The latest from the Sharia TipSheet.
ACLU on Sharia: Don’t Worry, Be Happy
The ACLU chapter president in Palm Beach, Florida recently gave a deceptive presentation entitled “Sharia Law: Nothing to Fear”. Mark Schneider, a non-lawyer, attempted to put a happy face on this alien and malignant doctrine, plowing straight ahead without realizing just how bad he looked doing it.
Early on, he said not to worry about sharia law because, while stoning for adultery, chopping off hands for thievery, and other barbaric punishments are on the law books in some Muslim countries, they are infrequently used. However, stoning for adultery is found in multiple hadiths, an authoritative source of sharia law. The hadiths also allow execution for blasphemy. Chopping off a thief’s hands is specified in Quranic verse 5:38. Schneider admitted during the presentation that barbaric punishments are to be found in the Quran. You have to blinker Islam’s holy book and other expressly stated Islamic doctrines to believe that such barbaric punishments would never be imposed if America were to fall under sharia law. Schneider’s argument is downright strange: Don’t worry about sharia law because it’s not enforced in some countries as much as it is in others. Huh?
Schneider acknowledged the gender bias in sharia law. It’s heavily stacked in favor of men. Men can get a divorce simply by saying ‘I divorce you’ but women don’t have the same privilege. Four male witnesses are required to prove a case of rape. Good luck with that, ladies. But don’t worry because… because there’s nothing to worry about. Feel better now?
Schneider pooh-poohed the idea that sharia law is encroaching on U.S. courts. One case he cited was of a Muslim man in New Jersey who got off for beating his wife because his belief in sharia law — which permits wife-beating — meant that he did not have the requisite intent to commit assault under New Jersey law. But don’t worry, Schneider said, because the case was later reversed on appeal. Hey, Schneider, maybe you should leave that one out next time.
Schneider then claimed the real threat is ‘dominionism’, a Christian belief that the U.S. Constitution should be replaced with Biblical law. Why do progressives always try to change the subject? Just because dominionism might be a threat doesn’t mean that sharia is not a threat. Besides, how many dominionists have flown planes into buildings lately, hmm?
But it was during the Q&A that Schneider was at his most evasive and the weaknesses in his thesis most apparent. There followed an appalling string of evasions, dodges, and non sequiturs:
| Q: | Doesn’t the Quran say to kill the infidel? | |
| A: | Yes, but that only means Shia Muslims. |
That would be news to the 270 million Africans, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews killed by Islam over the centuries. Moreover, the Shia-Sunni split occurred 50 years after the Quran was written. Therefore, the Quran, in instructing Muslims to kill infidels, could not possibly be referring to Shia Muslims. But, Schneider said, “you don’t have anything to worry about.” Then, in what would become Schneider’s standard M.O.:
Next question.
| Q: | Don’t most ‘moderate’ Muslims, including those in the U.S., want to live under Sharia law? | |
| A: | It’s just flat wrong to claim that, even though most polls show that to be the case. Next question. |
Res ipsa loquitur.
| Q: | Isn’t the goal of an Islamic state to make the will of Allah the basis of all human affairs? | |
| A: | There’s nothing to fear, because they are not a majority in the U.S. Next question. |
Oh, what fun we’ll have when they become a majority. Can’t wait.
| Q: | If Muslims at 3 percent of the U.S. population are not a problem, at what percentage will they become a problem? | |
| A: | Most Muslims have no idea what sharia law is. Next question. |
| Q: | What about jihad? | |
| A: | Jihad is a complex topic you are making simplistic. Jihad is open to interpretation. Next question. |
Ah yes, the standard ‘jihad is just a spiritual struggle’ dodge. Wondered when that was going to pop up.
| Q: | Don’t terrorists always say they are waging jihad to follow Allah and establish an Islamic caliphate? | |
| A: | That’s not real sharia, any more than Christians who believe racial segregation is commanded by the Bible. Next question. |
Nice try, but you changed the subject again and dodged the question of whether terrorists are following Islamic doctrine (which they are).
