Weekend Weasel: Sharia Apologists

Good morning Weasel Watchers! Welcome to another Weekend Weasel post shedding light on the worlds biggest weasels!

This week I invite you into a conversation that my wife had with a delusional liberal friend of the family; for anonymity lets call her “Muttonhead”.

This week’s topic, Sharia Law.

The Stance:

Wife: The expansion of Sharia law is a dangerous precedent that threatens all societies that don’t adhere to the tenants of Islamic law or submit to that theological worldview.

Muttonhead: Sharia law is nothing more than a way to arbitrate domestic squabbles; no different than Jewish law on both a constitutional and civil domestic level.

Having been through many of these conversations with Muttonhead I already knew where the argument was going before she got there. The myth that there is some sort of equivalence between Jewish law or even Catholic ecclesiastical doctrine is a common myth perpetuated by the left; a seed planted by pro-Sharia advocates as a part of the psychological war on all things not Islamic.

The term “useful idiot” was commonly used to refer to soviet sympathizers during the cold war (even though it originated much earlier). Today’s Sharia apologists are an extension of that sentiment although more dangerous in my estimation because the spread of Sharia is a worldwide phenomenon as is liberalism through ignorance.

On October 8, 2008 there was a debate between Frank Gaffney Jr., Ronald Regan’s Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security and Suhail Khan, President George Bush’s Assistant to the Secretary of Transportation for Security Policy. Khan has personal ties to Wahhabi mosques in California according to Gaffney , is associated with the Muslim brotherhood and is one of the main faces trying to promote the worldview that Sharia law is consistent with a “religion of peace” and as such the imposition of those laws does not violate the U.S. laws. Khan and his friends also are promoting the myth that Sharia Law is no different than Jewish law.

Gaffney’s side argues that there is a big difference between Sharia law and Jewish law and notes that the imposition of Sharia explicitly violates the primary federal sedition statute (i.e., 18 U.S.C. § 2385).

One of the the other people that participated in the debate was David Yerushalmi, General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy (a think tank lead by Gaffney). Yerushalmi has specialized in cases against CAIR, the Holy Land Foundation and other cases involving Sharia law.

In response to the debate Yerushalmi released a memo detailing the differences between Sharia law and other theocratic laws and how only one of them, Sharia, can be considered to be seditious; namely because Sharia law dictates that it is the highest law of the land, trumping all others. Yerushalmi also dispelled the myth that Sharia was this innocent sort of harmless domestic doctrine.

As you know, I have written extensively on the question of the practice or advocacy of Shariah by Shariah authorities as a violation of the primary federal sedition statute (i.e., 18 U.S.C. § 2385) on the grounds that throughout the long 1200-year history of the development of Shariah, and across all five major schools of Shariah jurisprudence, five salient facts are embedded in a deep consensus among all authoritative Shariah authorities:

[1] The telos or purpose of Shariah is submission. Shariah seeks to establish that Allah is the divine lawgiver and that no other law may properly exist but Allah’s law.

[2] Shariah seeks to achieve this goal through persuasion and other non-violent means. But when necessary and under certain prescribed circumstances the use of force and even full-scale war to achieve the dominance of Shariah worldwide is not only permissible, but obligatory. The use of force or war is termed Jihad.

[3] The goal of Shariah is to achieve submission to Allah’s law by converting or conquering the entire world and the methodology to achieve this end (by persuasion, by force and subjugation, or by murder) is extant doctrine and valid law by virtue of a universal consensus among the authoritative Shariah scholars throughout Islamic history.

[4] The doctrine of Jihad is foundational because it is based upon explicit verses in the Qur’an and the most authentic of canonical Sunna and it is considered a cornerstone of justice: until the infidels and polytheists are converted, subjugated, or murdered, their mischief and domination will continue to harm the Muslim nation. And,

[5] Jihad is conducted primarily through kinetic warfare but it includes other modalities such as propaganda and psychological warfare.

Naturally the left dismisses Yerushalmi as an agent of Israel. But facts are funny and liberals of the Daily Kos mindset are, well, stupid. There is no easy way around it.

Yerushalmi concludes:

Because Jihad necessarily advocates violence and the destruction of our representative, constitution-based government, the advocacy of Jihad by a Shariah authority presents a real and present danger. This is sedition when advocated from within our borders; an act of war when directed at us from foreign soil.

In explaining how the same doesn’t apply to Christian or Jewish laws Yerushalminotes the following:

Shariah, as it is described on its own terms, is fundamentally and critically unlike Jewish law and any form of Christian canon or ecclesiastical law. Specifically, because neither Jewish law (halacha) nor Christian canon or ecclesiastical law obligates the Jew or Christian, respectively, to violently impose theo-political tenets in lieu of the Constitution, there is simply no basis to apply the laws of sedition to the application of Jewish law or Christian dogma within private religious or commercial contexts. While Jews and Christians may advocate and petition their government for laws that reflect their moral and theological worldview (as may Muslims or atheists), neither Jewish law nor Christian dogma permits the forceful imposition of a theocracy in lieu of representative government or the replacement of our constitution with theocratic legislation.

Yeah, no kidding.

