Truth overcomes everything

The following article, by the American politician V Kumar, published in the New English Review, whilst primarily focussing on the American scene, is equally applicable to Britain, as regards the deadly threat posed by Islam to the freedom guaranteed by our unwritten constitution.



The Truth About Islam: In Rebuttal to a Recent Article Published in The Tennessean

By Vijay Kumar (December 2010)


To an open minded, rational thinking person engaging in a fact-based assessment comparing the fundamental tenets of Islam with the founding principles of our Constitution, the essential opposition of these two ideologies should become quickly and readily apparent. Examples of this unmistakable opposition abound and are easily discerned:


-- It is a fact that Islam, as an ideology delineated in the Quran, opposes separation of church and state; whereas the First Amendment of the Constitution requires it.


-- It is a fact that Islam seeks to eradicate freedom of religion, while the First Amendment defends it.


-- It is a fact that Islamic doctrine suppresses freedom of speech, whereas our First Amendment guarantees it.


-- It is a fact that Islam commands cruel and unusual punishments, whereas our Eighth Amendment forbids them.


-- It is also a fact that the Quran urges its followers to “Fight and slay the pagans (infidels or non-Muslims) wherever you find them,” whereas America’s most hallowed founding principles dictate that all people are created equal and have inherent rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


These are just some of the problematic facts relating to Islam that rightly concern many Americans in the post 9/11 world. But from the very first line of his October 24th article in the Tennessean entitled “Anti-Muslim Crusaders Make Millions Spreading Fear” reporter Bob Smietana blatantly ignores these facts and many other essential issues pertinent to the discussion of the spread of Islam and Sharia law in America, choosing instead to engage in a mottled series of baseless ad hominem attacks which portray Americans concerned about the issue as being hate mongering profiteers.

Smietana opens his article with a completely unsubstantiated and fallacious attempt to portray Steven Emerson as a “leading member of a multimillion dollar industry of self proclaimed experts” who “spread hate toward Muslims” for their own profit. Let us begin the logical decimation of Smietana’s spurious allegations by addressing his ludicrous assertion that Emerson is a “self proclaimed expert.”

This particular assertion blatantly ignores the fact that rather than being a “self proclaimed expert” Emerson is in reality considered to be a top expert on Islamic terrorist activity by FBI counterterrorism agents, national security personnel, U.S. congressmen, major news organizations such as CNN and many, many others.

“Steve has been on the cutting edge of [investigating terrorism] for many, many years... he has provided an extremely valuable service," says Robert Blitzer, retired FBI Counterterrorism Chief. Richard Clarke, former head of NSC Counterterrorism, calls Emerson “The Paul Revere of Terrorism” and says Emerson routinely provided him with counterterrorism information that the FBI and CIA didn’t have. Senator John Kyl said Emerson “is the most authoritative expert on Middle Eastern terrorism in the United States today…whose investigations have uncovered the existence of terrorist groups operating in the United States“ Kyl adds that “This country owes a great deal of gratitude to him."

As for Emerson being a profiteer, Smietana points to the $3,390,000 in income Emerson’s “for profit” company -- SAE Productions -- “collected” in 2008 for researching alleged ties between American Muslims and overseas terrorism. While providing no accounting of how that money was dispersed or where it ended up, Smietana also ignores the fact that Emerson, according to SAE spokesman Ray Locker, takes no profit from SAE. The money in question was used to pay for research, expenses and the salaries and benefits of 18 employees. The organization, according to Locker, is only designated “for profit” for security reasons, so that Emerson can protect the anonymity of his employees. Considering the fate of others who have openly criticized Islam --- such as Salman Rushdie, or Theo Van Gogh (the Dutch filmmaker who’s movie about the shameful abuse of Muslim women got him assassinated by a Moroccan Jihadist) -- it is understandable that Emerson, while braving the personal risks entailed by his open fight against Islamic Jihad, is concerned with protecting the well being of his employees.

As for Emerson being a hatemonger, Smietana simply makes the slur without citing a single instance of Emerson saying, writing or doing anything that remotely constitutes hate speech or hatred of Muslims.


