For those people in this country who do not wish to live under a religious dictatorship, here is a workable approach to stop it. The critical wedge of Islamic law (Sharia) must be prevented from becoming public policy. One recent example is the religious edict (Fatwah) in Minnesota that discriminates against those who wish to use publicly regulated transportation. Because of that edict, the Muslim cabbies there refuse service to any would-be passengers not openly abiding by Islamic principles and traditions.
While this may seem an overly strong assessment to some, the societal acceptance of religious law over secular law will form the legal framework for later erosion of the separation of Mosque and state. The approach being used by various fundamentalist Muslim sects is based on the astute understanding of the use of legal precedence to change the law. One need only look at the how legal precedent is used to force basic changes in the laws of this republic. Therefore it is necessary to thwart these initial efforts trying to establish the validity of pro-Islamist legal precedence. This will derail the openly declared Islamist drive to impose theocracy in America.
But why object to groups choosing to live under religious law rather than those of our republic? The only reason is when these groups act to impose those laws on others without their consent.
The legal trend towards wider separation of religious dogma/practices and civil functions are based on the historic recognition that religious organizations are unresponsive to the wishes or needs of people outside its own membership and only rarely responsive to those of its own membership. Americans have long recognized that the potential for tyranny is inherent in these kinds of organizations and have steadily been moving away from their direct inclusion in secular affairs. Even the ACLU has long recognized these potential dangers and repeatedly taken legal action to disconnect religious actions from the public arena, however unevenly.
The next logical step is to describe who needs to participate in this effort if it is to be successful and why they should undertake the not inconsiderable risks involved. Those who have the most to lose are this effort’s natural allies, as well as the adults who have already fled from the stifling effects of theocratic rule. Many Middle-Eastern people (especially women) who have achieved professional status and/or personal independence in America need only look to what happened to their peers when Islamic law was administered by fundamentalist sects, such as in the formerly Talibani-ruled Afghanistan, currently in Iran or even in Saudi Arabia for that matter. These Arabic-speaking people are the essential prime movers because of their access, as well as their cultural and language skills. Their personal honor and integrity is their strongest ally since they need only be truthful about what they see and hear… unlike the Islamists.
On the brighter side is the well-established fact that revolutionary efforts require only a small percentage of a population to become effective in successfully raising the ante in regards to social change. This is inherently true, especially when the arena of action is primarily the legal system. Therefore, it is possible for a handful of dedicated individuals to establish the legal precedence that will stymie the imposition of fundamentalist-interpreted Islamist law in America.
The operative mechanisms are simple enough. First gather and corroborate hard information on what is being publicly discussed, planned and/or acted upon in regards to putting forward discriminatory or violent policies. These unlawful actions are already openly discussed by (mostly) foreign-born Islamic fundamentalist Imams in Mosques and public meetings coast to coast and need only be fairly recorded and translated for use as evidence.
That mass of information will form the basis for bringing legal actions based on planned or enacted violations of existing state and federal non-discrimination statutes. Once a broad enough body of information has been amassed and there are various criminal and individual civil cases successfully concluded, then a broader civil action may be undertaken seeking damages and other compensation along the same lines as the successful civil suit that made the national Klu-Klux-Klan financially liable for espousing and coordinating unlawful policies, resulting in its bankruptcy and eventual dismantlement. Fundamentalist Islam is similarly vulnerable since it cannot impose placing its religious legal system over that of our republic without simultaneously engaging in a conspiracy to violate well-established secular law.
Assistance in funding these efforts can come from nearly any quarter, with the obvious exception of that which would cause the appearance of an overt religious conflict-of-interest and assist a disproportionate hardening of fundamentalist efforts. This issue will also act as a political-litmus for the ACLU leadership since the tenor of this effort is virtually identical to its own historic efforts on behalf of separating religion and secular functions in the determination of public policy and expenditures.
It is in the personal interest of all residents of the United States to ensure that we maintain our legal system free of what could be fairly described as an emergent Islamic Inquisition. An Inquisition unfettered by our republic’s unique system of checks and balances enacted to ensure the rights of individuals regardless of class, religion or status. The choice is clearly between the risk of being legally considered lower than animals for the slaughter, once declared to be Kafir (unbelievers) or fully rejecting that form of ancient tyranny.
You start with a plan… but as with the KKK, expect many attempts at intimidation and threats of violence. That is the true nature-of-the-beast you will be taking on.
