Radical Islam has been on the move for decades. It broke into Americans’ lives in a big way on 9/11 of course. But the steady march of the Muslim faith is nothing new. What is new is that those who wish to see Islam as not only the dominant but the controlling ideology throughout the world have gotten both bolder and more aggressive, and not always in a violent way. The plan is far more insidious than that.
The violence committed by Islamic extremists who blow themselves up to kill others or who engage in other forms of terrorism are the ones who get the press. Obviously, dead bodies strewn all over the street or inside buildings demand media attention. However, does anyone really think that this is the total of the effort to Islamicize nations, especially Western nations? That blowing innocent people to kingdom come will be a complete and successful strategy?
Hardly. While those murdering lunatics might get the sensational stories in the press, it’s the insinuation of Islamic beliefs into existing social, economic, political, and legal structures that’s the less obvious threat. After all, these would be the “moderate” Muslims, right? And they deserve to be heard since they are peaceful persons who reject conquest by violence, correct?
They may have a right to be heard, but the citizens of Western nations must also understand their agenda and its implications, and conclude whether this is at all consistent with our way of life. After all, the changes in culture and even laws would be profound under Islamic Law. This is not a wild opinion. Anyone can figure this out who can examine the great documents of Western political philosophy and compare those to the essential beliefs and practices of Islam. They conflict on enough vital points as to be considered incompatible.
Islamic leaders operating in the West understand this very well. However, it is unlikely that citizens of nations like America have a clear picture of what is at stake. We may look at Islamic dress codes, and hear about different dietary laws, and feel uncomfortable about all of this. But those are largely superficial matters. After all, who cares what your neighbor wears or has for supper?
But you will care very much if bedrock issues of law and culture change. To the degree that you are an adherent of a religious faith other than Islam, you will also care. And when it comes to what your children are taught in school, you’ll care. Finally, when you realize that the fundamental rights guaranteed to Americans by our Constitution have been profoundly altered by a set of religious and political beliefs foreign to American and Western thought, you’ll realize that it might be too late.
For an example of how Islam works to insinuate itself into a Western nation and its culture, we can look to our good friends on the opposite side of the globe, those delightful people of Australia. Hopefully, they will wake up to a threat to their way of life, and wake up soon.
Former human rights commissioner Gillian Triggs of Australia has demanded that the country establish Sharia Law courts to accede to the demands of Islam. This would establish two incompatible judicial systems in Australia in order to create judicial chaos until one system necessarily would take precedence over the other, and you should have no trouble figuring out how the Islamic leaders plan for that to play out.
“Australia’s former human rights commissioner Gillian Triggs says Sharia law should be allowed in Australia.
“The former law professor likened the Islamic legal system to Catholic diktats from the Vatican.
“‘There are various ways in which religious law affects the private lives of people,’ she told Daily Mail Australia on Thursday night, after sharing a stage with Iranian-born Labor senator Sam Dastyari.
“‘The views of the Vatican affect the lives of Catholics in this country.'”
Stop right there. There are so many things wrong with Triggs’ statements that we need to make the points before going further.
In the first place, the Catholic Church does, indeed, issue edicts directing how its followers are to conduct their lives in matters of personal behavior and morals. It also gives instruction on matters relating its doctrines of the Christian faith, and how those are to be understood by Roman Catholics.
So the Vatican does affect the lives of Catholics. Catholics, not non-Catholics who are free morally, socially, and politically to ignore the Vatican as most do. In fact, Roman Catholics frequently ignore the Vatican, and other than those who create enough of an issue to be excommunicated, they suffer no consequences.
This is very different from Sharia Law. The Islamic courts established under this system can and will rule on civil and religious matters. They can decree punishment after a trial which can include the death sentence. And the gains in women’s rights that have been achieved will be set back by about 1,400 years or so.
The Vatican has no such power in Australia.
To add to this, in the matter of a conflict that involves a Muslim and a non-Muslim, which court would hear the case? The Islamic court or the established courts of the Australian government? And that’s just one problem.
“Professor Triggs also said Sharia divorce courts should be allowed in Australia, under a system where a Muslim man can leave his wife by saying ‘I divorce you’ three times and a woman’s word is worth less than a man’s.
“‘If it’s a matter of private law within the Muslim community and they want to manage their affairs in that way, and they believe in those rules, that’s reasonably acceptable,’ she said.”
That’s also impossible to implement. For example, who will determine if a matter is one of “private law within the Muslim community” and thus heard by the Islamic courts? And this is not a minor issue, since under Sharia Law, people can get their heads chopped off. And that remark is not this column engaging in sensationalism, but rather it’s part of the system of law Triggs wants installed in her country.
Much more could be said, but the measure of the severity of the crisis that would be caused by establishing Sharia Law courts cannot be overestimated. There would be two incompatible judicial systems with inevitable conflicts over which had jurisdiction in specific cases.
To these inevitable conflicts would be applied the inevitable proposal, or insistence, that Sharia Law must take precedence. After all, that’s what Allah commands. And that’s the goal for which the alleged moderate Muslims will strive.
May the Australians recognize this threat to their culture, laws, and way of life.
Source: Daily Mail