Gov. Chris Christie Isn't Afraid of Sharia

Which poses a greater threat to the American Constitution: sharia or religious intolerance? For New Jersey Gov. Chris Crazy Christie the answer seems to be religious intolerance. He is right. Last week Christie directed what Jeffery Goldberg of Bloomberg describes as a "blast of righteous anger" at a campaign to thwart the appointment of a prominent Muslim lawyer to the Superior Court in Passaic County. The lawyer hails from India. And apart from sharing a name with the prophet, his crime was that he represented A-rabs detained for questioning by the FBI in the wake of 9/11.

In a show of bipartisan bigotry, Republicans and Democrats on the confirmation committee, evidently afraid that Mohammad (the lawyer, not the prophet) had a secret plot to turn Passaic County into a sharia state, asked him to define “jihad.” Mohammad was eventually confirmed, but Christie told Goldberg: “I just thought this was a ridiculous and disgusting situation. I think it is terrible to try to exclude someone from office based only on his religion, and that’s what was happening here.”

Christie is no terrorist sympathizer, having successfully prosecuted a group of Muslims who were conspiring to attack Fort Dix. So his revulsion is not so easily dismissed by his conservative kin.

But in refusing to turn Sharia into a bugaboo that the country has to spend trillions of dollars to fight, Christie has very good company. No less than the father of American conservatism, the great 18th century British philosopher Edmund Burke (and one of F.A. Hayek’s heroes), actually admired sharia because it subordinated rulers to religious law rather than giving them carte blanche over subjects as was the case in Christian countries historically.

Here is what Burke said on the subject at the impeachment trial of Warren Hastings, the Governor General of India. (Hastings stood accused of corruption and high misdemeanors in office and Burke was his prosecutor. Hastings argued in his defense that his actions were justified under Asian traditions that gave him complete and arbitrary powers to do what the hell he pleased):

The greatest part of Asia is under Mahomedan governments. To name a Mahomedan government is to name a government by law. It is a law enforced by stronger sanctions than any law that can bind a Christian sovereign. Their law is believed to be given by God; and it has the double sanction of law and of religion, with which the prince is no more authorized to dispense than any one else. And if any man will produce the Koran to me, and will but show me one text in it that authorizes in any degree an arbitrary power in the government, I will confess that I have read that book, and been conversant in the affairs of Asia, in vain. There is not such a syllable in it; but, on the contrary, against oppressors by name every letter of that law is fulminated. There are interpreters established throughout all Asia to explain that law, an order of priesthood, whom they call men of the law. These men are conservators of the law; and to enable them to preserve it in its perfection, they are secured from the resentment of the sovereign: for he cannot touch them. Even their kings are not always vested with a real supreme power, but the government is in some degree republican.

(H&R readers inclined to think that my religious background has anything to do with this post should know that I ain’t no Mahomedan.)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Joe M||

    Very impressive on Christie's part. Between this and his medical marijuana stance, he's not towing the socon lion.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Christie has been dragging his feet on MM. There are a lot of farmers down here in South Jersey that would like the opportunity to start growing.

  • ||

    What does Sharia law have to do with this? Did this guy plan to implement Sharia Law? If not, then Christie is just rightly standing up for the idea that it doesn't matter what religion a judge is as long as he upholds the law.

    Given that, I don't see how Sharia has anything to do with this. Burke was writing in a different age. Yes, Sharia is better than oriental tyranny. But it still is barbaric by Western standards. And it is not something we want anywhere near our legal system. But that doesn't mean Muslims can't be judges.

    But again, why the brief for the decidedly un libertarian Sharia law? Does reason think that every Muslim is going to ignore the law and implement Sharia if given the chance?

  • Imaginary Friend||

    "Yes, Sharia is better than oriental tyranny. But it still is barbaric by Western standards. And it is not something we want anywhere near our legal system."