LOGICAL DISCOURSE AND THE TRUE PURVEYORS OF HATE AND INTOLERANCE

Since Smietana provides absolutely no evidence of hate speech coming from Emerson or any of the other people he accuses of hatemongering, it is apparent that for him the mere criticism of Islam alone constitutes intolerance and hate mongering. Regarding this absurd (though common) and baseless assertion that the only intent of those who point to the dangers inherent in political Islam is to spread hate, light the fires of passion and loose the dogs of war, we must once again do what Smietana never does in his article -- which is to address facts and the empirical data, and formulate a reasoned. dispassionate assessment of the pertinent issues.

Let me first state unequivocally that empirical arguments against the ideology of Islam and its diametric opposition to the Constitutional foundation of America (and the notion of human freedom) are all logical variances and oppositions against an ideology, not arguments or attacks against a people. Let it further be said that opposing Islam does not make you a racist, and does not mean that you oppose or hate Muslims or want to oppress them. What it means is that you oppose (on a purely empirical and rational basis) the racism, hatred and oppression that the ideology of Islam itself embodies.

Consider for a moment the sounds of hate, oppression, intolerance, and the irrational -- compared to the considered arguments of the rational and the empirical. Hate mongering never begins with, “Consider this....” followed by a presentation of facts, as those who Smietana criticizes have done in regard to addressing the issue of the threat of the Islamic ideology. Instead, hatred, oppression and intolerance state their claims and ideological positions and then reject outright all dissent -- reasoned or otherwise. True intolerance is a mindset that -- particularly as it presents itself in academia and the media -- insists that we must quietly take our seats and behave, or else risk insult, humiliation and punishment. It is a mindset that is not interested in rational debate and discourse.

There may be some who, in fact, do harbor feelings of strong antipathy for all Muslims. That fear is one unfortunate consequence of 9/11, perhaps, or a result of a personal familiarity with Islam's hostile history. But to lump all critics of Islam together and brand them as hate mongers is tantamount to equating Rosa Parks with O.J. Simpson, because they both were victims of police discrimination.

The basis for any just criticism should always be rational thought, based on empirical data. Concerning the issue of critiquing Islam, a sort of social-scientific method should and must be used. Anything less falls below the standard of anyone who truly honors the words upon which our nation was established. Criticism of Islam's political aspect is thus not hate-speech, nor is it an indication of a knee-jerk reactionary at work: it is the sensible, logical, and above all, reasonable response of people who have not forgotten that their freedoms are ensured and preserved by adherence to the principles of Reason.


CONCERNS BASED ON FACTS, NOT HATRED

It is unfortunate (and probably futile) to have to remind Smietana of certain undeniable facts, which lead many to have great concern about the spread of Islam across the United States and the world. Consider that when making the absurd assertion that the few million dollars Emerson’s company “collected” makes him a profiteer of hate, Smietana ignores the fact that the government of Saudi Arabia has spent billions to establish schools that propagate Wahhabi Islam -- a doctrine that profusely and openly espouses intolerance and hate.

It is a fact that the Wahhabi philosophy is diametrically opposed to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in every detail. It is also a fact that Saudi monies have played a large role in funding American colleges and universities. It is a fact that the Saudi regime itself promotes no democratic participation. Does my citing of these facts constitute hatred of Arabs? Of course not. It merely indicates and states the power and influence of a political system beyond and within its own borders -- and we would be well served to consider the consequences of ignoring that influence and power and allowing a doctrine that is so blatantly opposed to our Constitutional belief system go unchallenged.

So it is our responsibility not to jump to any conclusions, but to evaluate all the available evidence in order to make a dispassionate, sober evaluation of the situation we find ourselves in today. But in doing so we must not ignore the fact that in the recent histories of Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, the Indian sub-continent, Chechnya, Egypt, the Balkans and Indonesia, the main consequence of Islam's influence has been havoc, genocide, and revolution. And in past decades and centuries, Islam has not built and spread prosperity, but poverty, isolation and hostility.

As a political arm of government, Islam does not embrace assimilation as modern multi-cultural states do, as America has done. In short, it does not tolerate tolerance. While westernized Muslims enjoy and advocate liberty, they fail to perceive the darker side of their heritage. It must be as difficult for Muslims in Tennessee to admit Islam's abuses as it is for Roman Catholics to face sex-scandals, but there is no solution until they do. No doubt, a sort of Islamic Reformation is overdue, but, as yet, it has not appeared, primarily because of the real threat of violent retaliation such a declaration would mean for its adherents. The plight of Rushdie, Van Gogh, and millions of others murdered for apposing Islam throughout history gives ample testimony to the real danger of opposing Islam.


