Sharia as New Red Menace?
Tuesday 21 September 2010
by: Eugene Robinson, Op-Ed
Washington - Boy, one thing I really hate is when American judges try to impose harsh Islamic sharia law. You know, with all those grisly lashings, stonings and beheadings. What's that you say? No such thing is happening, and you wonder where I got such a crazy idea? Why, Newt Gingrich told me.
On Saturday, speaking at the conservative Values Voter Summit, Gingrich issued a thunderous call for action against an imminent threat that exists only in his fevered imagination -- or, perhaps, in his political machinations.
"We should have a federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States," Gingrich declared, to a standing ovation.
OK, but would this include Judge Judy? Because I've always suspected that when she gets really mad, and she snaps the heads off both the plaintiff and the defendant, she might be slipping a little sharia into the American subconscious -- you know, preparing an unsuspecting nation for the real deal. Maybe we need another law that covers fake judges on daytime television, with punishments for violations that begin with flogging.
But seriously, folks, Newt says we have to halt the insidious encroachment of sharia law, and we have to halt it here and now. In July, speaking at the American Enterprise Institute, he went on at great length about the supposed sharia menace, which he sees as part of a "stealth" campaign to impose Islam on all of us.
"Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence," Gingrich said at the AEI. "But in fact they're both engaged in jihad and they're both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of sharia."
He threw in a perfunctory disclaimer -- that there is "a sharp distinction between those Muslims who live in the modern world and those Muslims who would radically change the modern world" -- and then proceeded with a speech that essentially paints Islam as the new Red Menace. The "stealth jihadis," I suppose, must be like the "known communists" on the list in Sen. Joseph McCarthy's hand.
Along the way, in the July speech, Gingrich painted liberals as a bunch of fellow travelers. "How we don't have some kind of movement in this country on the left that understands that sharia is a direct mortal threat to virtually every value that the left has is really one of the most interesting historical questions," he said.
Where to begin? First, I guess, by stating the obvious: There is no left-of-center movement dedicated to fighting the steady, stealthy insinuation of sharia into America's legal system because no such thing is happening. Gingrich invents an enemy and then demands to know why others haven't sallied forth to slay it.
Gingrich and the Islamophobes have found one solitary case to bolster their "sharia is here" theory. In June 2009, a family court judge in Hudson County, N.J., denied a restraining order to a woman who testified that her husband, a Muslim, had forced her to have non-consensual sex. Judge Joseph Charles Jr. said he did not believe the man "had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife because he was acting in a way that was "consistent with his practices."
The judge was clearly in error, as a state appeals court ruled two months ago in reversing his decision. The man's religious beliefs, the court ruled, do not exempt him from state laws. Thus ended the one and only instance of stealth sharia that anyone has been able to find.
Andrew Silow-Carroll, the editor in chief of the New Jersey Jewish News, cited that case in a column last month blasting Gingrich's "sharia-phobia." Silow-Carroll pointed out two things: First, the system worked -- the judge made a boneheaded call, and he was overturned. Second, our system already allows some civil matters -- but not crimes -- to be settled through other means of arbitration. "Among those alternative mechanisms is the beit din, or rabbinic law court," Silow-Carroll wrote. "Every day, Jews go before batei din to arbitrate real estate deals, nasty divorces and business disputes."
If Newt were aware of this, would he blow a gasket? Somehow, I doubt it. His objection seems to be faith-specific.
And his purpose seems to be political. If Muslim-bashing draws a rise -- and apparently it does -- then he's not going to be outdone. Watch out, Judge Judy. He may be coming for you next.
Eugene Robinson's e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.
(c) 2010, Washington Post Writers Group
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Spot on, Mr. Robinson.
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 10:22 — Anonymous (not verified)Spot on, Mr. Robinson. Islamophobia is the Right's New McCarthyism.
Where would the Right be without the usual fear-mongering and demonizing of minorities?
In a recent New Jersey case,
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 10:55 — Anonymous (not verified)In a recent New Jersey case, a judge ruled that a husband had the right to rape his wife because it was not prohibited by his religion, so no restraining order was issued. It was overturned by appeal; however, it would be better if the original ruling were prevented in the first place so the restraining order could have been issued immediately. According to the legal ruling, "plaintiff, S.D., and defendant, M.J.R., are citizens of Morocco and adherents to the Muslim faith."
