“Notre Dame’s Emilia Justyna Powell, an associate professor of political science and concurrent associate professor of law, an expert in both international law and the Islamic legal tradition, traveled to many Muslim-majority nations to research how the two systems work together in practice.”
Now Powell is on a mission to teach Westerners that Sharia is similar to international law and in some ways superior. For this dubious endeavor she is lavishly featured in the Notre Dame University newspaper. Powell’s canvassing for Sharia has led her to ask “some international court judges” if they “would ever consider referring to parts of the Sharia.”
Powell’s interest in researching Islamic law further is driven, in part, by the bias she sees toward Western law to the point of absolute exclusion of any facets of Islamic law in international law. In fact, some international court judges she interviewed were irritated when she asked if they would ever consider referring to parts of Sharia. “Out of all the religions of the world, we’ve contributed to a large-scale misunderstanding of their legal tradition,” Powell said. “Islamic law and international law share many more similarities than they are given credit for.”
Powell’s skewed view of the Sharia is deceptive, propagandistic and dangerous. There is no comparison between international law (which is democracy-based) and Sharia (which is authoritarian and discriminatory). The violence, human rights abuses and murders committed throughout history in the name of Islam are not an aberration. They are reflections of normative Islam, fully backed by Islamic jurisprudence, which teaches the murder of apostates and gays, the conquest and subjugation of infidels, and the inferiority of women, including the head coverings (Quran 24:31, Quran 33:59) about which Powell fallaciously rambles. The arrogance displayed by Powell is also an affront to Muslim dissidents who face (and experience) imprisonment (and worse) for opposing the human rights abuses sanctioned by Islamic law. Powell’s potential influence on the young minds who must listen to her propaganda in the classroom is concerning. And she is not unique; in fact, in many colleges and universities today, she is the norm.
“Islamic law and international law share many similarities, Notre Dame Professor says,” by Colleen Sharkey, Notre Dame News, April 8, 2020:
The very term Sharia conjures negative images in the minds of many Westerners, in part due to its association with extremist groups. However, an in-depth look at Islamic law, as practiced in the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries, reveals that it is interpreted in different ways depending on the country, its culture and the very people conducting the interpretation.
Notre Dame’s Emilia Justyna Powell, an associate professor of political science and concurrent associate professor of law, an expert in both international law and the Islamic legal tradition, traveled to many Muslim-majority nations to research how the two systems work together in practice. Her findings were published earlier this year in the volume Islamic Law and International Law: Peaceful Resolution of Disputes.
Powell uses the differences in how women dress in various Muslim-majority countries as an analogy for the various interpretations of Sharia.
“A perfect visualization is women’s head coverings. The Taliban encourages women to cover top to bottom, not even showing the eyes. In Saudi Arabia, sometimes eyes are visible but not much else,” she said. “I was recently in Bahrain where I witnessed a new trend: Women are unzipping their abayas and you can see Western-influenced clothing underneath like jeans, ruffles and lace. Many women don’t wear the hijab scarf there and some only wear it halfway on. But who’s to say which is correct? Bahrain is no less Islamic than Saudi Arabia, for example, just different. People in all Muslim-majority countries interpret and, thus, practice the Muslim faith differently.”
International law itself is based on a broad set of norms agreed upon by people from many different nations and cultures. It is also heavily based on Western law which, itself, has deep roots in Christianity — a religion that originated at a time when Roman law was already well established. “Islam, on the other hand, had no a priori legal system to work with other than unwritten tribal customs,” Powell writes. And, while international law has moved to a more secular model, Islamic law remains based in the writings of the Quran and the sunna as well as ijma (judicial consensus) and qiyas (analogical reasoning).
“However, disconcerting the dissonance between the Islamic legal tradition and international law may appear, there are more similarities between these two legal systems than the policy world and the scholarship take into account,” she writes.
By its broad nature, international law allows for interpretation based on norms in individual countries. And many Muslim-majority states have their own declaration of human rights, she notes.
“Sometimes international law promotes the peaceful resolution of disputes, but does not give specific rules or cite specific laws for how to do so. Countries can mediate, peacefully, via negotiation in compliance with international law. Sometimes Muslim-majority countries will also sign international treaties but place restrictions on them — what are technically called ‘reservations.’”
For example, some Muslim-majority countries use reservations to remove “freedom of religion” clauses, because their religion is inextricably part of their culture, with the assumption (often part of the country’s own understanding of human rights) that many of their citizens are all Muslim. In this way, Powell says, they are complying with some international norms but allowing for their identity to remain intact.
Powell also examines how Muslim-majority nations in different geographical areas use Sharia and work within the international law framework. In general, Powell finds that if an ILS (Islamic Law State) country has a secular court system and their constitution mentions peaceful resolutions of disputes, they possess a more favorable attitude toward international courts.
“The Islamic milieu is not a monolith. In each of the ILS, secular law and Islamic law coalesce to create a unique legal framework. Every one of the ILS is different in how it negotiates the relationship between these two legal forces — the religious and the secular — along with their respective differences in socio-demographic and political characteristics. Historically, every one of the ILS has worked out its own unique answers to the question of the balance of Islamic law and secular law,” she writes.
The examples Powell gathered through interviews shed light on the cultural and religious lenses through which many Muslims view courts….
Steve Austin says
If this is the premise of her argument:- “The very term Sharia conjures negative images in the minds of many Westerners, in part due to its association with extremist groups. However, an in-depth look at Islamic law, as practiced in the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries, reveals that it is interpreted in different ways depending on the country, its culture and the very people conducting the interpretation.” then surely the danger of interpretation is the problem when considering.
Jacquie Hemann Ruark says
My thought, too.
Jack Cade says
You have a choice, Mr Criminal, either 24 months in jail or have you hands chopped off.
Janice Mermikli says
Only one hand chopped off for a first offence. You’ve got to love that leniency!
Frank Anderson says
Why is she being paid to subvert our way of life? If she likes Sharia so much, why not go where it applies and live there instead of trying to bring it here? George Bernard Shaw was filmed proposing death for anyone who could not explain to a committee why a person should not be allowed to live. He is also credited with saying, “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can neither do nor teach, teach others how to teach.” This is the kind of air-head that seems to appear frequently at the top of law school classes.
mortimer says
Good question by FA: “Why is she being paid to subvert our way of life?”
A further question: Does she even know what she is talking about? It takes a decade to learn what Sharia is and upon what it is based. Has Powell done the required homework?