WORTHY OF COMMENDATION, NOT CONDEMNATION

Rather than being falsely accused of hatemongering, Steven Emerson and the others whom Bill Smietana attacks should be commended for having the courage to eschew potential assaults (both verbal and physical) and truthfully address the threat posed by Islam. Bill French (aka Bill Warner), a former Tennessee State physics professor, is one such man, an intellectually and personally honest and forthright person whom I’ve known for nearly a decade and whom I consider to be one of the finest Americans I have ever met. The fact that Mr. French personally finances his own research and publications on the study of political Islam out of concern for his country did not prevent Smietana from accusing him of “cashing in” and profiting by spreading hate.

As with the baseless accusations he leveled against Emerson, Smietana gives zero evidence of French engaging in hate speech. As for French “cashing in” on his publications, other than reporting that French sells books, Smietana offers zero evidence that French profits from his research or publications. I happen to know that for the past 10 years Bill French has funded his research and his writing out of his own pocket and has not profited one dime from his endeavors. He does what he does because as a patriotic American he is concerned about the future of his country and the world as we all face the growing threat of Islamic imperialism.

Although Smietana fails to offer any hard numbers that would indicate that French or any other of the people he slanders are profiting from their endeavors, the question should also be raised as to why Smietana seems to want to characterize organizations that do research and then publicize their findings as somehow “evil” if the organizations are categorized as “for profit.” Doesn’t The Tennessean do exactly that? Isn’t Smietana getting paid and making a profit -- even though, in this instance, his research and writing (as logical discourse) is as shoddy as it gets?

In leveling his groundless assertions that French, Emerson and others are making millions spreading fear and hate, Smietana manages to point to a grand total of around four million dollars that has been raised by or paid out to the half dozen or so supposed hate mongering profiteers that he unjustly vilifies in his article. But besides citing no instances of hate speech and offering no evidence of realized profit earned by any of the people he accuses, Spietana also fails to address the implications evident in the monumental disparity in funding as related to the people he assails and the financiers of Islam itself. For while Smietana can only cite $4,000,000 being circulated to address the effects of Islam on America and the world, compare that to the billions of dollars Saudi Arabia spends each year to propagate Wahhabi Islam -- which creates havoc worldwide.


AN IDEOLOGY OF TOTALITARIAN INTOLERANCE

As I stated, the fact that Islam as an ideology creates havoc, genocide and revolution can be established by considering the violence and death it has fomented in Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, the Indian sub-continent, Chechnya, Egypt, the Balkans and Indonesia (just to name a few). But additionally, I can cite my own personal experience with the effects of the ideology of Islam -- for I am a victim of Islamic imperialism. My civilization and culture (Hindu, Indian) has been attacked and ravaged by Islam for a thousand years. As late as in 1970 three million Bangladeshi Hindus and Secular Muslims have been murdered by the fanatical Pakistani Islamic Army during the years of Bangladesh's liberation. Therefore, as a victim of Islamic imperialism, I have every right to criticize Islam. And in leveling my criticism, I do so with a warning that if America does not take care of this pernicious problem, my past will be your future.

It should be noted once again that my criticism of Islam is based on empiricism, reason, and scientific method and that I am not advancing any counter-religion. It is my desire to compare the Quran to the United States Constitution, not to the Bible. Why? Because, the Quran is, first and foremost, a political document. As a political document it is in complete opposition to the laws of the United States, and particularly our supreme law, the Constitution.


ISLAM IS A REPRESSIVE POLITICAL SYSTEM DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO OUR CONSTITUTION

That Islam is a political rather than a religious ideology and one that is diametrically opposed to our Constitution is a factual conclusion that can be clearly drawn from examining the origins and documents of Islam itself and contrasting them with America‘s founding documents and principles.

America was conceived as a free Constitutional republic that is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Islam was conceived as a totalitarian theocracy that is of Islam, by Islam, and for Islam. The Quran is the antithesis of the United States Constitution. They are polar opposites. They are diametrically opposed. I don’t say that as some Hegelian abstraction: I mean that these two documents are ideological opposites of each other in their most basic purposes and goals.

