Quran vs. Constitution: Why they’re incompatible
President Barack Obama stated in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009: “When the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the … Holy Quran.”
The dilemma is: How can one swear to defend something upon a book that promotes the opposite?
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet the Quran states in Sura 4:89, “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”
In Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57), Muhammad said: “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.”
Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst Muslims and cannot display a Cross or a Star of David.
The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells.
The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot build any new places of worship or repair any old places Muslims have destroyed; they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings; they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.
The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.
The Second Amendment states, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.
The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill – and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.
The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Muhammad said, “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel)” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting a non-Muslim from testifying in court against a Muslim.
The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states:
“Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah” (Sura 5:38).
A raped woman is punished: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes” (Sura 24:2).
Women can be beaten: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34).
Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.
The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Muhammad owned slaves.
The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law.
Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Muhammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).
The 15th Amendment guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet the fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making their own laws.
The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Muhammad said, “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Sura 9:29).
The 18th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”
The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.
The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law prohibits non-Muslims from selling or drinking wine and liquor openly.
One would assume that to swear upon a book implies believing what is in that book.
As Muhammad was not just a religious leader, but also a political and military leader, Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political and military system.
Since no one has the authority to demand Muslims worldwide cease imitating the political/military example of Muhammad, when Muslims bow in prayer they are also pledging political/military allegiance to Mecca.
Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran that promotes different values is a dilemma worthy of a presidential explanation.
h/t William Federer. – http://www.wnd.com/2009/09/111055/#OrxL51xmOl9dJTHh.99