Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 16: CAIR Calls Franklin Graham "Un-American"

It HAS to be Friday the 13th to read and hear about this story. It all begins with participants selected to serve at the Presidential Inauguration ceremonies of Donald Trump. 

It seems that Franklin Graham, the son of renown Evangelist Billy Graham was selected by Team Trump to pray at the inauguration.  Not so fast says the nations leading Muslim Advocacy group:

"If President-elect Trump truly seeks to unite our nation as he promised in his acceptance speech, he will limit the list of those offering prayers at the inauguration to religious leaders who work to bring us together, not to create divisions between faiths,"..."Rev. Graham's ill-informed and extremist views are incompatible with the Constitution and with American values of religious liberty and inclusion." ~ Nihad Awad CAIR National Executive Director

CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) urged President Elect Trump to can Graham from ceremonies if the aim is to unite the country because of past statements of Graham. Pointing to statements such as "Islam is not compatible with American values" and "Every Muslim that comes into this country has the potential to be radicalized--and they do their killing to honor their religion and Muhammad." CAIR claims that statements such as these show that Graham is intolerant and therefore unworthy to pray at an American function designed to support the highest office in the land. 

Does CAIR Have A Valid Point?

In my opinion DEFINITELY NOT!!!!

First, every Muslim would agree that, according to their scriptures, the practice of Islam is not just something that can be shrugged off as a fancy way to pass time. Islam is an all life encompassing faith. A way to live and view the world. 

As we have noted on this BLOG, America is a place that traditional Muslims believe is a mission field, to be "settled". In addition, the ultimate aim of Islam and the highest goal in any society is Sharia. Sharia, also known as "Sharia Law", is the all encompassing guide to life as interpreted by Muslim Clerics imploring the Quran and the Hadith. Sharia also includes elements of concensus by Clerics on issues and analogy. From this combination of what are considered holy and inspired scriptures, and additional holy sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, and other aspects, Sharia Law takes shape and is established. 

The website of the Interfaith Alliance, largely driven by liberal and inclusionist religious philosophies and interpretations of scripture, faith and law, states the following regarding Sharia law:

19. What is Sharia?

Sharia stands for Islamic or sacred law. It is an Arabic word meaning “the way” or “the path to water.” For centuries, Muslim scholars have given a broad definition of Sharia reflecting the diversity of interpretations on how Muslims have attempted to best understand and practice their faith.
The general definition of Sharia as understood by most American Muslims is as follows:
Sharia represents how practicing Muslims can best lead their daily lives in accordance with God’s divine guidance. It may be generally defined as the Islamic law revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad. That divine law was then interpreted by Muslim scholars over the centuries. Among the primary aims of the Sharia are the achievement of justice, fairness and mercy.
The five major goals of the Sharia are the protection of sound religious practice, life, sanity, the family, and personal and communal wealth. The acknowledgement of sound local customs throughout the world is one of the five basic maxims of the Sharia according to all Islamic schools of law.

They go on to say:

"Currently, 35 countries incorporate Sharia into their civil, common or customary law. The diverse manner in which these countries apply Sharia to daily life highlights how Sharia is neither static nor rigid but instead a reflection on how different communities interpret it."

Thus, by admission, Sharia not only judges conflicts based on religion or moral meta-ethics. It is Sharia that decides matters of family and life in civil and even secular society. It is Sharia that is the ultimate authority and way to live. All other governmental systems are secondary to Sharia and at the very least should incorporate some aspects of Sharia. So the aim is to slowly make each state or situation, one that can be ultimately governed by Sharia itself.

I know, my Muslim readers take aim at my statements here and will jump up and down to say that I am intolerant also. But unlike them in their dissent, I think there is ample proof that what Graham says and what I am contending here is totally true if getting to the truth is the aim. 

On the Interfaith Alliance website, the question regarding the compatibility of American Civil law and Sharia is ashed:

22. Is Sharia compatible with American law and values?

Many aspects of Sharia or Islamic law are consistent with modern legal rules found in American law. For example, both legal systems allow rights to personal property, mutual consent to contracts, the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings, and the right of women to initiate divorce proceedings.

If and when religious laws conflict with American law, the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit American government, including the courts, from substituting religious laws for civil law or following religious laws that violate civil law. This prohibition applies to all religions equally.

Now, this is very smart. By using analogy (a tenet of Sharia) the question is kind of turned on its head. It is certainly true. The government cannot simply upend religious freedoms and laws, however, 

according to what has already been said, Sharia is "sacred law". Now if religion means anything at all, what is "sacred" is at the highest point of the practice of religion and religious values. 

Such conflicts do not exist within Christianity to the degree that they exist in Islam. The bible condones and encourages "good citizenship" even in the face of what is ugly and uncomfortable. It does not teach to "uproot" as teaching exist in Islam to do the same.

We can speak much more on this in the comments, but to examine Franklin Graham's statements and to declare those statements as Un-American demand that the issue of what is American be examined as a whole. 

Since the State cannot establish religion, then how is it that it is American for any religion to have their law code, as interpreted or otherwise, in their legal system based on itself? 

I understand that American society, at least most would like to think, is based on Judeo-Christian values emanating from the bible and what we view as "sacred scriptures" as well. However, the difference here is that the concepts from the scriptures are the guide as opposed to the chapter and verses themselves. 

Conclusion
I certainly have oversimplified the argument, and will be more detailed in the comments if necessary, but I hope that this provides good food for thought. Franklin Graham is certainly American and what he believes about those who are dedicated to and bound to the practice of what is becoming a very diverse religion of Islam (as the difference between fundamental and liberal Islam is really beginning to display itself) must also know that Islam, as practiced and encouraged by the majority of Muslims who read and interpret the same book as American liberal Muslims do, have very different ideas about the methods that should be used to bring about Sharia, but share equally in embracing the goal of Islam and that goal is to bring about Sharia, or a state that is subject to and under the rule of Allah. 

I don;t think that there is a question about that to any Muslim faithful to their faith. Whereas, the Christian already knows that there is NO KINGDOM on Earth that is the final place of God's rule. Jesus said that HIS Kingdom was not of this world and one day there will be a new kingdom where there will be rest. Though every Christian strives every day to make this world better and to do as much good in this world as possible, we do not demand by any means necessary that all men are subject to us or what we believe. We see evidence of that in education, social life and all, YET we know that Christ reigns anyway, in spite of what men do or think. 

Blessed!