    Depends on who te tyrant is.
    Also there is much support for Sharia among muslims, but i imagine it is lower in the US than in the UK.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....in-UK.html

    And many muslims try to implement Sharia when given the chance, but of course not every muslim. It happens in the UK for example.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....ities.html

  • ||

    There may be much support for it among Muslims, but unless and until they become anything but a small minority in this country, they can go fuck themselves. We have a First Amendment separation of church and state and an elective democracy. And no one but them and nitwits like Dalmia want such a thing.

    The question is, can they enforce the law as written. If they can, then they should be appointed to be judges if they are qualified just like anyone else. If they can't and want to enforce Sharia law, then they should not be judges.

  • Barry Loberfeld||

    Well said, John.

  • ||

    Never mind the fact that the Quran commands Muslims living in foreign lands to obey the laws of that land.

    So lots of Muslims may support Sharia when they're minorities at an abstract level, but if they're going to be the least bit deferential to their holy book, they're going to not push it.

    Which is what's happened since Muslims began arriving here (the US) centuries ago.

  • mash||

    Did you actually read the article?

  • ||

    Yes, did you?

  • mash||

    After reading the article did you then receive amassive blow to the brain, affecting your memory and reading comprehension skills

  • ||

    Given that, I don't see how Sharia has anything to do with this.

    The fact that they were accusing him of wanting to implement it? What else can you make of the "define Jihad" question?

  • Mo||

    "Yes, Sharia is better than oriental tyranny. But it still is barbaric by Western standards."

    As we know, Warren Hastings is a common name for people from the orient.

  • T||

    I always preferred mussulman as an archaic word for Islamic folk, but I suppose Mahomedan is more unisex and all.

  • ||

    I prefer infidels or Saracens.

  • hazeeran||

    I don't often use outdated terms for Muslims, but when I do, I prefer Saracen. Age of Empires FTW

  • H man||

    Stay thirsty my friend.

  • OO||

    my navy friend says ragheads

  • Il Douchey||

    What, too PC to call them hajjis?

  • Hate Potion Number Nine||

    "...in some degree republican..."

    hhmmmmmmm

  • Draco||

    So, Reason now cites conservatives (Burke, Christie) approvingly when their arguments are in line with a particular libertarian position? Does that mean everything Burke said will be accorded equivalent respect? And if not, what good does it do to cite him as an authority in the first place?

    Furthermore, and even more astoundingly, Reason is also citing with approval the view that it can be a good thing that secular government be subordinated to religious law? Is the outreach to secular liberals (liberaltarianism) over already?

  • ||

    Uh, supergenius, she's pointing out that one conservative (Burke) had a totally different view than today's conservatives. That wasn't that hard, was it?

  • ||

    His view was only that it was better than Oriental Tyranny, which it is. It is not like he was saying it was a good idea or better than Western Secular Democracy, which is what she implies.

    You are one of the biggest atheists on here. Do you really think religious based law is a good idea as long as the law comes from groovy brown people? Has your fucking brain gone soft?

  • ||

    Has your reading comprehension gotten even worse than before? See my reply below to Draco Malfoy.

  • ||

    Conservative opinion hasn't changed. Burke was talking about a completely different situation. It was 200 years ago. What he said then really has not relationship to what is going on now. And further, he was talking about Muslim countries not the West.

    Is it really the case that because Burke thought that Sharia was an enlightened alternative to total tyranny that conservatives today are now obligated to think Sharia law is a good idea in modern America? If not, then what is the point of her pointing this out?

  • ||

    She implies no such thing, jackass.

  • Draco||

    In other words: "Today's conservatives should be more like yesterday's conservatives... well, at least in this particular case and with this particular conservative. Because I like this one opinion."

  • ||

    Wow, you're stupid. I said nothing of the kind, and neither did she. She's pointing out how conservative opinion seems to have changed on this subject markedly.

    I guess that was hard. At least you're trying.

  • Draco||

    Is she "pointing it out" or is she noting that change with disapproval? And if noting with disapproval, does that mean that if today's conservatives diverge from Burke in any way, on any issue, that's a bad thing? And how do we know that? Obviously, my point sailed way over your head.

