Qanta Ahmed lies her ass off while her befuddled interviewer helps her deceive American viewers:
1,) Michael Leiter, the former director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, argued that sharia law is compatible with the American Constitution.
2.) Harvard Law School Prof. Noah Feldman called sharia “a meaning-making effort.”…
Ground Zero Mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf assures us Sharia is nothing to be concerned about
No one is concerned about Sharia because they don’t want Muslims getting married according to Islamic rituals or praying in an Islamic manner. The only reason why people are concerned about Sharia is because of its denial of rights to women and non-Muslims, its denial of the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience, and other aspects of it that contradict American law and principles of human rights. But unsurprisingly, the erstwhile Ground Zero Mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, he of the spectacularly sinister mein, disingenuously misrepresents opposition to Sharia in the U.S., and the nature of Sharia itself.
As always, these dishonest snake-oil salesmen get mainstream platforms to spread their deceptions. More below.
“The silly American fear of sharia law,” by Feisal Abdul Rauf, New York Daily News, June 8, 2017:
“Most Americans would be shocked to hear Israel imposes sharia law. But it does for some 60 years.” These are the words of Israeli writer Yossi Gurvitz, opening an article he wrote for +972, an online periodical….
The religious courts belong to the Israeli court system. The Israeli government enforces their decisions. This is called legal pluralism — and Israelis inherit it from the Ottoman Empire.
Why, then, is the very idea of sharia so consistently vilified in our country?…
This is disingenuous in the extreme. Israel may have Sharia courts for private arbitration matters, but that is a far cry from imposing Sharia as a whole upon the whole population. What’s more, Sharia courts that were supposed to be for marriage law and other private matters entered into voluntarily have massively overstepped their authority in Britain, with Sharia judges ruling according to Islamic law without regard for their responsibility to turn over cases that are matters of criminal law to the secular courts. This is a particular problem in spousal abuse cases, since the Qur’an calls for the beating of women “from whom you fear disobedience” (4:34). And such incidents are the only reasons why anyone is concerned about Sharia.
Let’s be clear: America could never have state-sanctioned religious courts. The First Amendment, which prevents government establishment of religion, forbids it.
But Islamic law can and does already operate in America under state sanction. When Muslim Americans are married according to Islamic law by a state-certified officiant of Muslim marriages, and receive in the process a civil certificate of marriage, they have, in effect, practiced Islamic law under official U.S. sanction.
Would the anti-sharia agitators keep Muslim Americans from marrying? Would they keep them from praying, distributing charity, fasting during Ramadan? For Muslim Americans already do all these things at the command of their law.
This is not the point of opposition to Sharia, and Rauf knows that.
Sharia is not about amputations and stoning. These extreme punishments carry over from earlier, biblical law, and such sayings of Jesus as, “If your right hand sins, cut it off” (Matthew 5:30).
Has any sect of Christianity ever interpreted that saying of Jesus as a literal command to amputate hands? No, never. And does Rauf really expect his readers to believe that Saudi Arabia and Iran and other Sharia states, when they amputate limbs and stone people to death, are following Biblical law and not Islamic law? He certainly does take his audience for fools. In reality, both implement Islamic law only, which calls for amputations (Qur’an 5:38) and stonings (numerous hadith; see here) and no religious traditions that revere the Bible carry out amputations or stonings, as they have all developed mainstream interpretative traditions that on various grounds reject literal applications of Torah laws regarding stoning.
Within the history of Islam, they have rarely occurred.
What Islamic law does prescribe are the same do’s and don’ts of the Ten Commandments — the social imperatives most of us recognize whatever our religion.
But what sharia prescribes for criminal acts is in any case irrelevant to America. At the command of the Prophet Muhammad, Muslims the world over obey the law of the land they inhabit, whether that is Egypt, Israel or the United States.
That’s a bunch of lies and he knows it. Abdul Rauf should cite sura & verse, but he can’t. Egypt is a sharia light country, and Muslims cause a lot of problems in Israel and the U.S.
