Sharia Ruling Would Put Islamic Clerics in Charge of U.S. Government

And shows the contempt Islamic groups have for the politicians they bribe.

Last month, Paul Sperry at Real Clear Investigations revealed that the “Fiqh Council of North America issued a legal ruling (fatwah) in coordination with the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America” that allowed Muslim charitable contributions or Zakat to be used for political donations. Sperry estimated that this could unlock a “potential political war chest of more than $140 million a year in mosque and other donations” for pro-Islamic candidates.

While the political implications of that ruling are quite significant, what is revealing is the basis on which the ruling was made. The Fiqh Council based this ruling on the precedent of “mu’allafah qulūbuhum” which is translated as “for those whose hearts are attracted ˹to the faith”. The specific application of this lay in the past when Mohammed was just beginning his conquests and bribed various tribal chieftains to become Muslims or to ally in his reign of terror.

The Fiqh ruling states that this was done “during a crucial and sensitive time after the Conquest of Mecca” to keep non-Muslims, ”from coalescing amongst themselves and uniting to attack the Muslims” and emphasizes that “those who were given were not Muslims at this stage.” Yet.

The basis for Muslim political donations in the United States, is preventing non-Muslims from “coalescing amongst themselves and uniting” to defend themselves. This isn’t civic participation: it’s the tribal divide and conquer politics of the origins of Islamic colonialism and imperialism.

The same old conflicts that Islamized the Middle East are now playing out in America.

The Fiqh Council’s chairman, Yasir Qadhi, operates out of the highly controversial East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC) and while serving as its public face has met with members of Congress, and has praised Islamic candidates like Zohran Mamdani, Ilhan Omar and Abdul El-Sayed.

Muzammil Siddiqi, another Fiqh Council member, had called for Islamizing America, arguing, “I believe that as Muslims we should participate in the system to safeguard our interest and try to bring gradual change for the right cause, the cause of truth and justice. We must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

Politicians from Joe Biden to Bernie Sanders to Rep. Ro Khanna have appeared at ISNA events without likely understanding the contempt that their hosts have for them. When they receive political donations, they’re being bribed, in the words of the Fiqh ruling, that allows giving Zakat to “non-Muslims for whom giving zakat helps in repelling their evil from Muslims.”

What do the Islamists giving political donations think of them? The Fiqh ruling argues that Zakat or charity may be diverted to “non-Muslims, or to those of questionable personal character, when that secures a general benefit for the Muslim community.” The contempt that the Fiqh Council has for America and Americans is almost as great as the contempt that the politicians who take their money have for themselves by allowing Islamic groups to bribe them.

This ruling is controversial within Islamic theocratic law because many Muslim jurists argue that such bribery was a temporary response by Mohammed until he and his successors became powerful enough to subjugate and terrorize everyone in the region into submitting to Islam. And there is no “mu’allafah qulūbuhum” now that Muslims are strong and feared worldwide.

The question of whether Zakat can be used to bribe American politicians is largely strategic.

What’s the long-term future? The Fiqh ruling cites the precedent that “the Prophet gave to a group of non-Muslims solely to minimize their criticism against Islam; and that Abu Bakr gave to non-Muslims in his caliphate; but in the reign of Umar, he decided that there was no longer any need in his time to do so.” To understand the historical context here, Abu Bakr had been expanding into Iraq and Syria, while Umar conquered them, as well as Israel, Egypt and parts of Armenia, while assailing the Byzantine and Persian empires. The bribes are only needed to divide and conquer non-Muslims until the point where Muslims have gained power over them.

Islamic leaders see this as being as true in America as it was for them in the Middle East.

Koran 9:60’s idea of using Zakat to bribe non-Muslims operates within the larger context of the jihad against non-Muslims. It begins with Mohammed and Allah declaring that non-Muslims were doomed, that any treaty with them was temporary and ordered Muslims to, “kill the infidels wherever you find them.” (This quote from Koran 9:5 has been used by Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups.) Only those non-Muslims who convert to Islam will be safe. While Islamic apologists have claimed that this only applies to ‘pagans’, subsequent verses make it clear that it applies to Jews and Christians (“They have taken their rabbis and their priests as lords instead of God, as well as the Messiah son of Mary” – Koran 9:30) and the Muslim mission is to “make it prevail over all religions” including Christianity and Judaism.

The Fiqh ruling also raises certain ‘mosque and state’ legal issues.

Under United States election and tax law, there is a legal separation between organizations that engage in lobbying and especially for PACs that donate to candidates, and between non-profits and religious groups. However, the Fiqh ruling asserts  that “individuals should not decide by themselves which candidates and causes are worthy”, but that “reputable institutions” composed of “diverse groups of scholars” should “collect and distribute zakat funds on behalf of the body of Muslim in any locality or country” for “influencing political causes”.

These institutions would function in the role of Mohammed (“the category of ‘al-mu’allafah qulūbuhum’ has always been the purview of the walī al-amr  – the leader of the community”) and  (a “group of trusted scholars and reputable specialists will effectively take on the role of a walī al-amr in order to decide which politicians to hand out ‘zakat’ to”). What that means is that a Sharia system of Islamic scholars would centrally direct the flow of money to politicians for the sake of the Ummah or Muslim community. Individual Muslims might donate the money, but they would not be in a position to decide whom to donate money to. This ‘crosses the streams’ of religious and political institutions and would likely violate tax-exempt and election regulations.

But that’s not even the biggest problem with this proposed Islamic financial political coup.

A Sharia-backed Islamic theocracy would in effect be trying to select American elected officials.

This is a massive violation of the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If successful, it would create an Iranian system in this country in which Islamic clerics would control puppet legislatures and executives who would be directed by a shadow Sharia regime.

Muslim PACs previously claimed that they were just people representing their communities. The Fiqh system pulls back the curtain to show a central body of Islamic scholars trying to use money to control the outcome of American elections for “benefitting the Ummah” (meaning the global Muslim community’s local or foreign interests) “either in one’s own country or locality (such as countering a clearly anti-Muslim politician with an agenda of harm) or internationally.”

Any politician taking money routed through this method would be acting as a puppet for an Islamic theocracy which would be using them to covertly exert its control over Americans.

It’s hard to think of anything more un-American than a foreign theocracy hijacking our elections.