Muslim writer Wajahat Ali claims in the New York Times that “If Amy Coney Barrett Were Muslim–It’s not hard to imagine how conservatives would smear her religious beliefs.”
Smearing someone else’s religious beliefs is different from calling out human rights abuses in the defense of free societies and human rights. It is difficult to imagine that Wajahat Ali himself is not fully aware of the obvious conflicts between Sharia and Western societies, including:
- Teachings on the supremacy of men over women, including the mandate to men to beat women “from whom you fear disodience” (Qur’an 4:34):
- Female genital mutilation (Umdat al-Salik e4.3), which due to mass migration has become a growing problem in Western countries, which ostensibly protect the rights of women as human beings equal to men;
- Child marriage, justified by the example of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. This is not only loathsome pedophilia, but abusive of children;
- The Qur’anic mandates to wage war against Christians (cf. 9:29), which is resulting today in the genocide of Christians that is taking place in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa;
- The example of Muhammad allowing for slavery, resulting today in the ongoing enslavement of blacks in North Africa by Arabs.
There is much, much more that could be added to this list. Women are not deemed inferiors in Christian doctrine; and neither are “infidels.” Gays are not stoned to death or flogged.
Meanwhile, even as new confirmation comes daily that Sharia is grossly incompatible with the Western understanding of human rights, the West faces:
- The Muslim Brotherhood’s (and its associates) infiltration of Western society with the stated goal, according to a captured internal document, of advancing Sharia and leading to the collapse of Western civilization from within;
- The relentless attack on the freedom of speech by Islamic groups who are acting in accord with anti-free speech initiatives of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation;
- The consequent general acceptance of Islamic blasphemy restrictions, such that anyone who risks criticizing (much less “smearing“) Muhammad risks his or her life and is subjected to vilification and ostracism;
- The spread of the jihad ideology in mosques and madrassas throughout the West;
- The global ambitions of Sharia-supporting nations such as Iran and now Turkey.
Wajahat Ali ignores all this. (It is no surprise that he was seen on stage at the CAIR-Sacramento Valley Annual Banquet.) He levies an accusation against Ben Carson in attempting to support his claim:
Earlier, in 2015, Mr. Carson wrote in a Facebook post, “I could never support a candidate for president of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant [sic] of Islam: Shariah law.”
But Carson is absolutely correct, and his caution is for good reason. Those who manipulate identity politics and victimhood should ponder the fact that this caution does not exist for Hindus or in fact for adherents of any other mainstream religion. There are cogent reasons for that.
Ali goes on:
That happens to be the same year Judge Barrett signed an open letter to Catholic bishops saying, “We give witness that the church’s teachings — on the dignity of the human person and the value of human life from conception to natural death; on the meaning of human sexuality, the significance of sexual difference and the complementarity of men and women; on openness to life and the gift of motherhood; and on marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman — provide a sure guide to the Christian life, promote women’s flourishing, and serve to protect the poor and most vulnerable among us.”
Ali dismantles his own arguments via the contrast effect. Normative Islam has no respect for “the dignity of the human person and the value of human life.” As for the open letter’s declaration of differences between men and women, biological science proves it. The open letter poses no threat to human rights, nor to the rule of law.
It is ridiculous to compare Christian principles to Sharia, but Ali does just that, demonstrating that the woke crowd has succumbed not only to cowardice and dhimmitude, but to idiocy as well. America’s freedoms are built on principles of human rights and the equality between all people before the law. These principles are rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics, and are not found in Sharia.
The biggest threat in America now is from within: that the red-green axis has become the mainstream.
“If Amy Coney Barrett Were Muslim: It’s not hard to imagine how conservatives would smear her religious beliefs,” by Wajahat Ali, The New York Times, October 13, 2020:
Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, has faced immense scrutiny of her religious beliefs, and we need to be vigilant against any religious bias or discrimination.
But I marvel at the hypocrisy of Republicans who are expressing shock and outrage over this, after the way the right has treated Muslims….
I can’t help wondering: How would Republicans behave if Judge Barrett were a Democrat whose strongly held religious beliefs came from Islam instead of Catholicism?
We all know how it would go.
Republicans would demand she prove that she was not “working with our enemies.” That’s what Glenn Beck, the conservative radio host and conspiracy theorist, called for when Keith Ellison was elected as the first Muslim to Congress.
They’d probably use her faith to accuse her of hoping to create a “Shariah state” through judicial activism. That what conservative bloggers did in 2011 when Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey nominated Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim originally from India, for a seat on the Superior Court of Passaic County.
If Judge Barrett wore a hijab, Jeanine Pirro, the Fox News host, would question whether her religious beliefs were in opposition to the Constitution. That’s the ugly accusation Ms. Pirro levied against Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota in 2019….
Judge Barrett co-wrote a 1998 law review article about the moral and legal “bind” that death penalty cases might present Catholic judges. What if she had been Muslim and had written about Muslim judges instead? Would Ben Carson call her “schizophrenic?” In 2016, that’s how he described Muslims who embrace American values like democracy and the separation of church and state.
Earlier, in 2015, Mr. Carson wrote in a Facebook post, “I could never support a candidate for president of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant [sic] of Islam: Shariah law.”
That happens to be the same year Judge Barrett signed an open letter to Catholic bishops saying, “We give witness that the church’s teachings — on the dignity of the human person and the value of human life from conception to natural death; on the meaning of human sexuality, the significance of sexual difference and the complementarity of men and women; on openness to life and the gift of motherhood; and on marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman — provide a sure guide to the Christian life, promote women’s flourishing, and serve to protect the poor and most vulnerable among us.”…..