The Atlantic’s pundit loves Sharia and hates those who oppose its oppression. My latest at PJ Media:
Peter Beinart is deeply disturbed that National Security Advisor John Bolton has chosen Fred Fleitz as his chief of staff. Writing in The Atlantic Friday, Beinart noted that Fleitz has “for the last five years served as a senior vice president at the Center for Security Policy.” According to Beinart, “for more than a decade [CSP] has been arguing that American Muslims who observe shariah, or Islamic law, don’t deserve the protections of the First Amendment.”
This sounds terrible if one knows nothing about Sharia; Beinart obviously knows nothing. In a 2016 piece condescendingly titled “How Not To Speak About Islam,” Beinart scolds Rabbi Ari Berman, President of Yeshiva University, for some of his statements about Islam, and concludes: “[U]niversity presidents should not lecture on subjects they know little about.”
Beinart should take his own advice. His claim about Fred Fleitz and the CSP is a classic example of the strawman fallacy.
In Beinart’s scenario, the CSP, overflowing with bigotry, was calling for law-abiding citizens who happen to follow a particular set of religious laws to be stripped of First Amendment protection. In a 2017 article attacking the CSP and its president, Frank Gaffney, Beinart likened opposition to Sharia to anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic prejudice in American history. “Gaffney and his allies, Beinart warned, “view Sharia not as a religious code but as ‘a totalitarian ideology cloaked in religious garb.’ Muslims who adhere to it, therefore, should be treated not like Jews who adhere to Halacha, the body of Jewish law, or Catholics who adhere to Canon law, but like Americans who espoused ‘communism, fascism, National Socialism, or Japanese imperialism’ during times of war. They should be treated, in other words, like people seeking to overthrow the United States government.” Beinart further claims that Gaffney’s “theory resembles conspiracy theories about vulnerable minority groups in the past.”
Yet in several articles he has written attacking the CSP, Gaffney, Fleitz, and other opponents of Sharia, Beinart never gets around to explaining in any detail what Sharia actually is. Beinart never refutes even one of the CSP’s assertions about Sharia. He just presents them, as Leftist writers so often do in so many contexts, as if they were self-evidently false.
Were he to decide to educate himself about the actual doctrines of Sharia, a good place for him to start would be Reliance of the Traveller. This manual of Sharia is certified as conforming to the “practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community” by al-Azhar, the Cairo institution that is the most prestigious and influential authority in Sunni Islam. Reliance is also certified as a reliable guide to Sharia by Taha Jabir al-Alwani, president of both the International Institute of Islamic Thought and the Fiqh Council of North America, and Nuh al-Salman, the mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces.
Does this venerable Sharia manual bear out the CSPs contention that Sharia is a “totalitarian ideology?”
The manual states that Sharia forbids criticism of itself, mandating death for someone who “mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet … or Islam” (o11.10 (5)). The manual also calls for the murder of those who dare to leave the fold: “When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed” (o8.1).
As Sharia denies the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience, a fully Sharia-adherent Muslim may find himself in violation of numerous American laws.
Sharia denies the equality of rights of women, and even restricts their freedom of movement. Once again, from Reliance of the Traveller: “The husband may forbid his wife to leave the home because of the hadith related by Bayhaqi that the Prophet … said: ‘It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to allow someone into her husband’s house if he is opposed, or to go out if he is averse’” (m10.4).
If a woman disobeys, her husband “may hit her” (m10.12). Would Beinart consider prosecution under domestic violence laws of a Muslim husband in the U.S. who beat his wife to be “bigoted” and “Islamophobic?”
Beinart derides Fleitz for being one of 16 authors of a 2015 CSP report that recommended the U.S. government “revoke the citizenship of naturalized Americans who, in seeking to insinuate shariah-compliant norms into civil society, have violated their oath of naturalization and allegiance to defend the Constitution of the United States.”
But does Beinart really favor the acceptance in the U.S. of such elements of Sharia as blasphemy restrictions on speech, the death penalty for apostates from Islam, and the beating of disobedient women?
