You need sharia for that!

At National Review Andrew McCarthy suggests John Kerry

might want to review the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan before lecturing Israel.

Kerry did not mention that Jordan was never subjected to international pressure to grant the Palestinians their own state during the 19 years that Jordan occupied Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem; nor did he acknowledge that the Palestinians would long ago have had their own state if they had recognized Israel’s right to exist and abandoned jihadist terror.

I thought it might be interesting, then, to review the Constitution of Afghanistan, which the State Department had a major role in drafting. Here are Articles One through Three: Article One: Afghanistan shall be an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state. Article Two: The sacred religion of Islam is the religion of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Followers of other faiths shall be free within the bounds of law in the exercise and performance of their religious rituals. Article Three: No law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan.

...Then there is the Constitution of Iraq, the drafting of which the State Department similarly oversaw.

...First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation: A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established. B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established. C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established. Second: This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice such as Christians, Yazedis, and Mandi Sabeans. Note that second clause carefully. It assures that Iraq will maintain its Islamic identity no matter what. It further reaffirms that, when it comes to an Islamic country, the State Department believes a country can be fiercely Muslim in character, yet be a democratic republic that respects the rights of religious minorities.

Of course, as things have worked out, we’ve seen that even Muslim minorities are not granted equal rights in these “Islamic democracies.” Concurrently, we watch Turkey, which gets less democratic and less respectful of minority rights as it becomes more Islamic. It is only in Israel, a Jewish state, that Muslims live with full democratic rights.

Yet, in Obama-world, Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic. Evidently, you need sharia for that.

Read more here.

"I'm a Muslim. I prefer Sharia law."

Support for Sharia in the twin cities.

h/t National Review

CNN tries to convince us Sharia law is a good thing

CNN tries to explain Sharia Law here. But it leaves out a few things.

War on women

Richard Pollock reports at Daily Caller,

Former President Bill Clinton collected $5.6 million in fees from GEMS Education, a Dubai-based company that teaches Sharia Law through its network of more than 100 schools in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation.

The company’s finances strictly adhere to “Sharia Finance,” which includes giving “zakat,” a religious tax of which one-eighth of the proceeds is dedicated to funding Islamic jihad.

The company also contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

...Sharia law is the Islamic religious legal system that many in the West see as intolerant of human rights and other religions, as well as violating the rights of women and gays. Sharia law is considered by Muslims to be superior to all secular authorities. Islamic jihadis regularly call for the imposition of Sharia law and want to impose it on the West.

Saudi Arabia is where Wahabism, the strictest form of Sharia, is observed. The Middle Eastern kingdom bars women from driving cars, requires women to wear the strictest form of the hijab, which covers everything but the eyes and hands. Gay men and women are persecuted in Saudi Arabia.

Read more here.

“An Islam of Their Very Own.”

Andrew McCarthy writes at National Review,

...there is abundant Washington and media speculation that the attack is “ISIS-inspired.” This is consistent with the bipartisan, government-approved inanity we have been following for a quarter-century, what I often call the political class’s concoction of “An Islam of Their Very Own.” It goes something like this:

Islam is a religion of peace, period. End of discussion. “Violent extremist” outfits such as ISIS and al-Qaeda kill wantonly, with no real ideological motivation. ISIS and al-Qaeda are thus not Islamic, but actually anti-Islamic — and if they cite Islamic scripture to justify their atrocities, they are “hijacking” and “perverting” Islam. Because we must see these groups as “anti-Islam” rather than Islam, it is acceptable to call a mass-murder attack “terrorism” only if law-enforcement develops some plausible tie to these groups. Otherwise, if a Muslim is involved, stick with “workplace violence” and the like. Finally when an attack committed by a Muslim is too obviously terrorism to deny, call it “ISIS-inspired,” or “al-Qaeda-inspired,” or “Hamas political resistance,” etc. — but by all means do not, absolutely do not, ascribe it to Islam in any way shape or form.

This is idiocy. Will today’s event, the worst mass shooting in American history, help us see that?

...The mandate that homosexuals be killed is not from ISIS or al-Qaeda. It is from sharia — which draws on Muslim scripture.

McCarthy goes on to cite many examples from Islamic teachings about homosexuality.

