National Review Comes Out for Sharia

19

JWHeaderAS3

National Review Comes Out for Sharia
by Robert Spencer

Last week National Review published an article by Matthew Schmitz, deputy editor of First Things, claiming that “the anti-sharia movement in this country…endangers our national security by alienating loyal Muslim citizens and assaults religious liberty.” It’s unfortunate, but not surprising, that a publication whose editors Ann Coulter long ago famously labeled “girly men” would take such an ill-informed and wrongheaded stance – a stance that ultimately threatens the freedom of all Americans.

Story continues below advertisement

Schmitz takes issue with Kansas for passing a new law that “forbids courts and agencies to respect contracts drawn up under ‘any law, legal code or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals’ if the legal system does not grant the same ‘fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas constitutions.’”

Sharia obviously does not grant those liberties, so what could possibly be wrong with that? Schmitz concedes that Islamic law “does not grant all the rights that the U.S. Constitution does,” but he goes on to claim that “neither does Christian canon law or Jewish Halakhic law (or English or French law, for that matter).” Islamic law mandates denial of basic rights to women and non-Muslims, severe restrictions on the freedom of speech, death for apostates, warfare against unbelievers, stonings for adultery, amputations for theft, female genital mutilation, and polygamy, while Catholic canon law, Jewish Halakhic law, and English and French law do not, but this does not seem to trouble Schmitz. His main point is not that other legal systems are just as restrictive and unjust as Sharia, but that Sharia should be allowed to figure in American legal decisions when to consider it would not contradict American law: why, he asks, should a court be prevented “from honoring a contract made under the provisions of one of these ‘foreign’ legal systems if the contract does not itself violate any U.S. or state regulations, laws, or constitutional provisions?”

Good question, but only if one accepts the talking points of Islamic supremacist groups in the U.S., such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). They claim that anti-Sharia laws would infringe upon Muslims’ First Amendment rights to practice their religion. As Schmitz puts it: “Under one reading of the Kansas law, a contract that makes reference to canon law or sharia — but is otherwise perfectly legal — would be thrown out, while an identical one that makes no such reference would be upheld.” The purpose of anti-Sharia laws, however, is not to stop Muslims from entering into voluntary contracts based on Sharia provisions that do not violate American law, but to stop the political and supremacist aspects of Islam that infringe upon the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims.

Schmitz does acknowledge that the Kansas law may be understood in a way that does not restrict Muslim religious practice that doesn’t conflict with American law: “The other possible reading of the law is that it only bars rulings based on foreign legal systems when the rulings themselves would violate constitutional rights. But in that case, as Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia Law School has argued, the law is meaningless, for courts will not tolerate or enforce violations of constitutional rights in any case.”

If that were true, there would be no problem. But it isn’t. Several years ago a New Jersey judge declined to charge a Muslim with sexual assault on his wife because under Sharia, a woman may not deny sex to her husband at any time under any circumstances. This remarkable introduction of Islamic law into American jurisprudence was overturned, but the initial decision showed that at least one American judge was all too willing to tolerate and enforce violations of constitutional rights. Schmitz dismisses this case as a “judicial error,” and ignores its larger implications.

There have been successful attempts by Muslim workers at meat packing plants in Nebraska and Colorado to force their employers to restructure the work schedule to give them special breaks at times for Islamic prayer. These efforts initially met with protests from non-Muslim workers, who complained to no avail that the special breaks given to Muslims forced the non-Muslims to work longer hours, and thus discriminated against them. The result? Muslims in these plants have special privileges that other workers do not have – in accord with the privileged status Muslims enjoy over non-Muslims in Sharia societies. No court challenge has been mounted to this religion-based discrimination, and if one were, it would be unlikely to succeed, as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has backed the Muslim employees.