I am in favor of ruling out Sharia as a source of law.
Google "What isn't wrong
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 10:59 — Anonymous (not verified)Google "What isn't wrong with Sharia law?" for an article by Maryam Namazie of the Guardian. She explains how using Sharia courts for matters between Muslims has worked out very badly for women in Britain.
If there is no Muslim agenda
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 11:01 — Anonymous (not verified)If there is no Muslim agenda for imposing Sharia here incrementally, then I don't see why Muslims would have any problem with making it illegal.
However, it turns out that prominent Muslims such as Imam Rauf of ground zero mosque fame DO want to impose Sharia. He has said that governors and others in government should check with Islamic groups to make sure laws are Sharia-compliant.
Notice how the bigots no
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 11:09 — Anonymous (not verified)Notice how the bigots no longer even talk about what it is they are really after: Denying the Constitutional rights of American Muslims. Instead, they disingenuously engage in fear-mongering, cherry-picking evidence and ignoring the overwhelming larger trends of the existence of peaceful Muslims and mosques in the U.S.
16:09 Notice how the
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 11:44 — Anonymous (not verified)16:09 Notice how the liberals no longer even address issues, being content with name-calling and mind-reading.
I don't know of any critic of Sharia who disagrees that most Muslims and mosques are "peaceful". Many Islamists who want to impose Sharia say they are committed to using peaceful, democratic methods. Even Islamists who do not rule out violence are generally opposed to it in the current American context purely for tactical reasons. So there is no reason to expect that most Muslims in America wouldn't be peaceful.
When will you talking heads
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 12:18 — Kevin Schmidt (not verified)When will you talking heads begin to realize that propaganda and appeals to emotion have nothing to do with the facts or with logic? People don't think like Mr. Spock, they think like Homer Simpson. So if you want people to follow you, don't offer them facts, offer them donut holes.
Also, Socrates found out the hard way that when authority of the state comes up against reason, authority always wins.
It's been that way ever since his time. Why would you expect politics to suddenly change now?
What we need to do is add some muscle to reason so that the authority of reason wins out over authority. This is the problem of our time, which in all likelihood, be solved with much more donut holes.
If American Muslims are just
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 12:29 — Anonymous (not verified)If American Muslims are just like the rest of us, then why has Molly Norris gone into hiding?
She is the cartoonist who proposed "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". The FBI has advised her that if she doesn't go into hiding, at her own expense, they won't be able to protect her from her many death threats.
Molly Norris is living under Sharia Law, right here in this country. She is paying the price for committing blasphemy. The Constitution does not protect her from vigilante Sharia enforcers.
16:44, It looks like you
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 12:30 — Kevin Schmidt (not verified)16:44, It looks like you can't handle the truth.
Liberals have nothing to do with you also being a bigot by using the word "liberals" in the pejorative sense.
No mind reading is necessary when you have bigots like Gingrich spouting his inflamed rhetoric that is no different than someone yelling fire in a crowed theater where there is no fire. He is clearly inciting violence, which means his words are not protected free speech, they are in fact criminal.
There is no reason to expect that most Christians in America would be peaceful. They slaughtered the natives, slaughtered the buffalo, clear cut the entire continent, killed off many species and polluted the planet, and are not quickly bringing about Armageddon.
Imperialism, genocide, ecocide, torture and terrorism are all proud American traditions since 1492!
If American Muslims are just
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 12:40 — Kevin Schmidt (not verified)If American Muslims are just like the rest of us, then why can't they build their mosques where we build our churches?
Sharia Law has nothing on KKKristian Law. Throughout history, and especially today, more people have been killed, tortured and terrorized in the name of Jesus than all other religions, including Islam, combined!
Dubya/dick started another KKKristian holy war in Iraq. Now over one million innocent men, women, children and baby Iraqis are dead. Many of the guns our soldiers use have biblical passages etched within the serial numbers. Plus it is common knowledge that the US military enforces the KKKristian faith on the soldiers regardless of their preferred religion.
That is why Sharia Law is nothing but a molehill next to the Mt. Everest of KKKristian Law.
