|
Steven Emerson,
Executive Director
|
October 6, 2015
|
|
Shariah
Incompatible With the Constitution
by Pete Hoekstra
IPT News
October 6, 2015
|
|
|
|
Share:
|
Be the
first of your friends to like this.
Note: Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra is
the Investigative Project on Terrorism's Shillman senior fellow. This
article originally appeared at Newsmax.
NBC's "Meet the
Press" moderator Chuck Todd in a recent exchange with a presidential
candidate raised an issue that should be discussed not only by all of the
candidates, but debated and analyzed by the American people.
Is Islamic law (Shariah) compatible with the U.S. Constitution?
The question has no simple answer, but we have three recent examples of
where regime change forced national leaders to determine Shariah's role in
their governance, all failing to reach a definitive conclusion.
The first two followed interventions by the Obama administration, in one
case actively and in the other passively, that facilitated the overthrow of
stable authorities.
In Libya, NATO precipitated the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi's 42-year
dictatorship. In Egypt, the U.S. sent clear and unambiguous indications
that replacing President Hosni Mubarak with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood
would be acceptable, if not desirable.
In both cases new governments rose to power through American support.
I illustrate how events unfolded following Gaddafi's deposition in my
upcoming book, "Architects of Disaster: the Destruction of
Libya."
The U.S.-backed National Transitional Council – comprised of radical
Islamist "moderates" that fought Gadhafi – appointed Sadeq
al-Ghariani grand mufti during the civil war, a title that he retained
after the shooting subsided.
Al-Ghariani, as grand mufti, the highest ranking official on Islamic law
in a Muslim country, declared that Shariah would serve as the primary
source of legislation and that any law contradicting it was invalid.
He legitimized polygamy, banned women from marrying foreigners, directed
the Ministry of Education to delete passages on democracy and freedom of
religion from school textbooks, and praised the militant group Ansar
al-Sharia, which the U.S. blames for the Benghazi attacks that resulted in
the murder of four Americans.
In addition, British officials accused al-Ghariani of encouraging
jihadists with ideological ties to ISIS to overthrow the duly elected
parliament.
Libya remains a bitterly divided failed state with one group supporting
jurisprudence under the model created by Mohammad and another fighting for
more democratic reforms while still pledging allegiance to Islamic law.
In Egypt, the government led by the Muslim Brotherhood focused on
consolidating power rather than quickly imposing expanded facets of Shariah.
However, the Muslim populace quickly rejected the actions and declarations
of leaders dedicated to implementing stricter adherence to the fundamental
teachings of the Koran.
Egyptians already dissatisfied with the economic performance under the
stewardship of President Mohammed Morsi turned on him before he could
impose what many believed was an agenda to introduce it gradually.
The sad irony is that in both Libya and Egypt, the Obama administration
— a supposed champion of liberty and human rights — supported groups that
wanted to ultimately enforce the code of law championed by Mohammed once
they gained power.
Another irony is that while people in both countries are fighting and
dying for political freedom and against more radical Shariah
interpretations, that debate can't even take place in the United States.
Those who raise the issue are immediately labeled as Islamophobic.
Finally, the third example of Shariah is that inflicted by ISIS which
allows for genocide of religious minorities in the so-called caliphate, an
area comprised of large swaths of Syria and Iraq. Their practices are so
barbaric that it's difficult to imagine anyone in the U.S. defending them.
Other practices under ISIS' application of the religious precepts of
Islam include beheading and immolating captives, as well as selling
"infidel" women as sex slaves. Here again other Muslims are fighting
ISIS, for many reasons that include their obedience to Shariah.
The policies and laws executed by the grand mufti in Libya, the
long-term agenda in the short-lived Morsi government in Egypt and by ISIS
in its ideal Islamist Ummah are incompatible with the Constitution, period.
If such interpretations are unacceptable as many in the region indicate
by their physical resistance, it is not difficult to understand why
Americans are asking whether it could apply here.
How would Shariah work within the parameters of America's founding
document, and would the American Muslim community broadly embrace it?
Let's ask all of the presidential candidates of both parties to hear
what they have to say and allow a real discussion among American voters to
begin.
Pete Hoekstra represented Michigan for 18 years in Congress,
including as chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee. He
currently serves as the Shillman senior fellow at the Investigative Project
on Terrorism, and is the author of "Architects of Disaster: The
Destruction of Libya."
|
The IPT accepts no funding from
outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or
religious institutions. Your support of The Investigative Project on
Terrorism is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All
donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate online. The
Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is a recognized 501(c)3
organization.
202-363-8602
- main
202-966-5191
- fax
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment