10 Reasons to Implement Islamic Rule in the US

Islam does not allow Alcohol. Imagine the benefit to the health and well being of our country if we banned alcohol use and made punishment significant and likely. Under Shari law, wine-drinking and by extension, alcohol-drinking, is punishable by public flogging. Imagine the reduction in alcohol abuse if the sentences were carried out in the public square as they are in Muslim countries or maybe even as entertainment on television. I can just see the ads, "Stand by for today's floggings." Note that Muslim countries do not generally have nuisances like civil constitutions that prohibit things like cruel and unusual punishment to prevent improving the society.

One thing that would be argued by opponents, the U.S. tried this during prohibition and failed. The reason this failed then was simply because the law enforcement was bound by constitutional requirements that made it more difficult to find and convict the sellers and the retail consumer was not dealt with harshly. Islamic law addresses the problem differently. First, constitutional requirements of due process are not important. Second, the retail buyer, i.e. the consumer of the alcohol is flogged for the use. Although the Koran talks of wine, hadd has been expanded to all intoxicants. Let's face it, when it comes to impressing someone on how good a Muslim one is, the fundamental Muslim will always take the most strict interpretation. Some writers claim that hadd applies only to Muslims. We only need to look at the coerced conversions to Islam for captives, the killing of Christians, Jews and Hindus who do not convert to Islam to see where non-Muslims are in the scheme of things. And for those who may oppose the law, to oppose the will of Allah is to be a heretic and to court a death sentence. There is no place for free speech or dissent when it is the will of Allah as interpreted by the radical Muslim. If you question that, check on the death threats on the author of "The Satanic Verses" and the publisher of the cartoons not complementary of Mohammed. You not only do not pull on Superman's cape, you don't offend Allah. He may be impotent to do anything about it but the followers will try.

Imagine the benefit to the health and well being of our country if all unlawful sexual intercourse, heterosexual and homosexual were punished by flogging for unmarried offenders and stoning to death for adulterers. Imagine for one minute the reduction in STD's including AIDS and the reduction in unwanted pregnancy and abortions a strong, well enforced law against sex outside marriage would make. Imagine the reduction of load on our health care system that would begin immediately and escalate after a few years. Let's not get too concerned about the human rights abuses this will cause, the declines in disease will be dramatic.

Islam defines unlawful sexual intercourse as any sexual contact outside the one man, one woman marriage. It is interesting that the same liberals who think those who do not want to recognize gay marriage are wrong are the ones who don't see anything wrong with Muslims taking that view. The spread of syphilis, herpes and other diseases that are spread by primarily by sexual contact do not gain much traction where the number of sexual partners is one and the more risky gay contacts are forbidden. Unwanted pregnancies spiral down if there is no contact outside marriage. It would be hard to imagine an abortion rate of more than five percent of our present one million plus a year saving over a billion dollars in medical costs counting the abortion and the complications of them. It is interesting that the number of STD infections in the Middle East region is about the same as in the US and Western Europe.

Homosexuality is not recognized as a valid lifestyle by Islam. It is recognized as a perversion and is not tolerated. Gay rallies would be met with force in most if not all Muslim-run countries. But look at the other side. Without the free sex and gay sex, most venereal diseases including AIDS. Nearly all cases of it in the early years were in the California gay community and GAIDS is the name the CDC originally gave to the syndrome. Resistance by the gay community to closing down the bath houses in San Francisco lead to many unnecessary cases in the early years. Each of these cases was one more infection that had an opportunity to spread which contributed to the number of cases today. This would not have happened in a Muslim run country.

Of course to have these gains we may have to give up a few civil liberties, including some invasions of privacy to be sure this activity wasn't going on. Arresting suspected offenders would be absolutely necessary and allowable under Islamic rule. Muslim countries generally don't have an equivalent to the U.S. Bill of Rights. Freedoms of speech, assembly, the press, and certainly religion aren't big items. Neither are laws against self incrimination and unreasonable searches. Stamping out wrongdoing is more important than anything else. Islam in this area is the legalism of the Old Testament of the Bible, the law, taken to distraction. Nothing else matters of Allah is pleased.

Rape would nearly disappear. Imagine the reluctance of a woman to make a charge of rape if a false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse were punishable by flogging.

A false accusation of rape is a hadd. Sure a false accusation of rape is something that should be punished, no question about that. We can see the devastation of lives it can make in the Duke Lacrosse players case. But in Islam this is one of the most serious offenses one can commit. Note that it ranks in seriousness with use of intoxicants and unlawful sexual intercourse. It is interesting that a woman making an accusation of rape can find herself, by making an accusation of rape she is admitting of having had sex with a man who she is not married to she could actually be confessing to adultery! This happened in Nigeria. The penalty for adultery for a woman is stoning.

