I mean, I believe he knows the neighborhood around the proposed Muslim Center near Ground Zero.
I do not see where anyone may have commented about the compatability of Sharia with the US Constitution. In a historical context, Islamic countries have been able to exist for centuries without democracy, and see no reason why democracy should be something they should eagerly adopt.
On the other hand, The USA has been compatable with all sorts of religions, and I see no reason why a Muslim (church? temple? Community Center?) should be any different than Scientology.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2386865-post190.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2386987-post211.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2387269-post218.html
Ok I got it:
Rauf has claimed that Sharia law DOES NOT CONFLICT with the Constitution - not that he wants to change the Constitution to fit Sharia law. There's a pretty big difference right there.
and Dr. Isin believes this is true
I think the point that Dr. Isin is making (or agreeing with) is Sharia Law, like US State Law,
CANNOT take precedence over US Federal Law, including the Constitution. In fact, it cannot conflict with state laws.
Even Christian churches cannot do whatever the hell they want: David Koresh being a prime example.
Which bring us to the point.
Muslims civil rights will continue to be violated until all people live as muslims
How do you feel about ideologies that require all people be subjugated under their tenants?
Islam Question and Answer - Judging by that which Allaah has revealed
Islam Question and Answer - Should he turn to the human rights organizations to get his rights?
Islam Question and Answer - The kufr of one who rules according to other than what Allaah revealed
Allaah has commanded us to refer matters to His judgement and to establish Sharee‘ah, and He has forbidden us to rule with anything else, as is clear from a number of aayaat in the Qur’aan, such as the aayaat in Soorat al-Maa’idah (5) which discuss ruling according to what Allaah has revealed, and mention the following topics:
The command to rule according to what Allaah has revealed: “And so judge between them by what Allaah has revealed . . .” [aayah 49]
Warning against ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed: “. . . and follow not their vain desires . . .” [aayah 49]
Warning against compromising on any detail of Sharee‘ah, no matter how small: “. . . but beware of them lest they turn you far away from some of that which Allaah has sent down to you . . .” [aayah 49]
Forbidding seeking the ruling of jaahiliyyah, as is expressed in the rhetorical question “Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance?” [aayah 50]
The statement that nobody is better than Allaah to judge: “. . . and who is better in judgement than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith?” [aayah 50]
The statement that whoever does not judge according to what Allaah revealed is a kaafir, a zaalim (oppressor or wrongdoer) and a faasiq (sinner), as Allaah says: “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the kaafiroon.” [aayah 44]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed, such are the zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers)” [aayah 45]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed (then) such (people) are the faasiqoon (rebellious or disobedient).” [aayah 47].
The statement that it is obligatory for the Muslims to judge according to what Allaah has revealed, even if those who seek their judgement are not Muslim, as Allaah says: “. . . And if you judge, judge with justice between them. . .” [aayah 42]
The jihad will continue.
Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328) was a jurist of the Hanbali madhhab. He directed that "since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought."
Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force."
Maliki jurist, Ibn Abi Zayd al Qayrawani (d. 996), agrees: "Jihad is a Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have either the alternative of converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war is declared against them."
Averroes (1126-1198) says this: "the Muslims are agreed that the aim of warfare against the People of the Book . . . is twofold: either conversion to Islam, or payment of poll-tax (jizya)."
8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do
2:193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)