Eugene Robinson must think
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 12:44 — Anonymous (not verified)Eugene Robinson must think rape is no big deal now. According to this article, this New Jersey case was originally decided in June of 2009. As near as I can tell, it was just overturned on appeal in July of 2010. That means that this judge's application of Sharia law caused this poor woman to go an entire year without a restraining order. HOW MANY TIMES WAS SHE RAPED DURING THAT YEAR?
How can Mr. Robinson make light of the situation?
Isn't it a good idea to explicitly rule out the application of Sharia law in this country, even if it "only" prevents one rape? Wouldn't that be worth it? Or would it only be worth it if people were regularly being flogged, stoned, and beheaded, as Mr. Robinson implies?
Shariah is a total
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 12:50 — Anonymous (not verified)Shariah is a total non-issue!
These folks who blab on & on about it are really just interested in prevented moderate Muslims from building a community center!
Scumbag bigots.
Only McCarthy types would
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 13:03 — Anonymous (not verified)Only McCarthy types would rave about the complete non-issue of "sharia law" in America while Christian fascists are assassinating doctors, founding mercenary outfits like Blackwater, and rewriting textbooks in public schools to suit their mythical, absolutist agenda. The real threat to the separation of church and state has always been homegrown.
KKKonfederate Law Sharia Law
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 13:14 — Kevin Schmidt (not verified)KKKonfederate Law
Sharia Law has nothing on bigoted KKKonfederate Law in the South, where blacks can't get fair trials with all white juries in mostly black counties:
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/114
By the way 17:44,
please stop lying about a judge who DID NOT apply Sharia Law, but instead and in error, applied the Constitutional right of religious freedom ("consistent with his practices"), which was rightfully eversed by a higher court.
So we are still waiting for one instance of Sharia Law being used in a standing verdict.
Meanwhile, how many Muslims are being persecuted and killed in Gitmo and other undisclosed US torture chambers for simply being Muslim? According to US Military and US Law, they are guilty until proven innocent. Does this not make our unconstitutional abridgment of Habeas Corpus for Muslims much more dangerous than some overblown mythical Sharia Law Boogyman?
Oh, wow, like I am just SO
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 13:15 — The Boy Who Cried Wolf (not verified)Oh, wow, like I am just SO SCARED that a two-thirds majority of Congress is going to AMEND OUR CONSTITUTION to impose SHARIAH LAW.
Scary times!
Good we have *honest people* like Newt Gingrich out there sounding the alarm for us. (They are all honest men in the GOP.)
Scary, scary, scary. So scary.
17:50 Is RAPE a total
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 13:18 — Anonymous (not verified)17:50 Is RAPE a total non-issue? Because that is the consequence of even one judge applying Sharia in this country.
18:14 "Consistent with his
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 13:30 — Anonymous (not verified)18:14 "Consistent with his practices", and his practices were "consistent with Sharia law". Some Muslims think they can follow Sharia law instead of US law. That is what this Muslim husband was "practicing".
According to the legal ruling, plaintiff said her husband always told her, "this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do."
So you think it is no problem that this poor woman had to wait a year for her restraining order and was most likely raped multiple times during that interval? You don't think it's worth a law disallowing Sharia to be considered in legal rulings, just to help prevent this and other travesties from occurring in the future?
Next time, it could be wife-beating. No problem, eh? A judge in Germany actually did rule a husband could beat his wife because it is legal under Islamic law. This could happen here, too. But what's a little wife-beating?
Since when does one criminal
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 13:57 — Anonymous (not verified)Since when does one criminal provide an excuse to pass a law against an entire group of people?
Punish the guilty, not the innocent--that's the way our system works.
This indiscriminate illogic also lies behind the opposition to the Islamic community center. All Muslims are being blamed for the actions of a few extremists. You might as well blame all men, since all the 9/11 terrorists were men.
The same could be done with Christians. Hold them all accountable for the actions of Eric Rudolph, Paul Hill, and Scott Roeder. After all, we're talking terrorists and assassins here who acted in the name of their "faith."
18:57 Who says passing a law
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 14:13 — Anonymous (not verified)18:57 Who says passing a law against Sharia is passing a law against an entire group of people? Americans are already supposed to be following US law, NOT Sharia! This should be obvious to everyone, but apparently not to some judges, which is why we need a law.
Ahhh yes, look at all of the
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 15:02 — Kevin Schmidt (not verified)Ahhh yes, look at all of the whiney, scardy cat anonymous Homer Simsons engorging themselves on Sharia Law donut holes. They love to feel the fear and blame it on Liberals and Democrats.