Imagine the benefit to the nation if theft were punishable by the public amputation of a hand. Imagine the deterrent hacking off hands of the Enron bandits on live TV would have on future stock manipulators. Imagine turning on the TV and hearing, "Stay tuned for today's hand amputations." Imagine the impact if the Hollywood icons who were caught shoplifting had their one hand cut off publicly on ET.

Theft is another hadd. If you think these have not been carried out in recent times, do a web search on "theft hand cut off Islam". An October 2002 BBC article says:

"The interior ministry in Saudi Arabia says an Afghan man, found guilty of pickpocketing in Mecca's Grand Mosque, has had his right hand amputated in public."

I personally like the idea of televising it to get the message out. The liberals who see noting wrong with a good hand amputation in a Muslim country is the same group that sees all kinds of problems with putting killers in a jail that is more like a country club.

Imagine the benefit to the nation if women were requited to wear clothing that would hide their bodies so that men were not tempted to want to have sex with them and that if they failed to cover properly they could be flogged or stoned or even have an offending (exposed) leg cut off. Imagine if Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton and the Hollywood crowd had to wear a burka to hide their bodies to keep American men from raping them. Think of all of the rapes that would be averted because we know men can't help themselves and if a woman does not cover herself totally the man will not be able to help himself and will rape her. After all, we know it really is the woman's fault that she is raped which is what this hadd really says.

Again the multi-cultural sensitive liberals see no problem with this.

Imagine the value to society of having a law that protects women so well from impurity that it forces young women to burn to death in a fire rather than exit a burning building while not properly dressed. Although this is a somewhat a one of a kind event there are other places that this law is taken to distraction. A woman can have her foot cut off for showing a portion of her leg. In Iran, one of the most fundamental Muslim countries there are police that look only for dress infractions and they are followed by a bus where those judged on the spot for an infraction are placed and then taken for "education." There is no due process other than the on site "one look" by the religious police to determine the infraction is serious. If the robe is too revealing even that can get her a trip to the education center. The opportunity for abuse is great.

Here again is a place that Islam differs from Christianity. Mohammed says that people exist to support Islam. Jesus said that the Sabbath, the Jewish holy day, existed for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Sabbath was a day of rest for man. Islam says that it is more important for a woman to be covered than to live! Jesus said that if you had an ox in a mud hole on the Sabbath it was fine to work to get him out even though you were not to work on the Sabbath. And Jesus did something to help a man on the Sabbath and stated this to show that it was right, then told them the man was far more valuable than the ox. I believe the girl's lives were more important than man's rules of dress.

Imagine the outcry if a Fundamental Christian were to become dictator of the United States and he proclaimed that any woman with a skirt above the mid calf, any neckline that shows any cleavage, too much makeup or any blouse that shows the belly is reason for a trip to an "education center" without any due process. Heck, liberals would raise holy hell even if there was due process. But the same liberals see nothing wrong with this because "it is their culture." I remind them that at one time our culture said blacks were slaves and women couldn't vote. That was wrong and we have changed it but the liberals can't seem to understand we have fixed it. They still raise a fuss about it while condoning the Muslim abuses. Jesus said they would strain on a gnat and swallow a camel.

Imagine the benefit to the society of having the value of a woman's testimony in court be less than that of a man. This would certainly end most if not all false charges of rape, and probably a lot of valid ones and definitely reduce the court work load.

The Koran really says that! In 2.282 - "…and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses…" The value of a woman as a witness is equal to one half the value of a man. In any dispute where there is a man and a woman, the woman loses.

Imagine the benefit to society of requiring that women must be accompanied by a close male relative to be out in public - this to protect her purity. Imagine how great it would be if Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton had to wear a burka so we didn't see them plastered over the T.V. and that to travel they had to be accompanied by a close male relative. Imagine the outcry if one of these icons were flogged for intoxication.

This flies in the face of item 5. Muslims can't seem to figure out if the women are oppressed to keep them from straying or to keep them from tempting Muslim men. To keep them from straying they circumcise the young girls so they aren't overly interested in sex. This is refuted by some but the U.N. commission on human rights say it is happening. How universal it is depends on who you believe. Since the U.N. is multi-cultural, has good language translators and has no an axe to grind in this matter I consider them the best resource. This isn't like male circumcision, it is actually FGM which is mutilation - the M in FGM stands for mutilation. It is being done in Britain and France by some doctors so that the family do not take the girls to a Muslim country where it will be done under non-sterile conditions. Any doctor being asked to do this should isolate the child from the parents and turn the parents in to Child Protective Services, this is child abuse. In any civilized society it would be punishable by imprisonment. With all of this they still make male escort mandatory. When someone has to think up a couple conflicting reasons to justify something both of them are probably lies. The Muslim justifications for the treatment of women contradict. It is just plain bondage.