Schmitz waves away concerns about such singular dispensations granted to Muslims in America and downplays the idea that “America faces a serious threat from ‘creeping sharia.’” Evidence for this, he claims, is “terribly thin,” although it is not surprising that he would think this, since he is indifferent to or unaware of the cases above and others like them. He also claims that Sharia “is not one rigid legal system but rather an immensely varied set of legal, cultural, and ethical understandings. It varies between countries and regions, encompassing social custom and dietary habits as well as what Westerners consider matters of law.”

This is a common assertion of Islamic supremacists in the U.S., but once again it founders on the facts: Sharia may be “immensely varied,” but no system of Sharia ever implemented at any time anywhere in the world has ever not mandated stonings, amputations, death for apostates, warfare against unbelievers, and all the other elements of Sharia that are incompatible with U.S. law and Western notions of human rights. Every time Islamic law has ever been implemented anywhere, it has these features. Only those ignorant of Islamic history and law, or wishing to deceive others as to their contents, could claim otherwise.

Schmitz worries that the anti-sharia movement “undermines our national security, in particular our ability to constructively engage peaceful Muslims and to take action against terrorists” and asserts that the movement carries the “implication that all Muslims are radicals.” His reasoning here is apparently that if one believes that Sharia contradicts human rights, because virtually all Muslims uphold Sharia, therefore “all Muslims are radicals.” In response, he claims that Sharia is endlessly variable and nebulous (it isn’t), and that no Muslims want to bring it here anyway (some do). And if we don’t join Schmitz in his denial of obvious facts, he tells us that we are amplifying “resentments” and fueling “hate,” and threatening “to turn our Muslim fellow citizens, and our Muslim allies abroad, against America.”

In other words, nobody wants Sharia here, and if they did, it wouldn’t matter anyway, because Sharia is nothing incompatible with American law, or if it is, those parts automatically won’t be able to gain a foothold here, despite activist judges who are openly enamored of foreign law and care little for the letter of Constitutional law. And if we try to stand up against Sharia, we risk turning peaceful, patriotic Muslims into jihad terrorists – so we better not stand up against Sharia, or else. The threat is clear, and monstrous.

Equally monstrous is Schmitz’s concluding characterization of anti-Sharia advocates as “anti-Muslim bigots.” It is not bigoted to stand up for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. It is not bigoted to stand up against a political and social system that Muslim women successfully led resistance to its being introduced even as a matter of private arbitration in Canada. It is not bigoted to stand for the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. National Review should have known better than to publish this anti-freedom piece. But the “girly men” obviously don’t.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Did Muhammad Exist?, is now available.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding. Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on
Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.

If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ApolloSpeaks
ApolloSpeaks
11 years ago

FIRST THINGS
Schmitz says that our national security is threatened by criticizing and opposing a regressive, totalitarian, medieval law diametrically and evilly opposed to our constitutional way of life that spreads hatred, oppression, subversion, violence, inhumanity and war? Schmitz forgets that the very First Thing, Cause and Principle of the universe is God: the source of our rights and liberties, and the idea that RIGHT IS MIGHT. Not Allah who is a projection of Islam’s will to domination and total power over women, Jews, Christians and every unbelieving infidel.

Jamadagnii
Jamadagnii
11 years ago

There was also a case recently in Pennsylvania where a man in a zombie Muhammad costume marching in a Halloween parade was assaulted, and the judge threw out the case, even with a police witness at the scene. The judge went on to lecture the victim about how ignorant he was to insult Islam.

drummerman
drummerman
11 years ago

What! Insane! William F. Buckley would fire this idiot right now.

Kufar Dawg
Kufar Dawg
11 years ago

Since Matthew Schmitz has such a high regard for Sharia law maybe he should pack up his stuff and move to any one of the wonderful islamofascist theocracies which infest the globe. Maybe Somalia, or Pakistain, or Afghanistan…

Danny
Danny
11 years ago

What part of assimlating into ones country does this idiot not understand? Sharia law has no place here. They want that, then leave and go back to whatever country open enforces that nonsense.
Maybe Schmitz should go to those countries that have such laws to see how great/wonderful it is…

infidel4life
infidel4life
11 years ago

William F. Buckley Jr. would be turning in his grave reading this. NR is now not just simply irrelevant, it has crossed the line into dangerous.