Meanwhile, this whole Chicken Little Balls scam was concocted by the same people who are eroding our constitutional rights with unconstitutional laws like the US Patriot Act, US Military Commissions Act, and the revised FISA Law. We no longer have Habeas Corpus, the President can incarcerate or murder anyone he wants without a trial, and he can declare war on any country without authorization from Congress. Since Obama refuses to prosecute Dubya/dick war crimes, US law no longer applies to the Executive Branch or the US Military.
But never mind all of that, because we now have 'Sharia Law Gone Wild!' Brought to you by the same dishonest Republicans who brought you the Teabaggers!
So the sheeple are easily led to the slaughter, again.
18:30 misplaced
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 15:16 — Kevin Schmidt (not verified)18:30 misplaced priorities
Is that what is important to you? One erroneous ruling against ONE woman, who apparently did not suffer from it anyway? We don't need another law, because the judge was overruled. Besides, how do you know the new law also won't be ignored? That's a big DUH to you!
But you're OK with the fact that our Constitutional rights have been eroded by both Republican and Democrats, which deeply effect all THREE HUNDRED MILLION PLUS people living in the US, not to mention the rest of the planet because of our illegal war mongering.
Please explain how the non-suffering of one woman is greater that the one million plus Iraqis we killed and the thousands of Muslims we tortured?
Please explain how Sharia Law is more barbaric and unjustly harms more people than US Law or Christian Law.
If you do respond, I want facts, not Homer Simpson donut holes.
18:14 is correct: "we are
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 15:27 — Anonymous (not verified)18:14 is correct: "we are still waiting for one instance of Sharia Law being used in a standing verdict." Meanwhile, 19:13 continues to deal in lies, sophistry, hypocrisy, and bigotry.
The Republicans, btw, just blocked a measure to end DADT. There's an example of true religious-based intolerance in this country. It comes from the same people who are scapegoating innocent Muslims--surprise, surprise.
Get this: Any minute the
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 15:39 — Anonymous (not verified)Get this: Any minute the U.S. Senate is going to vote to impose Shariah Law on the whole country! No doubt it will pass!
Incredible, isn't it, how Shariah Law is taking hold in a democratic republic with a Muslim population of less than 2%!
In fact, it's *so* IN-credible that one one might suspect it's a replay of the Salem witch trials, McCarthyism, and so on . . .
OK, I will concede 18:14 is
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 16:26 — Anonymous (not verified)OK, I will concede 18:14 is correct. This proposed law ruling out Sharia being applied is too narrow, It should rule out Sharia, the Koran, OR Islam being used in a courtroom to excuse behavior. That way some slippery lawyer can't come along and say "It wasn't Sharia, it was Islam that cause him to rape his wife!"
If you want an additional
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 17:26 — Anonymous (not verified)If you want an additional law ruling out religious influence, be sure to add Dominionism, the Bible, and Christianity.
But we do already have the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment--even if the Republicans prefer to ignore it.
Exactly 22:26! If they want
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 19:14 — Anonymous (not verified)Exactly 22:26!
If they want a law against Sharia Law, and for their law to be constitutional, they must accept a general law that outlaws ALL RELIGIOUS LAWS. But, we already have that in the First Amendment.
>>>'Congress shall make no
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 19:42 — Kevin Schmidt (not verified)>>>'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'<<<
So if the First Amendment outlaws Sharia Law and all other Religious Laws, then this entire line of discussion is moot. No new law is necessary.
I love the First Amendment. It works on sooooo many levels! Ironically in this case, it get some people to STFU.
Now about our Habeas Corpus Rights Mr. President, Congress and Supreme Court, WE THE PEOPLE "have the body", because WE THE PEOPLE are the body. The US Constitution may not be altered through Executive Action, Legislative Fiat, nor Judicial Decree.
Besides that, WE THE PEOPLE can petition anyone in the government for a redress of grievances anytime we want. We don't have to wait for elections, resignations, firings, impeachments, or convictions because WE THE PEOPLE, collectively through E Pluribus Unum, "Out of Many, We are One" sovereignty.
