A conservative stands up for sharia 6

Michael Gerson, in an article at Townhall – a conservative website! – objects to Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment preventing the introduction of Islam’s sharia law into the state.

He claims that the measure was introduced to “to taunt a religious minority”, and dubs it “faith-baiting”, warning that other states could follow the example and introduce measures to “bait” Christians, for instance, or Hindus.

He tries to defend sharia:

Anti-Shariah activists argue that Shariah law controls every area of a Muslim’s life … and thus that Islam itself is incompatible with American democracy. Radical Islamists would nod in agreement to each of these claims…

Not surprising really, since the claims are true. But he has a different understanding:

Both are wrong. The proper interpretation of Shariah law is a subject of vigorous debate within Islam. There are some who would freeze societies in the cultural practices of seventh-century Arabia. But there are others who identify a core of Islamic teaching that is separable from the cultural assumptions of the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad. Predominantly Muslim nations take a variety of approaches to the application of Islamic law, from theocracy to official secularism.

Wherever did he get this idea of a “vigorous debate within Islam” over sharia or anything else? Where is “Islamic teaching separable from the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad”? What taqqiya (religiously sanctioned lies) has he been swallowing? He gives no sources, no references.

Most if not all states that have a majority Muslim population and a constitution  – and we have found only one exception  – claim that the basis of their  law is sharia. The exception was Turkey, but that is changing. Turkey is now governed by a religious party. The genuinely secular state  that Kemal Ataturk created is being dismantled and the Turks are returning to Islamic darkness.

Does Gerson actually know anything about sharia law? He goes on:

So is Shariah law compatible with democracy? In the totalitarian version of the Taliban, it cannot be reconciled with pluralism. But if Shariah is interpreted as a set of transcendent principles of fairness and justice

If it is so interpreted? It would be interesting to see how a system of law that has a woman’s testimony valued at half that of a man’s, and prescribes death for apostasy, to take just two examples, can be interpreted as “a set of transcendent principles of fairness and justice”.

He really seems not to know what he’s talking about. It is precisely this sort of deliberate blindness to what Islam is and intends that helps it towards its objective of domination.

He also seems to be unaware that sharia is creeping into Western countries and creating a great deal of justified anger and anxiety by the sort of “justice” the sharia courts are doling out. Muslim women in Britain, for instance, who had hoped for protection from sharia under British law, are now subjected to the “justice and fairness” of one or another of 85 sharia courts, whose rulings are enforced by the British state. They feel bitterly betrayed by the country in which they sought refuge from the subjugation that the law of Islam prescribes for them. (See our post Sharia in Britain, November 5, 2010.)

The state of Oklahoma, in our opinion, is foresightful and wise to bar sharia out. What is deplorable is that it has become necessary to take legislative action against it in the United States of America.

Posted under Britain, Commentary, Islam, jihad, Law, United Kingdom, United States by Jillian Becker on Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Tagged with , , ,

This post has 6 comments.

  • Frank

    Pat Condell – Human rights travesty

  • Bill

    This does not surprise me that a conservative such as Michael Gerson supports Sharia law. Just watch O’Reilly’s beautiful female cultural warriers for a period and you will see many parallels between social Christian conservatives and Muslims who wish to impose their barbaric doctrine on our society.

  • Tyler

    The entire argument is unnecessary – United States Federal Law prohibits the application foreign law in the United States

    If we simply followed the laws as they are already written in the books, things would be so much more efficient and simple – alas.

  • Fan of Heather Mac Donald

    “But if Shariah is interpreted as a set of transcendent principles of fairness and justice …”

    Ha! Good one! And if honor murder is interpreted as tough love, and if pederasty is interpreted as youth outreach, and misogyny is interpreted as chivalry, etc. etc., eventually Islam is interpreted as a Religion of Peace ™.

  • Frank


  • C. Gee

    Gerson is afraid of alienating Muslims. He believes the fight against Al Qaeda needs Muslim allies, and the Oklahoma law is needlessly antagonizing them.

    Many, many “moderate” Muslims will be deeply grateful for such a law. The complaint of those Muslims who really are our allies and wish to live under democratic freedom (but still identify as Muslims) is that the government wrongly listens to self-appointed Muslim “leaders” who are activist, politically and religiously, and almost invariably support the Islamization of the globe. (See how many of these leaders dodge answering “Do you support Hamas?”) .

    Like so many others, Gerson is demonstrating the appeasement reflex. His pre-emptive cringe in front of offended activists is reminiscent of the editors and publishers who now routinely self-censor. Yet he has the gaul to say: “The accusation of the anti-Shariah activists [that Islam is incompatible with democracy] and the fondest hope of Osama bin Laden are identical: that every serious Muslim is a recruit for sedition.” Are Muslim allies in his mind so childish that they will be driven into overt solidarity with an ideology that wishes to enslave them because they dislike a law saying that that very ideology will not gain the status of law?

    The law is a test of the mettle of Muslim allies – less awkward and more efficient that a loyalty oath. True allies will not be recruited into sedition, unless by the very strong-arm Islamic practices that the law was designed to shield citizens – including Muslims – from.