Macc
Macc
11 years ago

these are not “girly men!” These are subversives who have been allowed to infiltrate!
this is given the approval by senior editors!
NR needs to be ignored. No more hits on their site.

diana POLLIN
diana POLLIN
11 years ago

I was deeply shocked when I read the Schmitz article in the NRO, a forum of opinion otherwise worthy and reputable.
As every American pupil (used to) learn, the Constitution is the law of the land. Period. It is simply inconcevable that other laws should get “their day in court.” And, if a law needs to be amended, then it has to go through judicial channels. The greatness of America is its secular nature with one law for all. There is NO place for other codes, whatever their nature.
Thanks,
D

aprilnovember811
aprilnovember811
11 years ago

He needs to be informed that there are not separate laws in civil and criminal courts for any religion. They are free to practice their faith, but that doesn’t include separate laws being applied to them for contracts or crime and punishment. Someone send him a copy of the Constitution.

drummerman
drummerman
11 years ago

OT – More criminal/psychopathic behavior:
INDIAN MAN BEHEADS DAUGHTER IN RAGE OVER LIFESTYLE
It is inconceivable that a father would do this to his daughter. His punishment should be to experience the same manner of death.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/18/indian-man-beheads-daughter-in-rage-over-lifestyle/?test=latestnews

Occam's Tool
Occam's Tool
11 years ago

I am so glad I did not subscribe to First Things. I will no doubt get an offer again, and I will write of my dismay and condemnation of their comments.

Guy Macher
Guy Macher
11 years ago

Nothing stupider than an educated idiot.

Radegunda
Radegunda
11 years ago

“It is inconceivable that a father would do this to his daughter …” Inconceivable to the normal human. But Islam turns humans into beasts — while telling them they’re “the best of peoples.” Islam turns moral sickness into religion dogma.

Nothing_But_The_Truth
Nothing_But_The_Truth
11 years ago

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt interned the Japanese immigrants living inside America.
When Saudi and Egyptian Muslims attacked WTC in New York City, President George Bush II said, “Islam is a religion of peace.”
It is now apparent that American culture has shifted tremendously in favor of Islam since President Ronald Wilson Reagan came to the Oval Office.

Nothing_But_The_Truth
Nothing_But_The_Truth
11 years ago

In his second term, President Baraq Hussein, Jr. will nominate a so-called moderate Muslim judge to the United States Supreme Court to create parallel legal systems of Allah-made rules vs. men-made U.S. Constitution in America.
Also, in his second term, President Baraq Hussein, Jr. will force Israelis to accept pre-1967 border with their cannibalistic Muslim neighbors.
The world will be a very different place! Just allow 4 more years!!!

Laura
Laura
11 years ago

If I were a subscriber to National Review, I would cancel and I advise anyone who has a subscription to do so and tell them why.
Clearly, when it comes to fighting the stealth jihad, many conservatives have become part of the problem. Liberals deny there’s anything wrong with islam at all and blame islamic terrorism on ourselves and Israel. Some conservatives think that the problem only lies with “radical” islam and are waiting for the fabled masses of “moderate” muslims to save us.

Kufar Dawg
Kufar Dawg
11 years ago

I hate to say it but the Indian man who beheaded his daughter story is probably referring to a Sikh. Singh is a name practically synonymous w/the Sikh faith.

Arius
Arius
11 years ago

I guess I was on the right track when I cancelled my National Review subscription many years ago. National Review is hitting new lows.

Joy
Joy
11 years ago

There are many islamist subsersives – even within the heart of the Conservative Movment! That’s why it’s imperative that we keep a close watch on ALL suppositively “conservative” pundits – never can tell when one will drop the mask of Constitutional reason and reveal a face contorted with pisslamic crap.

Sponsored
Geller Report
Thanks for sharing!