Rick Santorum: Sharia is “evil” and “incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution”

Santorum is going to get a lot of heat for this. When the Islamic supremacist tools in the mainstream media challenge him on it, he should ask them if they think the death penalty for apostates, stoning for adultery, amputation of the hand for theft, the denial of the freedom of speech, and institutionalized second-class status for women and non-Muslims is not evil. They will then, following some smooth Islamic supremacist deceiver, claim that those things are not part of Sharia; Santorum should then challenge them to name one Muslim country that has ever implemented Sharia without implementing those measures, or one school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach such things.

“Rick Santorum: Sharia ‘is evil,'” by Kendra Marr for Politico, March 11 (thanks to Jack):

DURHAM, N.H. “” Rick Santorum on Friday asserted that Sharia law has no place in America.

“Jihadism is evil and we need to say what it is,” he said at the Strafford County Lincoln-Reagan dinner, remarks that show how the former Pennsylvania senator continues to establish himself as the candidate most-aligned with the Republican Party”s conservative base.

“We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution.”…

Santorum added, “Sharia law is not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature an origin, but it is a civil code. And it is incompatible with the civil code of the United States.”…

Over a dozen states now moving to ban Islamic Sharia law
British PM to Iran: If you boycott Olympics over "Zionist" logo, we won't miss you
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    “Incompatible with the civil code of the US” is enough. It IS evil, but in the realm of law we don’t need to use that kind of language.

  2. says

    You’d think we’d have more of the right on board just on the simple, self-evident premise that Sharia is just plain bad government.

    Just a few examples:

    1. Sharia denies the right of a people to change their government: once it’s Islamic, good luck getting it un-Islamic.

    2. Sharia levies discriminatory taxes (jizya) whose ultimate purpose is to punish nonbelievers for being nonbelievers. It is a penalty tax — indeed, a “sin tax!” If there have been battles over the “death tax” and “marriage penalty,” an “infidel tax” should seem like a far worse case of bad policy.

    3. A government that needs to set up an apparatus to mind your moral business so closely is:

    a. bigger than it needs to be. It’s spending your money for that.
    b. condescending and insulting to citizens’ intelligence, and also enables the abdication of self-responsibility — good moral standing = not getting caught.
    c. able to use the ideological cleansing of society as a distraction from getting more meaningful work done.

    Those are but a few.

  3. says

    And when challenged, Santorum should also point out that under Sharia, he would be put to death as a blasphemer for making his condemnatory statements.
    I think, therefore I am not Muslim.

  4. says

    Sharia IS evil …no better word sums it up so well.

    Also, I found a link listing 11 reasons why Sharia is evil written by ex-muslims entitled:

    “THE ABOMINATION OF SHARIA LAW: A DIRECT CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONS AND RULE OF LAW”

    Wherever Muslims live under Sharia law adulterers are publicly flogged or stoned to death, sometimes before thousands of spectators in public stadiums. There are no rights for women or children, with women genitally mutilated, and beaten in the streets for the slightest infraction. They care nothing for other beliefs, about being fair, have no juries, no free speech. Television and radio are forbidden, music and dance prohibited. It is their way or execution, the death penalty, with no appeal, no delay. You are simply shot in the head where you stand, and your children shot before you. And these practices of the Sharia, once largely confined to the Middle East, even though mostly finished in Afghanistan, are now spreading to other parts of the world.

    Here are the top eleven reasons why Sharia or Islamic law is EVIL for all societies.

    11. SHARIA LAW AND SLAVERY

    Islam’s Black Slaves notes: “the Quran stipulated that female slaves might lawfully be enjoyed by their masters.” Mohammad himself owned many slaves, some of whom he captured in wars of conquest and some he purchased. The names of forty slaves owned by Mohammad are recorded by Muslim chroniclers. Islamic law (Sharia) contains elaborate regulations for slavery. A slave had no right to be heard in court (testimony was forbidden by slaves), slaves had no right to property, could marry only with the permission of the owner, and were considered to be chattel, that is the movable property, of the slave owner. Muslim slave owners were specifically entitled by Sharia law to sexually exploit their slaves, including hiring them out as prostitutes.

