by David Kennedy Houck First in Europe and now in the United States, Muslim groups have petitioned to establish enclaves in which they can uphold and enforce greater compliance to Islamic law. While the U.S. Constitution enshrines the right to religious freedom and the prohibition against a state religion, when it comes to the rights of religious enclaves to impose communal rules, the dividing line is more nebulous. Can U.S. enclaves, homeowner associations, and other groups enforce Islamic law? Such questions are no longer theoretical. While Muslim organizations first established enclaves in Europe,[1] the trend is now crossing the Atlantic. Some Islamist community leaders in the United States are challenging the principles of assimilation and equality once central to the civil rights movement, seeking instead to live according to a separate but equal philosophy. The Gwynnoaks Muslim Residential Development group, for example, has established an informal enclave in Baltimore because, according to John Yahya Cason, director of the Islamic Education and Community Development Initiative, a Baltimore-based Muslim advocacy group, "there was no community in the U.S. that showed the totality of the essential components of Muslim social, economic, and political structure."[2] Baltimore is not alone. In August 2004, a local planning commission in Little Rock, Arkansas, granted The Islamic Center for Human Excellence authorization to build an internal Islamic enclave to include a mosque, a school, and twenty-two homes.[3] While the imam, Aquil Hamidullah, says his goal is to create "a clean community, free of alcohol, drugs, and free of gangs,"[4] the implications for U.S. jurisprudence of this and other internal enclaves are greater: while the Little Rock enclave might prevent the sale of alcohol, can it punish possession and in what manner? Can it force all women, be they residents or visitors, to don Islamic hijab (headscarf)? Such enclaves raise the fundamental questions of when, how, and to what extent religious practice may supersede the U.S. Constitution. More --> http://www.meforum.org/article/920/
The Constitution doesn't prohibit it outright, but who would enforce the legality of the enclave? The Constitution, right?
The US constitution in its core, is the most closely related of all countries in the world nowadays to how an Islamic consistitution should look. Ask anybody educated with significant Islamic knowledge and they will tell you the same. That is why Muslims love this country, the way the law is structured is how other Islamic countries should also be built, but sadly you'll find them to have very poorly structured govts.
hehe, the guy needs to do some research on Islam. Punishment for drinking alchohol? Punishment for not wearing Hijab? that is too funny. another great article gwayneco.
Also how accredited is this scholarly journal, The Middle East Review? Cause unless something comes from a sound source, I dont look into it much.
Personally speaking, I am a HUGE proponent of America becoming a 'melting pot' in the very sense of the word, but -- sadly -- reality says otherwise. You have Whites moving out to the 'burbs' in their gated communities; you have terms such as a 'Black neighborhood' or a 'Jewish community'...among other examples. I don't support the idea, but there's nothing 'unconstitutional' about it, since a private entity could dictate who joins and who doesn't, and people can choose to segregate themselves if they so choose. I live in a largely Jewish / Black neighborhood. I have an Asian neighbor to my left, a Haitian-American to my right, and a Jewish neighbor across from me; I couldn't be happier with the diversity of my neighborhood.
Never mind, this comes from a crap publication. Nowadays because of the internet everyone can become a writer and have their work read by thousands. Doesnt mean they're right, or even know what they're talking about. So please Gwayenco, post stuff with a little substance. Dumbass.
this is a pro-israeli website run by a well-known islamophobe by the name of daniel pipes....definitely not a place for objective info, although, somebody like HayesStreet would probably love a lot of the material on this site
There's an entire chunk on the Constitutionality of enclaves in the same link you gave, Gwayneco.... With the last sentence, the author reduces his entire article on the assumption of fear and violence. It wouldn't make sense for Muslim enclaves to incite violence since they've voluntarily penned themselves up.... I disagree with their actions for different reasons. The popularization of religious enclaves would accelerate the ad-hoc segregation movement in our country. Should more inroads be made legally, other religious organizations would seek to capitalize on its impact while shifting focus upon these Muslim enclaves. This is one bloody mess.
I would like to point out that there already are religious enclaves that enforce there own laws in America. Lubovitchers (Hasidem) have enclaves on the East Coast, Amish have their own enclaves and on the UT AZ border there are radical Mormon communities that not only fllout bigamist laws but even encourage polygamy.
Isn't there some evangelical that wants to build a completely christian town in Virginia somewhere? No movie theaters, no selling condoms or alcohol. I think I remember reading about it recently.
