Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century
We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.
These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.
Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.
Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?
The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.
The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.
A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.
A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.
It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.
If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.
We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.
A good article regarding radical Islam and its threat to the world community.
Original Title: The Wrong Way to Fight Jihad
Posted By Jamie Glazov On March 26, 2010 @ 12:04 am In FrontPage Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Vijay Kumar, who is currently running for the U.S. Congress as a Republican candidate for Tennessee 5th Congressional District. The Primary vote comes on August 5 of this year, and the General Election is on November 4. When he ran before, in 2008, he received about 30% of the vote in Republican Primary. His website is kumarforcongress.com[1]. Visit his blog at kumarforcongress.net[2].
Vijay Kumar: First, Islam was conceived as a world empire to govern all mankind. It teaches that all the world, and everyone and everything in it, already belongs to Islam–some people just haven’t been made to understand that. Until they have, according to Islam, they are considered “infidels” and inferiors. Put another way, the Islamic view is that all of us in the world are subjects of the Islamic Empire, and those of us who do not acknowledge our subjugation to it must be overcome and brought to submission, through conversion or force. No other religion in the world has such a purpose of world conquest and domination. [NOTE: ABUL MAUDUDI, the most important and popular Islamic writer of the 20th Century, wrote: “The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power that gets in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy.”]
Second, Islam does not allow any introspection or self-criticism. It calls for total acceptance, total submission. The very word “Islam” means “submission,” and the word “Muslim” means “one who submits.” The other side of submission, of course, is domination. Islam seeks to dominate every individual and every nation into submission. In that, it shares a key element of slavery, which the civilized world has properly decried and abolished. Such submission is a political act. I am a freeman, and I refuse to submit to Islamic hegemony.
Third, Islam does not have any exit policy for its believers. The act of submission required to become a Muslim is held to be final, irrevocable, and permanent. So criticizing or questioning Islam or its teachings or leaders, or attempting to leave Islam, all are considered severe crimes against Islam, punishable by death.
In contrast, non-Islamic religions allow for dissenting views, introspection, and reasoned debate. In non-Islamic religions, if you so choose, you can leave the faith you were born into without being threatened with physical violence or death. In Islam, both criticism of the faith and apostasy are capital offenses.
All of that is what drives Jihad: Jihad is a permanent war against the unbeliever and his land to bring about his submission. It has been going on for fourteen centuries all over the world, which is why I coined the term “Universal Jihad.” Islam’s Universal Jihad is the single greatest threat to Western civilization and to the entire non-Islamic world in general. It is more dangerous than Nazism and Communism combined. [NOTE: The most popular manual of Sharia law says: "Jihad means to make war on non-Muslims."]
Posted by Jamie Glazov on Mar 19th, 2010 and filed under FrontPage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. His new book is United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. Email him at jamieglazov11@gmail.com.
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Brigitte Gabriel, founder of the nonprofit organization ACT! for America, and one of the leading terrorism experts in the world. Her expertise is sought after by world and business leaders. She has addressed the Australian Prime Minister, members of The British Parliament/House of Commons, members of the United States Congress, The Pentagon, The Joint Forces Staff College, The US Special Operations Command, The US Asymmetric Warfare group, the FBI, and many others. She is the New York Times best selling author of Because They Hate and They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It.
FP: Brigitte Gabriel, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
I would like to talk to you today about CAIR’s personal attack on you. Tell us about it.
Gabriel: CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, sent out a press release on March 17th, using its standard propaganda techniques such as name calling, which I won’t dignify by repeating here. This is not the first time that CAIR has attacked me. But in this case, CAIR’s attack could best be described as “throwing the kitchen sink” at me. It was a litany of accusations and references to statements I have allegedly made, or statements that were taken out of context, pieced together to create a distorted caricature of what I believe and how I define the threat of radical Islam.
Desperate organizations, like desperate people, are prone to do desperate things. CAIR is desperately trying to divert attention from its own problems, and they are many, by slinging mud at others – and not just me.
