Supreme Court's prophetic ruling to establish Sharia Law by Bill Wilson

Tuesday, June 2, 2015
 

Supreme Court's prophetic ruling to establish Sharia Law


The US Supreme Court recognized Sharia Law in its ruling EEOC v Abercrombie & Fitch. The Court ruled that clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch could not discriminate against Samantha Elauf by not hiring her because she wore a hijab to the job interview. Citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prevents racial and religious discrimination in hiring practices, the Court set a precedence that Sharia Law can indeed trump traditional hiring practices and, quite frankly, Constitutional freedoms, if the religious test is applied. Among the petitioners were the Council on Islamic American Relations and the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination League. The decision will be the linchpin in establishing Sharia Law in America.


The opinion states: "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship. The question presented is whether this prohibition applies only where an applicant has informed the employer of his need for an accommodation." Further, the Court states, "Samantha Elauf is a practicing Muslim who, consistent with her understanding of her religion's requirements, wears a headscarf." These words and the ruling in favor of Islam may forever change how the US Constitution is applied in Sharia Law cases. It opens the door to every exception of Sharia when it clashes with US law.


Justice Clarence Thomas was the only dissenter. He wrote: "Because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can prevail here only if Abercrombie engaged in intentional discrimination, and because Abercrombie's application of its neutral Look Policy does not meet that description, I would affirm the judgment of the Tenth Circuit...I would hold that Abercrombie's conduct did not constitute "intentional discrimination." Abercrombie refused to create an exception to its neutral Look Policy for Samantha Elauf's religious practice of wearing a headscarf...it did not treat religious practices less favorably than similar secular practices, but instead remained neutral with regard to religious practices."


Thomas got it wrong, too. The Supreme Court should have first determined whether Islam was a religion or a theocracy. The US Constitution, by nature of the Sovereignty of the United States as a nation, cannot uphold theocratic law because that would be recognizing a form of government (such as a caliphate) antithetical to the US Constitution. Elauf was wearing a hijab because the law of the theocracy, Sharia Law, required it, not because the hijab was essential to her religious practice. In this case, Islam won a major victory for Sharia that will change application of US law. Deuteronomy 28 speaks of what happens when a people who profess the Lord no longer serve Him. Verse 48 says, "Therefore you shall serve your enemies which the Lord shall send against thee." The Supreme Court's ruling may have devastating prophetic consequences.


 

Have a Blessed and Powerful Day!
Bill Wilson
www.dailyjot.com