I would like to point out that there already are religious enclaves that enforce there own laws in America. Lubovitchers (Hasidem) have enclaves on the East Coast, Amish have their own enclaves and on the UT AZ border there are radical Mormon communities that not only fllout bigamist laws but even encourage polygamy. A little known fact is that Lubovitchers, Mormons, and Amish are secretly Islamic. And all of those people living in communes are also Islamic as well as commies. America would be better off without the lot of them.
But their laws DO NOT Overide the constitution, and neither should these. The rule of law is NOT set by religion...but by elected officials. We are a republic, not a theocracy. DD
There was a story recently about a guy, one of the founders of Dominoes or Pizza Hut, wanting to start an entirely Catholic town I believe. Only catholics could live there, catholic schools, a new catholic university and the town would enforce strict Catholic principles. I never saw any gwayneco outrage about this. Maybe it was during his self exile or something, but you would think he'd reference it during this thread. Ok, found the story: Domino's Pizza Founder to Build Catholic Town NEW YORK — A former marine who was raised by nuns and made a fortune selling pizza has embarked on a $400 million plan to build the first town in America to be run according to strict Catholic principles. Abortions, p*rnography and contraceptives will be banned in the new Florida town of Ave Maria, which has begun to take shape on former vegetable farms 90 miles northwest of Miami. Tom Monaghan, the founder of the Domino’s Pizza chain, has stirred protests from civil rights activists by declaring that Ave Maria’s pharmacies will not be allowed to sell condoms or birth control pills. The town’s cable television network will carry no X-rated channels. The town will be centred around a 100-foot tall oratory and the first Catholic university to be built in America for 40 years. The university’s president, Nicholas J Healy, has said future students should “help rebuild the city of God” in a country suffering from “catastrophic cultural collapse.” Monaghan, 68, sold his takeaway chain in 1998 for an estimated $1 billion (£573 million). A devout Catholic who has poured millions into religious projects — including radio stations, primary schools and a Catholic law faculty in Michigan — Monaghan has bought about 5,000 acres previously used by migrant farmers. The land on the western edge of the Everglades swamp will eventually house up to 30,000 people, with 5,000 students living on the university campus. Florida officials have declared the project a development bonanza for a depressed area, and Gov. Jeb Bush attended a groundbreaking ceremony for the new university earlier this month. Yet civil rights activists and other watchdogs concerned about the separation of church and state are threatening lawsuits if Ave Maria attempts to enforce Catholic dogma. Environmentalists have also complained the town will restrict the habitat of the Florida panther, an endangered species. None of which has deterred Monaghan, who initially tried to build his new university in Michigan but could not get permission. Asked recently about possible lawsuits in Florida, he replied: “That’s great. That would be the best publicity we could get.” The Florida developers managing the project claim more than 7,000 people have already expressed interest in buying homes in the town. Retailers and other businesses are reportedly close to leasing 60 percent of the intended commercial space. Monaghan was sent to a Catholic orphanage with his brother James after the death of their father on Christmas Eve 1941. After serving with the U.S. Marines and later dropping out of university, he founded Domino’s in 1960 with his brother, who sold back his share for a Volkswagen Beetle. Monaghan then set about building what became America’s second-largest pizza chain. He collected antique cars, bought a yacht and became the owner of the Detroit Tigers baseball team. About 15 years ago he read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. “That was a big turnaround,” he said recently. “I decided to simplify my life. No more airplanes, no more yachts. It’s been a big relief.” Sources close to the project said Monaghan was particularly disturbed by what he regards as the failure of western civilization to resist Islamic fundamentalism. In a speech to students last year, Healy warned that Islam “no longer faces a religiously dynamic West.” Healy described the “virtual collapse of Europe” as “one of the most profound and unsettling developments of our new century.” He added: “If you consider the more telling signs, such as its plummeting birth rate, Europe does not even seem to believe in a future . . . children are a sign of hope and the fruit of obedience to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply.” Monaghan has argued that the owners of the town’s commercial properties will be free to impose conditions in leases — notably the restriction on the sale of contraceptives. But that has been challenged by Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. Simon said the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled “ownership [of a town] does not always mean absolute dominion.” “If he wants to build a town and encourage like-minded people to come and live there, that’s fine. We get into problems where he tries to exercise governmental authority.” Frances Kissling, president of a liberal Catholic group supporting women’s rights to contraception and abortion, said the idea of a Catholic town was “very disturbing.” “We have to learn to tolerate the fact that there are other religions — as well as non-believers — and the interplay of cultures helps make each of us more productive members of society. A Catholic-only town goes totally against that.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186202,00.html Personally, I'm against all this enclave nonsense whether it's religious or BS home owners associations. gwayneco, you on the other hand tend to show yourself to be quite the hypocrite, as usual.