Are we to understand that Emilia Justyna Powell is an expert on supremacist, discriminatory Sharia law? Did she actually study how ISIS applied Sharia law in ALL ASPECTS of Islamic state?
Does Powell actually believe that Sharia can be applied by a pick-and-choose approach?
Sharia is Allah’s eternal law considered suitable for all times and all peoples. Muslims cannot accept half measures in its application.
Either we accept the principle of universal, egalitarian human rights or we don’t. It seems Emilia Justyna Powell is in a muddle and wants to have half modernity and half discrimination from 7th-century Arabia.
Islam is a supremacist ideology and will not be satisfied with half measures. Ask the Taliban, the Iranian mullahocracy and the Salafist/Wahhabists.
Frank Anderson says
Mortimer, in 2 more months, more or less, I will have had my law degree for 40 years. In September, I will have had my first license 40 years. I cannot see how anyone who would be accepted to teach law would need 10 years to understand, not everything, but enough about Sharia to KNOW it sucks. For that matter, I think anyone with basic awareness of a high school Civics course should understand that Sharia is a denial of every right and privilege our Founding Fathers fought for in the Revolution. Maybe because of my 12 years in military school I expect too much. The minute she started preaching this lie I would drop the course even if it meant leaving law school.
I had to make that decision in accounting school when the auditing professor, a non-lawyer PhD, a really nice guy and prince of a man, started preaching the flatly illegal view of the AICPA that accountants are covered by a rule of confidentiality that the law does not recognize. If I had bit my tongue and written what was required to pass the tests, and the bar got hold of my answers, I believe I could have been disbarred. So I quit. Then Mutual Savings, Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, and Tyco made headlines and accountants went to jail and paid fortunes for malpractice. I still have my license on retired status.
mortimer says
I certainly respect the intelligence of lawyers to quickly gather the basic principles, but Islam is dualistic and filled with contradiction. A lawyer is probably better equipped to see through Sharia law’s complexity than most educated people. Sharia is the distillation of the Koran, Sira, hadiths, tafsirs and Islamic history. To gather an understanding of Islam’s legal system means learning an unrelated foreign language, culture, philosophy and system of thought.
To learn all the why’s and wherefore’s of Sharia law and the primary source texts and commentaries as well as mastering Arabic is VERY lengthy. It’s not just the actual Sharia laws that must be learned, but all the supporting reasoning based on the mullahs’ analysis of the commentary texts and the primary texts themselves which are voluminous.
There is a Muslim West African judge who wrote a book about why Sharia should NOT be adopted by national governments. He has spent a lifetime considering this question.
The goal of Sharia is not ‘justice’ or the rule of law, but the advancement of the Islamic state. Sharia’s goal is to build Islam, while at the same time destroying ‘kufr’ (all the conditions that are non-Islamic … including non-Islamic legal systems and governments). Sharia law is basically a legal attack on everything that is non-Islamic.
Frank Anderson says
Mortimer, I have every reason to agree with you on the amount of study needed to approach a full understanding. I have a treasured friend who would not attempt to use a computer until he understood every detail. I asked him if he needed to learn an entire telephone book before making a call.
For this “professor” to profess her expertise in such an absurd and perverse way reflects poorly on the people who “educated” her and granted her degree(s) and licenses (if any). What if, for example, she touted an anti-Uniform Commercial Code, which turned a standard upside down. I don’t think it should take a lot of time or study to see how worthy of ridicule such a proposal would be and how quickly it should be taken off “stage”.
As little as I know, at least I do not pretend to know all. She obviously knows nothing and claims to know all.
I can’t help repeating the wisdom of my departed friend, JBH, who had a day for me when others did not have 5 minutes: “A man who knows not, and knows that he knows not is ignorant. Help him learn. A man who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep. Awaken him. A man who knows and knows that he knows is wise. Follow him. A man who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool. Avoid him.”
Mortimer you and I disagree on one subject and agree on many others. I know that you know. She in my evaluation is in the last category of JBH’s proverb, and is to be avoided like the plague she wishes to “sell” to us.
Savvy Kafir says
Agreed. Ten minutes spent learning the basics of Sharia is enough to know that it has no place in the civilized world. This bimbo is simply ignoring the obvious, in the interest of political correctness.
Frank Anderson says
S.K., I cannot understand how she could pass the Character and Fitness examination to obtain access to take a test for a law license. This kind of upside down view of law ought to show that she either does not understand the human law that islam defies, or rejects the human law she would be required to uphold as part of an attorney’s oath. “A lawyer’s duty of zealous advocacy of his client’s interest is limited by an equally solemn duty to uphold the law and standards of professional conduct.” Nix v. Whiteside, US Supreme Court. I cannot understand how any law school allowing her to teach keeps any accreditation with state or national bodies. She should be very happy I am not sitting on a Character and Fitness committee that looks at her conduct.
gravenimage says
Mortimer–with all respect–I do not believe that it takes a decade to learn what Shari’ah law looks like, nor need one learn Arabic in order to understand it.
Are you fluent in Arabic? And in Classical Arabic? Few are, but you obviously have a good understanding of this vicious system of laws.
The main problem with dhimmis like Powell is that she doesn’t *want* to know what Shari’ah law, with its intrinsic brutality and hatred of Infidels and women, really is.
gravenimage says
I did some research, and it turns out that Powell is no mere naif who thinks that Shari’ah law is misunderstood.
Here’s her Notre Dame CV:
She has written extensively on international law, international courts, international dispute resolution, the Islamic legal tradition, and Islamic constitutionalism. Her prominent publications include a book published in Oxford University Press (2019) entitled Islamic Law and International Law: Peaceful Resolution of Disputes…
She has been a fellow at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies…
https://politicalscience.nd.edu/people/emilia-justyna-powell/
So she is either in deep denial about Shari’ah, or else is deliberately whitewashing Islam–either as a dhimmi or–also possibly–as a Muslim convert. I can find no information on the latter.
DazzleMe says
Well said Mortimer!
william carr says
The Shaw quote is one of the most misquoted remarks of all time. Shaw was referring to Theatre critics and not any other kinds of ‘teachers’.. Critics may appear to teach but they simply give personal opinions.
Frank Anderson says
W.C. Thank you for that information. My first English instructor in college loved the Shaw quote because every person in the Education College was on the President’s List (4/4 GPA) every quarter. I have the film I mention as part of a Glenn Beck program from his time on Fox.
