-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
To Each His Own Audience (…or Enemy)
March 29, 2013 | 11 comments
-
They Say They Want a Revolution
March 20, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Senate Access Shutdown
March 12, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
What is Sharia Law?
Sharia law is a familiar term to Muslims and non-Muslims, alike. Nearly every Republican candidate for president has vilified it. It’s been discussed in relevance to new “democracies” emerging in the Arab world. As a legal tradition, it generates monstrous resonance in matters relating to politics, terror and the normative timbre of international human rights. It’s been banned in 11 American states.
Yet, despite the fact that sharia law is bandied about by issue experts, elected officials and every single talking-head within the Beltway, from what I can tell, most folks don’t really know that much about it.
This is problematic.
It’s incredibly important that we understand exactly what we’re talking about — to recognize the opportunities and threats presented in dealings with sharia-inspired states in the Muslim world.
What are the sources of Sharia?
Sharia or the “divine law of Islam” is mostly derived from these two sources:
- The Quran (a.k.a. the Qu’ran, or the Qur’an, or the Koran, or the Korawn, etc., et al.)
- The Sunna (in layman’s terms, the teachings of the Prophet…)
AND…to a lesser extent, sharia also owes interpretive echoes to:
- Ijma’ (consensus of Muslims…the understanding of “consensus” is incredibly controversial)
- Qiyas (Reasoning based on Analogy…vast differences between Sunni and Shi’a deduction)
- Ijtihad (literally, a personal striving to deduce divine law…an individual’s interpretation of problems not covered in the Quran)
Can I buy a copy of Sharia Law at my local bookstore?
Nope. There’s a library of interpretation out there, so you can read the scholarly stuff, but there is no definitive, codified or monolithic conception of sharia. It isn’t written down like the dusty, old legal tomes you might find stealing shelf space in an attorney’s office. There is no universal interpretation. This is important.
Isn’t it evil?
Well, it sure can be used that way. I think it’s fair to say that many Americans associate sharia with medieval punishment that includes religiously sanctioned stoning, the amputation of limbs, and vicious lashings in response to mundane crimes like adultery or petty theft. Lots of Muslims view it this way, too. However, it’s all a matter of interpretation…mixed with a little cultural relevance.
Cultural interpretation has a lot to do with it and can account for why the Pashtunwali Taliban state doesn’t look anything like an ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse Malaysia despite the fact that both states find inspiration (of sorts) in sharia law.
Many Muslims hold a different view. In Islamic tradition, sharia is more positively understood as something that cultivates humanity. As a religious jurisprudence (or fiqh in Arabic), it is believed to be divinely revealed, and is supposed to serve as an antidote to a society where cultural ills are rife. From a more progressive sense, sharia is designed to free humanity to realize its potential.
So when does ever that happen?
It depends. One of the few things most all Islamic scholars agree on is that sharia can regulate all human actions and puts it into five categories: actions obligatory, actions recommended, actions allowed, actions disliked and actions that are flat out forbidden.
There’s a presumption that sharia is incompatible with Western liberal ideals. It’s supposedly irreconcilable with women’s rights, gender equality, private property, money lending, and freedom of speech.
Sadly, it’s got a lot less to do with the “law” and a lot more to do with the folks who are trying to unravel their divine guidance.
For the record, reformers exist who believe that new Islamic theory can produce a modernized Islamic law. We should work with them AND their secular allies against the rabid traditionalists.
What countries use sharia?
A bunch of them. Some might surprise you. But it’s less important to actually tally up the nations that incorporate elements of sharia as it is to consider how they use it. Some states just implement the legality to regulate basic family and business dealings. In other countries, it’s only deployed in certain regions. Then there are the outliers - states like Saudi Arabia and Iran that have employed a brutal interpretation to oppress and terrorize their citizens.
Will the proto-democracies of an “Arab Spring” use sharia?
Probably. A 2010 Pew poll conducted across the Arab world showed strong support for Islam in politics and for harsh punishments for petty crime. On the other hand, most of the Muslims polled (except those in our “ally” Pakistan) believed democracy is the best form of governance.
The sharia interpretation they implement is anybody’s guess..
So who decides what sharia looks like?
Well, there are five major schools of sharia law.