FP: I noticed that one of the sources CAIR quotes is the Australian Jewish News. Could you tell us about that particular interview?
Gabriel: This is one of the areas CAIR honed in on. Back in 2007 I was in Australia to speak at a major event honoring Prime Minister John Howard. While there I met with a Jewish journalist who brought along a friend, and we had coffee. The “friend” turned out to be an apologist for anything Islamic, including the Palestinians against Israel. He was so ignorant of the issues of terrorism that he didn’t even know what Hamas was. He was so uninformed that the journalist sitting next to me told him, “You are an embarrassment to journalism.” The man who invited him apologized to me in the car for his friend’s behavior and told me that he will never invite him again to a press conference. This person was a regular at the Islamic Mosque and was very close friends with the Imam and members of the mosque. He ended up writing a blog that badly distorted things I said in the conversation.
CAIR has since been quoting this blog to falsely allege things that I don’t believe. For instance, I don’t believe that there are no moderate Muslims. Of course there are.
FP: You have made statements about “practicing Muslims.” Tell us precisely what you mean in these statements.
Gabriel: When I have made statements about “practicing Muslims,” here is what I’m saying:
In any religious faith, and that includes Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, there are people who are very orthodox and very devout, and then there are others who are less so. There are Christians who read their Bibles, attend church regularly and pray every day, and there are those who don’t. The same dynamic is true in Judaism.
And the same is true in Islam. There are many, many Muslims who have never read the Koran in their own language, who don’t even know many of its teachings or closely adhere to its teachings and those of the Hadith, and who don’t pray five times a day. These are the Muslims who are often described as “moderate,” or less devout, or even “secular.”
Then there are those Muslims who take the Koran and Hadith very seriously. They follow the Islamic shariah law and they subscribe to the supremacist political ideology embedded within the Islamic holy books. They aspire to emulate Mohammed, who any honest historian will tell you spread Islam by terror and the sword. They agree with the doctrine of jihad. They believe that Islamic shariah law should reign supreme over all and that man-made laws are invalid. They agree with the Islamic command that their allegiance is to the “ummah”, the Islamic nation, rather than to any country.
It is these Muslims, who are typically referred to as practicing “radical Islam,” that I refer to when I say such Muslims cannot be trusted to be a loyal citizen to our country – or any country for that matter – and who do not acknowledge that here in America we recognize the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land.” It is these Muslims I have referred to as “practicing.”
Just look at what Imam Al-Awlaki, the American Al-Qaida leader in the Arabian Peninsula, said just last week: ”I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim.”
As you can see, this explanation does not lend itself well to a 20 second sound bite. So it’s easy for Islamists and their apologists to lift one sentence out of context to lead people to conclude something that I’m not saying. And they don’t do it just to me – they do it to anyone who they perceive as a threat to their ideological agenda.
FP: For real.
Even more interesting: isn’t it true that CAIR leaders have made public statements that actually confirm what it is you’re saying?
Gabriel: That’s the delicious irony of all of this. CAIR’s press release criticized me for my statements about how radical Muslims cannot be trusted to be loyal citizens. Yet public statements by some of their own leaders confirm what I’m saying.
For instance, Omar Ahmad, the founder of CAIR, made this statement in 1998: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America.” This was reported in the San Ramon Valley Herald on July 4, 1998. Look what Ahmad is saying – he wants an Islamic theocracy in America. How is this any different from my position that says there are those Muslims who believe that Islamic shariah law should reign supreme and that man-made laws are invalid?
Then there’s Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s Communications Director, who said in a 1993 Minneapolis Star Tribune interview, “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future…”
If that sounds to you like he wants an Islamic theocracy in America where Islamic shariah law reigns supreme, you’re right.
Which begs this question: Can Omar Ahmad and Ibrahim Hooper be counted on to be loyal citizens of the United States and to the Constitution, our law of the land?
