The Idiocy of the Anti-Sharia Crowd
In a seldom-heard perspective, a Saudi Arabia-based journalist speaks out against those who oppose Islamic law, and points out the little-known facts about the controversial punishment of death by stoning.
For those following the idiotic allegations that Sharia is creeping into American society and wonder who speaks for Islam, I think the answer is obvious. Western extremists are now the new hijackers of Islam. They have adopted the language of Islamic terrorists, interpreted the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) into something unrecognisable to Muslims and cherry-pick aspects of Sharia to offer interpretations in a vacuum.
Muslims may think that Osama bin Laden perverted the true meaning of Islam, but Newt Gingrich, Geert Wilders and their slavish sycophants Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller make Al-Qaeda look like amateurs in the art of deception.
Recently, a peculiar document titled the "Shariah: The Threat to America" was published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. The Center for Security Policy purports to be a non-partisan group, but only ultra-conservatives authored the 352-page report. The report's objectives are to explain how Muslims are conspiring to supplant American jurisprudence and the U.S. Constitution with Sharia. Yet not a single Muslim or non-Muslim Islamic scholar was consulted. Only one of its 19 authors claims to have a degree in theology. His biography, though, makes no mention of what kind of degree. We are supposed to take their word that they are the experts.
These self-proclaimed experts ignore the principles of Sharia that make Islamic values compatible with democratic societies. Indeed, the principles of Sharia are also found in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and predate these documents by more than a millennia. These Sharia principles ensure the freedom of religion, the preservation of human life and family, the guarantee of an education and the pursuit of economic security and justice through commerce.
Rather than focus on what Sharia has in common with American values, the report gives considerable space to a 19-year-old Muslim Brotherhood document that reportedly seeks to implement Sharia in the United States. Although the authors give much credence to this document, most American Muslims view the Muslim Brotherhood in the abstract with little relevance in their lives. The report fails to address the question of how the Muslim Brotherhood, which struggles for credibility in Muslim countries, can have a foothold in Podunk, Idaho.
The report cleverly addresses the more sensational aspects of Sharia: stoning, amputations, lashings and taqiyya. Taqiyya, according to Western extremists, means that Muslims can lie with impunity to hide their true agenda of global domination. I must admit that this is a clever tactic because anyone believing in this nonsense can conveniently disregard as a lie any Muslim argument that is contrary the Western extremist position. Interestingly, the Robert Spencers of the world insist we denounce terrorism and renounce Sharia. Yet their position is that all Muslims are liars, so what's the point of making these futile arguments?
Taqiyya refers to a single incident in the Qur'an in which a man concealed his religious faith when forced to renounce Islam while being tortured. If anything, recent history has taught us that anyone will lie under the threat of torture. But we are led to believe that this single incident in this context is the foundation of an Islamic strategy to impose Sharia.
The Center for Security Policy wants Americans to think that stoning and amputations are around the corner, but the report can't quite explain why stonings are so rare and the streets of Saudi Arabia and Iran are not filled with one-armed thieves.
What non-Muslim Sharia "experts" fail to mention is that stoning a person who commits adultery requires four eyewitnesses to the actual act of sexual intercourse. This fantastical burden of proof is almost impossible to fulfill.
The Qur'an never mentions stoning as a punishment and there are conflicting interpretations of the Prophet's involvement in implementing it. The most common interpretation is of a woman consumed with guilt over an adulterous affair that resulted in a child. She pestered the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) literally for years for him to wash away her sins with a death sentence. He refused, but when he could no longer find an excuse to send her away, he reluctantly agreed to punish her.
What non-Muslim Sharia "experts" fail to mention is that stoning a person who commits adultery requires four eyewitnesses to the actual act of sexual intercourse. This fantastical burden of proof is almost impossible to fulfill. And rightly so. It's designed as prevention, not an actual punishment. Allegations of adultery are easy to make but virtually impossible to prove. Sharia makes stoning extremely unlikely to carry out.
The threat by the Iranian government to stone to death Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani on a conviction of adultery is not based on the evidence of four eyewitnesses, but on a judicial authority determined to inflict fear and intimidation on the Iranian population. It's not Sharia.
As a Muslim, I adhere to Sharia in my personal life.
The anti-Muslim contingent points to wobbly examples that Sharia has infiltrated western judicial system. In 2009, a New Jersey judge denied a Muslim woman's request for a restraining order against her estranged husband because the abusive husband was following his Muslim beliefs. A similar case occurred in Germany in which a judge cited Qur'anic Verse 4:34 that permits husbands to strike their wives. The higher courts overturned the rulings in a clear message that the rule of law supersedes religious principles.
Another example of creeping Sharia, according to the anti-Muslim crowd, is the use of Sharia as private arbitration in domestic and civil cases. In these cases, Muslims agree in advance to the decision made by a panel of community leaders. This method of justice, almost identical to Beth Din employed in Jewish communities for more than a century, is permitted in England under the Arbitration Act of 1996. Outlawing Sharia as private arbitration would also require governments to ban Beth Din and administrative arbitration hearings enjoyed by private businesses and public agencies in the United States and the United Kingdom. The judicial system will collapse under the tens of thousands of additional domestic and civil cases added to the calendar and deprive individuals of their day in court.
What's more disturbing than judges making erroneous rulings is Westerners lacking confidence in their own laws and constitutions. Implementing Sharia is impossible yet somehow is a hairsbreadth away from becoming a new constitutional amendment.