The Hanbali school is the most conservative. It’s the sort that allows a thief’s hand to be cut off in Saudi Arabia, or a woman to be stoned in Northern Nigeria. On the other hand, the Hanifi tradition is known for being the most liberal. Its focus is squared on reason and analogy. Hanafi adherents are dominant among Sunnis in Central Asia, Egypt, Pakistan, India, China, Turkey, the Balkans, and the Caucasus. The Maliki school is based on the practices of the folks living in Medina during Muhammad’s lifetime. Depending on your interpretation, this can prove a lot more progressive than it sounds. This discipline is most common in and around North Africa. The Shafi’I school is a relatively conservative movement that emphasizes the opinions of Muhammad’s friends and companions. Not to be forgotten is the Jafari school which is really only used by Shi’a Muslims.
Its range of interpretation can track from the sublime to the scary — see: “Iran, The Islamic Republic of.”
What does it pertain to?
It depends what country you’re talking about. Classical sharia covers all aspects of human life…it’s traditionally conceived into four parts, regarding worship, commercial deals, marriage/divorce, and penalties for breaking the rules.
However, not every country uses so broad an umbrella.
Sharia law was originally conceived to only apply to Muslims. Christians and Jews were afforded a special status, granted our shared Abrahamic roots. However, this has obviously not always proven the case.
Why should I care?
When the United States invaded Afghanistan to dislodge the Taliban, part of the reason we were given was to liberate those poor women from the barbaric abuse of sharia. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia won’t let women drive — let alone talk to men — but they remain our closest Arab ally.
Despite the fact that you’re apparently unqualified to run for the GOP nod if you’re not proactively campaigning against some sneaky Muslims installing a Taliban style theocracy under our collective noses, does anybody see that special relationship with Riyadh changing?
To be honest, I’m not terribly worried about this happening. I was similarly confident that a sharia compliant mortgage program designed to assist Muslim homebuyers in Minnesota didn’t present an existential threat to the American culture. It was just designed to sell houses. I’m not an alarmist and I can recognize that sharia isn’t inherently evil, even if the people who employ may be. Like any other religious law, it’s only as good as the people who wield it — any spiritual justification for political order and cultural identity can be dangerous.
It’s naïve to assume that sharia law will always be used for good, but equally worthwhile to demystify an assumed evil.
Who made you the expert?
Nobody, and I’m not pretending to be. But I’ve recently done a bunch of research for a peer reviewed academic article regarding the history of sharia, I specialize on Muslim political identity, I’ve lived in the “sharia” world and I figured it would be worth passing along some cursory information to develop the debate.
View all comments (62) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Reid Smith
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/27/sharia-101
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Casey Abell| 10.27.11 @ 9:32AM
Somebody tell Reid Smith about the anti-establishment clause in the First Amendment. He may have lived in the sharia world so long that he forgot about the Bill of Rights.
We don't have any religious law enforced by secular authorities in this country. And GOP candidates are completely correct in their opposition to any attempted enforcement of sharia in the U.S.
Zack| 10.27.11 @ 10:43AM
How exactly does the anti-establishment clause apply to Egypt, Afghanistan, or Pakistan? What impact does it have on "sharia compliant mortgages" offered by private entities? I don't see anything in this post advocating or defending imposition of sharia law by an American government.
Casey Abell| 10.27.11 @ 12:24PM
Smith whines that GOP candidates are "vilifying" sharia. All they're doing is saying that secular authorities in this country should never enforce sharia. If he thinks that's "vilification," he's...let's just say, wrong.
DRed| 10.27.11 @ 12:34PM
The first amendment clearly prevents that. The hysterical fear of Sharia being implemented in the US is ridiculous. Of course Sharia (as the author points out, that's a silly idea, because there's not one monolithic sharia) shouldn't be 'implemented' in America. Will some muslims here want it to be? Of course. But too bad for them.
Casey Abell| 10.27.11 @ 1:24PM
"Will some muslims here want it to be [sharia enforced by secular authorities]? Of course. But too bad for them."
Then why is it "vilifying" sharia for GOP candidates to point that out? Smith seems to have a problem with candidates following the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Too bad for him.
DRed| 10.27.11 @ 2:11PM
Because it's wildly unrealistic. There aren't many muslims in America and we have the first amendment. There is absolutely no chance of sharia (which sharia-I don't know) being imposed in America. So why is it even an issue? You don't think this country has more important problems to deal with?
SpiralArchitect| 10.27.11 @ 7:38PM
This is America & we have the Constitution...
