THE SPEW ZONE

Introduction and Fundamental Incompatibilities

The United States Constitution, ratified in 1787, establishes a secular republic rooted in individual liberties, separation of powers, and the rule of law derived from democratic processes. Islam, originating in the 7th century, functions not only as a religion but also as a legal system through Sharia—a comprehensive code derived from the Quran and Hadith governing personal, social, and political conduct.

• Fact 1: Muslims impose a view that Sharia Law supersedes the US Constitution.

• Fact 2: Sharia Law relegates women, minorities and other religious cultures as second class citizenship and demands all bow down to Muslim men no matter if their actions are inhumane or not.

Federal law reinforces this boundary. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (reaffirmed in 1965) bars ideologies incompatible with the Constitution—interpreted by some as grounds to restrict Islamist immigration.

Moreover, Sharia’s advocacy for theocracy directly conflicts with federal statutes on treason and sedition (18 U.S.C. § 2384), as it may be construed as promoting the overthrow of constitutional government.

Coldly stated, permitting Sharia within U.S. jurisdictions amounts to importing a rival sovereignty—an existential threat to national unity and security.

Islam’s foundational legal structure is inherently incompatible with the Constitution. Sharia prioritizes divine law over human legislation, directly challenging key constitutional amendments: the First (freedom of religion and speech), the Eighth (prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment), and the Fourteenth (equal protection under the law).

Sharia is often described as a totalitarian system that fuses religious and political authority, demanding submission to Allah’s will as interpreted by clerics. This stands in direct opposition to the Establishment Clause, which forbids government endorsement of any religion. Classical Sharia includes hudud punishments—such as amputation for theft and stoning for adultery—that violate the Eighth Amendment’s protections.

Legal analyses supporting this view assert that Islam’s theocratic framework functions more as a political ideology than a private faith, rendering it incompatible with constitutional integration unless fundamentally reformed.

Historical context reinforces this concern. The Founding Fathers, guided by Enlightenment principles, designed a system to prevent religious dominance in governance. In contrast, Islamist ideologies—distinct from moderate Muslim practices—promote a caliphate model in which Sharia supersedes secular law.

In the U.S., this manifests as “Sharia creep,” where Islamic arbitration tribunals adjudicate family disputes under religious law, raising civil rights concerns. While courts require alignment with U.S. law, critics warn of incremental erosion.

Additionally, Islam’s emphasis on the ummah (global Muslim community) over national allegiance raises questions of loyalty. Literal interpretations of Quranic calls for jihad against non-believers conflict with constitutional protections for speech, assembly, and religious freedom.

This incompatibility is not theoretical—it is observable in nations where Sharia-based governance suppresses dissent, curtails women’s rights, and marginalizes religious minorities, all of which contradict core American values.

Sharia Law as an Imposition of Foreign Laws Against U.S. Federal Statutes

Sharia law, rooted in Arabian tribal customs and Islamic scripture, is structurally foreign to the U.S. legal system. Its application—even in limited contexts—violates the Supremacy Clause (Article VI), which designates the Constitution and federal statutes as the supreme law of the land.

Any attempt to apply Sharia within American jurisdictions introduces a parallel legal framework that elevates religious edicts above constitutional protections. For example, Sharia’s family law provisions often discriminate against women in matters of inheritance, divorce, and custody—directly breaching the Equal Protection Clause.

In Oklahoma, voters approved a constitutional amendment banning Sharia in state courts. Federal judges struck it down as discriminatory under the First Amendment, yet the underlying concern remains: Sharia is not merely religious—it is a foreign legal code.

Organizations like the ACLU argue that such bans infringe on religious freedom. However, proponents counter that religious practices lose protection when they violate civil rights or impose unequal treatment which the ACLU is aware of and has lost sight of its original purpose.

Recent cases illustrate this tension. In Texas, proposals for Muslim-majority enclaves such as “Epic City” triggered federal investigations over potential Sharia enforcement. Ironically, these investigations underscore how Sharia’s exclusivity may itself violate equal treatment laws.