  • ||

    You keep telling yourself that, supergenius.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    So if an individual cites a quote from somebody it is required that they adopt lock, stock and barrel the quoted individual's philosophy?

    It is not possible to agree with someone some of the time? You must agree with them all the time on every issue, otherwise your citing quote is invalid?

    That's some USDA Grade A stupid.

  • ||

    It is Dalmia, who really isn't much of a Libertarian. This post is about eight shades of stupid. Good for Christie for standing up for the idea that just because someone is a Muslim doesn't mean they won't enforce the law as written. I guess Dalmia really thinks any Muslim judge will enforce the Sharia and that would be a good thing.

  • Warty||

    How are you reading it this way? Here's what's in the post:

    1) Christie doesn't hate brown people, so that's good
    2) Interesting historical aside about Burke

    You're taking 2) way too seriously.

  • ||

    I see your point. But I guess the problem is that the post is so poorly written and thought out, it is hard to tell what she means. The key paragraph reads

    But in refusing to turn Sharia into a bugaboo that the country has to spend trillions of dollars to fight, Christie has very good company. No less than the father of American conservatism, the great 18th century British philosopher Edmund Burke (and one of F.A. Hayek’s heroes), actually admired sharia because it subordinated rulers to religious law rather than giving them carte blanche over subjects as was the case in Christian countries historically.

    Who says we should spend trillions of dollars to fight Sharia law? What does that statement even mean? And Christie is not in good company with Burke. First, Burke was talking about Sharia law in the middle east not in the West. Second, Christie says nothign about Sharia law. He is only saying that Muslims should be judges. He is not defending Sharia law. You can hate Sharia law and still think Muslims can be judges because you trust them to enforce the law as written and not enforce Sharia law. That is seems to be what Christie is doing.

    The post is just terrible.

  • Fluffy||

    Who says we should spend trillions of dollars to fight Sharia law?

    Pam Geller?

    LGF?

    Jihadwatch?

    Freerepublic?

  • H man||

    Richard the Lionhearted?

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    Dick

  • ||

    Lousiana?

    http://thehayride.com/2010/08/.....t-shariah/

    Google help fight sharia law in the US

  • MWG||

    "...it is hard to tell what she means."

    Apparently for some people it is.

  • Imaginary Friend||

    Not all muslims are brown. Many are white, they live mainly in the balkans and caucasus. There are also many black muslims.

    So why do you say brown people?

  • ||

    Because implying that opposition to Islam is just "racism" is a standard line of attack against anyone who thinks Islam is a threat.

  • ||

    No, it isn't. You're not guilty of racism, you're guilty of religious bigotry.

  • Zeb||

    The Muslim in this case is brown.

  • Imaginary Friend||

    Correct, but also irrelevant to the parties involved.

  • jacob||

    Are you fucking retarded? She's saying the exact same thing that you are.

  • ||

    Reason now cites conservatives (Burke, Christie) approvingly when their arguments are in line with a particular libertarian position?

    Why shouldn't we quote anyone who makes an argument "in line with a particular libertarian position"?

    To refuse to quote someone who says something we agree with, because of who they are, would be kind of ad hominemy, wouldn't it?

  • Jeff||

    Is Burke's praise for sharia echoing a libertarian position? Since Islam is as much a political ideology as it is a religious one, I don't see why libertarians should regard it with less scorn than they do other illiberal theories of governance like, say, leftism.

    Making the argument that Sohail Mohammed is a qualified judge is fine. Digging up an old, out of context hagiography of sharia is... weird.

  • Colin||

    H&R readers inclined to think that my religious background has anything to do with this post should know that I ain’t no Mahomedan.

    You must be -- you have a funny name /typical neocon yahoo

  • ||

    SHE TOOK UR JERBS

  • hazeeran||

    Crud, hope I won't be flagged for my Arabic commenting name. :p

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I agree with Christie's stance, but I could do without the fetishization of sharia law. Seriously?