I continually see the POTUS asserting his blatant disregard for all it entails.
More toward the topic -
Application & intent will produce the results that are the driving factors that will reap the labeling & stigma.
Parable:
There are many forms of guns but guns are not evil nor maligned.
Occam's Tool| 10.27.11 @ 11:24AM
Reid also belives that Israel should be replaced. He's a State Department tool. Personally, I'm sure he's a nice guy. But the State Department is a known pro-Arabist cesspool, from Marshall on.
mzk1| 10.27.11 @ 1:23PM
A shame, because I would tend to agree. I'm a religious Jew, and if I sue another religious Jew, I go to a religious court, which in fact is at least partly arbitration. I sign an arbitration agreement enforcable (with lots of exceptions) under american law (if I'm in the US).
Also, the Israeli Parliament, after working on it for half a century, finally came out with a code of civil law to replace the current mishmaskh or British, Turkish, and who knows what else. (It will be many years before it is in a form to actually be passed.) The point is, it is supposed to be based on traditinal Jewish law. But all the means is that it is strongly inspired by it, not that it actualizes Biblical/Talmudic law.
BTW, the courts CAN use Jewish law for certain purposes. Two pratical results:
1. Debtor's prisons were outlawed.
2. A man was convicted of marital rape, when Western law did not recognize that as a crime but Jewish law did.
mzk1| 10.27.11 @ 1:49PM
I mean the courts in Israel. And sorry about the typos.
JSNTMI| 10.27.11 @ 11:39AM
We don't have any religious law enforced by secular authorities in this country.
Just for starters:
http://www.google.com/search?q.....jewish+law
Casey Abell| 10.27.11 @ 12:25PM
Spare me the anti-Judaism screeds.
DRed| 10.27.11 @ 12:36PM
Factually, some orthodox Jewish communities here use religious courts to decide civil issues. You could do that with sharia, or with some sort of agreements based on the bible. It's a contract law issue, and it's perfectly legal.
mzk1| 10.27.11 @ 1:25PM
They're arbitration agreements, actually, and the American courts can override based on civil rights and stuff. In fact, even within rabbinic law it's arbitration, since the official level of evidence required would be hard to meet.
ncatty| 10.27.11 @ 9:51AM
Who gave as "part of the reason" for invading Afghanistan that it was to liberate Afghan women?
Harold | 10.27.11 @ 9:55AM
People have the right to believe in whatever they want. I think that Afghan women have the right to choose and they want to live exactly that way.
London
mzk1| 10.27.11 @ 1:50PM
I agree, but the Taliban were not enforcing what one would think of as normative Islam. I beleive htey were selling children into slavery.
Fast Johnny| 10.27.11 @ 10:06AM
The problem with Sharia as I, and I think many others as well, see it is that it is a form of religion that is inseperable from government. Many would say this is the same with Christian values and western style representative government, but this is not so. In the west, theology is mainly used to create morality and moral compass, not governing edicts. Sharia seems to me, to be used to create laws and governing principles that are meant to serve God (or in this case Allah) rather than the people. So with that said, the US and Europe (European future remains to be seen)would look something like it did during the Inquisition if we were to follow the same principles of Sharia.
Yes, that smacks of moral highground, but then again I don't see anyone following the code of honor killings, beheadings, jihads, public stonings, executions for blasphemy and fatwas around here. Well, the sharia followers that are here notwithstanding. There is one set of laws for Americans and we all have to abide by them, there is no place in this society for religious exemptions and alternative judgements. Everyone has to live by the laws of our country, even if they are not completely compatible with their faith. If this is not acceptable to certain religions then you are free to leave and free to pursue your happiness elsewhere, freedom of religion is not license to break or alter the laws of the land.
Dan| 10.27.11 @ 12:11PM
Additionally, while you mention that your post "smacks of moral highground", it must be admitted that sometimes there IS a moral high ground, and it is by no means arrogant or short-sighted to hold such a position when there is.
Fast Johnny| 10.28.11 @ 10:44AM
Yes Dan, you are correct in my estimation. That there is a such thing as a mroal highground, however it is very hard to convince the new left post-modernists that this is so. Part of the reason is the highly secular nature of the liberal mind, but that doesn't exclude that someone with the ability of free rational secular thought to show some moral compass. In many ways the resistance to allowing Sharia Law into the system is a no-brainer. Sharia law stands against just about every advance in the 'rights of man' (I mean all people, not just men) that has been brought about in the last 1000 years. It stands opposed to all those things that 'we hold self- evident'.
