followers of a religion to ignore the governmental aspects of that religion in our law. (If there is a law in place that restricts the transfer of sovereignty/ownership in this way, I hope a reader will direct me to it.)
As there is to be a gathering of Muslims on Capitol Hill this weekend for prayer, I am concerned that this prayer meeting will turn Capitol Hill, in the eyes of the worldwide Islamic community, into a mosque. The legal system of Islam also transfers sovereignty/ownership of all mosques to Allah in perpetuity and prohibits infidels and other non-Muslims from setting foot on holy ground. In Maalmo, Sweden, not so long ago, a group of Muslims rioted over just that issue. A building in the community had been rented to a Muslim group to serve as a community center. Within the community center was a room or rooms set aside to serve as a mosque. When the landlord refused to renew the lease to the Muslim group, some youth declared that the mosque, as a mosque, now belonged to Allah and not the property owner. Are we setting up the same sort of reaction for Capitol Hill? Probably not-or at least not yet. The Muslim community is not quite strong enough yet to insist that religious freedom would allow them to prevent the kaffir or infidels from setting foot upon the now holy ground of Capitol Hill or from openly declaring that Capitol Hill now belongs to Allah, once again, in perpetuity. Will that still be the case in 10-20 years? Not if we don't start recognizing the governmental and legal aspects of the Islamic faith now, with an eye towards preserving both our land and our freedoms.
America must address the governmental and legal aspects of Islam in a way that respects religious freedom while retaining our sovereignty and our republic. It is not a violation of religious freedom to restrict worship to worship and prevent the imposition of a foreign governmental, financial or legal system upon the citizens of this nation under the guise of freedom of religion.
"Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:
And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known. " ~Deut 11:26-28
Friday, September 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Mom, I think there is a terminology problem here.
The Nation of Islam is the organization that Louis Farrakahn runs. I don't think it operates quite as you describe, although I could be wrong on that.
What you are describing sounds more like what the muzlims call daar al izlam or some such foolishness meaning roughly "their turf" as opposed to daar al harb meaning the place of turmoil and war that that they have yet to conquer (I'm sure I have those spellings messed up because I never paid much attention to them). These are the real muzlims, the outfit with headquarters in Saudi Arabia that worship the big, dumb rock in Mecca.
America is a secular state, allowing freedom of worship but that has never been construed as meaning political domination nor should it be. The problem with the muzlims is that they are at least as much a political movement as they are a religion. In many respects they are more a political movement masquerading as a religion. We would never allow a foreign power to simply walk in and by a city block and claim that it was their territory (at least we would never have done so in the past; in our current weakened state, who knows?), so why should we allow this phony religion to get away with such a thing? We should out law izlam, just like we once outlawed the communist party. It is a political party, and there is no reason not to treat it as such.
The reason they get away with the things they do in Malmo, in the UK, in France, and elsewhere is because the public officials are afraid of them. They have learned that if they act up violently, or even just threaten to do so, they will get whatever they want. Appeasement has become the name of the game. We must not give into that. We, the US, must not appease at all, but rather we must stop this evil in its tracks and refuse to give it any respect, honor, or a square inch of US soil.
Dr. D.
Thanks for terminology clarification opportunity. I know Mr. Farrakahn has an organization called the Nation of Islam and you are correct in assuming that I am not referring to that organization-or at least not solely to that organization. I meant the entire worldwide "body" of Islam. I have have done a bit of reading where clerics, ummahs and etc. refer to all Muslims worldwide as "the Nation of Islam " and that was usage I was going for. I rather suspect that is why Mr. Farrakahn adopted that name for his organization. It is difficult to think of something else to call them aside from arabic names which would then need to be translated into English as you have done. I was taking a shortcut for the sake of convenience and, as usual, my conveniece was not the best choice.
I could say Muslims, but that doesn't have quite the same feeling of the unified front presented with regard to legal and political matters. There are many different sects of Muslims, just as there are of Christians. I wanted to present the idea that no matter what sect they belong to, there is a record being made of property ownership.
