How Islamic law might be banned in America

The American creed says that Congress shall not pass any law restricting the free exercise of religion, and that freedom applies to all religions, including Islam, which, by the way, is an especially desirable religion, a religion of peace. But of course the followers of Islam believe in and are obligated to follow sharia law, the Muslim law, handed down since the 9th century, which dictates every aspect of life from marital relations to the requirement that a convert from Islam must die, and is radically at odds with our most basic notions of liberty. As the numbers of Muslims continue to grow in this country, and as Muslims gain power in local areas and states, they will inevitably seek to live under sharia law themselves and to impose it on others. Many Muslims according to polls already say they hope to see America changed into a sharia-ruled society.

The question I would like to ask is, under our current system, what’s wrong with that? People have a right to advocate laws they believe in, don’t they? And if the laws they desire happen to go against our present Constitution, they have the right to lobby for a change in the Constitution, don’t they? So on what legal basis can we stop Muslims from peacefully seeking the spread of sharia law in the United States?

Short of banning the Islamic religion outright and removing the great majority of Muslims from this country, which I think should be our ultimate goal, I would suggest that an approach similar to what the U.S. government took in the 19th century toward banning both polygamy and the advocacy of polygamy might be what we need with regard to Islamic law. In several remarkable cases, including Davis v. Beason (see here) the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed polygamy not on the basis of the Constitution per se, but on the basis that polygamy has always been understood to be a crime in our Christian-based civilization, violative of our very notions of a well-ordered and decent society. I would suggest that sharia and the promotion of sharia might be banned on a similar basis.

Below is an excerpt from a similar Supreme Court decision, The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (1890), also known as Mormon Church v. United States. As you read the below, replace the word “polygamy” with the word “sharia law,” or perhaps just “Islam.”

[T]he property of the said corporation … [is to be used to promote] the practice of polygamy—a crime against the laws, and abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world…. The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity had produced in the Western world.” Id. at 48-49.

“… the Mormon Church, or Church of Latter-Day Saints, one of the distinguishing features of which is the practice of polygamy,—a crime against the laws, and abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world. Notwithstanding the stringent laws which have been passed by congress,—notwithstanding all the efforts made to suppress this barbarous practice,—the sect or community composing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints perseveres, in defiance of law, in preaching, upholding, promoting, and defending it. It is a matter of public notoriety that its emissaries are engaged in many countries in propagating this nefarious doctrine, and urging its converts to join the community in Utah. The existence of such a propaganda is a blot on our civilization. The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the western world. [Italics added.] The question, therefore, is whether the promotion of such a nefarious system and practice, so repugnant to our laws and to the principles of our civilization, is to be allowed to continue by the sanction of the government itself, and whether the funds accumulated for that purpose shall be restored to the same unlawful uses as heretofore, to the detriment of the true interests of civil society. It is unnecessary here to refer to the past history of the sect; to their defiance of the government authorities; to their attempt to establish an independent community; to their efforts to drive from the territory all who were not connected with them in communion and sympathy. The tale is one of patience on the part of the American government and people, and of contempt of authority and resistance to law on the part of the Mormons. Whatever persecutions they may have suffered in the early part of their history, in Missouri and Illinois, they have no excuse for their persistent defiance of law under the government of the United States.

The decision also makes a broader appeal to our historic civilization, alluding to legal principles that are “not confined to a particular people or nation, but prevail in all civilized countries pervaded by the spirit of Christianity. They are found imbedded in the civil law of Rome, in the laws of European nations, and especially in the laws of that nation from which our institutions are derived.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 29, 2006 07:59 AM | Send