Gerry says
Those who can’t teach, teach phys ed!!!
Frank Anderson says
+1. The most absurd requirement in my 208 quarter hour undergraduate degree was 6 quarter hours of PE with an injured back. 4 were finally waived. Freshman level courses were filled with seniors.
Boromir's Horn says
When Powell says “Many women don’t wear the hijab scarf there and some only wear it halfway on. But who’s to say which is correct?”
Would have been a great time for her to mention the Religious Police who are always on patrol in a Sharia society, looking for the opportunity to beat the answer into you.
Ray Jarman says
B. H., One does not have to travel all that far to encounter the goons. NYC and even some cities in California and not to mention parts of Minneapolis.
gravenimage says
Ray, I agree that things are bad, but where are there Religious Police enforcing Hijab in California? Citations?
Garfield says
The problem seems to be that some western women crave to be dominated. Its a sick craving along the lines of a BDSM fetish. No normal thinking woman would defend any part of sharia. So what is the real mental issue with these women?
Boromir's Horn says
Of course, let’s not forget Notre Dame also went out of their way to hire rapist and Islamic apologist Tariq Ramadan to teach his version of vile dribble.
Buraq says
She might cynically believe that propagating this nonsense might accelerate her career. I’m sure there are quite a number of ‘academics’ in well-upholstered posts in educational establishments whose mortgage and holidays abroad on sunny beaches depend on spouting this kind of pro-Islam drivel.
However, if she really believes what she’s saying, she’s a clown!
James Lincoln says
Buraq says,
“…if she really believes what she’s saying, she’s a clown!”
True.
If she doesn’t believe what she’s saying, she is “aiding and abetting” the enemy by spreading islamic propaganda.
Hank Mansfield says
At a time when a frightened populace is willingly giving up civil liberties like Freedom of Association and politicians grab every bit of power they can, we see a story like this.
So, if this ‘academic’s’ suggestions are followed and they turn out to be an irreversible disaster she just shrug’s and says ‘I’m sorry’?
Not quite good enough.
gravenimage says
So you believe that spreading the Coronavirus is a good idea? How will that help us maintain our freedoms?
Hank Mansfield says
There is ‘precedence’ in the legal sense, and I think that in the future politicians will point to this pandemic as an example of why they must take certain measures. The bar for which will be lower each time.
Already there have been sober people looking at the data, and there’s good reason to believe an antibody test would reveal hundreds of thousands, if not millions, had the virus and were asymptomatic or confused it for a cold or flu.
With 6.6 million claims for unemployment in the U.S. this week alone and trillions of dollars from the treasury to keep individuals and small businesses afloat I believe a bit of an over-reaction has taken place. Add to that the precedent I mentioned and I find it absolutely galling.
That’s far from saying nothing should have been done, but in future this should be viewed as what NOT to do.
Was it here on Jihad Watch we saw Iranians licking the doorknobs of a mosque to prove they weren’t afraid of the Corona virus? That makes about as much sense to me as shutting down entire states.
Frank Anderson says
H,M. Please tell your estimate of the US deficit this year? Have you heard any mention of plans to reduce the national debt? I think this debt, both “funded and unfunded” is similar to the overwhelming debt placed on Germany after WWI. Debt crushed the economy then and unless action is taken now, will probably do it again. What happens then?
gravenimage says
Hank, there is no doubt that some politicians–especially Leftists–will try to make hay out of this virus to further their own agenda. That being said doesn’t mean that our trying to prevent the spread of this pandemic is not a wise thing.
And lest you think that I have not been affected by this, my husband was laid off from his position of over ten years just last week. This is painful, no doubt, but allowing this disease to spread unchecked would be even worse.
Gork says
While you can find interesting insights in virtually any book, even in the most hateful disgusting books of all time, that does not mean we should use it as a model for our society.
In this manner, I think Dr. Powell has stretched an idea well past its breaking point and toward utter absurdity.
the least of terry's says
I found no insights in the Koran when I read it, none; other than it confirmed how devilish led plagiarisms can destroy countless lives.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Terry–the Qur’an is either boring or horrifying, and sometimes both at once.
rubiconcrest says
“…some Muslim-majority countries use reservations to remove “freedom of religion” clauses, because their religion is inextricably part of their culture, with the assumption (often part of the country’s own understanding of human rights) that many of their citizens are all Muslim. In this way, Powell says, they are complying with some international norms but allowing for their identity to remain intact.”
So the ‘identity’ of a country is more important than the rights of individuals. This lady is very confused.
HERBERT DEUTSCH says
THE COMMENTS ARE FAR TOO CRITICAL. OF COURSE WE NEED MORE LAWS PERMITTING A MAN TO BEAT HIS WIFE AND BRINGING BACK STONING WILL REDUCE ADULTERY, WE ALSO NEED TO GET RID OF CONVERSIONS AND BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. WHAT AN ASSHOLE SHE IS
OTTER says
Once again, I would like to point out the dangers of white liberal, women leading the charge to surrender to Islam.
They have not only stopped having children, they have a subconscious desire to submit to Islam and be dominated.
The psychological fact is women like structure and Islam gives them this and the secondary position which they crave but will never admit to in these days of the normative superiority of equality between the genders which cannot be questioned.
Frank Anderson says
Otter, I observe that many people regardless of gender hate making decisions, even those of life and death, or in my primary line of practice, financial responsibility or waste. It seems to me that choices and decisions are optional when a “strong leader” offers to shoulder the burden. Look at the socialist states all over Europe and elsewhere that practice what I call, “You are an incompetent idiot and I know what is best for you”. Look how quickly and easily people have taken that bait only to become slaves of tyrants who will kill them as soon as they become a burden instead of a benefit. Look at the people in the US who want to force the same slavery on us. It is not just some women, but also some men who wish to sell themselves into slavery and oblivion because they do not want the personal responsibility of self-reliance. “The rich rule the poor; and the borrower is the slave of the lender.”
OTTER says
Frank, True But the role of white liberal women who scream patriarchy at every turn when confronted by the slightest assertion of this by white men, is particularly striking and bodes ill for the future of free societies.
Islam has many traitorous friends, but the most striking and deluded of these are white women.
They are, what the Americans called the French during the Iraq war, ‘ surrender monkeys.’
Save Europe says
I read both your posts, and DO see your point.
I’d also add that I’ve met MANY non white, non Muslim women who think the same as Powell, in the article.