If not, Beinart should clarify what action should be taken to prevent the introduction of those and other aspects of Sharia into the U.S. Beinart should also clarify when opposition to Sharia is legitimate, and when it shades over into being “Islamophobic.”…
Read the rest here.
mortimer says
Peter Beinart has NOT read the CLASSIC and still AUTHORITATIVE manuals of Sharia law. Peter Beinart has NOT read the tafsirs (classical, authoritative COMMENTARIES) upon which Sharia is constructed. Peter Beinart has NOT read the PRIMARY SOURCE TEXT of Islam upon which the COMMENTARIES are based.
In fact, Peter Beinart has read NOTHING which would give him a KNOWLEDGE SUFFICIENT to permit him to PONTIFICATE with authority about the subject of SHARIA LAW.
Peter Beinart is a fraud and so uninformed he cannot perceive what a DUNCE he is.
mortimer says
correction: “primary source TEXTS” (plural … referring to Koran, Sira and hadiths … over one million words)
mortimer says
JB without having read the PRIMARY SOURCE TEXTS of Islam or Sharia law manuals presents himself as a spontaneous, unread expert.
Julea Bacall says
All I did, in curiosity as a liberal, was read the Qur’an/Hadiths and that told the whole story to me. Why can’t they all be required to read at least that before they pretend to know anything. Just that is enough and maybe the letters Mo had written to the countries leaders at his time, & maybe what they did to the three Jewish villages around Mecca/Medina, and then spreading from Mecca/Media to the Arabizing of all they conquered. All of it has the same theme. No amount of other people explaining things will show them . They have to see/read it for themselves or listen to a few sermons (not made up for American viewers) Anyone who gives me any opinion I will ask…Have you read the Qur’a/Hadiths? If NO, they disqualify their own opinion. Zero information means Zero qualified opinion. Someone should always ASK these guys if they have even read the Qur’an. Am I super intuitive or is it not Obvious when read.
Its a warlord manual for control of members to be used to conquer for the elites who they call Allah.
J D S says
Well some people and some organizations are just plain STUPID..
These NEED to live under SHARIA law for a few years…They wouldn’t make it out alive.
mortimer says
Many parts of Sharia law can be interpreted as clear commands to overthrow the Constitution and Laws of the United States:
Reliance of the Traveller – O9.9 : “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book.”
Reliance of the Traveller O9.1 – “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year.
Reliance of the Traveller O25 – “The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians” ◦ Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given (Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians) such as believe not in Allah.”
Reliance of the Traveller O4.17, p.593 – “There is no indemnity obligatory for killing a non-Muslim (harbi) at war with Muslims.”
Bukhari (84:64-65) – “Allah’s Apostle: ‘During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.’”
“The spread of Islam was military. There is a tendency to apologize for this and we should not. It is one of the injunctions of the Quran that you must fight to spread Islam.” – Dr. Ali Issa Othman, Islamic Scholar
“Muslims must kill disbelievers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.” – Dr. Ali Gomaa, Grand Mufti of Egypt, Al Ahram, Apr.7, 2008
Tabari IX:69 “He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for those who disbelieve, we will fight them forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing them is a small matter to us.”
Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:
“The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. … The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state.” (P. 51)
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd:
“Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book … is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.”
Nyazee concludes:
“This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation [of non-Muslims].”
deArme says
Don’t answer that phone. It’s a robocall.
“Hi there, and thanks for your time
Did you know that…Sharia…the Hadith..
…Muslims claim to have invented the
magnetic compass and even claim that modern compasses
point in the wrong direction. Now if you are…”
Clunk!
Granddaddy says
You make a good point. The fact that one is a Muslim automatically puts one in opposition to the Constitution. A Muslim, in order to be a genuine Muslim, must follow the Sharia. If he doesn’t, he’s not actually a Muslim. So a person can either follow the Sharia and be a Muslim, or he can follow the Constitution and not be a Muslim, but he cannot technically be a Muslim and follow the Constitution both at the same time. And that’s because they oppose each other. And that’s why Muslims oppose the Constitution.
