New York Times op-ed promotes Shariah law in U.S.
New York Times op-ed says Americans have nothing to fear from strict Islamic law.
Credits:
cbsnews.com
An op-ed at the New York Times by Eliyahu Stern says Americans have nothing to fear from Islamic law in the United States.
Lamenting that several states are "considering outlawing aspects of Shariah law," Stern writes:
But Stern argues that "Some of these efforts would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration, while others would go even further in stigmatizing Islamic life..."
What Stern forgets, however, is that the United States is not a theocracy, and while individuals may choose to practice religious doctrine in matters of diet and private life, other issues - like marriage and divorce - are covered by civil law passed by secular legislatures and arbitrated in civil courts.
Stern compares the animosity against Shariah law to 19th century European fears of Jewish law:
Jews in 19th century Europe were not bent on creating a global Jewish empire ruled by strict religious law.
After the events of September 11, 2001, Americans have every right to be concerned about integrating strict Islamic law in the United States, especially given that it flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution.
In its April 2011 issue, Townhall magazine's Kathy Jessup wrote about the influence Shariah law is already having in the United States:
"Given time," Stern adds, "American Muslims, like all other religious minorities before them, will adjust their legal and theological traditions, if necessary, to accord with American values."
He concludes:
Lamenting that several states are "considering outlawing aspects of Shariah law," Stern writes:
The crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority.A post at radicalislam.org describes Shariah law:
Under Sharia law, the clothes you wear, music you listen to, and television you watch would all be censored. Behavior in public is legally restricted and controlled. And Sharia is the ideal social system for those that preach Radical Islam. Sharia is an Arabic term referring to a legal framework to regulate public and private aspects of life based upon specific Islamic teachings. Sharia is an intolerant system that threatens the western ideals of “liberty and justice for all”. Sharia views non-Muslims as second class citizens, sanctions inequality between men and women, prescribes cruel and unusual punishments for crimes, and promotes a restrictive business environment that strangles the freedoms of capitalism.Stern cites a bill that recently passed the Tennessee General Assembly that defines sharia law as:
"...the set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts which are said to emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet Mohammed and which include directly or indirectly the encouragement of any person to support the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the United States or Tennessee Constitutions, or the destruction of the national existence of the United States or the sovereignty of this state, and which includes among other methods to achieve these ends, the likely use of imminent violence. Under this bill, any rule, precept, instruction, or edict arising directly from the extant rulings of any of the authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence of Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Ja'afariya, or Salafi, as those terms are used by sharia adherents, is prima facie sharia without any further evidentiary showing.Shariah law - based on religious concepts dating back to the seventh century - is used by countries like Iran to justify stoning of women who have been raped, or the execution of homosexuals.
But Stern argues that "Some of these efforts would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration, while others would go even further in stigmatizing Islamic life..."
What Stern forgets, however, is that the United States is not a theocracy, and while individuals may choose to practice religious doctrine in matters of diet and private life, other issues - like marriage and divorce - are covered by civil law passed by secular legislatures and arbitrated in civil courts.
Stern compares the animosity against Shariah law to 19th century European fears of Jewish law:
The suggestion that Shariah threatens American security is disturbingly reminiscent of the accusation, in 19th-century Europe, that Jewish religious law was seditious. In 1807, Napoleon convened an assembly of rabbinic authorities to address the question of whether Jewish law prevented Jews from being loyal citizens of the republic. (They said that it did not.)There is, however, one glaring difference.
Fear that Jewish law bred disloyalty was not limited to political elites; leading European philosophers also entertained the idea. Kant argued that the particularistic nature of “Jewish legislation” made Jews “hostile to all other peoples.” And Hegel contended that Jewish dietary rules and other Mosaic laws barred Jews from identifying with their fellow Prussians and called into question their ability to be civil servants.
Jews in 19th century Europe were not bent on creating a global Jewish empire ruled by strict religious law.
After the events of September 11, 2001, Americans have every right to be concerned about integrating strict Islamic law in the United States, especially given that it flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution.
In its April 2011 issue, Townhall magazine's Kathy Jessup wrote about the influence Shariah law is already having in the United States:
A judge refuses a protection order for a woman raped by her Muslim husband, ruling the man’s abuse is allowed under Shariah law.Last November, 70 percent voters in Oklahoma approved a measure banning the use of Shariah law in that state's court system. The proposal read, in part:
A cartoonist is in hiding after a tongue-in-cheek “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” promotion earned her a fatwa death order for violating a Shariah edict banning drawing the Muslim prophet’s image.
A Shariah-compliant investment fund is camouflaged as a charity and funnels more than $12 million to finance Hamas suicide bombers.
Not exactly shocking in some Muslim countries where strict adherence to centuries-old rules, based on Islamic teachings, shines a spotlight on stonings and beheadings.
But these occurred recently in the United States.
Now “honor killings,” publicly funded accommodations for Islamic prayer and billions in Wall Street investments linked to potentially dangerous terror activities are raising political and constitutional questions in America.
This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.The Blaze noted:
Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.
Shall the proposal be approved?
When the director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) challenged the amendment in court, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction, ruling the amendment could be interpreted to single out Shariah law and discredit Islam, violating the First Amendment.Stern writes that the mistrust Americans have of Muslims is "fueled by the notion that American Muslims are akin to certain extreme Muslim groups in the Middle East and in Europe," like those who brutally murdered nearly 3,000 innocent people on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Given time," Stern adds, "American Muslims, like all other religious minorities before them, will adjust their legal and theological traditions, if necessary, to accord with American values."
He concludes:
Anti-Shariah legislation fosters a hostile environment that will stymie the growth of America’s tolerant strand of Islam. The continuation of America’s pluralistic religious tradition depends on the ability to distinguish between punishing groups that support terror and blaming terrorist activities on a faith that represents roughly a quarter of the world’s population.Townhall magazine wondered:
Why is Islam sacred in the U.S. while other religions are frequently lampooned in cartoons and ridiculed in "art"? Are we, indeed, as some experts believe, already embracing de facto Shariah Law?Of course Muslims in America should have the same rights as everyone else under U.S. law. But they should not expect their religious law to take priority over the Constitution, nor should they expect special consideration based on their religion.
Janet Levy, a prolific writer on Islam and national security, says: "Our uniquely American virtues of tolerance and freedom have worked against us to produce intolerance and oppression. This has led to the stealthy introduction of Shariah Law and a climate in which criticisms of Mohammed and Islam are no longer possible without serious repercussions."
Are political correctness and moves to cool the osmosis of the American melting pot fundamentally changing us? Is the arena of ideas -- where Americans have historically tested competing beliefs -- being shut down so as not to offend?
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you like this article, you can follow Joe on Twitter @jnewby1956, visit his Facebook page, or click the Subscribe button to receive email updates when a new article is published.
No comments:
Post a Comment