CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) quickly filed suit in Oklahoma as 70% of Oklahoma voters agreed that Sharia Law should not be a basis for U.S. judicial decisions, as was the case in New Jersey earlier this year.
CAIR has bounded to the defense of all things even mildly perceived as some manner of affront to Islam. CAIR’s agenda is and has been to “defend” and “explain” Islam as the religion of peace despite evidence to the contrary. CAIR has deflected deeper questions about Islamist beliefs and its connections to those Islamist beliefs. They have been able to do so based on the pursuit of situational circumstances limited to manageable specifics.
CAIR’s ties to Hamas, The Muslim Brotherhood and a wide variety of U.S. based Islamist organizations are beyond question including CAIR’s status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, the largest U.S. terror financing case to date.
CAIR may have engaged a bridge too far in challenging Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment banning the application of Sharia. CAIR’s position is that Sharia is a “dynamic legal framework derived from scripture and analytical reasoning”. This “dynamic legal framework”, was essentially frozen in the 10th century, deemed to have been ‘perfected’. The “analytical reasoning” must, by Islamic definition and legal tradition, look back to that 10th century point of perfection. “Analytical reasoning” occurs only within the preexisting framework of Islam and is limited to reasoning based on a unquestioned religious belief system.
CAIR has now positioned itself to defend Sharia in depth. The short question is whether a 10th century interpretation of society, law and religion is defensible in the 21st century; in a country founded on Judea-Christian ethics?
Multiple marriages, spousal abuse, pedophilia, stoning, honor killing, legal opinion that assigns women half the value of a man. A theology based in large measure on the behavior of the Prophet Mohammed who is considered to have led a life of near perfection as the only true prophet of God. Mohammed’s early versus later life is bereft with contradictions, which life will CAIR defend as the foundation of Islam? Will CAIR admit that the earlier, more peaceful, utterances of the Prophet were abrogated by later more violent and aggressive teachings? Which Islam will CAIR defend?
Will CAIR defend the proposition that Islam is the final perfection of Judaism and Christianity, or the idea that this “dynamic legal framework”, authorizes subjugation, slavery and violent Jihad? Ijtihad, which allows innovations in Islam, was cast aside nearly 1,000 years ago disabling reform in Islam based on changing circumstances. Can that be effectively defended?
Can CAIR defend more “modern” interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence? Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi is generally recognized as the leading intellectual force behind today’s Islamism and a critical part of The Muslim Brotherhood intellectual infrastructure. The Sheikh has some interesting things to say. Sheikh Qaradawi supports suicide bombings, wife beating, punishment for female rape victims, random murder of Jews, female suicide bombers and terrorism. The Holocaust was “divine punishment for the Jews” according to the Sheikh who hopes the next Holocaust will be at the hands of the “believers”.
Will CAIR defend the Sharia based mission statement of The Muslim Brotherhood exposed in the Holy Land trial;
“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan (Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.”
As Islam and Sharia are unequivocally one must CAIR defend the entire scope of Islamic beliefs in their law suit? More critically will the other side in the suit insist that they be held to a fully contextual defense?
In reality this suit will never gather steam. CAIR will realize that their suit has created an untenable position. CAIR will slow roll the process until it fades away, take what propaganda benefits they can manufacture and go quietly. While CAIR claims status as a “civil rights organization” this set of circumstances could expose them as ideologically Islamist and fully engaged in politically correct propaganda as their true mission. The absence of an aggressive pursuit of the Oklahoma law suit will tell us all we need to know!