Aside

Minnesota State Senator takes bite of Dhimmitude sandwich

The only thing worse than not standing up to the prospect of Sharia and the dangers of Islam is backing down after making the attempt to do so. A Minnesota State Senator took the latter course of action and would have been better off whistling past the graveyard.

Via WCCO in Minneapolis:

The Minnesota Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, along with interfaith leaders, are standing together against a Senate bill they say discriminates against them.

Munazza Humayun, civil rights coordinator for CAIR, says the new “anti-Sharia” bill threatens religious freedom. She says it was written using a template provided by an anti-Islam extremist.

“We are here today to send a clear message that intolerance and a restriction on religious freedom is not a Minnesota value.” Humayun said.

Humayun said the language of the bill was crafted by David Yerushalmi. She says Yerushalmi is an anti-Islamic extremist who has in the past taken the position to outlaw the practice of Islam in the U.S.

Perhaps the most important excerpt from the article involves a bit of doublespeak on the part of CAIR’s Humayun.

Humayun said Sharia requires Muslims to obey the law of the land, and she said the bill serves no purpose.

“We challenge the proponents of this bill to cite just one example where anyone’s rights have been adversely impacted by the application of foreign law in any Minnesota court or administrative body,” she said.

Conspicuously absent from Humayun’s statement is that CAIR is an arm of a group – the Muslim Brotherhood – which seeks to make Islam the law of all lands. What Humayun means is that Muslims are required to obey the law of the land until they can achieve Sharia, which is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.

Again, the question that should be asked is a simple one: If Muslim groups have no intention to implement Sharia law in the United States, why do they object to laws that forbid it? How is that any different from a drug addict objecting to drug tests in the workplace by saying it violates his personal rights? The excuse is masquerading as a legitimate reason. In reality, it’s a smokescreen. People who don’t take drugs are not usually emotional about submitting to drug tests at work.

As for the bill’s author…

Before the bill was even introduced, the author, Republican Dave Thompson pulled it.

“It was never my intent to introduce legislation that was being targeted to any one group,” said Thompson.

Instead of being perceived as ignorant, Thompson has now created a less flattering perception for himself – dhimmi.

h/t The Blaze

Print Friendly

, , , ,