It’s expected from Associated with terrorists Press, al Reuters, BBC, WAPO, etc. And so it creeps. via Washington Times.
The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East has caused many Americans to reflect on that group’s stated ambition to impose worldwide the totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine known as Shariah. Particularly unsettling is evidence of the group’s goal in America, namely of “destroying Western civilization from within,” as documented in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas in 2008.
For some prominent conservatives, however, such facts are not just inconvenient. They – and any who point them out – must be denied, ignored or suppressed.
The latest examples involve a pair of articles published in two of the right’s most prominent online outlets: Townhall and National Review Online. The former recently distributed an essay by Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman. He was joined on June 13 by Matthew Schmitz in NRO. Both caricatured the “bogus” threat of “creeping Shariah” as a figment of the superheated imagination of its American opponents.
Mr. Schmitz went further, wrongly describing Shariah as “not one rigid legal system but rather an immensely varied set of legal, cultural and ethical understandings.” In fact, Shariah as practiced by mainstream Islam is, indeed, one very rigid legal system that simply has been enforced to varying degrees around the Muslim world. Its Brotherhood adherents and others are aggressively seeking to impose conformity with all of its tenets in Egypt, Iraq, Indonesia and, in due course, here. Mr. Schmitz even went so far as to describe those determined to resist that last prospect as “anti-Muslim bigots” who are “undermin[ing] our national security.”
Specifically, Mr. Chapman and Mr. Schmitz find fault with those of us supporting state-level legislation aimed at countering stealthy civilization jihad in U.S. courts. It is known as American Law for American Courts (ALAC) – a statute already enacted in four states and under consideration in many more. ALAC would prevent foreign laws, including but not limited to Shariah, from being used in court to deny constitutional rights. Incredibly, Mr. Chapman and Mr. Schmitz contend that such laws are a threat to religious freedom in this country.
Unfortunately, these pundits are not the only conservatives hostile to admonitions about Shariah’s advent in America. As documented in a new Center for Security Policy online curriculum titled “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within” (MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com) some actually are enabling the Brotherhood’s influence operations. This is done through sponsorship of its operatives, facilitation of their access to other conservatives, and promotion of their agendas.
Sadly, still other conservatives appear determined to remain willfully blind to such behavior. They have engaged in purges from some of the right’s conclaves. They also have sought to suppress warnings and assiduously deny that the Brotherhood is “inside the wire.”
The good news is that five leading members of Congress recently joined the ranks of those determined to expose the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence operations and counter their effect on government policy and the danger they pose to our Constitution and freedoms.
Read it all.
Robert Spencer takes Schmitz and NRO to task as well. A snippet:
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.