I’ve also met a whole mass of white non Muslim men, and non white non Muslim men who also think the same as Powell.
Why does this problem exist? I can only come to the conclusion that the aforementioned Liberals truly believe Muslims ARE a race of people, when they are NOT, and stupidly sympathise with them.
James Lincoln says
OTTER,
It is true that white, liberal, women have largely stopped having children.
If they married at all, it is usually to white liberal men.
Perhaps it’s a blessing that couples like that do not have children – to be brought up with leftist values.
I’m not sure about the rest of your post, but there are may be signs what you’re saying in, say, countries like Sweden…
gravenimage says
OTTER has been flogging this across the threads–that women need to be controlled by men.
He either has failed to notice all the dhimmi men out there, or he has an agenda that has nothing to do with opposing Islam.
In fact, if he wants to control and abuse women, he’d be well off converting to Islam–they don’t have any equal rights as does the free West.
HERBERT DEUTSCH says
She has the issue reversed. The Q is how to have Sharia law adopt secular law
somehistory says
Evidently, she didn’t read what she wrote.One example: “we’ve contributed to a large-scale misunderstanding of their legal tradition,”
She is certainly doing her bit to “contribute” to a “misunderstanding” of islam’s so-called “legal system.” And with such a platform as someone who is called an “expert”…my childhood definition of expert: just another drip…on international law and the lawless code of islam, she has the possibility of influencing audiences and students, on “a large scale” of “misunderstanding.”
And, this gem: “The Taliban encourages women to cover top to bottom, not even showing the eyes.”
By using “encourages,: she covers up the fact that women who don’t follow this **demand** of the taliban, are whipped. We all saw this during the time when the U.S military went into afghanistan and women reporters, such as Diane Sawyer, spoke quietly, looking into the camera, while wearing moslim clothing, reporting on how cruel the creepy “students of islam” were to the poor women, clothed from head to foot, but not moving fast enough to suit.
She compares this to other “moslim majority countries” and then says, “But who’s to say which is correct? Bahrain is no less Islamic than Saudi Arabia, for example, just different. People in all Muslim-majority countries interpret and, thus, practice the Muslim faith differently.”
And she wants “international law judges” to ***use*** this to make decisions that will affect non-moslims. She asks, “But who’s to say which is correct?” Wouldn’t the **use** of the lawless code of islam mean the judges **must** decide “which is correct?” The “taliban” or the males of Bahrain?
Her ignorance is on display with this portion: “their religion is inextricably part of their culture, with the assumption (often part of the country’s own understanding of human rights) that many of their citizens are all Muslim”
moslims don’t consider or care if “many of their citizens are **all moslim,**” or only partly.. or moslim at all. The authorities in moslim countries expect, and demand, everyone…”all moslim,” partly moslim, or all non-moslim, to conform to their lawless code…or else.
Thus, she says this: “And, while international law has moved to a more secular model, Islamic law remains based in the writings of the Quran and the sunna as well as ijma (judicial consensus) and qiyas (analogical reasoning).”
She desires that ***everyone*** everywhere, be judged by the religion of islam and its lawless code of conduct. And since she uses the dress code for women…and even young girls don’t escape this…to illustrate the *differences* in how the code is applied, from being “encouraged” to cover up completely, to being allowed to “dress” Western under their moslim outer-wear, she is “encouraging” this part of the evil code to be applied to females the world over, to one degree or another.
She writes of “bias” on the part of some judges, but ignores her own strong biases…against Christianity and in favor of islam.
She is a fool and a tool for satan and his wild beast. And she fits my childhood definition of an “expert”: a true drip.
Frank Anderson says
S.H., just think of all of the Hundreds of Thousands of dollars spent on her “education” (indoctrination-brainwashing!). And now she lives well selling this outrageous lie.
somehistory says
F. A.
Imo, it was wasted money. She could have gotten her twisted ideas for free from many moslims. Well, not exactly “free,” but without expending money.
But she wouldn’t have the cushy, well-paying job she has now.
Liars make me angry. So, I have to let it go and think of other things, if I am able.
Frank Anderson says
S.H. we share a “strong dislike” of liars and cheats. Letting go, even for a short while, is not easy; is it?
somehistory says
F.A.
As long as I can remember the lie, it angers me. And I have a very long memory for those things that affect me emotionally.
Never easy to let it go,
James Lincoln says
Frank,
There’s a lot of money to be made pushing leftist / marxist / globalist / islamic propaganda.
If you’re willing to sell your soul to the devil…
Fine people like you would NEVER do anything like this.
And this is FAR more valuable than any amount of monetary “riches”.
Frank Anderson says
James, I hope you are right about me. I turned down the offer of “What’s it going to take to get on the team; anything at all, anything you want, to get on the team?” The team was stealing 200 million dollars in present value. “A good name is to be preferred above great riches.” Since we must face ourselves in the mirror, the first place to establish that good name is right there in the mirror. What others think is secondary. I am disappointed with my life; but I am still alive and hope to do good with what is left. Happy Easter and Joyous Passover. Frank
James Lincoln says
Frank Anderson says,
“I am disappointed with my life…”
Frank, this is a very common feeling among ultra high achievers – and you are one of them. These folks set the bar so impossibly high that even reaching it to the 90% point is not enough.
I also have those feelings at times. I even have a slight case of inferiority complex if you can believe it. Objectively, if one looks at my CV, I am a success by all measures. I even dust it off once in a while and update it just to remind me what I have done in my life thus far.
Perhaps you should write down all the things that you have accomplished in your life thus far and reflect upon it. You have undoubtedly accomplished more than two or three average Americans put together.
Frank Anderson says
James, really and sincerely excellent advice that I would share with any client. I long ago got past the comparing of my accomplishments with others. I have enough to not be a parasite. My car is a 1993 Honda Civic with 280,000 miles. I took a 6,000 mile in 6 days of driving solo road trip in it back in 2002; and it is ready and fit for another. There is much to appreciate. And much to wish to be different. I think accepting the fact that I am disappointed with my results so far helps me to keep trying for better, maybe. If my wealth were measured in money, I am more or less secure. If my wealth is measured in real friends, I am rich beyond the vast majority of people I know. If my wealth is measured by my relationship with God, I am well. And I am still trying to do better. Not bad for a “no-named Iowa bastard” (my ex-wife’s description as she left)..Thank you.
janwog says
Since there is a Chrislamist pope, this lady makes a logic campaign in favor of Islam.
somehistory says
Furthermore, she is “encouraging” a “large-scale misunderstanding” of islam with this line: “qiyas (analogical reasoning).”
islam is devoid of any kind of “reasoning.” And evidently, her **study** and **research** into the evil abyss has voided her mind of what she might have once possessed; but perhaps she had no reasoning ability in her beginning. She certainly has none now.