    One reason why very little has been written about the Arab involvement in slavery is that traditional Islamic culture still condones slavery. The Sharia, the codified Islamic law which is based upon the teachings and example of Mohammad, contains explicit regulations for slavery. One of the primary principles of Islam is following the example of Mohammad. Whatever Mohammad did, we must do, what he forbade, we must forbid, what he did not forbid, we may not forbid. As Mohammad himself traded in slaves and owned slaves, accumulating multiple wives, even marrying a six year old, and having concubines – slavery and the sexual exploitation of women is deeply ingrained in Islamic tradition. Muslim nations had engaged in the slave trade for over 600 years before Europe became involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

    THE RIGHTS OF SLAVES UNDER ISLAM

    According to the Hughes Dictionary of Islam, slaves had few civil or legal rights. For example:

    a) Muslim men were allowed to have sex anytime with females slaves – Sura 4:3, 4:29, 33:49.

    b) Slaves are as helpless before their masters as idols are before God – Sura 16:77

    c) According to Islamic Tradition, people at the time of their capture were either to be killed, or enslaved. Shows you that they were at the bottom of the barrel to start with.

    d) According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves were merchandise. The sales of slaves was in accordance with the sale of animals.

    e) Muhammad ordered that some slaves who were freed by their master be RE-ENSLAVED!

    f) It is permissible under Islamic law to whip slaves.

    g) According to Islam, a Muslim could not be put to death for murdering a slave. Ref. 2:178 and the Jalalayn confirm this.

    h) According to Islam, the testimony of slaves is not admissible in court. Ibn Timiyya and Bukhari state this.

    i) According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves cannot choose their own marriage mate. – Ibn Hazm, vol. 6, part 9.

    j) According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves can be forced to marry who their masters want. – Malik ibn Anas, vol. 2, page 155.

    Slavery continued in Islamic lands from about the beginning to this very day. Muslim rulers always found support in the Quran to call ‘jihad’, partly for booty, part for the purpose of taking slaves. As the Islamic empire disintegrated into smaller kingdoms, and each ruler was able to decide what Islam’s theology really meant. Usually, he always found it in support of what he wanted to do. Their calls of jihad against their neighbor facilitated the taking of slaves for Islam. The Quran and Islamic jurisprudence support the taking of slaves, so, those petty Muslim rulers were following the Quran when they needed slaves.

    WHO CAN BE MADE SLAVES UNDER ISLAM?

    1) Islam allows Muslims to make slaves out of anyone who is captured during war.

    2) Islam allows for the children of slaves to be raised as slaves

    3) Like #1, Islam allows for Christians and Jews to be made into slaves if they are captured in war. After Muslim armies attacked and conquered Spain, they took thousands of slaves back to Damascus. The key prize was 1000 virgins as slaves. They were forced to go all the way back to Damascus.

    4) Christians and Jews, who had made a treaty with the ruling Muslims could be made into slaves if they did not pay the “protection” tax. This paying for ‘protection’ was just like paying a Mafia racketeer! This allowed Muslim rulers to extort money from non-Muslim people.

    http://www.formermuslims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3182

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The remaining 10 items are listed on the above link, beginning with # 11; and I found this list particularly interesting, since even ex-muslims used the word “evil” to describe Sharia. Again, no better word sums it up so well.

    In fact, islam is wholly evil – beginning, but not ending with, muhammad (perdition is upon him).

  5. says

    Another step in the right direction. Kudos to Santorum for this. I still await the day, though, when Islam itself is described as incompatible with the Constitution of the United States, most especially its First Amendment.

    Any Muslim out there or a dhimmi apologist for Islam who cares to argue that Islam and the First Amendment can be reconciled? Any takers?

  6. says

    It goes beyond sharia being incompatible with Western democracies, because sharia, like jihad, is intrinsic to Islam, meaning its inseparable from Islam. Hence, we can’t import Muhammadans in mass into this country, without also importing sharia and jihad in mass at the same time.

    Indeed, without the support network of millions of Muhammadans already living in this country with their thousands of Saudi owned and operated mosques and madrassas to provide cover for the 9/11 terrorists, does anyone really believe that the 9/11 terrorists attacks would have been possible?

    Hence, the root cause of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is readily apparent: mass Muhammadan immigration, which also includes their excess baggage: sharia and jihad, plus a lot of other crap like honor killings, FGM, false claims of victimhood, backwardness, barbarism, bigotry etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.

    Therefore, is the solution to double the size of the federal government and government spending like Bush did ostensibly to protect the homeland from Islamic terrorist attacks, but in reality to continue accommodating Muhammadan immigration and all its excess baggage by creating a false sense of security?