KML| 10.27.11 @ 10:43AM
This is all fine and dandy - I am so impressed with your worldly insight. I found your article interesting. I would say a couple of your statements were a bit condescending toward those of us in your article who may not believe that Sharia - especially if it were allowed in some amount or form, regardless of how small - would be harmless. I am suspicious of anyone who would have the American people look to any other country or foreign doctrine when it comes to how legal issues and matters are resolved in this country. The United States of America has its own set of laws and our own way of doing things from a legal standpoint - not to mention every other standpoint you can think of , and I could care less how things are done in Saudi Arabia, Cyprus, London, France, or anywhere else in the world. I believe it would be a very bad prescedent, and very dangerous, to incorporate Sharia into any part of the American legal system.
Zack| 10.27.11 @ 10:50AM
I think this was a great and important post that clarifies a lot. Thanks for posting this.
Ultimately, it seems that sharia law, like old testament law, is a code of ethics based on cultures from over a thousand years ago. To the extent that those systems influence modern law in the context of modern morals and standards, I don't see a problem (e.g. I don't have a problem with the 10 commandments being posted in a courtroom so long as the judge isn't trying to impose eye-for-an-eye or other punishments from Leviticus). The problem with sharia law, like the problem with a lot of Islamic issues, is that the extremists seem to get all the attention. Part of that is probably because of the media, but a large part of that is because moderate modern Muslims don't do enough to distinguish themselves from (and often seem overly sympathetic to) the extremists.
mzk1| 10.27.11 @ 1:40PM
I have to tell you, that we do not interpret "old testament law" the way you read it, and did not do so even thousands of years ago. The extremists are not only goign to mess it up for Moslems, but also for religious Jews, as they already have in France.
As I stated, Jewish law was used in Israel to convict a man of marital rape, when Western law did not consider it a crime.
Oh, I think Adultery should have a death penalty, but they are misunderstanding how it is to be done. More to the point, I think there are places where it is applied fairly - to both parties and with sufficient proof, and others, like Saudi Arabia, where it is misused.
Most of the nasty stuff, though, appears to be Arab Culture, not Islam.
mzk1| 10.27.11 @ 1:53PM
I meant that the Muslim extremists are messing it up for religious Jews. Judaism is by no means a tolerant religion, but the difference between it and Christianity/Islam is that Jews never wanted to take over the world. All we wanted was to be left alone in our little corner, and allow the messiah to do the internationalization.
jay| 10.29.11 @ 1:24AM
Do you believe that the legal position of women more cultural at this point than Islamic?
Ex: If a law was passed allowing women to own property today, would people sell women property?
To your legal example, is the value of a woman's word worth less because the law says it or because they just don't believe women?
mzk1| 10.29.11 @ 5:27PM
I was referring to things like honor killings. I suspect most Moslem countries do allow women to own property.
David T| 10.27.11 @ 2:07PM
Zack--"Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" established the principle of proportional justice that underpins our legal system today. Be thankful.
mzk1| 10.28.11 @ 8:05AM
Also, we always undetood it as monetary compensation. The main problem with appying Jewish law today is not that it is too strict, but that it is so lenient.
Of course, as I said, we aren't interested in taking over the world, unlike some other religions that I could name.
Zack| 10.28.11 @ 1:48PM
I can appreciate eye-for-an-eye's role in establishing proportion justice and I recognize that it was better than the alternative at the time (which generally amounted to death for an eye). Still, I don't want judges enforcing mutilations as punishments today. That' the problem with much of sharia law - it's attempting to enforce literal rules from the middle ages instead of the root principles.
mzk1| 10.29.11 @ 5:28PM
Just saying that thousands of years ago we interpreted "an eye for an eye" as monetary compensation.
Occam's Tool| 10.27.11 @ 11:28AM
Well, the way Sharia is commonly applied in areas of the West, it sure seems like there's a lot of honor killings.