Jedothek says
Notre Dame should be ashamed of hiring such an individual. I’m sure that they knew at that time that she was a de facto jihadist.
revereridesagain says
Human rights are not based on mystical whim. That makes a great many people, largely but not exclusively Muslim, uncomfortable but it is a fact. We are rational human beings. If our laws do not protect our freedom of thought and expression we are then forbidden to live according to our natures. That Sharia is an integral part of a “culture” is irrelevant.
It is of course particularly revolting to hear a woman defend a system of law which enslaves women. Perhaps that is part of Prof. Powell’s personal “culture”.
gravenimage says
Good post.
libertyORdeath says
“For example, some Muslim-majority countries use reservations to remove “freedom of religion” clauses, because their religion is inextricably part of their culture, with the assumption (often part of the country’s own understanding of human rights) that many of their citizens are all Muslim. In this way, Powell says, they are complying with some international norms but allowing for their identity to remain intact.”
What a farce! How does restricting the freedom of religion possibly line up with international law? The only non Muslim countries that restrict the freedom of religion are authoritarian regimes such as communist China, socialist Venezuela and just plain crazy N. Korea.
JW_Reader says
Reading her arguments, I failed to see what part of Sharia law could be coalesced with Western Laws? How does Sharia Laws comply with basic human rights like Right to Equality (Men/Women/non-Muslims), Freedom from Discrimination (of Non-Muslims), Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security (of Non-Muslims), Freedom from Slavery (for all citizens), Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment (for all citizens)? Most Muslim countries legal systems are even intolerant of their minority Muslim sects (Shia/Sunni/Ahmadiyas). She really needs to have a broader understanding of the societies/laws before she claims to be an expert of International laws.
gravenimage says
+1
David Longfellow says
Just what we need. Another moron masquerading as an expert.
Save Europe says
I truly worry. Worry, very heavily. What will happen to our Western Countries, when idiots like this promote Islam, with no knowledge whatsoever? The Leftists say – ‘we live in frightening times.’
Frankly, being on the opposite of their political spectrum – I’m terrified. Not joking.
gravenimage says
Unfortunately, she is not just ignorant about Islam. She has published books on Islamic law.
Save Europe says
I will exchange the word I used – ‘knowledge’ for ‘ability to laterally think.’ Or ‘use sense.’
gravenimage says
Agreed, Save Europe.
Kilauea says
How can the PC police allow Sharia here at all? Does anyone else see the incompatibility of Sharia and the LGBTQ+P cabal? How will the media, elites, and Democratic politicians deal with this rift? It’s like putting two Betas in the same aquarium.
eduardo odraude says
Part of our problem is that almost the vast majority of people willing to speak publicly on this are people who take no particular position toward sharia or else more or less actively support it. Anyone who would condemn Sharia as it deserves faces many powerful disincentives to speak, and consequently most of what the public hears is neutral or positive. Those who speak neutrally or positively are of two kinds, I suppose: 1) ignorant; or 2) lying. Of those who are lying, there are several kinds: 1) stealth jihadists, i.e., Muslims seeking, via demographic change and other methods to infiltrate sharia gradually into our culture, ethos, institutions, and laws; 2) those non-Muslims seeking to save their jobs, reputations, careers from leftist demolition and jihadist violence; 3) those non-Muslims who are paid to stay out of the way or actually to help spread Islamophilia.
Many Muslims do not know much about what the core Islamic sources (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira) teach as expansionist totalitarian supremacism. Many Muslims are more or less only nominal Muslims who are not paying much attention. So there are varying degrees of innocence and guilt among Muslims as to what they are really involved in. But Muslim leadership knows and supports (often sotto voce where Muslims are a minority population) Muhammad’s and Islam’s totalitarian expansionist core teachings and are guilty of true religious fascism.
We need a politically possible immigration policy, one that does not mention any religious group and in most cases prevents immigration from totalitarian nations. Here’s an idea: A moratorium or limitation on immigration from any nation that does not protect freedom of speech and religious freedom. No mention of Islam. The policy could make exceptions for oppressed minorities provided they support basic freedoms. This idea admittedly might not work, for example because Uigars in China might lie and claim they support freedom of speech and religion, and then it would I guess become politically impossible to exclude them. But maybe experienced political operators working in government would know how to finesse this somehow…
eduardo odraude says
Yes, the depths of stupidity out there are truly unfathomable, even among “educated” people. Recently I heard a woman insisting that we in the US are living under fascism. Am I supposed to believe that the US is now equivalent to Hitler’s or Mussolini’s totalitarian system? Really? And yet people with such views are surprisingly commonplace.
Later I heard the same woman say something about how since most jets have been grounded (during the coronavirus), she can smell the difference in the air due to no jet exhaust. Mind you, she lives nowhere near an airport. And I’d bet her a $1000 that if a scientific test were made of her ability to distinguish with her nose whether jet planes are in earth’s atmosphere or have been grounded for a week, the test would show that her olfactory powers produce no more correct answers than would result from pure chance. That woman was simply an idiot — not in proposing that she could smell such things, but in the fact that she clearly never wondered in the slightest if she might be mistaken in thinking she possessed such an ability. Such deficits in the capacity for critical thinking are only the least of the problems due in substantial part to our state education system. Without educational freedom, such that the State and its school boards no longer control curricula, standards, testing, teacher certification, a school’s world view, or which school a family can choose for its children, religious or non-religious, we’ll just get more like this superficially clever, extremist, idiot. Educational freedom is perhaps best achieved through tax credit scholarship foundations (developing in Florida among other states). Without educational freedom — which of course does not extend to teaching children to break US laws — our educational system will just continue to produce far too many people who find all kinds of essential subjects too boring to bother studying, too many boring teachers, and too many people who tend toward nihilism or toward one or another form of extremism.
gravenimage says
Besides, there are about the same number of planes in the air, because right now they are flying without passengers with just freight.
This person is an idiot.
Oren says
I wonder if she is smiling because she has A muslim boyfriend, and hates white people and sees their weakness, and is happy that she will get A chance to destroy them.
