It is an old topic for him, and one he’s been pushing for years, but the presidential campaign has brought growing attention to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s campaign to portray Sharia law as a “mortal threat” to the entire planet and a Cold War-style enemy.
A new article in the New York Times goes back to Gingrich’s past comments on the “threat” and something he calls “stealth jihadis,” which he defines as people who “use political, cultural, societal, religious or intellectual tools” to advance their goals.
Which on its face seems to be the way ideas are supposed to be advanced. Yet Gingrich portrays them as a threat “as grave as or graver than terrorism,” arguing that the end result would be the same.
Sharia is a form of religiously-based law which is practiced in some overwhelmingly Muslim nations, and is widely interpreted across those nations in very different forms. Sharia-based legal traditions are also used in some Western nations as a method of arbitration to settle disputes within the Muslim communities.
But within the US, the term commonly envisions a Taliban-style ultra-conservative religious code, and a number of politicians, including Gingrich and several of his competitors in the upcoming vote, have sought to paint it as a dire existential threat to America that needs to be banned outright. The “stealth jihadi” label suggests that Gingrich is also considering harsh measures against those who advocate it publicly.
The question of Sharia law in the US has becoming an increasingly political one, with former Senate candidate Sharron Angle claiming Sharia had already been imposed in the city of Dearborn, MI (to the shock of the city’s mayor) and was being used to persecute Christians. Oklahoma’s state legislature overwhelmingly voting to ban its use, even voluntarily among Muslims, and despite admitting there was no evidence it was being used, even voluntarily.
In practice, experts say the threat is entirely illusory, with no real possibility that America’s small Muslim community is going to somehow impose Sharia in any form over the rest of the population. With the sense that it could be targeted for political gain, it looks to take a major role in policy speeches among many candidates looking to appear “tough” on Muslims.
Anyone voting for this dude should have his head examined. Ron Paul for president.
Sharia Law was indeed used and is still being used in the UK. According to BBC, the Sharia banks were totally untouched by the crisis, because Sharia Law prohibits speculation by banks. Many Muslims and non-Muslims alike have moved their savings from traditional UK banks to Sharia banks for the security of their money.
This country, our country America has had for a very long time the claim that it is founded on Judaic and Christian principles. Is that such a bad thing? I think not, revealed religion lead by folks demonstrating moral rational balance following the revealed scriptural knowledge has done immense good for those societies. Better yet the only person documented in World history to claim to have received revelation from G-d and then went about establishing that way of life is in fact Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).There have been thousand of authors writing books on his life and the effect that his life has had and continues to have on not just 1.8 billion Muslims but the on the behavior of countless decent people of faith in general who for the most part are clueless as to how this man's excellent example change the behaviors of early Christians who encountered Muslims for the better. Even in war the Muslims of old before this wave of insanity carried its burden with such honor. I am Muslim and I thank G-d my care is for truth and human excellence regardless of who brings it…Christ Jesus is quoted to have said in the Bible " know you the truth and the truth will set you free " now I gladly settle for that. 🙂
What's the difference between Sharia and what the so-called Christian right wanna impose on the US (and have half accomplished already)? Can anyone tell me? And, please, don't point to the obvious: the different spelling.
So "peaceful" dissent is not to be trusted? Well well now… Would the Newtster prefer some good old Libyan style killing to make it more palatable for the empire? That only bolsters my belief that our overlords fear the public and are now actively working to enslave us further.