FP: This is the question that many people are afraid to answer.
So what do we conclude from all of this?
Gabriel: Everywhere I go I make the point of saying just what I said earlier, that there are many, many Muslims worldwide who either don’t know, don’t understand, or don’t subscribe to the ideology of political Islam, the doctrine of jihad, and the supremacy of Islamic shariah law. Of course, we have no idea how many people make up this group.
But ultimately, that’s not the issue. The issue is the radical, passionate Islamists worldwide who are driving the militant Islamic agenda in the world. Read the words of the revered and respected Muslim clerics worldwide. They are committed to supremacy, jihad, and Islamic shariah law. This is what drives the terrorists and those devoted to “stealth jihad.” It doesn’t matter if even most Muslims don’t think this way, because as history teaches us, the “moderate” element within a movement don’t drive the agenda. Most Germans during World War II weren’t committed Nazis, but that didn’t prevent Nazism from leading to the deaths of 60 million people. The same can be said for the Communists in the Soviet Union and the followers of Mao in China.
FP: Words of wisdom.
So before we go, a final thought?
Gabriel: Thanks Jamie.
A final thought?
Well,let’s face the truth of the dire situation we are facing:Islamists are intent on doing us harm, either through violent jihad or stealth and cultural jihad. They are driven by their commitment to the ideology of political Islam, the doctrine of jihad, the supremacy of Islamic shariah law over all other law, and their allegiance to the ummah rather than any one country. They see this as a state of war between Islam and the “infidel” world, and the practice of everything from deception (taqiyya) to violence is acceptable for their use in fighting this war. That includes the propaganda techniques employed by organizations like CAIR. Understanding all of this is essential to understanding how our enemies think and why they do what they do – and what we must do to defeat them.
FP: Brigitte Gabriel, as always it was an honor and privilege to speak to you. Thank you for your courage and nobility. Thank you for your fearless fight for liberty and the truth. The world doesn’t make many people like you.
IsIslam: Governing Under Sharia (aka shariah, shari'a)
Author:
Lauren Vriens
·March 23, 2009
oIntroduction
Sharia, or Islamic law,influences the legal code in most Muslim countries. A movement to allow sharia to govern personal status law, a set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, is even expanding into the West. "There are so many varying interpretations of what sharia actually means that in some places it can be incorporated into political systems relatively easily," says Steven A. Cook, CFR senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies. Sharia's influence on both personal status law and criminal law is highly controversial, though. Some interpretations are used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence. The debate is growing as to whether shariacan coexist with secularism, democracy, or even modernity.
What is Sharia?
Also meaning "path" in Arabic, sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Quran and the Sunna--the sayings, practices, and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. Precedents and analogy applied by Muslim scholars are used to address new issues. The consensus of the Muslim community also plays a role in defining this theological manual.
Sharia developed several hundred years after the Prophet Mohammed's death in 632 CE as the Islamic empire expanded to the edge of North Africa in the West and to China in the East. Since the Prophet Mohammed was considered the most pious of all believers, his life and ways became a model for all other Muslims and were collected by scholars into what is known as the hadith. As each locality tried to reconcile local customs and Islam, hadith literature grew and developed into distinct schools of Islamic thought: the Sunni schools,Hanbali, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanafi; and the Shiite school, Ja'fari. Named after the scholars that inspired them, they differ in the weight each applies to the sources from which sharia is derived, the Quran, hadith, Islamic scholars, and consensus of the community.The Hanbali school, known for following the most Orthodox form of Islam, is embraced in Saudi Arabia and by the Taliban. The Hanafi school, known for being the most liberal and the most focused on reason and analogy, is dominant among Sunnis in Central Asia, Egypt, Pakistan, India, China, Turkey, the Balkans, and the Caucasus. The Maliki school is dominant in North Africa and the Shafi'i school in Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, and Yemen. Shia Muslims follow the Ja'fari school, most notably in Shia-dominant Iran. The distinctions have more impact on the legal systems in each country, however, than on individual Muslims, as many do not adhere to one school in their personal lives.