  • Jeff P.||

    Ah yes, the old God=Morals=Law chestnut. If only codified ethics had existed before monotheism...

  • Gerholdt||

    Hammurabi

  • Richard ||

    The lawyer hails from India. And apart from sharing a name with the prophet, his crime was that he represented A-rabs detained for questioning by the FBI in the wake of 9/11.

    It's a wee bit more complicated than that:

    For the record, Sohail Mohammed is not just an attorney. He served as a board member for an Islamist organization, the American Muslim Union, which, as Commentary’s Jonathan S. Tobin and terrorism expert Steve Emerson have shown, has a checkered past of rationalizing jihadist attacks and supporting jihadists.

    Indeed, when the Holy Land Foundation was shuttered in 2001 for its facilitation of terrorist groups, Mohammed told the Bergen Record that the federal government was unjustly singling out Muslim organizations. Seven years later, a jury convicted several HLF operatives for channeling millions of dollars to Hamas, the terrorist organization that is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. Mohammed also ripped the Justice Department’s prosecution of al-Arian as a "witch-hunt" and a "politically motivated indictment." Al-Arian eventually pleaded guilty to a terrorism charge in a case that showed him to be a key operative of the murderous Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization.

    One of the AMU’s most influential members is Mohammed Qatanani, a 47-year-old Palestinian firebrand from Jordan, who is not just an associate but a client of Sohail Mohammed’s. According to federal law enforcement, Qatanani is a former Muslim Brotherhood member who, when apprehended by Israeli authorities in 1993, confessed to being a member of Hamas. Not surprisingly, Qatanani is also an avowed enthusiast of the Brotherhood-Hamas one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Mr. Tobin notes, he’d have the Jewish state disappear by its absorption into an Islamic "Greater Syria."

    A lot more background at the link. As for the Burke quote, he seems to have been in favor of leaving sharia alone in Muslim countries, not importing it to the West as though it were compatible with English common law.

  • Chris Christie||

    WHY U HATE BROWN PPL THO

  • Mr Whipple||

    Guilt by association. Fear mongering.

    http://www.superlawyers.com/ne.....371f2.html

  • ||

    I'm stunned that Dalmia has such massive gaps in her knowledge. I mean, seriously? Channeling money to Hamas? This is what passes for journalism around these parts?

    One would think she'd be a a leetle more wary of the tribe of people who try to kill her husband's people on the regular.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm stunned that Dalmia has such massive gaps in her knowledge. I mean, seriously? Channeling money to Hamas? This is what passes for journalism around these parts?

    Why? That makes him a goddamn hero to the Tulpa/MNG axis on here.

  • ||

    Awesome, I've always wanted to be on an axis.

  • ||

    There's nothing in that quote about Sohail channeling money to Hamas. It was HLF that did this; all Sohail did was criticize the prosecution of members of that group since Christian organizations were not targeted.

  • Richard||

    Which Christian organizations should have been targeted?

    He's a board member of the American Muslim Union. Follow the link to learn more about that fine organization, or just, you know, Google.

  • Richard||

    Which Christian organizations should have been targeted?

    He's a board member of the American Muslim Union. Follow the link to learn more about that fine organization, or just, you know, Google.

  • ||

    Nice wall of text there, but the only things it mentions Sohail doing are (again) representing unpopular clients and criticizing FBI investigations. The rest is about other people and other organizations doing bad things. You fail to connect him to anything that's actually illegal or dangerous in any way.

  • ||

    I don't get the Burke citation at all. Even supposing it was true in Burke's day (I'm skeptical), it certainly rings pretty hollow in 2011. Has rule by a clerical elite led Iran toward good government and adherence to religious laws, in the 30 years or so since the Islamic Revolution? What about Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Can anyone name any place on earth where Sharia law and "good government" (however you want to define it) go together?

