Law on the Land has priority!

Submitted by Boris (United States), Jan 23, 2006 at 21:48

Mr. Tariq has responded to my question with this masterpiece: "Quran permits muslims only to fight non-muslims if muslims or their religion is threatened."

This answer is the whole reason, why I made a statement about absolute flexibility of Islam. Indeed, Mr. Tariq, now tell me - WHO DECIDES, whether "muslims or their religion are threatened"? If you are a "moderate" Muslim (whatever that means) - you may think your people are not threatened. If you are "radical" - you may think entirely opposite and start killing with an excuse that you are acting in the name of Allah. You may say - the radical is wrong. But the radical would say - you are wrong! So who IS wrong? Would it be easier just say: "You cannot act based on a belief that Muslims are threatened in general, no matter how popular this belief is". Of course, you can risk a Muslim genocide, if you underestimated the threat. But don't you think it would rather be better to lose millions in Holocaust like Jews than respond violently to exaggerated threat? And what kind of threat to religion (!), not to people, can justify loss of human life?

You are wrong, Mr. Tariq regarding priorities, and this is not a matter of opinion. The entire civilized world learned centuries ago that peace and tolerance can be mainained ONLY if the Law of the Land has precedence before religious law. If a Muslim decides to live in the USA, he/or she can freely practice Islam, but also must to demonstrate loyalty to the host country, if a Muslim law contradicts a Law of the Land.

Why? Because it is a fundamental ethical and judicial issue - if you commit a crime you will be tried according to the Law of the Land, and you are a victim - your offender will be tried according to the Law of the Land, not your religious law. If you like to marry multiple women, your only chance is to move to Utah, otherwise you will be jailed for polygamy. Do you feel it is unfair? Then try to change the law using civilized methods or don't live in the US! That is very simple. Thinking otherwise is again a way of making Islam ambigious and therefore flexible and open for multiple interpretations.

---

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".