| Q: | What about the attack on the cartoonists in Garland, Texas for depicting Muhammad? | |
| A: | Prohibiting images of Muhammad is not sharia law. Next question. |
Actually, depicting Muhammad is forbidden by the hadith, an authoritative source of Islamic law. Besides, after the worldwide riots and ‘Days of Rage’ over images of Muhammad, the protestations that this is not ‘real Islam’ are wearing a little thin.
| Q: | You said Keith Ellison is a good Muslim. What about the fact that he belonged to the violent, Jew-hating Nation of Islam and was affiliated with CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial? | |
| A: | I lived next to the Nation of Islam for a number of years in Chicago. I have no problem with those folks. Ellison’s past affiliations don’t affect his viability as a candidate today. Next question. |
Sheesh. Could you try answering the question for once? Just once — pretty please? Besides, Louis Farrakhan has called all white people “snakes” and “devils”. Schneider, you may not have a problem with the Nation of Islam, but the Nation of Islam has a problem with you, just because you’re white.
| Q: | What about Islam trying to replace Western Civilization with sharia law? | |
| A: | If you believe that, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. Next question. |
Sarcasm will get you nowhere. Denouncing the questioner damages your cause. The word ‘caliphate’ came up several times during the presentation, but Schneider never addressed its implications.
| Q: | Why is the ACLU defending sharia law? | |
| A: | We don’t have to defend sharia law, because there’s nothing to worry about. |
Finally, Schneider’s presentation failed to mention how sharia is totally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. Sharia’s blasphemy laws would shred our First Amendment free speech rights. Sharia’s regulation of daily life, which Schneider blithely mentioned, is completely contrary to the American idea of limited government. The government that tells you how to go to the bathroom governs best? Hardly. Implementing sharia law in America would mean significant loss of freedom. Indeed, the word ‘Islam’ itself means ‘submission’. If that alone isn’t enough to cause fear in every American who loves their freedom, it should. But Schneider dodged all of this by leaving it out of his presentation.
Schneider, you’ve damaged your cause. You should be fired for incompetence. Why don’t you stay home? But, if you just can’t contain yourself, don’t use your right hand the next time you serve up a steaming pile of crap.
Ignorance is strength. The Ministry of Integrity is very clear upon this.
Lol. The answer to so many unanswered questions.
You mean G.I. Joe got it wrong?? Knowing is not half the battle? Or has COBRA infiltrated the government in their only successful mission to date?
And I loved that the stoning is “infrequent”. Reminds me of a local headline a few years back in our area known for crime. “Crime has gone up but not by much”. That is the celebratory headline?? We had just moved here too so I was talking to my family on the phone and read the headline to them and they all howled with laughter.
Is this from The Onion?
Schneider is one of these ‘intelligent-yet-idiot’ good/pseudo-whites who refuse to understand that they will be first into the cannibals’ pot in the vibrant, multicultural utopia that will be realized after all the badwhites are liquidated.
I contest ‘intelligent’ in the case on display and his ilk. Intelligence requires at least being able to make a few logical connections, even if in the confines of limited knowledge. The above is outright bizarre. Or, if one has to assume any degree of intelligence behind it, the only conclusion is it’s a nefarious attempt to pull a fast one over a crowd considered devoid of said intelligence and eager to swallow all of it unreflected, hook, line and sinker. I hope they weren’t.
By their own words, we know those who are against Western culture and their own kind.
Give the man publicity. He hangs himself so well with hiw own petard. He also gave me a jolly good laugh this morning. He should have his own comedy show!
ACLU believes anything anti Christian and anti Western culture is good .Islam is very anti Christian and anti Western culture so it must be good and be embraced by progressive idiots .If Islam came to control power in America the first people to loss their heads would be card carrying ACLU members.
This is exactly what Yuri Bezmenov describes in his revealing interviews and talks – the most useful idiots are the first to be liquidated once the revolutionaries have seized power.
The only problem is to die for the normal people for a “told you so”.