    I'd guess that Burke was wildly wrong even in his day, and his statement appears even more absurd today.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Burke said that there was lots of oppression and arbitrary government in "Asia," but that such oppression, when carried out by Muslim rulers, violated the sharia law. The bad *practice* of Muslim rulers in "Asia" (invoked by Hastings to justify his government in India) was, according to Burke, in violation of the Islamic "constitution," so wasn't a good precedent for Hastings to use.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But I don't see why defending sharia is relevant to this story, unless this judge is going to implement sharia, which presumably he would deny.

  • ||

    Because of the movement among some quarters of the right to attack anyone with an Arabic sounding name as being secretly trying to bring about Sharia law. Like in this case, where they implied that the lawyer was sympathetic to terrorists.

  • ||

    Thank you.

  • Trident||

    Nice try.
    Sharia law *is* religious intolerance.

    It is the legislation of backward religious concepts in which you better hope not to be raped without four male witnesses to speak on your behalf, or to be gay.

    Jesus Christ, why do so many libertarians feel the need to choose between right-wing Christian zealots and Islamic fundamentalism whenever a dispute between the two bubbles up?

    You call for separation of church and state, and yet still somehow jump to the defense of Sharia law whenever some bible belter bashes it. It is not called "Sharia private custom"; it is called "Sharia LAW". Why should people not be afraid of it?

    It may be just a case of hypocrisy and maybe xenophobia from the bible belter, but that doesn't make Sharia law any less barbaric and wretched to any libertarian that is honest with himself about individual rights over religious oppression of the individual.

    Stop defending Islam just because some hypocritical right-wing Christian fundamentalist is bashing it.

  • ||

    It is the KULTURE war. And libertarians love it just as much as the SOCONS do. A lot of them would turn the country into a Muslim theocracy if they thought doing so would screw their enemies in the Kulture war. It is totally fucked up.

  • ||

    Yes, Trident, but no, John: your last sentence goes too far. The anti-anti-Sharia types are usually just dismissing the threat and patting themselves on the back for being even-handed about religion... even when it's about a religion that wouldn't be even-handed toward them.

  • dhex||

    A lot of them would turn the country into a Muslim theocracy if they thought doing so would screw their enemies in the Kulture war.

    first off, it's kultur because that looks dumber.

    second off, you're completely retarded. i don't even think you read this post. i'm not even sure you can read.

    i'd blame it on drug abuse, but addicts have swagger, a certain style that emerges from constant debasement and flim-flam in search of the next high.

    maybe this is how your brain works, which is why everything you type is like a transcription from three different talk radio stations playing at the same time.

    you give ideologues a bad name.

    you took a little historical aside and turned it into 9/11 was an inside job: sharia edition.

    that'll do, meletary loier, that'll do.

  • Fluffy||

    Dismissing the threat is the appropriate response...for stuff that's no threat.

    There is more chance that green alien slave girls will come down in a spaceship and fuck me to death than there is for the US to ever be subject to sharia law and dhimmitude and whatever else you're frightened about.

  • ||

    This to both dhex and Fluffy.

  • MWG||

    ^This.

    The point isn't that libertarians are defending the use of Sharia, but that certain people on the Right (mostly SoCons) use the 'potential' of Sharia coming to the US to drum up fear and support. Libertarians are merely calling them out for the fear mongers they are.

    It's amazing that John and other conservatives seem to miss this point... or maybe it isn't.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Fluffy,

    There is more chance that green alien slave girls will come down in a spaceship and fuck me to death than there is for the US to ever be subject to sharia law and dhimmitude and whatever else you're frightened about.


    And they can try it here with us being armed and all. Ha! The fools!

    ... Uh, unless MNG (who agrees with you) gets his gun-banning wish...

  • MWG||

    I'm not MNG.

  • ||

    ...and MNG doesn't support gun control anyway.

  • ||

    Trident beat me to it: Sharia law is intolerance codified.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Trident beat me to it: Sharia law is intolerance codified.