    Not really, as long as there are millions of Muhammadans living in this country, coupled with their leftist baggage carriers, the Muhammadans can hit us anytime at will no matter how much we expand the federal government or increase the federal budget.

    Thus, the logical solution is to ban and reverse Muhammadan immigration ASAP, as zero Muhammadans equals zero Islamic terrorist attacks. Indeed, it’s common sense.

    In fact, in the Cold War we didn’t let millions of Communists infiltrate our country because that would have been suicidal. Letting millions of Muhammadans infiltrate our country today is likewise suicidal.

    Now some may say this is racist. Okay if they do, then ask them why wherever mass Muhammadan immigration has occurred in the West did the vast overwhelming majority of Muhammadan immigrants refuse to assimilate and integrate and instead formed Muhammadan no-zones ruled by sharia as parallel societies and in direct contravention to the states in which they reside? It’s because Muhammadans don’t immigrate to assimilate and integrate. Instead, they immigrate to eventually subjugate and dominate.

  7. says

    “Jihadism is evil and we need to say what it is…”

    “We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution.”…

    Santorum added, “Sharia law is not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature an origin, but it is a civil code. And it is incompatible with the civil code of the United States.”…
    ……………………….

    Excellent, excellent stuff from Rick Santorum. I am heartened to see, increasingly, men like Santorum speak out not just against Jihad terrorism, but against the horrors of Shari’ah law.

    As terrible as violent Jihad is, it is the means to an end”and that end is the imposition of Shari’ah law. The more we understand this”and understand just what Shari’ah law would mean for any free country”the better.

  8. says

    One thing Ms. Marr might be trying to imply (IMHO) is that Sen. Santorum’s remarks about Sharia are just a calculated pre-campaign ploy to play to the Republican Conservative base. Her phrase “remarks that SHOW” attempts to focus more on his possible run for office than the real need for him as a professing Christian and American to shout WARNING–WARNING to Rebubs and Dems and the whole Nation that, indeed, Islamic Sharia is very evil and “a very present danger”.

  9. says

    Santorum makes the mistake of so many: making well intended but indefensible assertions about Islam that he will likely have to walk back.

    Most Americans don’t know what ‘jihadism’ is and he failed to ‘define it and say what it is’ here. And as not every aspect of the Shari’a is incompatible with our constitution and jurisprudence, Muslims and their enablers will pounce on that in order to make him look the fool.

    He would be far better off (IMO)to cite specifics that the American Muslim community cannot refute. Something like this, perhaps:

    There are many aspects of Islam that clearly conflict with the U.S. Constitution and American jurisprudence. The amputation of thieves’ hands, polygamy, and greater legal rights for Muslims–as examples–are part and parcel of the Islamic ideology and the Amreican Muslim commununity needs to stop pretending otherwise.

    Santorum, well meaning though he is, has made several public gaffes recently–about several issues–that could easily have have been prevented with a little more forethought and preparation.

    While I hope he continues to press the issue (with facts) he makes his own character assisnation too easy, here.

    IMO.

  10. says

    God bless Rick Santorum for daring to speak the truth about shari’a law. I hope he doesn’t back down under pressure. Even though he drives me crazy when he fills in for Bill Bennett’s radio show (his incessant “ums” make me insane), I respect him highly for his willingness to speak the truth. I’d take a truth speaker over a smooth speaker any day.

  11. says

    I have known of Rick Santorum for a while now. Back in 1991, during the first Gulf War he came to speak at a Rally The Troops gathering. His speech was very uplifting and always stuck in my mind. A year later he announced he was running for office and did win.

    Here is something to read that will give you an idea of how well this man understands the situation we are in.
    ——————————————————
    In Rebuttal: Islamic fascists vs. Islam itself
    Thursday, September 07, 2006
    By Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

    In response to the Sept. 1 Post-Gazette editorial “Loose Talk: The Bush Rhetoric on Iraq Is Sounding Desperate”:

    The editorial board of the Post-Gazette is so eager to criticize me, it cannot be bothered to listen to my words. Six weeks ago, long before Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld used the phrase, I spoke extensively about Islamic fascism at the National Press Club in Washington. I said I believe we are at war with Islamic fascists and I singled out Iran and Syria as examples of Islamic fascist regimes. Many Muslims say the same thing, and the editors should, too, for it is undeniable.

