Drawing the Line, Part 2

In American criminal law, the Smith Act of 1940, 18 U.S.C. paragraph 2385, says that it is a criminal offense for anyone to “knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force of violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association.”

The crime described by the Smith Act is sedition, which my dictionary says is “Conduct or language inciting to rebellion against the authority of the state.” Since its enactment in 1940, the Smith Act has been revised to make the bar higher for convicting those who are charged with violating the Act.

We should do two things:

---Congress should eliminate those revisions. Our law enforcement officials should have maximum latitude in pursuing such criminals.

---The Attorney General should select any one of the blatant advocates of Islamic law (sharia) in America for prosecution in order to make clear that the advocating of Islamic law falls within the scope of the Smith Act.

This is why I believe advocating the establishment of Islamic law in America is a crime.

The Koran (Haleem translation), 9:29:

Fight those of the People of the Book who do not truly believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and agree to submit.

It is always dangerous to quote without context. The context of this quote is about who should be allowed to “come near the Sacred Mosque” in the seventh century. If this command had been interpreted in Islamic law as an instruction not to allow unbelievers to worship at the mosque, I would not be writing this.

I am writing this because Islamic law interprets this verse and many like it to mean that there is to be a continual struggle against unbelievers until they submit. No limitation in time or place. The struggle to establish Islam as the dominant religion is presented in Islamic law as an imperative that brooks no opposition. Infidel governments are no exception.

The opinion that Islamic law advocates forcible overthrow is confirmed by rulings of the Turkish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. In 1998, the Turkish court banned the Welfare Party (Refah Partisi) because the rules of sharia promoted by Refah “were incompatible with the democratic regime …Democracy is the antithesis of sharia.” The European Court of Human Rights agreed on appeal in 2001 and 2003.
Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it.
According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

Luzius Wildhaber, President, European Court of Human Rights

http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/29AC6DBD-C3F8-411C-9B97-B42BE466EE7A/0/2004__Wildhaber_Cancado_Trindade_BIL__opening_legal_year.pdf

The Court’s judgment included the following observations:

• The Refah claim of freedom of association does not overcome the State’s rights to protect its institutions.
• The means to change the State’s institutions must be legal in every respect.
• The final goal of the party must be compatible with fundamental democratic principles.
• Sharia does not exclude the use of force in order to implement its policies.

Until Islamic law is reformed to exclude the use of force in spreading Islam, its advocates should be subject to prosecution for sedition.

Originally posted on 5/5/09