    Intolerance of what?

    Theft?

    Rape?

    Murder?

    Remember that case in Silsbee, Texas where a cheerleader was forced to cheer, by name, the boy whom she accused of rape? Would that have happened in a Sharia law country?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Michael Ejercito,

    Remember that case in Silsbee, Texas where a cheerleader was forced to cheer, by name, the boy whom she accused of rape? Would that have happened in a Sharia law country?


    No, she would simply be stoned as an adulterer, unless she can come up with three MALE witnesses that can testify to the rape being committed. Because she's half a human, you see...

  • Devil's Advocate||

    That depends. Did she have four witnesses?

  • Imaginary Friend||

    To apostasy for example. Sharia calls for the death of apostates.

    Intorrelant to non-muslims. In the sense that they can't have the same rights as believers.

    Just some examples.

  • ||

    Intolerance of what?

    What have you got?

  • ||

    Trident beat me to it: Sharia law is intolerance codified.

    Assuming you're a Christian or a Jew, I'd recommend against reading Leviticus or Deuteronomy. There's some things you don't want to know.

  • Richard||

    Except nobody's trying to impose those laws by force in the 21st Century, not even boogie men like the folks at Liberty University. Sharia, on the other hand...

  • ||

    You're going to need to fill in the "..." there.

  • Richard||

    You don't read the papers much.

  • ||

    Why don't you want to write what you were going to write?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You don't read the papers much.


    Who has tried to impose Sharia by force in the United States ?

  • MWG||

    The moslum menace is all around us, douncha know?

  • ||

    I'm an atheist--partly because of reading Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

    And I know very well what the Koran/Hadiths/Sharia prescribe for my kind, thank you very much.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But Burke's point about sharia - that oppressive Muslim rulers violated it - probably applies to much of what modern Muslim rulers do.

    There are some oppressive parts of sharia - so if fully and honestly implemented it would be a bad idea. But as in Burke's day, most Muslim rulers don't limit themselves to sharia-approved oppression, but make up all sorts of extra oppression of their own.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    When speaking of arbitrary power, I think Burke meant the ruler just making up the law as he went along. In this sense, the sharia-mandated discrimination against women, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc. is not "arbitrary" because it's spelled out in the relevant legal texts. There are even schedules about the monetary compensation to be paid for the killing of a Muslim versus a Christian or Zoroastrian, for example. Highly unfair, but not arbitrary since you can tell in advance what the ruler is supposed to do.

  • Fluffy||

    The really funny thing to me is that people go looking for a hidden conspiracy to impose sharia law in the US - when there's a conspiracy in plain sight, at Liberty and Oral Roberts and similar institutions - to impose biblical law on the US.

    How about we worry about the big and open conspiracy we can see before we invest a lot of effort chasing a chimera?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The really funny thing to me is that people go looking for a hidden conspiracy to impose sharia law in the US - when there's a conspiracy in plain sight, at Liberty and Oral Roberts and similar institutions - to impose biblical law on the US

    The people who are looking for the sharia conspiracy are usually part of that Christian Coalition cabal.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The really funny thing to me is that people go looking for a hidden conspiracy to impose sharia law in the US - when there's a conspiracy in plain sight, at Liberty and Oral Roberts and similar institutions - to impose biblical law on the US.

    How about we worry about the big and open conspiracy we can see before we invest a lot of effort chasing a chimera?


    How is Sharia law bad?

    How would that Texas cherrleader rape case have turned out if Sharia law had been in force instead?

  • ||

    28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,

    29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

    -Deuteronomy 22:28-29

    Married to your rapist for life or stoned to death? These are really the options?

    How about neither?

  • ||

    IIRC that passage also says that if a woman is raped in a populated area, she gets stoned along with the rapist.

  • ||

    Only if she doesn't cry out. She doesn't have to cry out if they are outside the city.