While no U.S. city officially enforces Sharia, informal tribunals in places like Dearborn, Michigan, adjudicate disputes under Islamic principles. These decisions are sometimes overturned by civil courts for violating constitutional standards.

• S.D. v. M.J.R. (2010): This case involved a restraining order request by a woman alleging sexual assault by her husband. The judge initially denied the order, citing the husband’s religious belief that he had a right to sex with his wife under Islamic law. The decision was overturned on appeal, with the higher court affirming that religious beliefs do not excuse criminal behavior.

• Marriage and Family Law Disputes: In some cases, New Jersey courts have reviewed marriages or divorces conducted under Islamic customs. While courts may consider religious context, they ultimately apply state law. Any attempt to enforce Sharia-based rulings must comply with U.S. constitutional standards.

Islam as a Threat to Democratic Constitutional Republics

Political Islam, particularly in its Islamist forms, poses a systemic threat to democratic republics by subordinating popular sovereignty to divine rule. In the U.S., authority derives from the people through elected representatives. In Islamism, authority flows from Allah, interpreted by religious elites—rendering democracy subordinate or illusory.

This theocratic model has produced failed states where elections exist but are nullified by Sharia, suppressing freedoms and civil rights. The threat is not limited to non-Muslims; radical groups such as ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood weaponize Islam to justify violence, often targeting moderate Muslims for ideological noncompliance.

In the U.S., Islamist ideologies infiltrate through migration, both legal and illegal, claims of asylum seeking to get a foot hold and then send finds and resources back to their own countries of origin they allegedly were "escaping," and conversion, promoting jihad as conquest and using Islamophobia claims to gas light everyone in an attempt to shut down discussions; an approach fundamentally incompatible with peaceful pluralism.

Demographic shifts through immigration from Muslim-majority nations may influence voting blocs toward Sharia-aligned policies, threatening the secular foundation of the republic.

Surveys show most Muslims reject radicalism, yet this is also part of the religious teaching to intentionally deceive those they seek to conquer. This itself is a smoke screen when people actually read what their religion has written in its books.

Europe offers a cautionary example. Sharp analysis reveals the emergence of “civilization threats” through no-go zones and parallel societies; scenarios that could replicate in the U.S. without intervention and more or less a back door style invasion and infestation.

Globally, unreformed Islam perpetuates cycles of repression, stifling personal freedom and innovation under rigid dogma, complain about the problems in their native countries, then move into other countries and complain they're not like their original countries; which defies logic unless we are honest and call it what it is; a systematic pattern and time honored Muslim tactic to take over and displace populations and engage in ethnic cleansing soon after.

London’s housing crisis has reached a boiling point—not just due to scarcity, but because of how allocation policies are being administered. Under Mayor Sadiq Khan’s leadership has implementing policies that systematically disadvantage native-born British citizens, particularly white working-class families and anyone that is Christian, and is the abuse of power and a violation public trust.

Sharia Imposition in U.S. Cities as a First Amendment Violation

Efforts to impose Sharia; even informally, violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by privileging one religion’s legal code over neutral governance.

• In Hamtramck, Michigan, a Muslim-majority city, impose Sharia-influenced and inclusions of Sharia laws into local laws, triggering lawsuits for religious favoritism.

Such actions create de facto theocracies, unconstitutional in their discrimination against non-Muslims and infringement on others’ free exercise rights

• Federal courts consistently reject Sharia when it conflicts with constitutional protections.

• In 2010, Oklahoma’s ban was overturned for targeting Islam, yet the underlying violations persist when Sharia overrides civil liberties demonstrating intentional favoritism of Islam and Sharia rejecting assimilation and promoting usurpation.

• In Irving, Texas, anti-Sharia protests spotlighted tribunals enforcing unequal treatment favoring Islam and Sharia and breaching due process and alienating citizens.

These practices introduce foreign norms into American civic life, promoting additional division and undermining constitutional unity as Islam directs Muslims to engage in and within every country they "migrate" to and use deception and claims of racism and Islamophobia to gas light everyone into turning a blind eye to these and other unacceptable activities.