Or, maybe she hates islam, but hates the left more, and sees the destruction of her own country at the hands of muslims preferable than continuation of the horror of living in A lawless nation with no security, with numerous reasons to be fearful of the people and the government. A nightmare that should be ended. Blaming the destruction of europe on muslims taking over is the ideal option for ‘white supremacists’ who often may be white advocates.
They say the same thing, they hope america is destroyed, so they have an opportunity to have A real conversation. Current free speech levels are inadequate to save these last, and most important generations, so why is it so hard to imagine that potential for greater free speech exists after the fall? Its very easy to imagine that our free speech and our debates are limited, in order to deny us access to the majority of our people, deny us the necessary access to be victorious and avoid the judgment and the slaughter of failing this contest.
I listen to the stupid conversations, the stupid strategies of pretending we do not exist. Look at the corona virus, it took fear of death for the idiot western majority to scream we want borders, in defiance of PC that we argued was immoral, illogical and unjust for years and years. There is plenty more room in the bs opinions in the west, more fear of death is needed. In G-d I trust.
Save Europe says
It’s REALLY easy to shut down any Leftist. They perceive Muslims to be a ‘race.’
Merely state –
There are white Muslims ((Gorani, Bosniaks, Albanians, Kosovars, Azeri etc) plus olive skinned and black Muslims.
There are white Christians, olive skinned Christians and black Christians
There are white Jewish people etc
Shuts ALL Leftists down with ease. They never have any response ?
Wellington says
She’s an apologist for evil. What a fool. And proving yet again that education without common sense, moral intelligence and wisdom means very little. In fact, it often proves destructive.
As for Notre Dame in general, like Georgetown it has become a Catholic University in name only. The obliteration of traditional Catholicism which has been ongoing since that disaster known as Vatican II (1962-1965) is one of the greater tragedies of our time—and contributory most definitely to the overall descent of the West.
Proposal for traditional Catholics with lots of money who are devastated by what has happened to the Catholic Church: Create a new Catholic university here in America that extolls Catholicism pre-Vatican II. A good name for it would be Pope Urban II University.
GreekEmpress says
+1
Shirley Ann says
I personally advise the University to DROP THE FIRST CLASS NAME, NOTRE DAME, for a FIFTH CLASS INDOCTRINATION CENTER. It’s Obscene, that the Name of NOTRE DAME exists on a “School” to Promote ANTI-CHRISTIAN Radicals like Justyna Powell.
James Lincoln says
Shirley Ann,
I’ll raise you…
How about the “South Bend islamic Learning Center.”
eduardo odraude says
Yes. Today what is called “education” often merely takes a form of intellectual provinciality or narrowness and sharpens and massively arms it.
TKF says
She likes Sharia? Quick, chop off her clit, put her in a burqua and get her to the back of the mosque, then beat her senseless. This stupid twat has her head up her ass so far it would take the jaws of life to get it out.
eduardo odraude says
Hell, no need to put her in the most extreme situation. Just require her to give up her US citizenship and take citizenship in an average Islamic nation. Maybe that would get reality through her thick skull and cause her to empathize just a wee bit with the vast populations oppressed by Islam.
gravenimage says
Actually, what TKF described *does* go on in average Muslim nations.
eduardo odraude says
Interesting question.
These things go on to some extent everywhere. Question for me is, how much. Some places more than others.
Four elements in TKF’s comment:
1) FGM, female genital mutilation;
2) burka;
3) back of the mosque, behind the men;
4) wife-beating, woman-beating.
#1, FGM, is used in many nations, most of them apparently African Muslim nations, but in Saudi Arabia, for example, it seems a minority (10-20%?) go through FGM. It seems FGM is more prevalent in Muslim nations than in any other category of nations. Has the “average” Muslim female in the world undergone FGM? Or is it rather a commonplace event that happens only to a large minority of Muslim females?
#2, burka, I’d guess is not predominant in most Muslim nations, unless one uses “burka” very loosely as a metaphor to include lesser forms of enforced covering for women, such as head scarfs, veils, etc. I suppose a minority (how large?) of Muslim women wear literal burkas; a majority no doubt are forced to wear some sort of partial face- or head covering.
#3, back of the mosque (i.e., segregating and subordinating women in general) I suppose is commonplace or “average” in Muslim nations, though still in some Islamic nations more than other Islamic nations.
#4, wife-and woman-beating I suppose is more prevalent in Muslim nations than in other nations. Does the “average” Muslim female experience beatings from men? What would that statement mean? That the majority of Muslim women get periodic beatings from men? I don’t know.
Muhammad taught a violent, expansionist totalitarian system, but how particular nations adopt that in specifics is a question for me.
eduardo odraude says
Another thing that is incredibly commonplace among Muslims: sending death threats to anyone who publicly criticizes or lampoons Islam. That’s why there is little freedom of speech or freedom of religion in Islamic nations.
The great comic book artist Bosch Fawstin has published, among many other things, two volumes of his drawings of Muhammad along with the hundreds of online death threats he has received from Muslims angry about his drawings. Check out his volumes 1 and 2 of “Peaceful Deaththreats” to see his art and those threats:
https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/2019/02/peaceful-death-threats-will-be-on-sale.html
gravenimage says
Ayyan Hirsi Ali lived in Saudi Arabia as a child, and said that as soon as the sun went down a chorus of crying and screams started up from all the surrounding houses and apartments as women were beaten, some pretty much every night.
It wasn’t until much later that she realized that this horror was not normal.
gravenimage says
Yes–important stuff from Bosch Fawstin, Eduardo. I have both books.
eduardo odraude says
She speaks of how each Islamic nation has its own “balance of international law and Islamic law.”
Balance? Almost makes it sound like relying only on international law would be “unbalanced,” and that sharia has an improving influence.
Deadly foolish professors like this emerge because there is too little real competition of ideas to correct egregiously idiotic tendencies. The disincentives to publicly criticize Islam are infinitely larger than the disincentives to talk supportive nonsense about it. Thus foolishness prospers. The same kind of thing tends to happen wherever speech is suppressed, even if, as in this case, the suppressing force is not the state but one sort of mob or another (i.e., leftist thugs and jihadist thugs).
pfwag says
There are so many interpretations of Sharia, and Islam in general, because Islam is an asinine religion made up by an illiterate, sex pervert and reprobate and Arabic is a crude and very imprecise language.
eduardo odraude says
There are not, when all is said and done, many “interpretations” of sharia. There are degrees to which various governments impose sharia.
