Recently, TN State Rep Rick Womick, at a conference contrasting Sharia Law and the Constitution, said Muslims should not serve in the US military because they could not be trusted. Some in the Muslim community are calling for Womick to be impeached for his remarks.
I find it fascinating that, in the context of a conference on the Constitution, Womick spoke because he believes evidence exists that Muslims represent an internal threat while Muslims responded because they don’t like what Womick said. Seems an interesting clash between Muslims and the 1st Amendment.
Absent from the Muslim response is any discussion of any merit to Womick’s remark. I was present at the conference and have a few observations in that regard.
Conference presenter Frank Gaffney spoke about the Team B II report, a portion of which was entered into evidence in a trial, and which reveals a 5 phase plan by Muslims to overthrow the US government and seize power. These are not accusations. These are their own words from their own documents. If true, it seems a compelling argument for not trusting Muslims in any government sector, including the military. I have to ask the Muslim community if the report is true? If so, are you, too, in favor of replacing the Constitution with Sharia Law and the theocracy it mandates? Should this not impact the way Representative Womick’s comment is viewed?
Then there is the 1300 year old Muslim practice of taqiyya which permits Muslims to deny their faith and intentions when dealing with enemies, Muslim or non-Muslim. They may even denounce Islam and Mohammed and convert to Christianity externally while remaining loyal to Islam and Mohammed in their hearts. Such outer deception and inner loyalty may be maintained as long as is necessary. Given recent history, it is not unreasonable to conclude some Muslims consider the US an enemy and subject to taqiyya. I have to ask the Muslim community, is taqiyya a well established practice in Islam? If so, do you support it? If so, how might non-Muslims believe any oath or allegiance to the US and its Constitution which you might swear? Should this not impact the way Representative Womick’s comment is viewed?
Another presenter referred to Yasir Arafat’s appeal to “Hudaybiya” when challenged as to why he signed peace treaties with Israel. Arafat was referring to a treaty between Mohammed and the residents of Mecca and his later conquest of Mecca. A state of war, or at least open conflict, existed between Mohammed and Mecca. The treaty ended the conflict. Later, following a minor violation of the treaty by Meccan allies, Mohammed returned with a force of 10,000 to Mecca which surrendered without a fight. The treaty is seen by many to have been a ruse giving Mohammed time to get stronger before conquering Mecca. That understanding is consistent with Arafat’s comments. Muslims reject that view, insisting Meccans broke the treaty which justified Mohammed’s actions. I ask the Muslim community, is Hudaybiyah an example of Muslim deception? If not, how should I understand Arafat’s appeal? If so, do you support such tactics? Should this not impact the way Representative Womick’s comment is viewed?
None of these concerns were addressed by Womick’s detractors. Responding to remarks made in the context of a discussion of the relationship between Sharia Law and the Constitution by calling for sanctions against a man exercising those Rights would seem unwise. Especially when the one making them is tasked with representing the public’s interests.
The issues raised are not new. However, to my knowledge they have either not been addressed at all, or not addressed well enough to dispel legitimate questions about the intentions of both Islam and individual Muslims. Womick’s comment is outrageous only if it is founded in hate and bigotry. If it has a reasonable foundation in the nature of Islam and Muslim behavior as revealed in the Koran and the example of Mohammed himself, not only is it not outrageous, it demands investigation by media and citizen alike. At a minimum, Womick should be able to voice his opinions without fear of calls for his impeachment.
I’m curious how the Muslim community would argue for being seen as good Americans, loyal to our Constitution and the Rights of everyman recognized in it, while behaving as a good Muslim at the same time. Failing that, they should gear up for more questions about being Muslims in America. In the meantime, methinks the Muslims doth protest Rep. Womick too much …
#1 by Art Chance on 11/15/2011 - 07:33
I don't remember if you were around on RedState when we had lots of discussions on this issue. I was involved, Paul Cella wrote a lot about it, Kenny Solomon and many others chimed in. I said then and haven't changed my mind that you cannot be a practicing muslim and a practicing American. Paul's position and I agree but would go further, was that we should at minimum expect an oath to abide by our laws for any here who were not citizens already.