Sorry, Reid. Sharia Delenda Est.
mzk1| 10.27.11 @ 1:27PM
I think that's more Arab culture than Islam. In my area it occurs more in the Druze areas than the Moslem ones. I truly believe that the Islam does not need a reformation, it needs to be interpreted differently within its own tradition. Vatican II, not Luther.
mzk1| 10.27.11 @ 1:33PM
I suspect that it mostly is applied by various civil agreements, as Jewish law is. I'm told that if you look up the NYC real estate agreeements, you will find a lot of contracts using a heter iska, which allows Jews to lend to each other at interest by structuring it as an investment. Every bank in Israel has one, as do a couple in the US.
pp999| 10.27.11 @ 11:45AM
Occam what's with your hard on for Reid? He's well versed in foreign policy re: the Middle East and his articles are as informative as they are well written. He strips off the American propaganda and leaves the reader with information needed to form their own opinion. Plus he has cool hair.
Occam's Twat| 10.27.11 @ 12:30PM
He strips off the American propaganda
You have answered your own question regarding OT's panty-bunching.
Melty| 10.27.11 @ 12:16PM
When is the next Phish show?
David W| 10.27.11 @ 12:32PM
Of course, every country, and I mean every country, that falls under Sharia, seems to not be a pleasant place for non-muslims to live. Why is that?
You can compare the Old Testament to the koran - there is stoning in both. However, how many instances of stoning, or honor killings, have you heard coming out of Israel? Or out of Jewish communities around the world (and don't forget the "he who is without sin cast the first stone" from JC)? Yet that appears to be a law not only cast in stone for muslims (pun intended) but is practiced on a seeming regular basis. Are the honor killings that have happened in the US been done by radicals? Or my true believers? What's the difference?
I've read some of the koran, and I've read several discussions of same. If someone is a good muslim they are not a good person. There are good people who happen to be muslim, but someone who takes the koran to heart and who wishes to imitate mohammed is not a good person.
Ryan| 10.27.11 @ 12:40PM
I think that the particular problem in England is that the sharia courts are SEPARATE from the regular judicial system. The separation is something that occurs because of the incompatibility with western values.
Our vigilance here needs to be against a separate court system for Muslims and the rest of Americans. It's part of the integration. Let 'em come to OUR courts with their Sharia legal theory and argue it there, and let it be cast out as invalid.
mzk1| 10.27.11 @ 1:31PM
England is much different from the US. It does make it easier for religious Jews, as well as making it harder for a husband to hold up his wife by refusing a divorce, somethign pretty much impossible to do anythign about (except via social pressure) in the US thanks to the first amendment.
You know that until pretty late, Jews in England controlled their own marriage and divorce. This meant that is was a lot easier to be divorced if you were Jewish, since English law heavily restricted it.
FishTaco | 10.27.11 @ 12:46PM
I dont LIKE them a rabs OR Reid Fancyboy SMITH
davod| 10.27.11 @ 1:13PM
Milquotoast.
PattyMor| 10.27.11 @ 1:41PM
I tried to watch a video of this Muslim woman being lashed. A couple of minutes and I couldn't take it any more. It was so barbaric and cruel; the poor woman just took it and the crowd watched. Revolting.
Jeff Lamana| 10.29.11 @ 10:21AM
aka, Friday night porn watching for Mr. Reid Smith.
Kingofthenet| 10.27.11 @ 1:58PM
The Jews have the same thing, it's called the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
Skippy| 10.28.11 @ 3:48PM
You cannot possibly be serious.
Wait a sec... hmm...Jew-hater...wiseass...huge ego...
Yep!
You're serious.
David T| 10.27.11 @ 2:16PM
Mr. Smith--Did Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch peer review your article?
essem| 10.27.11 @ 2:17PM
If you check out Reid Smith on google and add Islam, you find out that he makes part of his living doing sharia-compliant finance. Just sayin.
Reid Smith| 10.28.11 @ 10:23AM
Unfortunately, you've got me confused with the law firm "Reed Smith, LLP," a global enterprise of some 1600 attorneys in the States and Europe. They're ever so slightly more diversified than I am.
Wayne| 10.27.11 @ 5:28PM
In the United States a person is not bound to any religion. Therefore a religion has no hold on him. It has no legal standing to punish that person or compel him to do anything. So Sharia is an anathema to the US law and way of life, whether one considers them self Muslim or not. We are seeing sharia law penetrate Egypt at the expense of Coptic Christians. Sharia law is imcompatible with non-Muslim religions. It may be Democratic but it is a case of the majority terrorizing the minority. So it is natural for us to see no value to the US with Sharia law.
mzk1| 10.28.11 @ 8:07AM
Why can't Moslems privately solve their differences using Sharia, suing an arbitration agreement?