The main schools of sharia law agree in 80-90% of their interpretations. They differ on such details as how many times one should ask an apostate to return to Islam before he is killed. Are women apostates to be killed? Or held under house arrest and beaten until they return?
pfwag says
Right… they can’t even determine with assuredly whether martyrs are rewarded with virgins or raisins or jihad is a personal struggle or killing the infidels. .
eduardo odraude says
David Wood created a brilliant and hilarious video on Irshad Manji’s idiotic statement that the word for virgins might actually mean raisins. The claim is idiotic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=TNL8xugDNZQ&feature=emb_title
eduardo odraude says
Did not mean to post the video of the Polish fellow. For the David Wood video, scroll down, way down.
gravenimage says
There are not really different interpretations of Shari’ah–just sometimes places that don’t impose the full hideous spectrum. But there are no places that interpret Shari’ah as democratic law.
OTTER says
Please consider an explanation for this woman’s delusion: Women are deficient in logic and easily swayed by emotion. She’s one of them.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t some women who can see through the Islamic charade but there are many who simply can’t because of their incurable emotional bent, which is evolutionary.
If she thinks Muslims are an oppressed minority, that’s all she needs to reach her conclusions.
gravenimage says
OTTER here is happy to quote Islamic scripture when it comes to women.
Note that he does not explain how there are so many dhimmis of both genders–is that somehow evolutionary, as well?
Tony Stark says
What does Dr. Powell think of Sharia Law’s maxims that a woman’s testimony is only 1/2 that of a man’s(? ); or, that there is a need for 4 (male) witnesses to convict a man of raping a woman?
Frank Anderson says
T.S., I sincerely question that this person can think. And to think that people are paying more than 50,000 per year to sit in her classes.
TheRemorselessHeadsman says
With a ball gag, she would make a suitable “captive of the right hand”. Then, after the novelty wore off, probably bring a good price when selling or trading her. Sharia court you say? So sorry, never more than 2 of my friends ever joined in the festivities at a time and you don’t have the required number of witnesses so, IT NEVER HAPPENED. Have a nice day.
James Lincoln says
The professor needs to watch this video and tell us all how Polish Parliament member Dominik Tarczynski is wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EgPdebnyTw
Frank Anderson says
James, remarkable and totally exceptional people leave islam (Gabriel, Geller, Sultan . . .) and common ordinary fools run to it. Expecting her to question her views is as unlikely as getting Goering, Goebbels, Hess or Himmler to question their views about Nazism. When I asked my friend and Rabbi of about 20 years to review his “religion of peace” views, he exploded, causing me to withdraw to a distance. He retired and moved 2,000 miles. I miss him. But he failed to follow the teaching to ask all questions repeatedly, even to the very existence of God. “There are none so blind as those who REFUSE to see,”
James Lincoln says
Frank,
You are, of course, correct.
I’m still puzzled, however…
I consider myself to be a relatively intelligent person…
That being said:
If I, personally, have a closely held belief about a person, subject, idea, etc., and I’m suddenly broadsided with factual evidence that does not support that belief, I will change that belief to reflect reality. It might take some effort but I will always ultimately make the change.
It seems so simple and intuitive.
I’m at a total loss as to how some people cannot do this, and I have an undergraduate degree in psychology.
I have a few theories; perhaps some people cannot live with the cognitive dissonance that it creates; maybe they’re so caught up in their beliefs that they would lose part of themselves by changing; peer pressure; embarrassment; etc…
Any thoughts that you have about this would be greatly appreciated!
Frank Anderson says
James, unlike most lawyers I know who practiced much of their time in bankruptcy matters, I was the whole office. That meant I met with every client and spent in the order of 2 hours free of charge looking at their situation to help them see and decide what was best for them, not for me. Then I would always ask them to go home and think about our discussion before making any decision. Then if they decided that bankruptcy was the right path, we would meet again for several hours and prepare their case, in the process preparing them for any questions that might come in the hearings that followed. So I believe that the personal counselling was an integral part of my work.
What I learned is that people hate to face their errors. When they have made decisions, those turn into blind un-reviewable commitments. The worst position a doctor or lawyer can have is to have to fight with a client in addition to an opponent. There is no way to come out of such a fight with an undamaged skin or reputation. That is the reason I did not take a dime from a client until the case was prepared and ready to file. I could quit or the client could say no at any time and we go our way. The people who are smart, for want of a better word, enough to ask themselves where they have made mistakes and then ask what can be done to either correct or limit the damage of the mistakes are the people who can be helped.
I don’t think it is all that different in other “decisions”. That is why I suggest looking for people with sense to share the time needed to inform them, to light their candle, about islam. Some people are to blind, deaf and dumb to be helped.
James Lincoln says
Frank, much thanks for the reply.
Lots to ponder…
God bless.
gravenimage says
Dear Frank, you are right that the brave Wafa Sultan left Islam–as have others like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
But Brigitte Gabriel is a Christian Lebanese-American, and Pamela Geller is a Jewish American. These last two were never Muslim.
I’m not sure if Powell is Muslim or not–I can’t find any specific information. She is certainly an apologist for Islam, though.
Frank Anderson says
GI, I always appreciate correction when I am in error. One of those who converted out, who also is one of the most powerful writers on islam is Mark Gabriel, PhD, who wrote The Unfinished Battle. I hope if you are not familiar with him that you take a look at his credentials. He and Spencer would make an incredibly powerful team. Thank you.
gravenimage says
Frank, thank you for your reply.
I should have thought of Mark Gabriel–I just assumed you were referring to Brigitte Gabriel, which was an error on my part. I *am* familiar with his work, although I don’t have this book. It should go on my to read list.
I always appreciate being corrected when I get something wrong. Thanks again.
Frank Anderson says
GI, many years ago there was a bar-b-q “joint” originally in Homewood which moved to Vestavia Hills later that I asked friends to go when passing through Birmingham. I enjoyed their cooking so much that just thinking about the pleasure I expected my friends to enjoy was almost as good as going myself.
Mark Gabriel’s writing based on all his education, experience and insight is to me something all of us would both enjoy and benefit by reading. Taking nothing away from any other writer, his perspective is at least unusual and perhaps unique among the books I have read. As I did with Robert Spencer’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades, I bought a copy of Gabriel’s book to pass around to my high school classmates who meet once each month for supper (in “happier” times). All thought highly of both books.
