Sunday, 14 April 2013


by our legal correspondent Oliver Sherlock Holmes
A collection of quotations, all whining in unison that shariacrap is indefinably fuzzy, and therefore above criticism.

1.  Shariah law — which in any case is not an established legal code, as the book title implies, but a fluid concept subject to a wide range of interpretations and applications.”

Robert Steinback of SPLC, 10 Most Dangerous Hatemongers

2.  " … anti-Muslim activists rarely understand that Sharia is interpreted and reinterpreted in numerous ways throughout Muslim communities and primarily guides individual religious observance.”

  from The Right Wing Playbook on Anti  Muslim Extremism

“Sharia is not a collection of laws but a set of diversely interpreted guidelines for religious practice.”

Center for American Progress. Announcement for sharia symposium of 26 July 2011

4.      “Proponents of this legislation [i.e. anti-shariacrap legislation] tend to focus on manifestations of Sharia overseas: the stoning of adulterers, cutting off of the hands of thieves, and the denial of basic freedoms for women in some Islamic countries,” … “there are many schools of interpretation among Islamic legal scholars, and some interpretations stand in tension with the rights that we have come to take for granted in liberal democracies, including the rights of women, homosexual persons, religious minorities, and religious converts.”            (my stress)

Law professor Robert K. Vischer, published in First Things, quoted by Robert Spencer in: Florida and Oklahoma Vote for Freedom Jihad Watch 2013-04-13

Oliver Sherlock Holmes remarks:
Note that Vischer seems to imply that shariacrap in the US would be something UTTERLY DIFFERENT from shariacrap overseas”. In other words there is some kind of “all-American shariacrap” in the making, to which none of the objections cited would apply..
NOBODY has ever claimed or pretended that shariacrap in the US would be ANY DIFFERENT from shariacrap elsewhere!

Robert Spencer effortlessly unmasks these writers as mealy-mouthed propagandists for shariacrap. Spencer writes,

“In reality, however, there is no school of Islamic jurisprudence among either Sunnis or Shi’tes that does not mandate stoning for adultery, amputation of the hand for theft, and the subjugation of women. Stoning adulterers is in accord with the words and example of Muhammad, whom the Qur’an holds up as the supreme example of conduct for believers (33:21); amputation of the hand for theft is mandated in the Qur’an itself (5:38); and the oppression of women in numerous ways is amply attested by the words of both the Qur’an and the prophet of Islam. Opponents of anti-Sharia laws have no basis for their assumption that no Muslims will ever try to bring such laws here. While there are individual Islamic legal scholars who have crafted interpretations of the Qur’an and Sunnah that are more compatible with Western pluralism and liberal democracy than is Sharia in its classic formulations, these have never gained any significant traction among Muslims. Wherever Sharia has been the law of the land, throughout Islamic history and in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other areas of the Islamic world today, it has had largely the same character – one that has never resembled liberal democracy by any stretch of the imagination. Sharia polities throughout history and today have denied the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience, and mandated discrimination against women and non-Muslims.... “

Robert Spencer: Florida and Oklahoma Vote for Freedom Jihad Watch 2013-04-13

No comments:

Post a Comment