Anjem Choudary (center)
(This article was originally posted in Alexandria.)
There is a lot of discussion in the blogosphere in this country about sharia law and its possible impact in a Western society. I say in the blogosphere because the mainstream news media is afraid to talk about it. Not too long ago, I attended a speaking event at UCLA where the New York Ground Zero mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf stated that sharia law was perfectly in line with the US Consitution, a claim he has repeatedly made. (Even a decidedly pro-Rauf audience guffawed at that claim.)
Perhaps, we should look at a Western country that has already instituted sharia law in Muslim communities. That would be our "closest?" ally, Great Britain. (Hat tip to Paul Diamond writing in PJ Media)
Does anyone see the problem here? Just because a neighborhood is predominantly Muslim, how does that authorize anyone to enforce the behavior of non-Muslims who enter that area? (Don't tell me they shouldn't enter any particular area.) Even if you say it is just for Muslims, how does Britain concede the rights of Muslims who don't want to be subjected to sharia? Does this mean that a Muslim wife cannot complain to the police about domestic abuse? Does this mean that a Muslim woman has no property rights except as defined by her husband and some sharia court?
As I understand it, this applies to civil issues. The above examples I gave are civil issues. Yet, talk about the camel getting its nose under the tent. When do the Anjem Choudarys of the UK begin demanding the right to conduct honor-killings and death to gays and Muslim apostates? Chowdary openly proclaims that Islam will take over the UK and that all British subjects will be subject to sharia in all its harshest forms.
And British society "accommodates" this insanity. Look at the Archbishop of Canterbury, a jellyfish with a leftist past named Rowan Williams. He says sharia in the UK is "inevitable". Sure it is if everybody bows down in Submission.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
Here in America, we have something called the Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Yet, as we speak, Hillary Clinton, our secretary of state, is holding meetings with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a 57-member group within the UN that is pushing for a UN-imposed resolution that would call on member states to outlaw "Defamation of Religion" (Guess which one). Of course, we all agree that it is not a nice thing to do to defame anyone's religion, but to criminalize it-especially when Islamic terrorism and intolerance is on the march world-wide-and we can't even discuss it? Would it become a crime to write a blog posting about the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt or the persecution of Baha'i in Iran, or the hanging of gays in Iran? That is what the radical Islamists want. Already, if you do that in Europe, you are risking prosecution for hate speech. Just ask Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria.
You see, the Islamist drive is not just folks like Al Qaida trying to destroy the West through bombing attacks. There is also the "peaceful" movement to install a world-wide caliphate without bloodshed, a movement they realize might take decades or even generations. It is a slow and gradual process of Dawa, Taqqiya, interfaith meetings, conversion, demographic change, and change of laws especially to put an end to any negative discussion of Islam. Here in America, where we still have the First Amendment, the Islamists, represented by folks like CAIR, MPAC and the rest, decry "Islamophobia" and "bigotry" when their own intolerance is pointed out. Thus, to speak of the persecution of Copts in Egypt (by Muslims) is "bigotry".
And what happens when people in individual states like South Dakota and Oklahoma try to pass laws decalring that only the US Constitution will be the basis for our laws?
"Bigots.". "Islamophobes". Even our current Justice Department refuses to support any such law even if it only affirms the supremacy of the US Constitution against outside philosophies. We have more than one Supreme Court justice who thinks that it is fine to consider other "international" laws when considering American cases.
Let us also not forget that many of our Muslim immigrants came to America for freedom they did not enjoy in their home countries. They have varying degrees of devotion to religion. And now they are to be consigned to the tender mercies of sharia law and sharia courts within their own communities? I don't know the percentage of those who are in that category, but if there is only one person, that person must be afforded the same liberties we all enjoy in this country.
Many readers laugh at such alarmism. They say that our First Amendment and our Constitution would never permit sharia law to intrude. What they are really admitting without realizing it is that sharia is totally incompatible with our present-day laws-even if imam Rauf disagrees. Remember, however, that laws can be changed even if gradually and incrementally.
I imagine it was not too many years ago that the Brits were laughing at any suggestion that sharia would be allowed in their nation. Look at them now.