The inspiration for Muslims to brutalize and mass murder gay people does not come from ISIS. It is deeply rooted in Islamic law, affirmed by many of Islam’s most renowned scholars. This is why, wherever sharia is the law, homosexuals are persecuted and killed. See, for instance, this 2014 Washington Post report listing ten Muslim countries where homosexuality may be punished by death (Yemen, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Iraq — notwithstanding its new, U.S.-supported constitution).

As I have argued before, while a categorical ban on Muslim immigration would be bad policy, our immigration law must distinguish between Islam the religion and Islamism, the sharia-supremacist political ideology, which tends to grow strong support wherever Muslims form a critical mass. There absolutely should be severe restrictions on immigration from countries, regions, and communities (e.g., in Europe) in which sharia standards are de jure or de facto imposed.

The problem with mass immigration from sharia enclaves is not merely that trained terrorists may infiltrate the immigrant population. It is that sharia-adherent, assimilation-resistant Muslims will form sharia enclaves in the U.S., as they have throughout Europe, where young Muslims will be “radicalized” under our noses in the years to come.

Read more here.

Sounds like Trump to me

Roger L. Simon doesn't want to follow Trump's lead on dealing with Muslims, because that would "violate the principles of our nation." So what ideas does Simon put forth at PJ Media?

Most of all, we must outlaw Sharia. Sharia law, with its institutionalized doctrinal misogyny and homophobia as well as its primacy of mosque over state (not to mention cruel and unusual punishments for adultery, etc.), is completely inconsistent with our Constitution and the values of our country and Western civilization. Further, adherence to Sharia encourages the lack of assimilation, the self-ghettoization, endemic to much of our Muslim population. This resistance to assimilation creates insular communities that form the equivalent of petri dishes for jihadist terror. This must be ended if Muslims are to stay here as participating members of our society.

When immigrants arrive, they must be made aware of all this explicitly and at length and pledge in writing not to observe Sharia, if they wish to remain in America. This should be accompanied by a warning that those who continue to follow Sharia will be summarily expelled from the U.S. Yes, a number will lie, but once a few have been sent home, the message will get across.

Further, any mosques that preach the primacy of Sharia should be closed down as in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

As a precedent, the Communist Party was made illegal in the United States because it advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. Sharia-based Islam is at least as bad and arguably worse in its calls for world domination through jihad.

Those Muslims who follow the laws of our country should be free to stay here and welcomed into our communities, not into Islamic ghettoes like Hamtramck. Unfortunately, only a small number of Muslims so far have shown themselves to be true "moderates" able to stand up overtly to the jihadists. Perhaps some stringent legislation could encourage more to come out. At the very least, if we are truly strict with our vetting process, we can all feel more comfortable with those that are here -- and they with us.

Sounds like Trump to me!

Suppressing all discussion of Islam

Andrew McCarthy notes at National Review,

Hard on the manufactured controversy over what Donald Trump did not say about President Obama and Islam, we now have a controversy over what Ben Carson clearly did say about Islam – namely, that he does not believe it is consistent with the U.S. Constitution and that he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”

These assertions would not be nearly as hotly debated if the political class and the media had not sought for decades to suppress all discussion of Islam – other than mindless blather about its being a “religion of peace.” If we had been having the adult discussion we should have been having, it would be well understood by now that Islam is not merely a religion but a comprehensive societal framework with its own legal system.

Why is that important to grasp? Because in the West, we recognize a division between the spiritual realm and political life – a division reflected in our Constitution. Mainstream Islam recognizes no such separation. While Islam unquestionably has tenets that we would recognize as religious in nature (e.g., the oneness of Allah), it is also teeming with rules that control law, governance, the economy, military affairs, social life, hygiene – virtually everything we see as the realm of politics and self-determination.

Islam’s sharia is a code premised on the principles that Allah has prescribed the ideal way for human life to be lived; that people are required to submit to that prescription; and that Islamic governments exist to enforce that requirement. Our Constitution, to the contrary, is premised on the principles that we are free to choose how we will live; the laws we make are not required to comply with the principles of any religion; and that government is our servant, not our master.