The purpose of our Constitution is to secure and guarantee to all people the greatest possible freedom. The purpose of Islam is for all people to submit to Islam, and only Islam—not just spiritually, but politically and secularly, in every aspect of law and life.

These two purposes could not possibly be in greater opposition.

Our Constitutional republic is built upon the foundation of separation of church and state, with a representative form of government that derives all of its power from the will of the people, framed by a Constitution that is the supreme law of the land.

Islam is built on a foundation of church and state being one, an inseparable autocratic form of government that derives all of its power solely from the will of Allah, framed exclusively by Islamic law—which Islam holds to be divine, supreme, and immutable.

So the danger that Islam poses to America is that Islam, at its core, is ideologically at war with our Constitution. It is a declared war against everything our Constitution stands for. This is a war of polarized ideologies, and they are irreconcilable.

Every conflict we have with Muslims and Islamic nations everywhere around the world arises from that one very simple fact. All other “explanations” are wrong, and so lead to no solutions, only endless turmoil.

The idea that somehow the United States antagonized the current conflicts with Islamic nations and Muslim terrorists is specious. The very existence of our Constitution is what antagonizes Islam. It stands in stark opposition to Islam’s worldwide goal of domination over all mankind. We could be doing absolutely nothing anywhere in the world, and still would be an object of Islam’s contempt and aggression for the sole reason that we do not submit ourselves to Islamic law, and we further have the gall to proclaim in our Constitution that people have the right to choose a religion other than Islam -- or to choose no religion at all.

One cannot serve two masters. One cannot to be loyal to the United States Constitution and to the Quran at the same time.
Muslims and non-Muslims alike, need to face up to this incontrovertible fact: Islam’s ultimate goal is world domination by Islamic rule, and America stands as the single greatest barrier to the realization of that ultimate goal. That is the exact simple statement of the problem.

For that reason, Islam, at its core, requires the overthrow of the American government, the destruction of our Constitution, and the cancellation of all of our laws as its ultimate goal in America, so that all of those can be replaced with the Quran and Sharia law.

Islam, at its core, also demands the suppression and ultimate eradication of every other church and religion in the world without exception. All paths to spiritual enlightenment and sacred belief known to man that are not Islam—and even materialism, agnosticism, and atheism—are branded by the Quran as inferior, and not worthy of existence.

Islam, at its core, also mandates inequality under Islamic law, using a double standard specifically designed to oppress any “non - believer.” It enforces Sharia law and its inherent discrimination with draconian penalties, including selective taxes, dismemberment (cruel and unusual punishment at its worst) and execution.

Islam, at its core, also commands complete and inescapable submission of the mind and spirit to its scripture as supreme and divine law that overrides and supersedes all the human rights and freedoms that we, as Americans, hold sacred—including, ironically, freedom of religion. The Quran and Sharia law suppress all dissent, and call for the destruction of all opposition to Islamic supremacy. To leave Islam, or even to criticize it, is punishable by death. (Comedy Central thought that was a joke. They’re now finding out that perhaps it’s not so funny after all.)

Furthermore, it must be realized that these goals and purposes of Islam are not “radical Islam;” they are literal Islam. These are the fundamental canonical goals of Islam’s most holy scripture, spelled out quite clearly in the Quran and Hadith, and being put into force right this minute in nations around the world.


ISLAM’S ULTIMATE GOALS

The Islamic theologian Syed Abul A’ala Maududi left no doubt about Islam’s ultimate goals when he said: “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program.”

I realize that reciting these goals of Islam is not popular or “politically correct” in our culture today, exactly because of the flood of propaganda insisting that Islam is merely “another religion” and “a religion of peace.”

But Islam, at its core, is a faith-based political theocracy whose most basic tenets and goals are a nullification of our Constitution, and, as such, it is the single greatest threat that America -- and, indeed, the entire free world -- has ever faced. It is a consummate totalitarianism against which every other totalitarianism should be measured. Expressly because of its religious component, Islamic imperialism is far more dangerous than Nazism and Communism combined.

Hitler came to power in 1939, and World War II ended in 1945 with the defeat of Nazi Germany. Hitler was in power for about 15 years. The Communist Soviet Union lasted longer, for about 74 years. The Soviet Union and Soviet sponsored Communism died of their own internal contradictions.