Julea Bacall says
This is also why both left and right must remember what the BORDERS of ‘free speech’ are. They can be looked up. No inciting violence, no inciting insurrection, no telling classified info, no Slander, no libel. no Threats, copy write laws, anything that causes clear and imminent danger, anti trust laws, Securities regulations, Defamation, espionage, ‘fighten words’ AND CHECK THOSE AGAINST THINGS READ FROM THE QUR”AN.in Mosques. VERY SIMPLE that they are not afforded it in free speech for these things. Some Americans even think free speech means ANYTHING under the sun. It does not. Free Speech has borders for protection just like a country does. Not even Free Speech has open borders and most of the Qur’an could not be read in Mosque or Practiced as it was written in our country. That is WHY Mid East Muslims dis ‘Western Muslims’ as not real Muslims at all. Because the Qur’an and Laws cannot be put in practice here. CANNOT. Yet because of peoples ignorance, they are right under our noses.
Asally says
Maybe it is a mistake to try to cover up Islam. If everyone knew what was in the Reliance and in the Qu’ran and Hadiths there would be clear understanding why we should not admit more Muslims, why we should not call Islam a “religion” but a political system of tyranny instead. Sweeping it under the carpet allows people who don’t know better to advocate for it, like the idiot who wrote the article in question. Free speech includes everything. Exceptions would be state secrets related to defense, not screaming “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Defamation or slander should be covered by tort law. So I disagree – everything ought to be free speech. Much safer that way.
gravenimage says
Yes–Islam needs to be exposed.
el Cid 2 says
Jay Boo – I must differ.
Mortimer is eminently QUALIFIED to speak on the subject of Islam and the Sharia.
I, for one, learn a lot from his posts. Keep it up Mortimer.
(It also goes without saying – keep it up Robert)
Norger says
+1
Ewanda says
Hi Robert. Thumbs up, you’ve done it again. You never fail in your efforts to keep us appraised of the creeping monster that is insinuating itself more and more forcefully into our North American lives. That is because Islam renews itself everyday showing us its destructive purposes.
You are like the Energizer Bunny!! You never disappoint because Islam never disappoints. Would that farmers had such reliability for their crops. I am only sorry that trying to find solutions to end the threat takes up so much time in our lives and so far, we are not just dodging the negative epithets but also trying to educate and inform. There seems to be an air of stubborn disbelief that we cannot overcome no matter how we present the facts.
Thank you again … Hoping that a future post Islam comes real soon.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Peter Beinart! My favorite sloganeer! Back in 2006 he gave Donald Trump his winning slogan, taken from the subtitle of Beinart’s book
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/741347.The_Good_Fight
“The Good Fight: Why Liberals – and Only Liberals – Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again”.
mgoldberg says
I can only wonder how he posited that only Liberals can win the war on terror….I mean if you can name the war and what it’s against, then how can you fight, let alone win such a … war.
Julea Bacall says
Did Beinart ever read the Qur’an/Hadiths? I really want to know.
Ewanda says
I have made some progress, however, when I Duo-Tang-ed a handout.
The first page consists of the highlighted quote from the Muslim Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum that reads
“4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America: The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s (I cross out God and write in allah without it capitalized) religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.”
I then print the next page and highlight “8- Absorbing Muslims and winning them with all of their factions and colors in America and Canada for the settlement project and making it their cause, future and the basis of their Islamic life in this part of the world:” (I highlight ‘in America and Canada’)
Then I enclose the detailed “An Explanatory Memorandum”. The last page is a list of Go-To’s consisting of Jihad Watch, David Wood, John Guandolo, Bill Warner, Frank Gaffney, Usama Dakdok, Kamal Saleem, Daniel Shayesteh, Brigitte Gabriel, Anni Cyrus, and anyone else I can think of.
The first person I handed the duo-tang to read the first two pages and exclaimed, “We have to do something about this!”. I said, ” get informed first and then the ideas will come.”
This appears to be a helpful but slow way to make some progress.
Julea Bacall says
There is really so much we could share with people, isn’t, besides just our opinions or other authors opinions. I like the Charter of Hamas too which people said was going to be changed But has not and will not. So did you work with strangers, friends, family….I am finding it difficult but I will keep trying. I do not see why the Southern Poverty Law will not answer me concerning all the purely bigoted, hateful Teachings as the world of Allah FOR Today, since the most hate crimes are happening to the Jewish Americans (not Muslims)
SoCalMike says
Beinart should be forced to waqlk around Pakistan or Cairo for an hour.
The people he defends so loyally would gleefully kill him in 10 minutes.
