Sharia Law & the Media

This is long, please bear with me.

Most of you who know me, know that I am not prone to jumping the gun. I do not immediately forward the latest and greatest internet tome claiming to prove that the political machine in the United States is actually the love child between Russia and China. Although……………. But I digress.

I don’t believe that we do ourselves justice when we blindly follow any politician or media darling. That’s not to say they aren’t telling us the truth, but blind trust is actually what got us here. If I am told something, I am willing to accept it at face value but I also strongly believe in the old adage “trust, but verify.”

However, I am reminded of the scene in The Passion in which Pontius Pilate says “Quid Est Veritas?” What is Truth?

Last night I was watching Hardball with Chris Matthews. I know many of you will be shocked by that admission. For the sake of full disclosure I have also been known to watch Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Bill O’Reilly, and Ed Schultz. I think it is important to hear both sides of an argument and then make your own decisions. This brings me back to last night. Aside from all the rhetoric and name calling (a subject for a future entry) I was troubled by what Chris Matthews was “spinning” in connection with comments made by Newt Gingrich at the Values Voter Summit. On his show Matthews, along with Washington Post reporter Eugene Robinson, lambasted Gingrich for his comment that "We should have a federal law that says Sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States.” But is this something that should be dismissed with derogatory commentary and childish laughter?

Before we look further, let us answer the question what is Sharia Law? Sharia is the sacred law of Islam. Muslims believe it is derived from the divine revelations set forth in the Qur’an, and the sayings and example set by the Prophet Muhammad. All Muslims believe Sharia is God’s law and is administered by Islamic Judges.

Unless you are a clairvoyant, none of us can truly predict the future with absolute certainty, however we can use the past and the present to guide our thoughts. So is the former Speaker of the House correct? Or do we owe Messrs Matthews and Robinson a debt of gratitude for pointing out the absurdity of this commentary?

To see where we might be heading, we must first look to other countries that have seen an increase in their Muslim communities. These increases came about as a result of bringing to Europe their former colonial subjects. These came in the form of refugees and cheap labor from such nations as Pakistan (UK), Turkey (Germany) and Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia (France). These initial communities were small and comprised only a fraction of the host countries population. At this point one can begin to see what impact, if any, Sharia law has had on the host country. Initially, Sharia law was not seen as an obstruction to the recognized law. It was applied discretely within small Muslim enclaves in order to remedy minor cultural issues. However, after two generations of high birth rate and immigration, those communities have grown to where the Sharia law now challenges the Judeo-Christian foundations of their host European nations.

In United Kingdom, Islamic imams now outnumber Christian pastors. In 2008 the leader of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, conducted a lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice and stated "as a matter of fact certain provisions of Sharia are already recognized in our society and under our law. The application of Sharia in certain circumstances, if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion, seems unavoidable?"

In Germany, Muslims have successfully argued Sharia law in court to defend the right of men to beat their wives as well as to practice polygamy.

In France, home to an estimated 14 million Muslims, including 9 million illegal immigrants, the government no longer controls the densely populated, predominantly Muslim ghettos that encircle most major French cities. As a matter of fact, France is projected to become a majority Muslim nation by 2040. It is estimated that The Netherlands will become Western Europe's first majority Muslim nation by 2015.

Closer to home, Canada for years has been quietly condoning the application of Sharia law among Muslim immigrants by sending multiple welfare checks to polygamous Muslim men who raise multiple families in Canada. Additionally, the Muslim community of Ontario sought to have the Sharia officially and legally recognized by the government. The Premier of Ontario refused to recognize Sharia. However with the Muslim population, currently believed to be 1 million, is growing at such a fast rate, the outcome of further debate might not be the same.

That brings us to the United States. Now, the population of Muslims in American is small compared to the global population. Estimates put it between 5-9 million. The pundits, like Mr. Matthews, will tell you that is small in comparison to other religious groups and they are correct. However, what they don’t say is that the rate of population both younger then the general US population and is increasing at a dramatic rate. According to the 2000 US Census, Muslims experienced n annual growth rate of 6% versus 0.9% for the total U.S.

Consider that if you took an average of 6.5 million and grouped those into one block of people, they would comprise the population of the states of: Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana and Rhode Island; along with Washington DC and the US territories of Guam, US Virgin Island, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Now all of a sudden that doesn’t seem as insignificant as it did a few moments ago does it?

Now, armed with what I have just said, ask yourself this question, “whom do I believe?” Without assailing the bona fides of Messrs Matthews and Robinson, I don’t know if there diatribe against the former House Speaker, or their snide comments about his intelligence, qualifies as a substantial argument against what he said. In all honesty, what you have just read here is 99% more than what you would have gotten from either the video segment or the newspaper article. I guess they believe their personal opinion trumps the facts.

According to Mr. Robinson “There is no left-of-center movement dedicated to fighting the steady, stealthy insinuation of Sharia into America's legal system because no such thing is happening. Gingrich invents an enemy and then demands to know why others haven't sallied forth to slay it.” But what if?

In June 2009, a family court judge in Hudson County, N.J., denied a restraining order to a woman who testified that her husband, a Muslim, had forced her to have non-consensual sex. Judge Joseph Charles Jr. said he did not believe the man "had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife because he was acting in a way that was "consistent with his practices." According to Mr. Robinson, the judge was wrong and that the error was corrected. But, the fact is that an American judge actually took it into consideration and used it in coming to his verdict. What happens next time when it is not overturned? Will that become the foundation for future judgments? And most importantly, should I not worry about this simply because Messrs Matthews and Robinson tell me so? One has only to look at the long laundry list of less than stellar verdicts issued from the bench to see that judicial prudence does not have a stellar track record.

We live in a “new” America. In the (exaggerated) words of our President “if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world”. Is it unreasonable to think that this growing population would not seek to have its culture and beliefs adequately protected and represented within the framework of the law? I don’t think so and I am certainly not reassured by the disconcerting laughter of Mr. Matthews.

Don’t think that this can happen here? It did.






For those of you who are under any misconception, four American citizens were arrested for engaging in their 1st Amendment right. State Representative Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, called for an investigation by the attorney general’s office on the matter. What I find funny (sad) is that the Mayor of Dearborn, John O’Reilly, claims that the arrestee's “pretended to be arrested." Uhm, maybe someone should tell the Mayor that the trial for one of the “pretending” defendants on the charges of "Disturbing the Peace" and "Failure to Obey a Police Order" was set for September 20th.

The media will tell you this is an aberration, but what if it is actually just the beginning? These are American law enforcement officers trampling on individual rights. Law enforcement making mistakes? Jurists making mistakes? What is next? When do the mistakes not get fixed? Is it wrong to believe in the old adage “better to be safe than sorry.”

I ask YOU to decide. Not based on what you hear, but what you invest the time to learn.