Today I discussed with Sam Sorbo why Donald Trump is correct in his call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, for a host of reasons, two of which were contained in his statement citing data from a survey conducted by the outstanding pollster Kellyanne Conway, as commissioned by the Center For Security: “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.”
But also, I note all the following supportive evidence in my books, “Sharia Versus Freedom,” and “Iran’s Final Solution For Israel”: 77% of Muslims from the 5 largest Sunni Muslim populations, i.e., in Indonesia, Bengladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, and the Sunni Muslim majority population of Nigeria are Sharia supremacists, as are 83% of Iranian Shiites. Moreover, 65% of Muslims, pooled, from four very representative Sunni countries, West to East, Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia, desire the re-creation of Islam’s brutal, totalitarian Caliphate system. Islam, unlike any other existing major religion, is a politico-religious ideology, not a faith, per se, as Westerners, or non-Muslims in general, understand. This becomes—or should become—pellucid when one considers the largest voting block in the United Nations—the Organization of Islamic Cooperation—56 Muslim, Muslim majority or large Muslim plurality, nations, plus the Palestinian Authority. The OIC’s unrelenting goal is to replace modern human rights constructs such as our Bill of Rights, or the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with the 1990 Sharia-based Cairo Declaration, or so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. Thus Islam, via its integrally-related, Sharia supremacist global political organization—unparalleled in our era relative to any other religion—seeks to abrogate basic freedoms of conscience and expression that define free, non-totalitarian non-Muslim societies.
This is not a matter of conjecture, or inference, or “Islamophobia”, unless one is impenetrable by the facts, which are these: The 1990 Cairo Declaration, was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the OIC. Both the preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC’s Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example,75 in the US Bill of Rights,76 and in the United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism (Koran 3:110, “You are the best nation ever brought forth to men . . . you believe in Allah”); and its last articles, 24 and 25, maintain [article 24], “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia”; and [article 25] “The Islamic sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.” The gravely negative implications of the OIC’s sharia-based Cairo Declaration are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, which proclaims: “Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism.” Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the document, which clearly applies to the Sharia-based “punishment” of so-called apostates from Islam, i.e., death:
“There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia. Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia. Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.”
Forty years ago, Husayn al-Quwatli, director general of Dar al-Ifta, the center of spiritual authority for the Sunni community of Lebanon, and author of the treatise, “Islam, the State, and Secularism (1975)” candidly stated elucidated the Muslim Sharia supremacist mindset which perhaps best validates Trump’s moratorium, pending wrenching changes in such pervasive Muslim attitudes:
“The position of Islam is very clear on one point, namely that the true Muslim cannot take a disinterested position vis-à-vis the state. As a result, his position with regard to ruler and rule cannot be an indecisive one which is content with half solutions. Either the ruler is Muslim and the rule Islamic, then he will be content with the state and support it, or the ruler non-Muslim and the rule non-Islamic, then he rejects it, opposes it, and works to abolish it, gently or forcibly, openly or secretly.”