As we see those at the margin, typically from the left, advocate for a gradual Islamization of our country, we see increasing examples of efforts to place Sharia Law above our tradition of western jurisprudence. As expected, this is not yet a mass movement, but rather one based on incrementalism, a slow process that seeks to achieve its final goals through a series of gradual accomplishments.
It is as insidious as it is dangerous. That is unless you have no problem with the replacement of our Constitution and Bill of Rights with legal traditions that are the anathema of much of what those documents state. If you think the two systems can coexist or somehow synthesize into one body of law, with respect, you are either terribly misinformed, indifferent to our plight, or simply deluded. If nothing else is obvious, women’s rights would go out the window and be set back about 1,400 years.
This effort to change America and other western nations into those that embrace Islamic Sharia law is proceeding gradually. For example, a Muslim man standing trial refused to stand up for the judge, which is what should be a sign of respect. It would seem he does not find the court worthy of his respect in as much as it is not a Sharia court. The judge shared a few words with him in pointing out that western law is superior to Sharia law. These words were, “This isn’t a court of religion.”
“When an honorable judge entered his courtroom, an entitled thug refused to rise, informing the court that he’d never stand for ‘any man’ because of his superior religion. Incredibly, it took the judge just [a few] little words to quickly change the criminal’s attitude and have him on his feet in no time.”
This is about as good of an explanation of the problem as we’ve read:
“As Islam continues to grow in the West, we see Muslims using our freedoms to invoke Sharia law, which prohibits these freedoms. Using our freedom of speech, Muslims preach their religion and demand the punishment of criticism of Islam. Using our freedom of religion, Muslims incite violence from their religious texts and demand we accommodate their endless compulsions. Eventually, this leads to the implementation of Sharia law enforced by Sharia courts. Luckily, some justices aren’t willing to submit to Islam in their own chambers.”
While this case was tried in a British Court, this could just have easily happened in the U.S. The judge said to the defendant’s lawyer that “‘If Mr. McFarlane isn’t going to treat this court with respect then I might have to deal with him differently than to release him on bail,’ he said before a break in proceedings.
“Roy Hedlam, defending, said: ‘Because of his religious belief he believes there is only one person who he should bow to.’
“Judge Beddoe continued, ‘That is as may be, but this isn’t a court of religion, this is a secular court and it expects to be treated with respect. That isn’t in breach of any religious principles I’m aware of.'”
And with that Mr. McFarlane decided that standing up is a better idea than insisting that the judge conduct the proceedings as though he were in an Islamic court.
This is precisely one step that must be taken to foreclose on the possibility of western countries, including America, from having citizens eventually placed under Sharia law. No one has the right to enter our country and dictate to our courts how they must adapt to their incompatible religious beliefs regardless of what the origin of those beliefs are.
In America, our judicial system is based on western legal traditions and our Constitution. If you cannot live under that system, you cannot live in the U.S. So either assimilate and accept our laws and judicial system, or go back to where you came from where you might enjoy a legal tradition more to your liking.
Source: Mad World News