All they perform of sharia in any land is what coheres with the law of that land — as surely Muslim marriage, prayer and philanthropy do with the laws of America.
In an Op-Ed for The New York Times last summer, Harvard Law School Prof. Noah Feldman called sharia “a meaning-making effort.”…
Leftist professors are insanely clueless, deceptive & corrupt.
Feldman is notorious for ignoring and omitting all discussion of the aspects of Sharia that discriminate against non-Muslims and others.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Congress: Political Islam ‘Incompatible with the U.S. Constitution’
At least she tells the truth:
WASHINGTON, DC — Political Islam, focused on establishing an unfree society ruled by strict sharia law, is “fundamentally incompatible” with the U.S. Constitution and the overall “foundation of the American way of life,” declared Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an expert at the Hoover Institution think tank, during a Senate panel hearing.
Meanwhile, Michael Leiter, the former director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, argued that sharia law is compatible with the American Constitution.
“Muslim’s honoring of Sharia is not inherently in tangent with living in constitutional democracies anymore than it would be for Christians or Jews who also seek to honor their religious traditions while still complying with civil authority,” testified Leiter.
The Somali-born Dutch-American Ali — an honor violence victim, a strong advocate against female genital mutilation (FGM), and author — strongly disagreed.
During a hearing on Islamic ideology and terror held by the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Wednesday, Ali testified alongside the former U.S. official who served under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
“My central argument is that political Islam implies a constitutional order fundamentally incompatible with the US Constitution and with the ‘constitution of liberty’ that is the foundation of the American way of life,” proclaimed Ali in her written testimony.
She later stressed, “Let it be said explicitly: the Islamists’ program is fundamentally incompatible with the US Constitution, religious tolerance, the equality of men and women, the tolerance of different sexual orientations, the ban on cruel and unusual punishment and other fundamental human rights.”
Ali explained that intimidation and advancing the goal of imposing Islamic law (sharia) on society are fundamental tenets of political Islam.
She noted that “Islamism” is the ideology that drives political Islam and “dawa” provides the means by which it is spread, adding:
The term “dawa” refers to activities carried out by Islamists to win adherents and enlist them in a campaign to impose sharia law on all societies. Dawa is not the Islamic equivalent of religious proselytizing, although it is often disguised as such by blending humanitarian activities with subversive political activities… The ultimate goal of dawa is to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with strict sharia. Islamists rely on both violent and nonviolent means to achieve their objectives.
The strategy used by the United States to combat violent Islamic extremism has “failed” because it has solely focused on acts of violence while ignoring the ideology that drives jihadists and Islamists, argued Ali.
She told lawmakers, “The dominant strategy from 9/11 through the present, focusing only on Islamist violence, has failed. In focusing only on acts of violence, we have ignored the ideology that justifies, promotes, celebrates, and encourages violence, and the methods of dawa used to spread that ideology.”
In order to reverse its failure, the United States has to fight “a war of ideas against political Islam (or “Islamism”) as an ideology and against those who spread that ideology,” advised Ali.
President Donald Trump advocating for an ideological campaign against “radical Islam” is “refreshing and heartening,” testified Ali, adding, “This deserves to be called a paradigm shift.”
She noted that Trump’s position marks a departure from his predecessors.
Ali pointed out that Islam is on the rise across the world and jihadist groups have proliferated despite the U.S. spending at least $3.6 trillion on combat and reconstruction costs in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and sacrificing more than 5,000 American service members and the tens of thousands of wounded U.S. troops.
“According to one estimate, 10−15 percent of the world’s Muslims are Islamists. Out of well over 1.6 billion, or 23 percent of the globe’s population, that implies more than 160 million individuals,” mentioned Ali. “Based on survey data on attitudes toward sharia in Muslim countries, total support for Islamist activities in the world is likely significantly higher than that estimate.”