The first amendment only
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 20:32 — Anonymous (not verified)The first amendment only prevents Congress from making laws that establish a religion or prevent its free exercise. However, it does not prevent judges from considering Sharia, international law, and laws of other countries. The fact is that some activist judges have taken it upon themselves to consider these foreign laws in recent years.
For this reason, it would be a good idea to pass a law that says judges may not use any law that is not legislated by Congress, or the states. This would, of course, include Sharia and all religious law, which should be mentioned by name in the law forbidding their use in US courts. The law should also include sanctions against any judge who does consider non-US laws, and a speedy appeals process for such rulings, so the next rape victim does not have to wait a whole year to get a restraining order.
01:32, WRONG! If a judge
Wed, 09/22/2010 - 01:31 — Kevin Schmidt (not verified)01:32, WRONG!
If a judge based a verdict on Sharia law, he would indeed be violating the First Amendment by trying to establish a religion through judicial decree. So your argument is invalid.
And we do not need "a law that says judges may not use any law that is not legislated by Congress, or the states." By your own definition, it is not a law to begin with, so no judge would use it.
Big DUH to you, Homer! If you keep eating those donut holes, you will continue thinking about nothing!
Personally, I wonder how much longer the Muslim Gitmo victims will have to wait until they are released? So far, it's been almost a full decade.
Like I said before, Sharia law has nothing on the brutality or unfairness of US Law, especially now that much of the US Constitution has been illegally invalidated by all three treasonous branches of our federal government.
01:32 Hello! The First
Wed, 09/22/2010 - 10:58 — Anonymous (not verified)01:32 Hello!
The First Amendment reads: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.... It says nothing about judges. Judges are not Congresspeople, so the first amendment does not apply to them.
Judges are not supposed to make laws, but does that stop them? Of course not. They are also not supposed to cite laws that are not passed by Congress (such as international laws, foreign laws, etc.), but does that stop them? Of course not.
15:58 Hello! Please provide
Wed, 09/22/2010 - 17:28 — Kevin Schmidt (not verified)15:58 Hello!
Please provide one instance where a judge wrote a federal law. Don't bother, because there aren't any federal laws written by any federal judges in any federal court in the entire USA.
And how can a judge cite laws not passed by Congress? That would mean those laws are not laws at all, since they were not passed by Congress. So where are those nonlaw laws kept? Down in your rabbit hole I suspect. You certainly cannot provide a website or link to them.
Besides that, you should read the Constitution. Then you would know that only Congress can write federal laws, which of course, is their job in the first place. According to the Constitution, neither judges nor the president can write a federal law. So you don't need a redundant law for a law that is already written in the Constitution.
End of story!
You should go back to third grade civics class and learn something about the three branches of our federal government. But most likely Homer, you will go back to eating your donut holes and filling your head with a lot of nothing, again.
Newt is an idiot, but what
Wed, 09/22/2010 - 22:46 — Roland (not verified)Newt is an idiot, but what he says disguises a real problem. Sharia is bad law everywhere, but we need to recognize that a legal precedent has been set. The US govt. apparently believes its laws should apply worldwide. It kidnapped a Panamanian politician (Noriega). It extradited a Canadian citizen (Marc Emery) who has never been to the US, and did something that is legal in Canada. It even diverted a Canadian jetliner, removed a passenger, a Canadian citizen, and disappeared him to the Middle East for torture. Turns out he's innocent. The Canadian govt. apologized and settled his lawsuit. But several people in that situation have had their suits thrown out on grounds of "Natl. Security".
If (say) the Saudis want to extradite a US citizen for violating sharia, they could just as well claim their law has as much International validity as US law. Would you like to be extradited for violating sharia? The problem is the growing power (legal and otherwise) of the US govt.
If the discussion were about
Thu, 09/23/2010 - 18:29 — Candid Cameron (not verified)If the discussion were about a religion that permitted abuse of men by women, the legitimacy of that religion would be halted in a heartbeat. But as long as it is only women being sexually abused, murdered in "honor" killings, permitted to leave the house only in the company of a male family member, etc. who cares?
Sharia sucks. We can't do much about it in Islamic countries, but we can and should do everything to insure ANY instance of it being permitted here.
CC
chanel 2011
Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:19 — Opilttam (not verified)to buy chanel bags 2011 for more
burberry outlet
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 21:33 — sadafouh (not verified)buy burberry purse to take huge discount baLuPJxZ http://www.burberry--outlet.org/