Fast Johnny| 10.28.11 @ 10:55AM
All beliefs of faith and religion are tolerated in the US as long as they fall within the parameters of US law. There is no room for any religion to follow any system of law other than that of this country. The important thing to remember, is that this does not prevent a religion from pursuing their agenda in relation to God, it means that everyone: Jews, Christians, Muslims and everyone else must consider themselves bound to practice their faiths within the confines of US law. Period. The process of doing things differently in ones own culture group is fine, just remember we are all bound by the same codified laws of the United States of America.
mzk1| 10.29.11 @ 5:36PM
I am losing you. Judaism is a system of civil, criminal, and religious law; the Bible is clear on this. No normal Orthodox Yeshiva has a course called "theology"; a lot of what we study is civil law; see the Bible for examples.
However, we have no intention of replacing American law or forcing our laws on non-Jews. If I wish to sue another Jew I go to a religious court. The only way I can get him to appear is social pressure, and the threat that the court will issue me permission to sue in a secular court, where he will likely be worse off.
Or are you saying that Catholic priests should be forced to marry off people divorced in secular courts?
KLV| 10.28.11 @ 4:03PM
Shariah Law and American State Courts
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Sharia_Law_And_American_State_Courts_1.4_06212011.pdf
KLV| 10.28.11 @ 4:03PM
Sharia Compliant Finance : Financing Our Own Demise?
by Gadi Adelman, Joy Brighton
http://www.weeklyblitz.net/584.....own-demise
Sharia for Dummies
By Nonie Darwish
http://bigpeace.com/ndarwish/2.....r-dummies/
KLV| 10.28.11 @ 4:04PM
It is easy to look at Sharia through the lens of some academic removed from reality. But what really matters is Sharia as it is put in practice and what a majority of Muslims believe.
Why the Muslim Brotherhood Will Win
By Doug Schoen
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion.....rhood-win/
Excerpt:
Put simply, Egyptians support Islam, its expanded role in the country's civic life, as well as Shariah.
A broad based analysis of Egyptian public opinion by Lisa Blaydes and Drew Linzerhow bears this conclusion out. They concluded that 60 percent of Egyptians have fundamentalist views, while just 20 percent are secular in their orientation.
Egyptians also support a more expansive role for Islam in Egyptian life. In Pew polling conducted last year, almost half (48 percent) say that Islam plays a large role in politics in Egypt, and an overwhelming majority – 85 percent – say Islam’s influence in politics is positive. Only 2 percent say its influence is negative. Not surprisingly, almost two-thirds of Egyptians told Zogby that Egyptian life would improve when clerics play a more central role in the political life of the country.
Egyptians also support the central elements of Shariah Law. For example, 84 percent say that apostates, or those who forsake Islam, should face the death penalty and 77 percent say thieves should have their hands cut off. A majority (54 percent) says men and women should be segregated in the workplace.
Further, the Egyptian people clearly support a political agenda that can only be described as radical. More than 7 in 10 said they were positive toward Iran getting nuclear weapons in a July 2010 Zogby Poll and close to 80 percent favor abrogating the Camp David accords with Israel.
A significant number of Egyptians are favorable to terrorist organizations, with close to half favorable to Hamas and one in five favorable to Al Qaeda.
Shariamerica: Islam, Obama, and the Establishment Clause
http://youtu.be/ErzxOz3Dzv8
mzk1| 10.29.11 @ 5:38PM
I have no problem with Sharia. I have a problem with people who are trying to kill me, as above. (I live in Israel.)
KLV| 10.28.11 @ 4:04PM
May Christians Preach Outside a Philadelphia Mosque?
http://www.americanthinker.com.....tside.html
Dearborn, Michigan: Muslims physically attack Christian groups
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011.....roups.html
KLV| 10.28.11 @ 4:05PM
"Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks. He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania."
Romney’s Religion Problem
Sharia is not about private faith, but public institutions.
By ANDREW C. McCARTHY
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....c-mccarthy
Excerpt:
“There are four salient points about Islamist ideology, and whoever would be our next president would do well to master them. First, it is not a fringe movement. It is mainstream Islam, the Islam that is propagated in American mosques, just as it is propagated in foreign capitals from northern Africa to eastern Asia, and from Ankara to Dar es Salaam. Minimizing it as if it were just the doctrine of al-Qaeda or Iran’s mullahs is foolish. Those factions are more brutal tactically, but strategically, they are no different — no more hostile to Western liberalism — than reputedly “moderate” groups that seek to impose sharia but are content to proceed incrementally.
