By Bruce Bawer, PAJAMAS MEDIA
In recent years the New York Times has published more than its share of slippery apologias for Islam, but the op-ed it ran on September 2 in defense of sharia law was not only slippery but curiously feeble as well. Eliyahu Stern, an assistant professor of religious studies and history at Yale, harshly criticized the attempts currently underway in over a dozen U.S. states to pass legislation prohibiting the introduction in those jurisdictions of sharia courts. “Some of these efforts,” Stern lamented, “would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration….”
What to say about this? First, let’s be clear that even a sharia court whose authority was strictly confined to dietary and marital questions would be a matter for concern. Take marriage, for example. Under sharia, marriage is a very lopsided affair, rights-wise. A man can divorce his wife at will — all it takes is saying the words. (One sharia judge recently ruled that a brief text message from husband to wife is sufficient to end a marriage.) By contrast, a woman who wishes to split from her husband must submit to a lengthy and often very expensive process of litigation that may very well end with her being turned down and forced to return home. Under sharia, she has no automatic right to a divorce. (Indeed, under sharia she hardly has any right to anything.)
That said, however, to pretend that sharia law is concerned only with such relatively innocuous matters as dietary laws and marital quarrels is disingenuous in the extreme. Yes, some of those who are trying to introduce sharia courts in the U.S. indeed insist that they wish only to employ sharia to resolve disagreements in these and other harmless-sounding areas. But don’t fool yourself — once the door is open, the sky’s the limit. The whole premise of sharia, after all, is that it applies to everything in life — not just food and domestic quarrels. The notion of separating the state from religion is utterly alien to the spirit and the letter of sharia, which, as most readers of this site are already well aware, prescribes the death penalty for apostates, homosexuals, and adulteresses — and that’s just for starters.
Just take a glance at these excerpts from the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, ratified in 1990 by representatives of most of the world’s Muslim nations. They make it clear that, in Islam, sharia is all — its authority is universal and eternal, and it trumps any non-Islamic notion of human rights:
Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah-prescribed reason.
Every man shall have the right, within the framework of the Shari’ah, to free movement….
Everyone shall have the right to enjoy the fruits of his scientific, literary, artistic or technical labour of which he is the author; and he shall have the right to the protection of his moral and material interests stemming therefrom, provided it is not contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.
Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.
The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.
The Cairo Declaration, it should be noted, was a response to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Muslim countries rejected because it was inconsistent with sharia law. If Muslim leaders acknowledge that sharia is incompatible with Western concepts of human rights, why can’t Professor Stern acknowledge it, too?
@ yamit82:
Many pay lip service to the efficaciousness and even attach a reverence bordering on deification of the constitution but few even know what’s in it or the history behind it. Like where the concept of implied powers derives. Many cherry-pick phrases like some do the bible, then skip the rest.
When I hear people and politicians demanding a return to constitutional principles and hawking the American founders it tells me that most have no idea of what they are talking about. Many of the founders were greedy crooks and very immoral contemptuous characters. They didn’t pay their debts but pocketed all they could for themselves much like our current crop.
According to the constitution did states then and now have the constitutional right to secede? If they did then Lincoln was a monster who ignored the constitution. I paraphrase Jefferson that ” If any states wish to leave the union, god speed, they are our philosophical children”
Direct Election of Senators
Voters have elected their senators in the privacy of the voting booth since 1913. The framers of the Constitution, however, did not intend senators to be elected in this way, and included in Article I, section 3, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” The election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention established the precedent for state selection. The framers believed that in electing senators, state legislatures would cement their tie with the national government, which would increase the chances for ratifying the Constitution. They also expected that senators elected by state legislatures would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act: Woodrow Wilson
28th President of the United States
(March 4, 1913 to March 3, 1921)
1913 was an eventful year it seems.
Extrajudicial means if necessary to prevent or eliminate these courts.
@ yamit82:
what does this have to do with the creation of sharia courts?
@ Bruce D. Noyes:
The constitution was ignored and violated by even the writers before the ink was dry. Hamilton led the Charge, but Jefferson and Washington made political deal to enrich themselves at the expense of the constitution. They robbed and cheated to soldiers who fought and were paid in government promissory notes, now called treasuries. Congress at first refused to pay them but later decided they would but kept the news to themselves then they went up and down the coast to every community bought the bonds for pennies on the dollar and collected full face value later when the government paid out in full. All of the founders with few exceptions having insider insider knowledge used it.
Whiskey rebellion was interesting, it led to the inclusion of a standing army clause not for the defense of the nation but to collect whiskey taxes from the producers who didn’t want to pay. America conscripted 15k soldiers to enforce their whiskey tax.
The near deification of Americas founders is largely misplaced. They were when all was said and done just a bunch of greedy politicians with some exceptions. Most rejected Adam Smith and favored the time tested British mercantilism.
Awake! Awake! Fear, Fire, Foes!
If sharia law is excepted here (U.S.A.) it will be in violation of our Constitution, the First Amendment “the establishment of religion” sharia law is Religion.
C.R. Said:
The Netherlands was the first sovereign state to recognize same-sex “marriage”. But that may be repealed within a generation or two due to Muslim immigration.
One need only look at life in Islamic nations and in Europe to see the foolishness of supporting Sharia in any form here in America!
Eliyahu Stern is a good example of the typical self hating, USA hating, Israel hating and most of all God hating Marxist Jew–his pathetic manner of thinking is very common among Jews! Even worse Eliyahu Stern is in support of those who hate Jews, Israel and the USA–and if they ever got their wish of Sharia in America–they would be murdering Jews and Christians and anyone else who was not like them!