That record is one of the reasons the history taught to Muslim children is often so very different from the way the rest of the world sees the same events. In their view, any property that once was theirs remains theirs forever, so anyone else who is currently occupying it is someone who has taken it away from them and they are then justified in taking it "back" in any way they can.
"In their view, any property that once was theirs remains theirs forever, so anyone else who is currently occupying it is someone who has taken it away from them and they are then justified in taking it "back" in any way they can."
This conveniently overlooks the fact that all of the middle east, north Africa, SE Asia, etc., previously belonged to someone else before they stole it. Only in the rarest cases do muzlims purchase territory in an honest transaction, but even then, that does not remove it from the laws of the land in which the land is situated (just as when you buy a house, it is still subject to the local laws).
I think that it's possible to give too much credit to Islam...and your argument does.
The "once ours, always ours" claim is silly on the face of it. Only the most infantile believers take such a notion seriously. It certainly doesn't account for the inconsistent nature of Islamist historical interpretation. The Islamist version of history is deliberate propaganda, to suggest that it is the honest result of applying peculiar "Islamic" notions of property and lineage and so forth is an insult to the intelligence of all concerned.
The goofy rules are there to justify the dishonest narrative, they didn't create it in the first place.
There is a certain strain of Islam which is compatible with secular society, and it is summed up by the statement "Muhammad was as good a man as any." I think it's a piss poor religion, but then again so does the believer in this variant of Islam.
Then there is the form of Islam which tries to take the dismal, forlorn narrative of Islam seriously as a transcendental rather than existential faith. They try to interpret the narrative of Muhammad's rational despair over his failure to find God as profound truths about the nature of Eternity. They invent justifications for all the bits that are well known and bury the rest of the historical record under blatant revisions.
That isn't the result of a good-faith effort to understand the meaning of Muhammad's life and works. It's a serious mistake to try and interpret it that way.
CC, you say, "The "once ours, always ours" claim is silly on the face of it. Only the most infantile believers take such a notion seriously."
I don't think Mom has overstated anything at all. You are simply minimizing what is being seen played out in the streets of Western Europe and the UK. To say "Only the most infantile believers ..." happens to describe the large majority of muzlims. So, yes, they are infantile, but they carry full-sized guns, bombs, RPG, etc. Admittedly, this is not 100% of muzlims, and you probably know some who do not fit that description. But world wide, it seems to fit them quite well. Otherwise, why would they be relentlessly spreading fear throughout Europe and now moving into the USA?
I don't think a word Mom has said can be dismissed.
Verification word: submyt, very close to izlam.
I think that it's worth analyzing the 'worldview' of extremists in order to identify potential threats and such...but that's not something we blog.
I'm not saying that those who act on these fundamentally puerile ideas about 'divine right of muslims' don't take their delusions seriously. But there is a great danger in yielding to the notion that the passion with which they pursue their delusion represents an argument for us to take their delusional claims at face value.
The worst danger, of course, is to admit such claims legitimate, and this I trust is not Mom's intent. But the more subtle danger is to expect that there is any real consistency to these claims, that we can expect to logically argue that this or that claim is invalid and actually accomplish anything.
The whole point of adopting an infantile moral system is that it frees the believer of any need to think about things logically. There wouldn't be any point in understanding the logic of Islamist rhetoric even if there were such a thing to be found. Islamists don't adopt the rhetoric because they have a serious intention of being bound by its strictures, but because it provides limitless justifications for what they like to do.
There are plenty of muslims in the world who aren't Islamists. Unfortunately, they pretty much belong to the "ah, melancholy of the meaninglessness of any attempt to find God" camp, and don't have much appetite for making a real effort at anything like a consistent religion.
Chiu,
The problem is, that because of the practices of taqiyya and kitman, one can never be sure what an individual muslim believes. The agenda of Islam is to conquer the world - by peace or by war.
