Useful idiocy and self-delusion. Leftist/Islamic Supremacist Alliance Update: “UK author James Fergusson advocates sharia law in West,” by Chris Merritt for The Australian, May 21:
AFTER championing the cause of the Taliban, British author James Fergusson has found another cause: the need for Western legal systems to incorporate at least some of the principles of sharia.
“Properly and correctly applied, sharia has the potential to be extremely humane and flexible in a way that the common law does not,” he said.
That’s why Sharia states like Saudi Arabia and Iran are so notoriously humane and flexible.
Fergusson was speaking in Sydney, where he was promoting his most recent book, Taliban, at the Sydney Writers Festival.
He believes sharia, like the Taliban, is misunderstood.
Yes, of course. The Taliban didn’t mean to burn down all those girls’ schools. They were just trying to fix the central heating.
His arrival in Sydney coincided with a push for sharia in Australia, a move that was rejected by federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland.
Fergusson said the way forward was not to apply sharia only to Muslims but to incorporate its principles into the general law.
“It’s about developing something better — and you start by acknowledging that our precious secular law is far from perfect.”
After observing how the Taliban ran Afghanistan, he believes their version of sharia was effective at ending lawlessness, but it would be unsuitable here.
“They were a law and order party and they were pretty effective,” he said. “A few months of hand-chopping and there was no more theft, no more murder. Suddenly it was safe to leave your house without locking it.”
Is that cure really preferable to the disease?
Fergusson, who describes himself as a liberal,
Of course. Because remember: for the mainstream media and useful idiots like Fergusson, Islamic supremacists are “conservatives,” and those who oppose Islamic supremacism are also “conservatives.” But those who enable Islamic supremacism in the West, as “conservative” as it is, are “liberals.”
said rapid population growth in the Islamic world coupled with globalisation, meant it was important for Western countries to abandon their attachment to secular law.
In a word: surrender.
The push for sharia in Australia was “only about certain aspects, mainly family affairs. In a way, it’s not that outrageous,” he said.
He recognised, however, it would be difficult for Western countries to incorporate aspects of sharia because under Islam there was no separation between religion and law.
No kidding, really? I thought only greasy Islamophobes dared to point that out.