We like to think of ourselves as the "melting pot" but in actuality we haven't done a very good job of assimilating people who didn't come here from a country with a European Christian tradition. The Japanese and Chinese live easily among us but that certainly hasn't always been true and they still tend to keep to their own. The jury is still out on other Asian immigrants, and I know the Samoan and other Asian gangs running wild in most West Coast states including mine aren't helping. Blacks have been here for 400 years and are arguably less assimilated today than 100 years ago and many seem to not only resist assimilation but to actively combat the major culture here, likewise Hispanics who share a European Christian tradition, and much of our Indian population is not only unassimilated but is segregated, mostly by their own choice, on reservations. Muslims not only refuse assimilation but insist that we change our ways to accomdate theirs. Sorry, first time somebody blows one of those call to prayer horns in my neighborhood, the next sound will be the gunshot silencing that PA system. And where are all the lefties and athiests who've silenced many church bells on that subject?
#2 by Blue Collar Muse on 11/15/2011 - 07:57
Well, there's that and there's also that pesky notion from the 14th Amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Everyone wants to trumpet the "A" part of that and conveniently ignore the "B" part. For the record, note the quotation marks. The two conditions for citizenship share a both/and relationship, not an either/or!
#3 by Art Chance on 11/15/2011 - 12:29
I don't think it is that pesky, though I don't like a lot of 14th Am. jurisprudence. Hell, I can make a really good argument that it isn't even properly a part of the Constitution, having never been properly ratified.
I believe the "anchor baby" BS is just a way to make more Democrats. The original language was intended to encompass diplomats, foreign visitors, and federal Indians, all of whom were subject to the jurisdiction of some other sovereign or a dependent sovereign in the case of Indians. Two illegal, or even legal, aliens are only subject to the jursisdiction of the US and the States in limited circumstances if at all in the case of some diplomats. It really was in response to Dred Scott to establish that moving around the Country didn't change one's fundamental rights and status as a citizen. As an aside, we'll get to revisit Dred Scott as soon as Bruce and Allan are married by one of the new atheist military chaplains and decide to conduct their life as a married couple in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage.
I think we could easily impose an oath on foreign visitors requiring them to adhere to our laws. Since mohammedanism at least sanctions if not outright requires lying to infidels, those with bad intentions wouldn't feel obligated by the oath but they could sure be obligated to face our criminal penalties for violating it. We already impose an obligation to respect the Constitution on naturalizing aliens, so implicitly that supercedes any other law they might want to respect. Tried to tell a cop, "'Cause The Bible tells me so" lately? Our law ain't much on an eye for an eye or stoning gays at the city gate. We need federal civil rights prosecutions in addition to state or federal criminat penalties for honor killings and all the other barbarities that the Dark Ages cult tries to impose on people in a civilized country. Instead, the Left kow tows to them.
#4 by Manny Edwards on 11/16/2011 - 08:39
We're going to have to face the fact that Islam does not like us. It is not a tolerant and peaceful religion — it is an intolerant, violent political movement. I do not feel any obligation to be tolerant of those who have sworn to subjugate me or kill me. The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion; Islam does not. When a religion by definition demands the subjugation of all others, those who practice it will just have to leave me out of it.
#5 by Blue Collar Muse on 11/16/2011 - 12:31
Manny -
You have nicely framed the discussion. The US was created on a foundation of individual rights and respect for Life, Liberty and Property.
Large portions of Islam, as fleshed out in Sharia Law, violate practically every Right recognized by our Constitution. Honor killings, the status of women, the status of non-Muslims, how business and legal matters are conducted … all these and so many more are in fundamental conflict with American values.
Were this just about ritual washings, praying multiple times per day and modes of dress, there would be no problem. In the various religions in the US, these things have been worked out peacefully for decades.
But Sharia Law is far more than mere religious instruction. What it permits and what it promotes are antithetical to our state and federal Constitutions.
When this happens, when a legal system or ideology conflicts with our own legal system, we are under no obligation to permit it to practice its ways under the guise of freedom of anything.
Keeping women from living full and self directed lives, murdering them for their fashion or romantic choices, invalidating their rights in courts, divorces, voting and other arenas because Islam and Sharia promote women as second class citizens is not protected behavior under some perverse understanding of the Freedom of Religion.
Sadly, too many Americans are more than willing to acquiesce to such barbarity without an iota of critical thought. They swallow whole the promise of Islam as a religion of Peace and fail to recognize that Islam does not separate their religion from their politics.
#6 by Matt Bonner on 11/30/2011 - 15:39
Excellent and well thought out Ken. I appreciate your rational and objective analysis. It's spot on. This is a SERIOUS issue that deserves a lot of level headed discussion, debate and strategic action.
Pingback: Politician: Discharge Muslims from U.S. Military - Page 8 - Southern Maryland Community Forums
Pingback: — 1389 Blog - Counterjihad!