It *is* relevant, and not just because he lied when he said he'd "never" been a Muslim

Submitted by Raymond in DC (United States), Sep 7, 2008 at 18:40

If he was sired by a Muslim father and raised by a Muslim step-father, registered in school as a Muslim, studied the Koran and hung around a mosque, even if he never took it seriously and adopted another faith as he grew older, to say that he was "never" a Muslim is stretching it.

But there's a greater issue that is hardly irrelevant. Islam is not a religion or faith like any other. It is a total system that encompasses society and politics mandating the subjugation of the non-believer so that Islam rules over all. There is no separation between "mosque" and state, no notion of secularism, no "opting out", no equality.

In contrast, there is no mandate to conquer in Judaism or Buddhism, and if Christians have "conquered", this was contrary to Christian teaching. There is nothing in Islam, for example, comparable to Judaism's "dina d'malkhuta dina" - the law of the nation is the law. So how can a believing Muslim put the Constitution above sharia? A believing Muslim, therefore, could never swear to defend the Constitution "against all enemies foreign and domestic", as sharia and "umma" trump Constitution and the nation.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".