...Islamic law rejects the premise that people are free to govern themselves as they choose, rejects freedom of conscience, rejects freedom of speech, rejects equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, rejects equality between men and women, justifies wars of aggression against non-Muslims, and rejects our safeguards of liberty and privacy – prescribing draconian penalties, often including death, for apostasy, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, and other personal choices.

When we discuss “Islam,” it should be assumed that we are talking about both a religion and a political-social ideology.

...What Carson said should not be controversial. That it is says more about the state of our politics than it does about Carson.

Read more here.

Pamela Geller fires back at Donald Trump

Pamela writes,

Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule without any opposition being possible, for all others will be living in fear, curtailing their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others.

Islamic law forbids criticism of Islam, Quran, and Muhammad. If they cannot be criticized in the United States, then we are in effect accepting Islamic law as overriding the freedom of speech. Is that what Donald Trump wants? This would establish Muslims as a protected class and prevent honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism.

The fact is that Donald Trump struck a chord when he spoke out on immigration. He said a lot of things that a lot of people are thinking, and the fact is that immigration is a critical issue, particularly now, with our national security hanging by a thread.

But he’s wrong on the First Amendment. He’s wrong on the cornerstone of our democracy. The freedom of speech is elemental. If he doesn’t get that, he couldn’t possibly be a good President.

America would be hard-pressed to trust a President with extensive investments in sharia nations.

Read more here.

The art of Constitutional torture

Kevin Williamson writes about Ayatollah Roberts and His Sharia Council at National Review.

In the matter of the so-called Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the law must not say what it in fact does say because it would be better if it were not to say what it says and were to say something else instead. In the matter of same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court rules that the law must say what it does not say because it would be better if it were to say what it does not say instead of what it says. Which is to say, the Supreme Court has firmly established that it does not matter what the law says or does not say — what matters is what they want.

That texts may be imaginatively interpreted to any end is not news — “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose,” as William Shakespeare observed in The Merchant of Venice. The legendary constitutional scholar Barack Obama failed to notice, until the day before yesterday, that the Constitution mandates the legalization of homosexual marriage from sea to shining sea, but, to be fair, that is an easy provision to overlook, even for a mind as keen as Barack Obama’s, since the Constitution does not say one word about marriage, much less about the state-level codification of homosexual couplings being a fundamental federal right.

Constitutional torture is an art, and Chief Justice John Roberts has emerged as its Andy Warhol: an impresario who will put his name on anything.

It is uncomfortable to think about, but our Supreme Court functions in much the same way as Iran’s Guardian Council: It is a supralegislative body of purported scholars, distinguished by ceremonial black robes, that imaginatively applies ancient doctrines “conscious of the present needs and the issues of the day,” as the ayatollahs over there and over here both put it, deciding — discovering! — what is mandatory and what is forbidden as the shifting currents of politics dictate. The main difference is that the Iranians take their sharia rather more seriously than we take our constitutional law: John Roberts’s opinion in Burwell wasn’t just wrong — wrong can be forgiven — it was embarrassing, craven, and intellectually indefensible. Antonin Scalia was right to let him have it with both barrels, but he’d do better to resign from the Supreme Court — it is difficult to see how an honorable man could be associated with it.

...the idea that lurking in the penumbras of our 18th-century Constitution is a fundamental national right to gay marriage is simply preposterous. It is not there. It is a fiction, and, just like the Harry Potter novels, the fact that it is very, very popular does not mean that it is not fiction.

That the chief justice went one way on health care and another on marriage tells us nothing at all about the law or the Constitution: It tells us about John Roberts. And that is the problem. Asked what he thought about Western civilization, Mohandas K. Gandhi supposedly quipped that he thought it would be a good idea. Conservatives, if we’re being honest, might say the same about the rule of law. It would be a good idea, at least an interesting experiment. For the moment, though, there’s only power, the men who have it, and the things they do with it.

Read more here.

Why is Barack Obama missing the point?

Dick Morris has a new video out in which he rebuts Obama's assertion that the attack on the Jewish Kosher Deli was a random act of violence. Morris says it was a targeted act of violence aimed at Jews because they do not practice Sharia law. And Barack Obama is totally missing that point. Watch the video here.

Terror being used to promote the establishment of Sharia law

Dick Morris believes that the Paris terror attack crossed a line into new territory: the use of terror to promote the establishment of Sharia law. Watch his video here.