Yet today, Islam’s Universal Jihad has gained control of over 50 countries in the world, according to the CIA’s own World Fact Book. That’s more than Nazism and Soviet Communism combined. And Islam is well on its way to demographic control in over a dozen other countries.

Universal Jihad is a war that has been waged by Islam against the rest of the world for 1400 years. It is by no means limited to violent conflict or terrorism, and demographic conquest is the most permanent form of conquest. Once Muslims replace enough of the population of any country, the non-believers will lose their nation, their culture, their heritage, their civilization, their laws, their land, and their fundamental human rights forever.

Instead of assimilating into any society, Islam seeks to establish a state-within-a-state, to insinuate Sharia law into the existing system of law and expand it by degrees until it can consume it.

Islam and our Constitution cannot merge. They cannot mix. The oil-and-water analogy would be the easiest to make, but the more accurate one, in the case of Islam and the Constitution, is that of a parasite and host.

As it has done with other cultures, Islam uses our religious tolerance—which is codified in the “free exercise clause” of our Constitution—first as an entrance point to insinuate itself, then as a protective covering while it grows and spreads.

There are more than a few examples in history. Zoroastrian Persia, Buddhist Afghanistan, Hindu Pakistan, and Christian Egypt all extended tolerance to Islam. All have been metamorphosed into Islamic nations. Their pre-Islamic past is all but wiped out. No one really knows the many achievements, contributions, and heritage of these once great civilizations.

The Hindu civilization today is half of what it used to be. After a thousand years of living in an undivided India, in 1947 the Muslims there wanted their own country, and so was born Pakistan. Similarly, in Yugoslavia, after a thousand years of co-existence, Slavic Muslims there wanted their own country, and so was born Bosnia.

America and Europe certainly will suffer the same fate of these past civilizations if effective action is not taken.

The same sort of parasitic process has taken hold today in Europe. Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Italy—all are being inundated by Muslim immigration and suffering the inevitable smothering of their traditional values, culture, and political systems by Islamic influence peddling and Sharia law.

Right now, today, our banks have succumbed to Islamic insistence on separate banking terms for Muslims. Sharia forbids Muslims from paying interest, so Muslims do not get mortgages with interest. They get a loan that has a “fee” instead. Of course liberals, who are Islam’s water-carriers, defend this blatant discrimination that is based solely on religion, while speaking out the other side of their mouths about “equality for all.”

In 2008, the United Kingdom officially sanctioned Sharia courts to rule on Muslim civil matters. In much the same way that Muslims use the “free exercise” clause of our Constitution as a bludgeon against us to extort special concessions and privileges, Muslims in England found in the British Arbitration Act an entrance point to the host while it slowly and methodically grows.

And it is coming to the United States.

THE ORIGINS AND TEACHINGS OF ISLAM

One must only look at the foundational history of Islam to factually substantiate and prove all that I’ve stated previously.

The most sacred site in the Islamic world is the Kaaba in Mecca. It was not, however, built as an Islamic mosque. It was an ancient temple that had been shared by polytheists, Christians, Jews, and Hindus, honoring 360 different deities. In 630 A.D. the Kaaba was captured by Islam in its military invasion and conquest of Mecca. On the day of its capture, Muhammad delivered an address at the Kaaba in military dress and helmet, according to Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani in his book, The Message:

“Bear in mind that every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property is abolished…I reject all claims relating to life and property and all imaginary honors of the past, and declare them to be baseless …A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and all the Muslims are brothers of one another and constitute one hand as against the non-Muslims.” —Muhammad
Muhammad’s address at the Kaaba overthrew the Meccan government and declared all of Islam, anywhere in the world, to be a political and military state against all non-Muslims, regardless of the non-Muslims’ political, geographical, or national origins.

“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him.” —Quran 3:85


THE FALLACY OF THE “MODERATE MUSLIM”

The politically correct apologists for Islam claim that it is a “religion of peace” with the numerous acts of terror and murder perpetrated by Islamists being dismissed as the misguided acts of a minority. One must consider however that the majority of Germans during World War II were not active members of the Nazi party, were not waging war, and were not involved in the Holocaust. The leaders, though, were active members of the Nazi party, were waging war, and were involved in the Holocaust.