Lebel says
Robert Spencer will eventually argue that since Islam and Shariah are indivisible and indissociable then practice of Islam in itself is anti-constitutional. Therefore Muslims should not be granted the same right and protection as other citizens.
We know where this is going
Also, and I know no one here gives a rat’s ass (but I can’t resist), Halasha is not a cude and cuddly doctrine either:
“Several years ago, the book Torat HaMelech was published (1). The authors, learned rabbis, argued that it was permissible to kill non-Jews, even without proper trial, if they became a serious potential threat to Jewish lives. Minorities such as the LGBT community are being insulted by powerful rabbis who seem to be ignorant of the multifarious circumstances of fellow human beings.”
https://www.cardozoacademy.org/thoughts-to-ponder/abuse-halacha-keeping-halacha-control-part-1/
gravenimage says
Lebel wrote:
Robert Spencer will eventually argue that since Islam and Shariah are indivisible and indissociable then practice of Islam in itself is anti-constitutional. Therefore Muslims should not be granted the same right and protection as other citizens.
We know where this is going
…………………………..
What absolute crap–Robert Spencer has never said any such thing. Calumny. So long as Muslims worship peacefully, there is no problem.
It is also ignores the fact that many *Muslims*–not ”’filthy Infidels’–consider the imposition of brutal Shari’ah law to be an intrinsic part of Islam.
Even in the United States, over half of Muslims want to see the imposition of Shari’ah law here.
Of course, this is not true of Jews re Halacha law–as Lebel well knows. And it is not just that Jews do not want to institute this in the West–Israel does not practise this either. Is Lebel similarly claiming that there are no Muslim countries that practice Shari’ah?
And what of Shari’ah itself?
Does Lebel have a problem with Muslims flogging their victims and amputating their hands and feet? Does he have anything critical to say about wife beating? “Honor Killing”? Murdering apostates? Stoning rape victims to death?
Not so you’d notice…
JayT says
Who is “we”? Aside from your attempt to *Jew-bait* readers on this site away from the spread Islam by any means necessary (FBI seized document from Muslim Brotherhood) in America, you seem to imply Islam and Sharia aren’t indivisible. Please point out specifics of this? “We” are to believe for hundreds of years the clerics of Islam have simply shrugged at existing conflicts between Sharia and Koranic tenets? Which ones are they?
Sharia does, in fact, prescribe the death penalty for homosexuals and would that be something “constitutional” in your opinion? Would it be constitutional for a man’s testimony in a court of law be worth more than a woman’s? Do tell. Killing those who leave the Islamic faith is also constitutional? Honor killings of family members is allowed under Sharia, is it allowed under the Constitution?
Lebel, where are you specifics to justify all of this is just “Islamophobia” on our part? Please specifically cite where the Koran and the Sharia tenets are in conflict. Uh, yes, I asked for *Islamic* differences, not those from the Torah or some other issues you have with Judaism.
Lebel, you sound a lot like this one Islamic apologist who argued that Islam would never be shown to be in conflict with the current American way of life. I then pointed him to U.S. CONGRESSMAN Andre Carson. The good congressman was video’d proclaiming that American schools should be replaced by Islamic style schools (Madrassas) “with the Koran as its foundation”. The apologist merely waved the fact away with a statement of “taken out of context” as if watching the video was somehow false. Maybe it was just a deviously well-made puppet used in the video to look like the congressman and sound like him.
If its your passion to embrace Islamic tenets as wholesome and worthy of your admiration (you probably celebrate each 9/11 with party popper and God knows what else – non-alcoholic of course), that’s your choice – just leave the “we” out of it.
Julea Bacall says
I just want to know, Have you completely read the Qur’an/Hadiths? I am really curious. not just flipped through some passages but from front to back (if its in English)
Lebel says
Not all hadiths, that would be extremely time-consuming.
I think my general point is that there is lots of weird and horrible stuff in most religions. A Muslim can like Shariah if he wants as long as he does not force it on others. That’s the contract if you will.
Julea Bacall says
There is whole lot more than that if you read it….extreme Bigotry called for to this day, Supremacy (similar to Hitler) the goal of the caliphate for the future. Its not just about Sharia at all. Its not just about old time violence in history. No one will know unless the read it. I admit it was difficult and I had to force myself but I was curious and I wanted to know for sure what it was about.
gravenimage says
Once again, Lebel is demanding that we turn a blind eye to Islam’s inspiration of savagery. This is what he always does.
