Islam: Religion or Theocracy?

Our Constitution on the First Amendment have very little to say about religion. What they do say, however, is enormous:

1. Article VI: “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

2. First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

What these two are saying is quite simple:

– Neither your faith, nor lack thereof, can be used to disqualify a person for any public position, either civil, military, or emergency services. The only caveat is that most voters will continue to vote for like-minded people.

– SCOTUS has extended the First Amendment’s scope to “under the United States,” same as Article VI. Put simply, the state cannot support religion, it cannot give preferential treatment to one religion over another, and it cannot interfere in any way with the free exercise of religion. Thus, banning prayer in schools is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There is a limit, however, and it follows the “shouting ‘Fire!’ in a theater” rule. People can practice their religion right up to the point where it causes harm to others. The threat of force (assault) and use of force (battery) against others remains prohibited, along with a host of other illegal activities, such as coercion, extortion, etc. The key words are, “no harm.” If it’s not harming anyone, then it’s legal.

By the way, federal courts have repeatedly ruled that just because someone “feels” threatened, insulted, or offended” does necessarily constitute harm. I would walk down the street wearing a pro-military t-shirt which offends some people, insults others, while they or others “feel” threatened by my openly-carried firearm. The test is two-fold: Whether or not the activity is lawful (both pro-military t-shirts and OC are lawful in my state) and whether I was behaving in a manner which a “reasonable person” would consider threatening, intimidating, or otherwise unacceptable in polite society. For example, if I’m walking down the street minding my own business, that’s fine. If I’m going up to people while saying, “See this??? Huh? In your FACE!”, obviously, that’s not fine.

And now, we get down to brass tacks. Is Islam even a religion? Does it enjoy any of the protections under Constitutional and U.S. law?

Some claim Islam is a theocracy, “a form of government in which a deity is officially recognized as the civil Ruler and official policy is governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.”

Despite abundant recognition of the Christian God in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution was carefully crafted to avoid any hint of a theocracy. Thus, the U.S. was indeed founded as a Christian nation in 1776, but when the Constitution was ratified in 1789 as the official, formal basis for the United States of America, we were no longer a theocracy. That doesn’t mean we can’t govern on the basis of Christian principles. We should indeed, as there’s no finer basis for law in the world. Indeed, the entire body of law which we borrowed from the English is based on Christian principles.

Islam, however, is indeed a theocracy. The moment Islam calls for “Sharia Law,” it crosses that line between religion and theocracy. The problem with Islam is that the concept of Sharia Law is integral to, and woven throughout the Qu’ran and the Hadith. You can’t have Islam without it.

Thus, Islam is a theocracy, a concept which both Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment reject. Article VI prohibits any religious test, and the First Amendment prohibits any preferential treatment or prohibition of any religion.

Our Constitution does NOT, however, provide any protection for a theocracy. The very fact that Islam is a theocracy puts it at odds with our system of law and government here in the U.S. The Constitution rejects theocracies, verbatim. Jan Morgan is entirely within her Constitutional right to do the same, especially if she, as the owner of a business, is responsible for the safety of her customers, and one specific, theocratic group of her customers have a clear history of violence against other human beings and a penchant for disrespecting, if not completely ignoring, females in authority.

Bottom line: Islam has no place here in the United States of America, or in any rational, intelligent group of people or nation.

Oh, and the myth of the tiny radical Muslim minority?  It’s just that — a myth.

Author: patriot

It was a distinct honor, as well as my pleasure, to serve my country for more than twenty years. I love my country, but sometimes I'm not too happy with its leaders. I'm working to change that, and I could use your help. Please join me! Thanks. : ) - Patriot

4 thoughts on “Islam: Religion or Theocracy?”

  1. I disagree with the author for one simple reason. There is a major distinction that the author fails to make, that being that Islam as a religion is ruled by the imam, mullah and/or other religious leader. Each country that has a majority Muslim population with some form of Sharia Law, strict or otherwise, also has a civil governance. Theocracy and Islam are similar, but different and separate. Iran had a strong religious leader of the Shiah, Ayatollah Khomeini who declared and enforced Sharia law, along with the other clerics. Even after the Islamic Revolution of 1979 they still did not establish or run the civil governance even though he does have great power. The Supreme leader for life, is still mostly the religious leader. Divisions of civil government bureaucracy exists, with a Parliament and an elected President that are advised by the Ayatollah. I think the distinction is clearly made here. Islam is a religion that does not have direction in the Qur’an or the Hadith to establish civil government.

    Saudi Arabia was an absolute monarchy in 1992. The king was not constrained by a written constitution, a legislative assembly, or elections. Saudis considered the Quran, the holy book of Islam, their country’s constitution. The Quran is the primary source of the sharia. Because the sharia does not specifically address the conduct of most governmental matters, Saudi rulers, beginning with Abd al Aziz, have promulgated numerous regulations pertaining to the functions of government. In early 1992, King Fahd became the first Saudi monarch to compile these regulations into a single document called the main code (nizam). Promulgated as a royal decree, this document codified bureaucratic procedures and prohibited government agencies from arbitrarily arresting citizens or violating their privacy. Although the main code was not a formal constitution, it fulfilled some of the same purposes of such a document. However, the main code lacked any explicit clause guaranteeing the basic rights of citizens to freedom of belief, expression, assembly, or political participation. The King defers to Grand Mufti Sheik Abdulaziz Al al-Sheik, the highest religious authority in the country for religious matters.

    Similar, but separate and different. Islam remains a religion like it has always been- never has been nor will it ever be a Theocracy. I do know one Theocracy that is on its way for sure, at the Second Coming of Christ to establish his Millennial Kingdom.

    1. You forget that the Ayatollah assassinated (murdered) the Shah of Iran. The Ayatollah maintains power over civil government by threat of assassination. It’s a “fiat government.” They may indeed provide for basic daily governance, but not without the Ayatolla’s approval. As you clearly stated, “The King defers to Grand Mufti Sheik Abdulaziz Al al-Sheik, the highest religious authority in the country for religious matters.”

      Who cares about whether or not the speed limit in rural areas is 55 mph or 65 mph? What most of the world cares about is whether or not they’re developing nuclear power or nuclear weapons, and the Ayatollah has made that area of concern a “religious matter.” One does NOT need enrichment centrifuges for nuclear power.

      Here’s why:

      “Reprocessed uranium (RepU) is a product of nuclear fuel cycles involving nuclear reprocessing of spent fuel. RepU recovered from light water reactor (LWR) spent fuel typically contains slightly more U-235 than natural uranium, and therefore could be used to fuel reactors that customarily use natural uranium as fuel, such as CANDU reactors.” – Wikipedia

      “Low-enriched uranium (LEU) has a lower than 20% concentration of 235U; for instance, in commercial light water reactors (LWR), the most prevalent power reactors in the world, uranium is enriched to 3% to 5% 235U.” – Wikipedia

      Key Point: Until this point, no centrifuge enriching is required.

      “Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a 20% or higher concentration of 235U. The fissile uranium in nuclear weapon primaries usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapons-grade.” – Wikipedia

      Bottom line, while centrifuge-enriched uranium CAN be used for other things, that only requires one centrifuge. The Iranians purchased hundreds (perhaps thousands), and that’s only good for one thing: Make weapons-grade uranium.

      Despite your assertion that “Islam is a religion that does not have direction in the Qur’an or the Hadith to establish civil government,” the problem remains that they do it, anyway

  2. This is a good article. I’ve been researching it and trying to figure it out. Even the Scriptures says one law for the native and for the alien. And the laws of our land were built upon the Scriptures.

Leave a Reply