You don’t have to be an expert to grasp the differences between the religions or understand the very basic knowledge of the violence done in the name of Sharia law. All you have to do is look around.When was the last time you read of a movement based on Judaism or Catholicism that included beheading in the name God? When was the last time you read of gays being hung because they violated the teachings of the bible? How many Jewish courts actively advocate the chopping off of hands for theft? I could go on. Spare me the e-mails with the one off examples.

There is plenty of evidence however to to support the claim that these practices are common in the name of Sharia law; historical and recent.

In Iran gay men are routinely hung because homosexuality violates Sharia law. But this is not limited to Iran. In 2007 the BBC reported that 18 men were arrested and faced death for practicing sodomy in a hotel. Of course the BBC with it’s moronic liberal proclivities actually framed it as an extension of conservatism with the bizarre claim that this was an offshoot of Nigeria’s conservative society that considers homosexuality as taboo. See how twisted and bigoted this liberal gobbledygook is?

The defense of Sharia law by liberals is one of the most perplexing phenomenons of liberal ignorance. It is a direct contradiction of everything liberals claim to stand for, especially considering that it is liberals that most often shout from the highest mountain about gay rights. Yet the very same liberals turn a blind eye and somehow make excuses for these people while concurrently lobbing verbal attacks against Christians and conservatives; most of whom would prefer a live and let live approach to the gay lifestyle if not for the fact that they are attacked every day for simply not approving of it. This can also be seen in the left’s glorification of Che Guevera, a known executioner of gays.

This is where the left loses all credibility.

Whether it is ignorance or naivety the left certainly have become dupes; useful idiots.

The problem is that my friend Muttonhead is not alone in her beliefs. They are taught, spread by the hate machine on the internet where myth morphs into fact.

A perfect example is Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams who once again made the dubious claim that elements of Sharia law could be incorporated into British law. These are people that should know better. yet they are so blind by their liberalism that they will ignore the target painted squarely on their chests.

Look anywhere, find legitimate news articles as opposed to blogs if you must. It is easy to see that Sharia law is anything but this innocent religious rite of passage that is nothing more than a way to arbitrate domestic disagreements. That deranged point of view defies all logic.

At this point I must put all cards on the table. I have waged an intellectual Jihad against the left. I am done being nice about it as I view the left”s mindset as dangerous, misinformed and downright delusional. Their uninformed claims are an affront to all that we know and will have a negative impact on future generations of Americans. It is time they were called to the mat.

Here’s to you Muttonhead and all you other Sharia apologists. Welcome to the not so exclusive club of weasels as this week’s Weekend Weasel!


  1. How could you have left out the sickening practice of public stonings mostly against WOMEN. Muttonhead, with her feminist sensibilities, should be outraged that a religion is allowed to slaughter women for simply trying to explore their sexual freedom. I mean, I know Muttonhead thinks birth control should be available to all….what about those women? Their only form of birth control is “submit to your husband or face the stones in the public square”. What about the Muslimas rights to free love? What about their rights to “go wild” in Cancun on Spring Break if they should so choose? Do you think any Muslima living under Sharia has ever been able to trade a boob flash for a string of plastic beads? Talk about oppression! Muttonhead is not looking at the clear picture. Here are a group of women who have yet to be LIBERATED by liberal women! There’s actually something for feminists to do now! Go liberate the oppressed Muslimas! Liberate them from the stonings and the rape and the forced genital mutilation. Liberate them and send them to Marti Gras with the rest of the “liberated” women they did such a good job with here. But will any feminists stand up for the Muslimas? Ulikely. Because they are faced with the ultimate dilema. Human rights vs. tolerance. You can’t continue to be “tolerant” of the great religion of peace if you acknowledge that it partakes in human rights violations…and if you admit that it does in fact violate the rights of women and homosexuals, you then open that big can of worms I like to call, “Bush was right.”

  2. Amen Little Fox. Unfortunately there exists so many examples that we could fill volumes of texts up with documentation. Sadly that still wouldn’t get through to other muttonheads on the left.

    A common defense is what I like to call the sleight of hand shell game defense where the muttonheads fall back on the crusades; seemingly oblivious to the fact that the crusades were a response to the Muslim conquest of a majority of the Christian population at the time. A twofer in my book, having to go so far in time to justify Muslim aggression while getting it wrong in the first place. (and yes begging forgiveness from the victims of the crusades even though the left really isn’t connected to it in any way, shape or form).

    All in all the ignorance of the left is quite possibly the best tool our enemies have in transforming America from the world’s greatest superpower into a feeble defenseless nation. The left prefers that we are the least common denominator.

  3. Western feminists don’t care about women in Islam, it’s obvious. They have had years of chances to voice their protest — nothing but silence from them.

    The West if full of these useful idiots, and out present administration is also full of them and those with close attachments to Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood. Very scary.

  4. Hi Debbie, Tell me about it. It is clear that Western feminists were concerned solely with self promotion and carefully selected agenda. Having achieved much of what they sought out to get they today’s elder stateswomen of feminism decided to forgo other societies whose women are much more oppressed than they were as young girls in the sixties.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Cheat Seeking Missiles » Sharia Just A Way To Arbitrate Domestic Squabbles?

Comments are closed.