Controversy: Punishment and Equality under Sharia
Marriage and divorce are the most significant aspects of sharia, but criminal law is the most controversial. In sharia, there are categories of offenses: those that are prescribed a specific punishment in the Quran, known as hadd punishments, those that fall under a judge's discretion, and those resolved through a tit-for-tat measure (ie., blood money paid to the family of a murder victim). There are five hadd crimes: unlawful sexual intercourse (sex outside of marriage and adultery), false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, wine drinking (sometimes extended to include all alcohol drinking), theft, and highway robbery. Punishments for hadd offenses--flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution--get a significant amount of media attention when they occur. These sentences are not often prescribed, however. "In reality, most Muslim countries do not use traditional classical Islamic punishments," says Ali Mazrui of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies in a Voice of America interview. These punishments remain on the books in some countries but lesser penalties are often considered sufficient.
Despite official reluctance to use hadd punishments, vigilante justice still takes place. Honor killings, murders committed in retaliation for bringing dishonor on one's family, are a worldwide problem. While precise statistics are scarce, the UN estimates thousands of women are killed annually in the name of family honor (National Geographic). Other practices that are woven into the sharia debate, such as female genital mutilation, adolescent marriages, polygamy, and gender-biased inheritance rules, elicit as much controversy. There is significant debate over what the Quran sanctions and what practices were pulled from local customs and predate Islam. Those that seek to eliminate or at least modify these controversial practices cite the religious tenet of tajdid. The concept is one of renewal, where Islamic society must be reformed constantly to keep it in its purest form. "With the passage of time and changing circumstances since traditional classical jurisprudence was founded, people's problems have changed and conversely, there must be new thought to address these changes and events," says Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris, head of the comparative jurisprudence department at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Though many scholars share this line of thought, there are those who consider the purest form of Islam to be the one practiced in the seventh century.
Sharia vs. Secularism
In a 2007 University of Maryland poll (PDF), more than 60 percent of the populations in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia responded that democracy was a good way to govern their respective countries, while at the same time, an average of 71 percent agreed with requiring "strict application of [sharia] law in every Islamic country." Whether democracy and Islam can coexist is a topic of heated debate. Some Islamists argue democracy is a purely Western concept imposed on Muslim countries. Others feel Islam necessitates a democratic system and that democracy has a basis in the Quran since "mutual consultation" among the people is commended (42:38 Quran). John L. Esposito and John O. Voll explain the debate in a 2001 article in the journal Humanities.
Noah Feldman, CFR adjunct senior fellow, writes in a 2008 New York Times Magazine article that the full incorporation of Islamic law is viewed as creating "a path to just and legitimate government in much of the Muslim world." It places duplicitous rulers alongside their constituents under the rule of God. "For many Muslims today, living in corrupt autocracies, the call for [sharia] is not a call for sexism, obscurantism or savage punishment but for an Islamic version of what the West considers its most prized principle of political justice: the rule of law," Feldman argues.
On the other hand, some Muslim scholars say that secular government is the best way to observe sharia. "Enforcing a [sharia] through coercive power of the state negates its religious nature, because Muslims would be observing the law of the state and not freely performing their religious obligation as Muslims," says Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, a professor of law at Emory University and author of a book on the future of sharia. Opinions on the best balance of Islamic law and secular law vary, but sharia has been incorporated into political systems in three general ways:
Dual Legal System.