I live in south Jersey and well remember the case referenced in this article. I happened to see an obscure article in the news paper and told people about it. ( yes, it was eventually reversed.) But everyone I everyone I told about it said, “not here”, “it can’t happen” and other similar remarks. And that’s the problem. Too many people believe it can not happen in the USA. And the truth, it is already here.
The problem with Islam is that the worm is already in the fruit. Indeed, if it comes that way, and only that way, then no “vetting” is possible.
Let’s watch as the Canadian Pollyannas realize the enormity of what they’ve inflicted upon themselves [ and their unfortunate neighbor ].
If a polity is to allow immigration at all, it should not be of the culture with the highest birthrate upon the planet, whose stated goal is to out-whelp the indigenous cultures to the point of extirpation and total replacement.
Pollyannas will never realise. They will deny, deflect and delude themselves. They will always double-down. They will never admit they are wrong and the other person was right. That’s how they got to be Pollyannas in the first place.
Do not base your strategy on people ‘waking up’. Look at socialists communists today who still don’t realise their system is a Ponzi scheme that has killed over 100 million of their own citizens in peacetime and doesn’t ever work because it cannot be made to work – no matter how many are killed to try to make it work.
The Islamophiles will not accept reality either – because they need to feel sanctimonious and superior as part of their self-image, and this is not amenable to facts.
I agree with you 100%!
The Canadian anti-Pollyannas have had their voices silenced with M103. As a whole, we seemed to have built our identity on being “not American” so if the States rejects something we have to blindly accept it.
Annexation doesn’t seem so bad all of a sudden.
ACLU has a long history as a communist front organization. No longer taking orders from the now abolished Comintern, but its’ ersatz replacement….the US Federal Reserve Banking system and all the adjunct official government agencies; IRS, CIA, and so forth and so on! Every question Mr. Schneider responded to mirrors the responses of Obama, Eric Holder, John Brennan of 2016 AD which still hold weight today 2017 MAGA.
This whole Islamic stuff is grimy nasty thinking. It’s just like slavery or torture or the inquisition. We need to get it out of mankind’s mind. We are better animals than this. We should make it our generation’s goal to rid humanity of this debasing ideology. It is about time. 1400 years of diddling with atavistic retrograde thinking that appeals to the worst instincts of homo sapiens.
We need to be lofty and loving and go to the stars.
An example from Scotland highlights not only progressive wishful-thinking but the cognitive-dissonance required for such a position.
The convener of the church of Scotland wrote an article, “Don’t fear Sharia”, it’ll be fine as long as it doesn’t “break the fundamental tenets of the Human Rights Act” and “the rights of women, in particular, must be respected.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/sharia-not-to-be-feared-1-1136387
So not Sharia law at all then.
Marxists of all varieties reject reason, logic and truth. They don’t believe rational discourse is possible because they believe in identity politics. Your beliefs are determined by the group you belong to. For communists that group is your class, which used to be the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, the capitalist or the landlords. With cultural Marxism it is any Marxist approved oppressed group at all, blacks, women, gays, necrophiliacs, the incontinent, the color blind or any other group except for heterosexual white males. For Nazis groups are defined by their race. No amount of discourse will change your genetics or your class, so Marxists don’t use language to reason or convince. They use language as a weapon, to lie, insult and obfuscate. And that is exactly what Schneider does. Expecting anything else from a Marxist is unrealistic.
Is there ‘überhaupt” such a thing as ‘moderate’ islam ? ‘
Neville Chamberlain seems to be the role model. To “believe” in Marxism is to deny human nature, if not in yourself, just the other 7 billion humans.
Some of Sharia punishments is now temporarily postponed in some Islamic countries because there were Western institutions who always heaped scorn on such barbaric things. In the past 50 years or so Islamic countries didn’t practice some parts of Sharia law because their clergy believes anything that may lead to defamation of Islam can be temporarily bypassed; it’s a well-known law of Islamic deception. Just remove Western institutions and Western traditional values from the world and the fierce Islam will show up again.
Totally correct.
I once asked Mark Schneider if he “always answered a question with a question”? His reply was, “Who told you that”?