The property aspect of Sharia law, as are many of the others, is a "peaceful" method of world conquest. To ignore the threat to national sovereignty that is posed by this "peaceful" method of conquest is foolish.
We may think such a notion is infantile, but we are stupid if we deny the reality that the followers of Islam think this is a legitimate method of conquest. To ignore it because we think it is patently nonsense is to stick our heads in the sand and invite such conquest.
Infantile or not, I think we need to address it for what it is - one piece of a multi-pronged attack in an attempt to conquer our nation for Islam.
If we cannot address this for what it is, infantile in our view or not, how can we expect to address the more intrusive aspects of sharia that are making their way into our society?
Thanks for bringing this to light. I knew about the Muslims praying in Washington, but no possible ramifications.
We allow Amish to live as separatists. I wonder how that would compare to this Muslim situation? ALL religions and political groups in America should abide by the laws of the land and constitution. Otherwise, they should not come here believing otherwise.
Thanks for stopping by Jill.
Is there an Amish or Menonite version of CAIR -- devoted to the empowerment (which is to say the disempowerment of all others) of Muslims -- in the United States? Not that I'm aware of.
As Dr. D. rightly says, the Amish just want to be left alone. Therefore, there's a huge contrast between the Amish and Muslims. It cannot be reiterated enough, in my opinion, that Muslims are incompatible with Western civilization, which is Christian (i.e., "infidel" according to Muslims) in its underpinnings.
In other words, there ain't enough room for us and them on the same continent.
The Amish and the Mennonites really want to be left alone. There were a group of them visiting our local museum yesterday, and I noticed that they did not come by the steam powered dredge boat which I thought would really interest the men. I sought out a couple of the men to mention it to them, and got a very gruff expression of disinterest. They really want to be left alone.
As Terry Morris has said with regard to the muzlims, there is not room enough for them and us on the same continent. I would add that we will not be leaving or converting.
The reason I brought up the Amish is they are religious separatists. Muslims are also religious separatists in that they do not "blend" into American society. We let the Amish go their own way, including not requiring their children to attend high school because of their group's beliefs. (a Wisconsin case) What kinds of exemptions will that mean for Muslims, who are also separatists?
BTW, Dr. D. is right, the Amish do not "breed like rabbits," yet their intermarriage for decades has caused genetic problems. But Muslims are not the only group that has large families in America. Don't worry, though. When Obamacare clicks in, the feds will put an end to rabbity procreation with new family planning mandates. (I actually think that breeding like rabbits - if one can care for them all - is a good idea for a culture's survival.)
Jill those are excellent points. With regard to the high school issue, it's been a while since I looked at that ruling, but I believe the ruling did not release the Amish from a responsibility to provide an education for their children, it just allowed them to provide that education through homeschooling to prevent their children from becoming secularized through exposure to the public school system. I know a lot of homeschoolers in WI, myself included, benefitted from that decision.
That said, the Amish do not advocate taking over our government. To the best of my knowledge, Amish laws are fairly consistent with American laws, so maybe they are not a good test of religious freedom vs. law enforcement as such.
We also have the case in SE WI where the parents of a child who died were accused of everything from negligence to homicide because they chose to pray over their daughter rather than take her to a doctor. She had developed diabetes and they didn't know it and she died. The state's case was that the parents may decide for themselves whether or not to accept medical treatment, but a child does not have the knowledge or ability to evaluate the consequences of such a decision until they are of an age to make such decisions for themselves.
Muslims do not want to be separate, they want the rest of us to convert or die. Conquest is their one clearly stated goal throughout the major sects and, from what I have read, they only feel it necessary to obey the laws of a locality until they have the power to take control. To allow them to advance such an agenda through any means is foolishness.
Dr. D,
Here is a link to the video you wanted to post. Thanks for adding it to the discussion.
Post a Comment