Many majority Muslim countries have a dual system in which the government is secular but Muslims can choose to bring familial and financial disputes to sharia courts. The exact jurisdiction of these courts varies from country to country, but usually includes marriage, divorce, inheritance, and guardianship. Examples can be seen in Nigeria and Kenya, which have shariacourts that rule on family law for Muslims. A variation exists in Tanzania, where civil courts apply sharia or secular law according to the religious backgrounds of the defendants. Several countries, including Lebanon and Indonesia, have mixed jurisdiction courts based on residual colonial legal systems and supplemented with sharia. Ahmad Nizar Hamzeh of the American University of Beirut says only Qatar has an official dual legal system where Adlia courts, or civil courts, are independent of the sharia system and legislate secular laws. Western countries are also exploring the idea of allowing Muslims to apply Islamic law in familial and financial disputes.In late 2008, Britain officially allowed sharia tribunals (NYT) governing marriage, divorce, and inheritance to make legally binding decisions if both parties agreed. The new system is in line with separate mediation allowed for Anglican and Jewish communities in England.Criminal law remains under the gavel of the existing legal system. "There is no reason why principles of sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation," Britain's top judge, Lord Nicholas Phillips, said in a July 2008 speech (PDF). Supporters of this initiative, such as the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, argue that it would help maintain social cohesion (BBC) in European societies increasingly divided by religion. However, some research suggests the process to be discriminatory toward women (BBC). Other analysts suggest the system has led to grey areas. Britain's Muslims come from all over the world, Ishtiaq Ahmed, a spokesperson for the Council for Mosques in England, told the BBC, noting that this makes it hard to discern at times "where the rulings of the sharia finish and long-held cultural practices start."
Government under God.
In those Muslim countries where Islam is the official religion listed in the constitution, sharia is declared to be a source, or the source, of the laws. Examples include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates, where the governments derive their legitimacy from Islam. In Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq, among others, it is also forbidden to enact legislation that is antithetical to Islam. Saudi Arabia employs one of the strictest interpretations of sharia. Women are not allowed to drive, are under the guardianship of male relatives at all times, and must be completely covered in public. Elsewhere, governments are much more lenient, as in the United Arab Emirates, where alcohol is tolerated. Non-Muslims are not expected to obey sharia and in most countries, they are the jurisdiction of special committees and adjunct courts under the control of the government.
Completely Secular.
Muslim countries where the government is declared to be secular in the constitution include Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Chad, Somalia, and Senegal. Islamist parties run for office occasionally in these countries and sharia often influences local customs. Popular Islamist groups are often viewed as a threat by existing governments. As in Azerbaijan in the 1990s, secularism is sometimes upheld by severe government crackdowns on Islamist groups and political parties. Similar clashes have occurred in Turkey. Under the suspicion that the majority party, the Islamist Justice and Development Party, was trying to establish sharia, Turkey's chief prosecutor petitioned the constitutional court (Economist) in March 2008 to bar the party from politics altogether. One of the politicians indicted, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told Newsweek, "Turkey has achieved what people said could never be achieved--a balance between Islam, democracy, secularism and modernity." Secular Muslim countries are a minority, however, and the popularity of Islamist political parties are narrowing the gap between religion and state.
Modern Economies and Sharia
Growing at an estimated 15 percent annually, Islamic banking and finance is a worldwide industry that modifies modern business practices to conform to the rules of sharia. Central to this field is riba, the charging or payment of interest, banned under Islamic law. Clever twists on standard financial products like credit cards, savings accounts, mortgages, loans, and even trust funds bypass the interest business model. A 2008 report by the General Council for Islamic Banks and Financial Institutions estimates the Islamic banking industry to stand at $442 billion. Even big name banks such as Citigroup, HSBC, and Deutsche Bank are developing Islamic banking sectors to cater to the demand. The industry is small in comparison to the global market, but may grow as some non-Muslims are turning to sharia-compliant services.Some of the ethically minded are also switching over to sharia-compliant investments. Businesses are required to avoid transactions related to forbidden things, such as weapons, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, pornography and pork, and investors are guaranteed that their money won't end up financing those industries. Governments are also looking to get a piece of the pie: Malaysia is the largest issuer of sharia-compliant bonds and Indonesia launched its own in January 2009.
Posted by 