I think you will enjoy the book and may see at least a few things for the first time. I wish you well.
gary fouse says
Death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and homosexuality. And she says Sharia has much in common with international law?
tgusa says
Women are second-class citizens in the overwhelming majority of the world. Globally, the closest women get to equality is in predominantly white western countries. The greatest threat to female equality in the west are female leftists. For non leftist females these females are truly the enemy within. Non leftist females need to start confronting and fighting these leftist females as if their lives and liberties depend on it, because they do. Leftist females are constantly going on about women’s empowerment but from this white males perspective their actions speak louder than their words. No matter how hard I try to put the female leftist puzzle together the pieces just don’t fit.
Save Europe says
The greatest threat to female equality in the west are female leftists.
********
Let me fix/add to that –
The greatest threat to female equality in the west are female leftists….and Islam…. or those who promote/sympathise with Islam!
gravenimage says
+1
somehistory says
Judges in a court of law, are supposed to use reason, logic and common sense in their “interpretation” of the laws as they contemplate any case and how the law should be applied.
Precedence is set by courts, which in U.S. law, is supposed to tell a judge in a like case, and at the same court level, what is the “right” decision and application of law.
When the U.S. Supreme Court reaches a decision agreed upon by the majority, all similar cases that come before the courts are supposed to be decided using the Court’s decision. Such rulings as “Miranda,” and “fruit of the poisonous tree” are examples.
Since this fool states…in many ways…that moslims are all over the place in their “interpretation” of their evil code, how would this even fit with International law if, as she says, International law is based on “Western” law and Christian Laws and principles? There is obviously no “precedent” that would be the “rule” for all future cases that had similar facts, and since each moslim majority country, according to her, follows its own set of circumstances for deciding cases, how would International judges possibly choose which one’s “interpretation” should be followed? It would be a quagmire as they worried about upsetting the moslims whose “interpretation” they tossed.
It seems that all of her arguments in favor of using islam’s code of lawlessness…islam breaks all of the Laws set down by our Creator, and the laws of reasonable men…are arguments for ***not*** considering islam’s code when deciding the fate of persons.
Patricia Ward says
This is why we have so much trouble with our college young people. Get these libtards out of the teaching jobs they are holding.
Frank Anderson says
P.W. in studying what happens in organizations. corruption exists because it rises to the top, taking out along the way all who resist or might resist in the future. She is there because other corrupt “libtards” put her there and keep her there long enough to have “tenure” where she can pump this “stuff” as long as she wants. “Corruption rises to the top.”
tim gallagher says
What is wrong with people like this woman? Women are treated like crap in Islam, and she sees something in it that she wants to support. What a fuckwit. She must be a masochist who wants to have her dignity and rights stomped on if she supports any aspect of totally misogynistic Islam. I honestly cannot believe some of these apologists for Islam.
gravenimage says
Notre Dame prof hails Islamic law, asks international law judges to consider “referring to parts of Sharia”
…………………
What does Professor Powell have in mind? Lopping off the limbs of petty thieves? Flogging for “blasphemy”? Stoning rape victims to death?
What a dhimmi fool.
Save Europe says
And I quote –
In this way, Powell says, they are complying with some international norms but allowing for their identity to remain intact.
****
My response- thanks for that! That’s why EVERY NON Muslim has EVERY right to wish to retain their culture, which is NON Muslim!!!!
Shot yourself in the foot there, didn’t you Ms Powell!
tgusa says
“and Islam”
To be fair, females are treated badly throughout 90 percent of the world. As one of those mean nasty western white men, a minority in the world of men, I disagree with that treatment. But who am I to challenge the popular meme in this crazy stupid world we currently live in.
Jewcat says
This woman needs to be educated in Islam. Bill Warner’s basic premise is that Islam can be learned by reading the Koran, the hadiths and Ibn Ishaq’s glowing hagiography of Mohammad. Then one can say “I have been educated in Islam by the greatest of all Muslims! Are you bold enough to say you know better than him?” Someone in the USA could send her some copies of his red books on Political Islam.
Frank Anderson says
J., I mean all courtesy to you when I suggest that I think it is better to let fools like this go through life without having me to mock. She is so “educated” that she would not consider counsel from another person under any circumstances. (“A wise man harkeneth to counsel; A fool in his own eyes is always right.” Col TCH, military school superintendent) I have met quite a few people who are so confident in their present state of “knowledge” that they become furious at the challenge of their conclusions. We have better and more productive people we can help see islam for what it is and what it wants to be. I agree wholeheartedly on the excellence of Bill Warner’s work. Putting it in front of her is a perfect illustration of “pearls before swine”.
David says
I haven’t read the article yet, but something tells me that this woman has been got at. I’ll tell you what: We don’t need Sharia. Thanks, but NO THANKS!
Giacomo Latta says
”the bias she sees toward Western law to the point of absolute exclusion of any facets of Islamic law”
Yeah, that’s right. So? What law of nature says that all things must be equal and equivalent? Western (democratic) law is superior to Islamic (slavery-endorsing) law. It’s idiots like this prof who think because a trial between the state and an individual has two outcomes that each should occur the same number of times, and that any deviation therefrom indicates bias, racism, yadda yadda yadda.
eduardo odraude says
oops. Here’s the David Wood video that brilliantly and hilariously destroys Irshad Manji’s idiotic claim that the Qur’an does not speak of virgins but of “raisins”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=TNL8xugDNZQ&feature=emb_title
eduardo odraude says
Accidentally posted wrong video. But here is the right one, the hilarious David Wood video on virgins and raisins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=TNL8xugDNZQ&feature=emb_title
eduardo odraude says
Sorry for the double post, folks. Was trying to reply to someone way up above in the comments thread, but for some reason the reply twice ended up at the bottom of the thread.
Christina says
If you want that law then leave the USA it don’t belong here and neither your kind and it’s a shame your in this collage what a waste
OLD GUY says
People like Powel are dangerous to free society. Sharia law in itself is no different than the laws made up by every dictatorship around the world. There is no place in a free society for sharia law no matter what this liberal idiot thinks or says. What a sad day for the Catholic community to support this women at it’s primer educational university.
Vae schmidt says
The Sharia law are one and the same with their religion, it’s not a separate entity, you cant have Sharia law without the Quran and you can’t have the Quran without the Sharia law. If she want to bring Sharia law into our country she can go live in Syria, loco!!????