Second, while religion is what makes sharia binding, the substance of sharia is not primarily, or even mostly, about spiritual life. It governs matters that, in the West, are considered secular concerns: civil and criminal law, economics and finance, the use of force, privacy, sexual preferences, social interaction between men and women, etc. Consequently, when a politician insists that American principles of religious liberty forbid us from inquiring into a Muslim’s beliefs, he is not just insulating spiritual principles; he is removing from scrutiny a plethora of matters that are not controlled by religion in pluralistic societies.
Third, a defining principle of sharia to which this mainstream interpretation of Islam adheres is that there can be no separation of mosque and state — of religious doctrine and civil society. It is not just that sharia features laws that are different from American laws; it is that this dominant form of Islam does not allow the Muslim to say, “Sharia is just for my private spiritual life, and I can otherwise ignore it — or at least put it aside — where it conflicts with laws in the secular sphere.” Where there is a conflict between American law and sharia, this mainstream interpretation of Islam calls for the Muslim to follow sharia and to labor to make sharia the law of the land.
Fourth, the divergence between sharia and American constitutional law is fundamental and unbridgeable. Apologists for Islam try mightily to obscure this fact. They pretend not only that a reformist brand of Islam is more prevalent than it actually is, but that, in this sugary “moderate” creed, sharia has no existence other than as an aspirational guide to private spirituality. This badly misses the point. The issue for America is not who is right about sharia; it is that most Muslims in the world accept the Islamist interpretation of sharia propounded by influential Muslim clerics and reject the smiley-face sharia on offer from Western politicians. When a woman is convicted of adultery in a country where sharia is binding, they don’t throw aspirations at her. They throw stones.
This widely accepted interpretation of sharia rejects the foundational principle of American law, that we are free to govern ourselves as we choose, irrespective of any religious code. Sharia rejects freedom of conscience (apostates from Islam face ostracism and death); freedom of speech (speech critical of Islam is considered blasphemy and punishable by death — and truth is not a defense); equality under the law (sharia systematically discriminates in favor of men over women and Muslims over non-Muslims); Western notions of privacy (homosexuality is a capital offense under sharia, which also rigorously regulates social interaction between the sexes in a manner that segregates and often oppresses women); the protection of private property (sharia nominally protects private property but the owner is considered a mere custodian of property that actually belongs to Allah, such that its use can be dictated by the Islamic state); and economic liberty (sharia condemns the charging of interest and agglomerations of wealth, which are seen as the exploitation of the have-nots by the haves). Moreover, sharia encourages both the use of violence when necessary to compel fidelity to Islamic norms and lying if it is helpful in advancing the mission of spreading Islam.
In our society, these are not religious issues. And contrary to Governor Romney’s palaver, the relevant questions do not involve “tolerance” and “respect” for Muslim spirituality. What is at stake are everyday matters of public life. Sovereignty over them belongs to the people, not to a code that styles itself as a religious belief system. A president cannot stick his head in the sand about that, under the guise of religious tolerance, and simultaneously preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
mzk1| 10.29.11 @ 5:50PM
I'm sorry, but it depends on attitude. The question is, can they say, "I believe Sharia is correct, but since I need to live at peace in a de facto Christian country, I will not attempt to enforce my idea of the proper law on others, and will obey the law of the country, using the laws of the land (arbitration agreements, contractual arrangements) to keep Sharia when my priniciples conflict with those of the country.
At the moment, I think American Moslems are willing to do this (as Jews do), most of them at any rate.
I note that some of the things he mentions were at one time considered proper in the US and certainly legal (I note he gets into the mythical right to privacy as in Rie v. Wade); we ought to encourage civil rights all over the world, but it's a bit silly to expect the whole world to follow the precise beliefs of 21st Century Christians.
A lot of the world (where I live- Israel - unfortuantely included) think the death penalty is immoral - should they be enforcing that on the US?
Ishmail | 10.30.11 @ 9:47AM
Reid "I sell sharia finance for a living" Smith surely knows anyone can buy a book detailing sharia law. So why didn't he disclose his obvious bias to sharia and the name of the book?
Reliance of the Traveller A translation of the classical manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Shari'ah) `Umdat as-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1386), in Arabic with facing English text