    Contrary to what the editors assert, my focus was on our enemies in this war — not all Islamic nations, and most certainly not Islam itself. While the editors rightly observe that several Islamic nations, such as Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia and Malaysia, have supported us (and they could have added others, such as Morocco and Tunisia), it is entirely misleading for them to suggest that I disagree. The editors, not I, are guilty of lumping all Muslim nations in a single category.

    I am proud to have singled out tyrannical and fanatical Islamic regimes and identified them for what they are: Islamic fascist states that are the world’s leading supporters of terrorism. It does no service to the great majority of the world’s Muslims to appease such regimes, which have killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of decent Muslims for the “crime” of challenging oppression and calling for freedom.

    The editorial writers seem to believe that criticism of any Muslim is a criticism of Islam itself, a gross and dangerous oversimplification right out of the pages of George Orwell. For my part, I have taken great care to distinguish between the Islamic fascists who are trying to destroy us (and dominate and oppress their fellow Muslims) and the hundreds of millions of Muslims who wish to be free to follow the guidance of their own good judgment.

    There are other Orwellian themes in the editorial: I have never claimed that someone who believes we must pull our troops out of Iraq is a “traitor who does not really love freedom.” I disagree with the advocates of “cut and run,” but I think they are wrong, not traitorous, and I hope to convince the people of Pennsylvania that I am right. I am engaged in an honest debate, while the editorial writers are conducting a smear campaign based on distortions of my words.

    I have said time and time again across Pennsylvania these past weeks that the fight against Islamic fascism is the great test of our generation. Leaders are obliged to articulate this threat and to propose what is necessary to defeat it. That is my purpose, and our national calling. The American people have always rallied to the cause of freedom once they understood what was at stake. I have no doubt that they will again.

  12. says

    “If “moderates’ are so terribly good at defeating “radicals,’ what stops them from doing so in the Muslim world as well? In Afghanistan? In Pakistan? In Saudi Arabia? In Yemen? In Sudan? In Iraq? In Iran? Why don’t the moderates just snap their fingers, work their magic, and summon forth the happy-clappy Islam that always, somehow, just manages to remain around the corner, out of sight, and beyond grasp?”

    Some ammo for Rick from El Inglés at GoV..in case he missed it..

    http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/03/muslim-immigration-into-uk-part-three.html#more

  13. says

    Marisol wrote: Sharia levies discriminatory taxes (jizya) whose ultimate purpose is to punish nonbelievers for being nonbelievers. It is a penalty tax — indeed, a “sin tax!” If there have been battles over the “death tax” and “marriage penalty,” an “infidel tax” should seem like a far worse case of bad policy.

    Very true, and does that not raise the issue of the 14th Amendment? And in relation to sharia generally, the 1st? And the 8th? Feel free to correct this ignorant Kiwi infidel.

    Leaving aside constitutional matters, I’m still waiting for the CATO Institute to get on board with this, and not just their excellent constitutional scholar Roger Pilon. If ever there was a system where government got into people’s lives it is sharia. What about it, CATO, are these issues not central to your mission?

  14. says

    Your points about Santorum are fair ones. Specific aspects of Sharia should regularly be mentioned and, indeed, Santorum is given to making gaffes more frequently than the most successful politicians can get away with. Also, being a conservative across the board as he is, including culturually conservative, he will be subjected to the old double standard which lets those on the Left get away with a lot of crap while those on the Right will be far more scrutinized and criticized. Just imagine if Tea Partiers trashed a state capitol as liberals did in Madison, Wisconsin this past week. It would be all over the news how the Tea Partiers were fascist, violent, bigoted, racist, trying to destroy democracy, blah, blah, blah. But has the MSM said this about the liberals who acted like children in Madison? No way.

    Still, I give Santorum credit for what he said. It’s a step in the right direction I would argue, though many more steps must be taken.

  15. says

    I would argue, john spielman, that even if one is not religious that person can still come to the conclusion that Islam is evil. Here’s why: Islam, as with Nazism and Marxism, singles out a portion of the human race for second class status or death. Nazism does this with certain ethnic groups. Marxism does this with certain socio-economic groups. And Islam does this with non-Muslims.

    Any system of thought or any institution (e.g., slavery) that subordinates a group of human beings to an inferior status is, ipso facto, malevolent. I convey this to you because I think it imperative that both religious and non-religious people be on the same page respecting opposition to Islam. Hope you and yours are doing well.