The majority of Russians and eastern Europeans under the rule of the U.S.S.R. were not trying to spread Communism throughout the world, and were not threatening and waging war and revolution. The leaders, though, were doing everything they could to spread Communism throughout the world, and were threatening and waging war and revolution.

Throughout history, since 610 A.D., the leaders of Islam have been waging Universal Jihad around the world for the purpose of Islamic totalitarian domination of the world. It has never mattered what percentage of the Muslim population was “peaceful” or “moderate.” Peace and moderation are not relevant to the totalitarian mandates of Islam’s political documents, and Islam’s leaders always follow the totalitarian mandates of Universal Jihad contained in them.

Furthermore, while it is apparent that there are post-Nazi democracies in Germany and post-Communist democracies in some places where the Soviet Union once ruled, there are no post-Islamic democracies anywhere. Literal Islam, as contained in its political documents, is the consummate totalitarianism. Neither Nazism or Communism had a metaphysical (religious, spiritual) factor, as does Islam. Islam uses its metaphysics as a wedge to drive in its totalitarian political doctrines.

Once Islam has established itself sufficiently in any nation, it seeks to overthrow any existing regime or Constitution or law, and replace it with Islamic theocracy. Even the most “moderate” Muslim is bound to obey Islamic law, and so is bound to fight if ordered to fight:

“When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:79: Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas
All Islamic mosques have leaders who can call Muslims for fighting, and as such are satellite headquarters for spreading literal Islam’s political doctrine of world domination and totalitarianism—no matter how many “moderate Muslims” they serve.


MOSQUES AND THE POLITICAL DOCUMENTS OF ISLAM
The Quran is the supreme political document of Islam -- its political manifesto and political constitution. It is the only constitution of the nation-state Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Mecca and the Kaaba, where all mosques point, and is the birthplace of Islam.

The Quran is a totalitarian constitution. It demands submission by anyone within its jurisdiction. The Quran governs all mosques everywhere in the world. As a political document, the Quran asserts that everyone in the world is within its jurisdiction. So far, Islam has not been able to enforce that totalitarian claim on the entire world, but has managed to do so through threat, infiltration, violence, terrorism, and coercion on roughly 20% of the world. It is engaged in a 1400-year-long Universal Jihad to dominate the rest of the world. Mosques are its outpost headquarters.

Central to the Quran’s political mandates is prohibition of religious freedom and religious tolerance, along with denouncements of religions such as Christianity and Judaism.

“O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” —Quran 5:51
“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” -- Quran 9:5
Mosque leaders must ultimately be loyal to and supportive of these political and militaristic mandates.

Mosque leaders and Imams are also the administrators of Sharia law. Sharia law does not allow trial by jury. Sharia law also mandates a double standard of laws for Muslims (believers) and infidels (non-believers). Sharia law mandates a discriminatory tax, called jizya, on non-Islamic religions and nations. Sharia law also mandates discrimination toward women, and forbids any criticism of Islam or its founder, stifling freedom of speech.

Sharia law also mandates that all men are slaves with no right to freedom of religion:

“Allah’s right on His slaves is that they should worship Him (Alone) and should not worship any besides Him.” —Muhammad Sahih Bukhari 4:52:108, Narrated Mu’adh
In short, Sharia law stands in direct opposition to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. The implementation of Sharia law demands the overthrow of the American Constitution and our form of government and system of laws. Mosque leaders, in every nation in the world, are loyal to the Quran, the Hadith, the Sira, and consider them divine law, and therefore supreme over all.



CONCLUSION AND MANDATE

In summation, all the foregoing facts dictate with precise clarity the reality of the situation: fundamental, literal Islam presents itself as an ideology that is diametrically opposed to our Constitution and thus our country. The mandate this reality dictates should be clear to all as well -- it is and should be the duty of every American to vigorously oppose the growth of an ideology that inherently contradicts our founding principles and documents and calls for the destruction of the freedoms and way of life those principles have established for Americans and for much of the free world.


Vijay Kumar, a native of India and long-time resident of Nashville, Tennessee, recently ran for U.S. Congress in the Republican Primary, Tennessee's Fifth Congressional District. He may be reached at kfcnashville@aol.com