I was listening to a radio talk show today and the guy was discussing the Keith Elison issue. You know, the newly elected Representative who happens to be a Muslim.
And he made an interesting point, and I would like to come at it from a “being true to yourself” angle.
He was saying that there are Muslim Imams who teach that if a Muslim were to try to uphold the U.S. Constitution then they would cease to be a Muslim. I guess we would compare it to a latae sententiae excommunication.
But in order to be a Congressman, he should theoretically make an effort touphold the Constitution.
So IF there it is true that Muslim should not be pro-US Constitution
and IF it is true that a Congressman should uphold the Constitution…
Then which is worse…
**Congressman Elison is a poor Muslim, and rejects his faith in his personal life **
Or, Congressman Elison is a poor Congressman?
I’m not saying either way, I’m just setting it forth for discussion. You could put yourself in his shoes as a Catholic, Protestant, Jehovah Witness, whatever your faith may be and consider the question.
.
It would
appear that Congressman Elison will practice his religion
as many christains do while in the political arena.
Islam as Ideology
That Islam
sees itself as a theocracy has enormous ramifications for how it regards itself and
for the behavior of Muslims.
First, it means that Islam is not only a religion.
It is also a political ideology. If the government of the Muslim community simply
is God’s government, then no other governments
can be legitimate. They are all at war with God. As a result, Muslims have typically divided the world into two spheres, known as the
Dar al-Islam—the “house of Islam” or “house of submission” to God—
and the
Dar al-Harb, or “house of war”—those who are at war with God.
Second, it means that Muslims have believed themselves to have a
“manifest destiny.” Since God must win in the end, the
Dar al-Harb must be brought under the control of Muslim government and made part of the
Dar al-Islam.
Third, since the
Dar al-Harb by its nature is at war with God, it is unlikely that it will submit to God without a fight. Individual groups might be convinced to lay down their arms and join the Muslim community by various forms of pressure—economic or military—that fall short of war. In history some groups have become Muslim in this way, either fearing Muslim conquest, desiring Muslim military aid against their own enemies, or aspiring to good trade relations with the Muslim world. But many peoples would rather fight than switch. This has been particularly true of Christians, who have put up more resistance to the Muslim advance than have pagan and animistic tribes.
Because of the need to expand God’s dominion by wars of conquest,
Islam’s ideology imposes on Muslims the duty to fight for God’s community. This duty is known as *jihad *(Arabic, “struggle, fight”). Although it is binding on all Muslims,
it has been particularly incumbent on those on the edges of the Muslim world, where there was room for expansion. Only by continual
jihad could the manifest destiny of Islam to bring the world into submission to God be fulfilled.
As eminent French sociologist Jacques Ellul notes,
"Jihad is a religious obligation. It forms **part of the duties that the believer must fulfill; **it is Islam’s
normal path to expansion."
A fourth and final consequence of Islam’s view of itself as a theocracy is that **in theory all Muslims should not only form one religious community **but
should be subject to one government as well—God’s government, a kind of Muslim superstate. Yet this has not happened. Muslims have been ruled by different governments since the early days of Islam.
catholic.com/library/endless_jihad.asp
.
.
