The rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in America has brought with it a wave of largely-unsubstantiated suggestions from conservative media commentators and politicians that America is at risk of falling under the sway of Sharia law.
Of course, this assertion is a reversal of the facts. Americans are habituated to largely ignoring religious differences; many people consider it impolite to dwell on such things in day-to-day conversation. What has happened is that as honor killings (and other manifestations of an Islamic culture) are on the rise in the United States, Canada, and other Western nations, more and more citizens are alarmed by a religion which defends such systematized brutality.
Montopoli observes that “The notion that Sharia law is coming to America has been percolating in the conservative media for a while.” Of course, the warning signs of Sharia’s influence are hardly limited to “conservative media,” but the lamestream media usually refuses to “connect the dots” when reporting on various criminal acts which are, in fact, expressions of Sharia law.
Montopoli appears to be ignorant of the longstanding nature of such concerns; in fact, he maintains that the issue only arose in the past few months:
The outcry over Sharia law has been tied in large part to the controversy around the Islamic cultural center two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as other mosques around the country. In August, Dick Morris said on Fox News that the cultural center will be used to "train and recruit Sharia law advocates who become terrorists."
This is simply nonsense. Perhaps some Americans have become more aware of the issues surrounding Sharia law in recent months, but the danger of Sharia law has been met by clear analysis for years. One example of such analysis was penned by Serge Trifkovic in 2008 as he noted the difficulties of adherence to the Islamic religion while living under a legal code which is inherently secular:
The sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the “secular” legal code with which it coexists; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah’s authority on the basis of his revealed will — and for as long as they remain infidel, both Europe and America are illegitimate. So how can a self-avowedly devout Muslim take the oath, and expect the rest of us to believe that it was done in good faith? Because he is practicing taqiyya, the art of elaborate lying that was inaugurated by Muhammad to help destabilize and undermine non-Muslim communities almost ripe for a touch of Jihad. (Or else because he is not devout enough and confused, but in that case there is the ever-present danger that at some point he will rediscover his roots.)
In general, Montopoli assumes a mocking tone in attempting to dismiss concerns about Sharia law, and he cites sources which quite reliably wrinkle their noses at the concerns raised by constitutionalists. Thus, for example, Montopoli serves up the following:
"Were not going to see hand chopping off, were not going to see retaliatory violence, we're not going to see underage marriages, were not going to see polygamous marriages," Clark Lombardi of the University of Washington Law School told NPR. "The U.S. courts simply wouldn't do it."
Again, this is nonsense. Given the significant number of pandering American politicians (and judges willing to legislate from the bench) who are currently promoting what was considered an abomination only a few years ago — homosexual marriage — the legalization of “underage” or “polygamous” marriages is certainly within the range of imaginable scenarios. Homosexual marriage is far more hostile to the historic legal definition of marriage than is polygamy, and yet the solemnities of the Sodomites are now numbered among the most sacred missions of the Hollywood, New York, and Washington elites. Just as homosexual marriage has gone from being an abomination to practically a fundamental right virtually overnight, so the same elites which once wanted to “save the whales,” “free Tibet,” or let Steve and Bob marry may one day serve the cause of the religion of the child molesting polygamist, Mohammed.
But far darker crimes appear to already be taking place. And, in point of fact, there are accusations that atrocities allegedly committed because of adherence to Islam are already getting a “pass” in our legal system. Consider the case of one young woman slain for being “too Westernized”:
The Iraqi immigrant is accused of killing his daughter, 20-year-old Noor Almaleki, for being "too Westernized."
Police say he used his Jeep Cherokee to run down his daughter and another woman in a Peoria parking lot Oct. 20. Noor later died of her injuries.
Almaleki is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault and two counts of leaving the scene of a serious accident. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The decision not to seek the death penalty comes after Almaleki's attorney, Billy Little, a public defender, asked a judge to take special precautions to ensure the County Attorney's Office wouldn't wrongly seek the death penalty because Almaleki is a Muslim.
Little requested that the office make public the process it uses to determine whether to seek capital punishment.
"An open process provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs," Little wrote, referring to County Attorney Andrew Thomas' Christian faith.
Laura Reckart, a county prosecutor, responded that Little's concern about the "supposed bias" of the office's death-penalty-review process was "without legitimate factual or legal basis."
She wrote that the state can seek the death penalty for any person convicted of first-degree murder if it can prove the existence of at least one aggravating factor, not because of religion.
However, the debate stopped there. On Tuesday, Reckart filed a motion indicating prosecutors would not seek the death penalty.
Mike Scerbo, a spokesman for the County Attorney's Office, declined to comment on the decision.
Prosecutors said Almaleki has admitted killing his daughter because she disgraced the family by not following traditional Iraqi or Muslim values.
And, of course, there is the case of Muzzammil Hassan, an ostensibly moderate Muslim who founded Bridges TV network to cast Islam in a more positive light, who allegedly cut off his wife’s head when she wanted to divorce him.
Many more examples could be cited; what matters is that, contra Mr. Montopoli, it can happen here; indeed, it appears that it is happening here already. Sharia law is on the march, and it is the responsibility of all who defend and uphold the U.S. Constitution to oppose anyone who would undermine our nation.
Photo: A man convicted of gambling is whipped by a Sharia law official with a rattan cane during a public caning in Jantho, Aceh province, Indonesia, Oct. 1, 2010: AP Images