Every once in a while an issue arises that can leave no doubt as to one’s true colors. Clear examples of this are the congressional bills that unambiguously prevent judges in American courts from citing or using Sharia in their rulings. If you support them, you oppose Islamic law in America; if you oppose them, you don’t. The purity of this issue doesn’t allow for prevarication. Michigan Representative Dave Agema, R-Grandville, has introduced the newest of these bills. While it doesn’t openly reference Islamic law (Sharia), it clearly intends to prevent judges from including Sharia in their rulings. The bill states that “no foreign law shall supersede federal laws or constitution or state laws or constitution.” As one would predict, the Islamist and apologist “usual suspects”; CAIR, the ACLU, Muslim activists and apologists who claim to be “loyal Americans”, are oozing from the woodwork to deplore the “bigotry and Islamophobia” these laws represent.
Their reactions are both interesting and revealing. To make my point, I’ll concede that certain arguments against the dangers of radical Islam are at least somewhat controversial. As such, not all who speak out against them support a hidden agenda to advance Islamism. An example might be the Disney employee, Imane Boudlal, who sued Disney to allow her to wear her hijab rather than Disney garb as a greeter at Disneyland. Although her supporters are misguided and being used as pawns by Islamists, they might truly feel this is her right as an American. These anti-Sharia bills, however, whose only purpose is to protect the sanctity of our Constitution, leave no room for obfuscation.
State Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, the first Muslim woman to serve in the Michigan legislature, has spoken out against the Agema bill. Victor Begg, a co-founder of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan, called the bill “appalling.” “Some in our party find it politically opportune to target my faith by sponsoring an innocuous sounding bill, knowing well that their intent is so-called ‘creeping Sharia,’ Begg said. Many in the mainstream media have also condemned Agema and his bill.
The Center for Security Policy in Washington, a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization specializing in assessing “threats to American security”, has identified more than fifty instances where Sharia has already been referenced in the application of U.S. law. The most notorious of these Sharia-friendly rulings occurred in New Jersey last year. Family court judge Joseph Charles decided not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him. Charles’ rationale was “that the [defendant] was operating under his belief [Islamic law] that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his [religious] practices and it was something that was not prohibited.” In other words: deference to Sharia trumps the U.S. Constitution, common sense and our most basic Judeo-Christian principles. Thankfully, the New Jersey appellate court overruled this preposterous decision. Based upon this case alone it’s clear that laws forbidding Sharia in America are a pretty good idea.
Similar legislation to Agema’s bill has been proposed in almost half of the states. To date, though, only Tennessee and Oklahoma have enacted these into law and in Oklahoma a federal judge has blocked its implementation to consider its potential violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom.
In summary; to repudiate anti-Sharia laws that clarify the inviolability of our constitution is synonymous with supporting the Islamization of America. Res ipsa loquitur is a well-known Latin term for “the thing speaks for itself”. It is aptly applied to these objectors who, in their fervor to attack all opposition to their shrouded march toward American Islamization, reveal their true colors.