“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.” - Granite Grok

“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.”

Quran Islam Muslims

You’ve heard of CAIR. The Council on American- Islamic Relations. They are an unindicted coconspirator in the funding of middle-eastern terrorism. One of their religious scholars is Mustafa Carroll. He is the executive director of the Council of American Islamic Relations’ Houston chapter. A few years back he said some things that might suggest to practicing Muslims that they are above US law. Our Constitution.

“Following the law of the land is part of Sharia,” Carroll said, according to the video. “And we follow the law of the land. In fact, Muslims, if we’re practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land. The law doesn’t affect us at all.”

A Texas State Rep got the treatment on Social media for pointing out what this sounds like. That practicing Muslims might be above the Constitution. That the law of Sharia frees them from all other law, Carroll admits that it could be taken that way.

‘… Carroll said he could understand why his words may have been misconstrued. But “it’s definitely not intended to mean we don’t have to follow the law,” he said. By saying Muslims were “above the law,” he said, he meant that true, practicing Muslims should behave in a way that would put them above any possibility of breaking the law. “If you’re a practicing Muslim, then you should be above all of that,” he said.’

And yet your clarification clears up nothing. Don’t have to follow what law? Above any possibility of breaking what law?

The radical interpretation of Islam is quite clear about its goals. History provides plenty of examples that demonstrate which law is higher. It’s Sharia. CAIR funneling money to Terrorists who exist to be above the law of the lands they terrorize is not helping. The truth that Muslim’s may lie or even break their own laws if the result advances Islam provides no comfort.

As an undoubtedly brilliant man who is also a religious scholar and the executive director of the Council of American Islamic Relations’ Houston chapter, I would have expected any clarification to include some clarity.

What Exactly Is Your Message?

If Carrol sought to avoid equivocation he’d have said Muslims must follow the Constitution first. That they are subject to the laws of the United States before other laws.

He didn’t. Nor do I suspect he ever could.

But until he does, I tend to agree with the Texas State Rep Molly White. CAIR sends up Red Flags. And while no one is looking to rile up hate groups, history does suggest that there are practicing Muslims who will take Carroll’s words to mean that Sharia has primacy over American Law and the Constitution. We know that the laws of other nations are not a barrier to the imposition of Sharia before all other law. That they do not prevent acts of terror in the name of Allah. 

If his intent was to reinforce the superiority of the Constitution within the US then say that. If he is hoping to suppress any tendency toward the radicalization that leads to violence against non-Muslims, say that. Not just to us but to them. 

I’ve spoken out against people who use the right to hide their violence. I’ve spoken out against those who use the left as an excuse for violence. And you can’t tell those bloody moderates anything. But it is easy to be clear if that is your intention.

When you choose not to be clear you are in no position to complain when you fail to explain what you mean.  I’m not saying he is complaining. But the usual left-wing suspects are and to be honest, that’s not helping.