Imagine the benefit to society of not allowing women to work outside the home. Implementation of Shari law would fix all of the problems associated with this practice.

In Afghanistan when the Taliban took over they decreed this to be the law. Suddenly well over half of the teachers, doctors and nurses were forbidden to work outside the home under penalty of death. Yes, it is that serious an infraction for a woman to work outside the home to warrant a death sentence. A health care system that was marginally staffed nosedived. Education for girls ended, teaching boys went to the radical Muslim Clerics and now we have another generation with messed up minds who learned hatred, bomb making and terrorism. Liberals who strain on the proverbial gnat if God or Christmas is mentioned in our schools or public places don't have a bit of a problem swallowing the camel of allocating space in public schools for Muslim prayer baths. And that room cannot be used for anything else, least it be defiled by the presence of infidels (anyone but a Muslim). I wonder if Christian students asked for equivalent space would that be granted and kept sacred.

Imagine the benefit to society of making it a crime if one does not pray to Allah five times a day and in the proper place and position.

The militants require this and the penalties can be severe.

Muslim sources and the left wing that would press for multi-cultural ways would say, "This only applies to Muslims." I suggest we look at one of the most "Western Friendly" Muslim nations. Pakistan has hadd punishments on the books, but it has set up a series of procedural roadblocks to insure they can only rarely be enforced by the state. Still, vigilante applications of hadd punishments occur in Pakistan and other parts of the Islamic world. These are carried out in the dark of night by men wearing white sheets, reminiscent of the KKK. The government is lax to seek the perpetrators and prosecute them. If the sheets and the lack of government action does raise pictures of injustice for anyone who loves liberty, what does it take to raise them?

"But the constitution prohibits this," they will say. I suggest you look at countries where the constitutions were suspended. Those who say this live in a dream world where everyone is righteous except an American. Many of these decry George Bush and talk of him suspending the constitution while saying it could not happen under a Muslim president! What will happen if a Muslim were to be president and let me assure you, there is no constitutional block to prevent it, in fact the constitution itself prevents any religious test for holding office. The very same people who say it cannot happen are the ones who get concerned about the Patriot Act. They are the same ones who would vote for a candidate who shows no patriotism and has a religious background that includes Muslims and black separatists.

And what would happen if the U. S. were to come under a Muslim rule? Let's look at countries that are under such rule.

Freedom of religion goes along with the liberal sacred cow which was never included in the constitution, freedom from religion. Sure, Christians try to evangelize. Many groups push their religions including some that are religions by definition but not recognized as such, the environmentalists, the humanists, and the sports fans. But look at it realistically, under Muslim rule, Allah is worshipped or there is hell to pay here on earth.

Most freedom of speech goes because nothing can be said against Islam, the ruling bodies who are the "prophets or Allah" or the Islamic religion. They are sacred. Free speech is suspended. Speaking out against one of these can result in death. Freedom of the press goes along with freedom of speech. A family of very evangelical Coptic Christians in New Jersey were brutally murdered in early 2006. The killers have not been found but there are things that point to this being a hate crime for religious reasons, the perpetrators being Muslim.

Protections against search and seizure, against home intrusion are unknown under Islam, in fact they are pretty unique to the Western Democracies and pretty much extend back to Judaism. The religious police in many Muslim countries have the right to pick someone up on the street and detain them for "education" for things like a couple holding hands in public, not wearing the proper clothes, not having a proper beard, having the clothes too tight, or women not covering a portion of the body properly. There is no hearing, those violating are just picked up and taken away. Unfortunately this detention, as bad as it seems to us, is the least severe punishment. A woman in some areas can have her leg chopped off for showing it!

Let's look at this another way. Many liberals in the U. S. fear a Christian in authority because they believe the person will try to impose their views on everyone. This is evidence of liberal thinking, that is exactly what they will do if they are in authority, impose their views on others. But let's look at it. Imagine the most fundamental Christian you can think of becoming dictator of the United States, someone to the right of Jerry Fawell, then take that to distraction. That is what you would get if Islamic law were implemented in the United States. For a Christian, Hindu, Atheist, or Jewish person, it could mean bow or die. Entertainment goes away. Alcohol goes away. Dress codes are enforced. Women are made second class citizens.

I believe no matter what you think of GWB, maybe we need to support him that this does not happen here. As an aside, none of the Democrat challengers for 2008 understand the problem or they are using this as a political move to get elected. Either disqualify them for election on the basis of stupidity or treason. You can take your pick.