• Islam’s incompatibility with constitutional governance stems from Sharia’s supremacy over secular law.

• This poses a threat to democratic institutions through ideological rigidity and subversion.

• While many Muslims live peacefully within the republic, this tends to be more of a factor of biding time so as to get Muslims in key areas of local governance and then impose unreformed elements jeopardize both national integrity and hiding clear intentions to overthrow America and any other country that opposes it.

• Many are more open about these intentions once they secure dominate control of a city and impose and intentionally isolated community areas and engage in the very racism they accuse everyone else of.

  
  

Policy responses, such as heightened scrutiny of Islamic organizations and their ban from public office, law enforcement and the like are essential to preserve constitutional order and to stop playing games and being brain washed to proclaim that to do so is blanket discrimination when in reality Islam is a cult of discrimination, suppression, slavery and murder of anyone that does not "submit" to it.

As for us?

Druwayu cannot Coexist with Islam

1. Foundational Structure Conflict

• Druwayu rejects cultural sedation, imposed propaganda, and blind devotion. It is not mythological, not occult, and not symbolic. It is not designed for minors and does not seek mass adoption or theological integration and rejects concepts such as punishment for "heresy, apostasy and so called blasphemy.

• Islam is a theistic religion based on submission to Allah, with legal and moral codes derived from the Quran and Hadith. It mandates theological supremacy and prescribes universal application of divine law (Sharia).

Druwayu’s refusal to submit to external theological authority and Islam’s requirement of universal submission are structurally incompatible and irreconcilable.

2. Identity and Boundary Enforcement

• Druwayu enforces strict boundaries around audience, content, and contributor discipline. It excludes minors as persons under 18 years of age or younger, rejects being imposed in public schools, or gaining attention by being intentionally provocative to cause publicity. It does not market itself as anything other than what it is and what it is not and o one is expected to abide by it.

• Islam, particularly in its political forms, promotes da’wah (invitation to Islam), global ummah identity, and religious expansion. It frames non-Islamic systems as false or idolatrous and deserving of eradication along with those who adhere to anything "not Islamic."

Druwayu’s boundary enforcement cannot coexist with Islam’s expansionist orientation. Any overlap would violate Druwayu’s exclusion protocols.

3. Structural and Doctrinal Irreconcilability

• Druwayu is not symbolic, not allegorical, and not fixed and allows for logic driven adaptation and evolution. Its content is designed for adult comprehension and literal clarity. It does not accommodate false narratives or counter imposed ideologies, nor makes claims of "Divine Revelation or Inspiration."

• Islam operates on a fixed theological narrative with symbolic rituals, stylized obligations, and proclaims authority based on claims of divine mandates that are arbitrary and clearly written by human hands and human constructs but pretends otherwise. It prohibits reinterpretation and rejects plural frameworks.

Druwayu’s literal structure and Islam’s symbolic theology cannot be reconciled. Coexistence would require one system to abandon its core standards which neither will. Furthermore, Druwayu rejects cowardice or submission by force while Islam promotes adherence under fear of death and by force.

4. Enforcement and Sovereignty

• Druwayu maintains internal custodianship and doctrinal enforcement. It does not recognize external religious governance or shared sovereignty directed by ecological concepts of the Drikeyu which in essence embraces true natural laws to which all are subject.

• Islam mandates theological dominance and frames governance through divine law in place of natural laws while proclaiming a natural order it fails to grasp.

Druwayu’s internal sovereignty and Islam’s external supremacy are mutually exclusive. Integration is structurally impossible. This is not a major issue with other identities or religious groups even if some of them hold extremist views of condemnation of Druwayu, and much of the hostility subsides once they know more about it but will resort to the goals of trying to initiate conversion from Druwayu, which is fine because Druwayu does not condemn anyone for choosing something other than Druwayu.

In conclusion, Islam, and movements like it, are poison and should never be tolerated under any excuse and we will not be silenced on these views no matter how much such types try to silence us. And while Muslims claim Islam has a right to exist, so do we without Islam and its twisted and perverse teaching and doctrines.