Linda Clark formerly Linnte says
Lebel doesn’t “get it” that Islam and Islamic Jurisprudence won’t LET others ignore Sharia, because they’re commanded to World Domination. The only thing Islam needs is a larger population and bada boom, bada Bing! Instant Tyranny.
All I can say is, I’m really glad I’m good with my rifle.
Norger says
And my point is that while that may well be true, Islam is unique in that hundreds of millions of adherents follow some of its most horrifically violent teachings, such as the death penalty for apostasy. Moreover, the most horrible and violent teachings generally “trump” (pun intended) the milder teachings, as a matter of theological interpretation. For these reasons, Islam is uniquely malevolent. The evidence is before you every day. “Tu quoque” is utter bullshit.
gravenimage says
Oh, I think Lebel gets it, Linda–he just hopes that we don’t.
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Peter Beinart’s Fleitz of Fancy
…………………..
So the witless Peter Beinart has no problems with beating women, amptutating limbs, flogging for sipping a beer, murder for saying anything critical of Islam, and stoning rape victims to death?
On Twitter, he also says that any sanctions against the vicious Mullahs in Iran just prevented Iranians “from accessing life-saving drugs”. He says that any sanctions against this regime screaming “Death to Israel!” and “Death to America!” and imprisoning and murdering its own people is “immoral”:
“Obama-era sanctions kept 6 millions Iranians from accessing life-saving drugs. Trump’s decision to reimpose sanctions isn’t just unwise. It’s immoral”
https://twitter.com/PeterBeinart
My Shari'a Moor says
Hi Robert …very informative article about the mindset of our ‘loyal’ opposition!
Beinart shouldn’t comment on a death-cult’s ‘cant’ unless he’s read & understood it!
He’s a typical liberal toady & apologist for Authoritarian Fascism & as David Mamet would observe:
““In order to continue advancing their illogical arguments modern liberals have to pretend not to know things…” – ‘The Mamet Principle’, by Pro-2nd Amendment, Liberal-turned-Conservative playwright David A. Mamet (b. ‘47), March, ‘08.
Kasey says
All sharia is a recipe for revolution while Graham’s comment above are all nonsense about a mythical god or allah as well!
Linda Clark formerly Linnte says
Islam itself IS A NATION not a religion. If our Government recognised this fact, we COULD ban any Muslim from holding office, a public Governmental job like police officer or social worker. I for the life of me don’t understand WHY more of us don’t make this the FOCUS of our antiIslam stand!!!!! No Nation allows a covert NATION to operate within its borders. Why hasn’t the Muslim Brotherhood been banned yet? How can CAIR and every other Islamic group be allowed to operate in the USA? How can our Government NOT ACT to make this proclaimation to our citizens?
Norger says
Islam is the only totalitarian ideology today that can demand and to a large extent receive international “respect,” largely due to moral relativism and the social/politically correct taboo against criticizing another,s religious beliefs, particularly where the adherents of that religion are accorded with victimhood status. One astute observation that Mr. Spencer makes repeatedly is that rather than attempting to undertake any analysis of Islamic theology, leftist apologists will simply present pointed (and demonstrably true criticisms of Islam as (Sharia is totalitarian) as self-evidently false. The basic construct is “ can you believe anyone would say such a patently offensive thing about Islam? “Everyone knows” that can’t possibly be true.”
Julea Bacall says
Islam HATES Multicultural ideas. How can my left condone something that absolutely destroys all multiculturalism. This is the thing USA is not considering. We cannot let in things that go about destroying us by the false belief that everything is welcome. Things that destroy us are not welcome. No other cultures do it like the Nation of Islam. They cannot get ‘free speech’ to destroy us. Same with nazigroups, KKKlan etc. How STUPID to bring in that which will hurt us. Free Speech does not mean EVERYTHING. Check the boundaries. Free speech needs boundaries just like a country or eventually we will all be under one kind of dictator. Don’t think it can’t happen. Look at pre war Germany. They did not think it could happen and no one did anything. Look at all the countries that were conquered by Islam. Today people think those countries were Native Islam or that they they all Wanted it. Islam hates Multicultural same as nazideology.