  • ||

    Yes, so if the rapist gags her or holds her mouth shut, she's going to be stoned. Or if no one remembers her crying out.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    How would that Texas cherrleader rape case have turned out if Sharia law had been in force instead?

    Well, firstly it wouldn't have even gone to trial as the girl would have needed four witnesses, as per the Qu'ran's 24th Sura, verse 13. This is supported by the hadith reported in Sahih al-Bukhari.

    Afterwards, the girl would have been charged with the crime of zina and flogged 100 times, as per Qu'ran 24:2-3.

  • ||

    This is about adultery not rape. But knew that didn't you?

  • Bonnie||

    False choice! We are to believe it is a choice of either Sharia (special privilege to one religion) or religious intolerance? I cry foul. Both are dangerous. Not one more than the other, but both. And you seriously phrase it as if we have to pick which evil we want to live with? Pah!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You refuse to vote for either the Intolerance Party or the Sharia Party?

    I suppose you're going to waste your vote?

  • Number 2||

    I took the Burke reference as simply pointing out that even under Sharia law, arbitrary rule by leaders is decried as evil. I did not take it as an advertisement for Sharia law here.

  • GroundTruth||

    Amazing what happens when you actually take time to read the quote, isn't it?

    I got the same meaning.

  • ||

    ^^^ This!!! ^^^

  • Hugh Akston||

    I can't believe it took more than an hour for someone to finally say this.

    Dalmia was citing Burke's approval that sharia subjects rulers to the law. Religious law, its true, but that's still a helluva lot better than the Christian monarchies were doing at the time.

  • Imaginary Friend||

    On what information do you base this? I find it interesting.

  • Imaginary Friend||

    I mean this part.

    "Religious law, its true, but that's still a helluva lot better than the Christian monarchies were doing at the time."

  • Hugh Akston||

    The two most egregious examples right off the op of my head were:

    1) The expulsion of Jesuits from France and Spain in spite of their religious mission and papal franchise.

    2) Henry VIII creating his own church rather than adhering to the Catholic prohibition on divorce.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Though actually, those are just examples of sovereigns violating the tenets of the church they supposedly belonged to.

    My original point was that Christian sovereigns in Europe were seen as above the law. Even the Magna Carta only imposed a council on the king, who could ignore their opinions when they were inconvenient.

  • ||

    Catholic monarchs were subject to the restrictions of Canon Law during the Middle Ages. Didn't work too well in practice for some reason.

  • Richard||

    Compared to what? Rulers who threw off cannon law, like Henry VIII? Or your modern, perfectly secular tyrannies?

  • ||

    Compared to a free society, I guess.

    My point was that rulers who are in theory bound to a religious law are not bound to it in practice, so the claim that sharia is somehow superior because it binds rulers is not true.

  • ||

    I took the Burke reference as simply pointing out that even under Sharia law, arbitrary rule by leaders is decried as evil.

    In theory, I suppose that's true. In practice? Doesn't really look that way to me.

  • Mr Whipple||

    I live in NJ. I haven't read a lot on this subject, but it is my understanding that this judge is extremely qualified. He'll probably be better than the judge that got busted taking child sex "vacations" to the Philippines.

  • Richard||

    Setting a high bar for the judiciary, are we? See my previous post.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Show me a valid argument that he was involved in anything illegal.

  • Richard||

    Keeping the bar high: He's qualified as long as he didn't personally break the law. Lots of Klansmen would qualify as judges. (Or is that more "guilt by association"? "Hey, just because I was in the same Klaven as Billy Bob doesn't mean I should be held responsible for the lynching he did.")

  • Muslims||

    Hey! We like child sex, too!

  • Old Mexican||

    No less than the father of American conservatism, the great 18th century British philosopher Edmund Burke (and one of F.A. Hayek’s heroes), actually admired sharia because it subordinated rulers to religious law rather than giving them carte blanche over subjects as was the case in Christian countries historically.


    You can always kill secular rulers and change the laws.

    Can you instead kill God and His Laws?

  • Nietzsche||

    Yes.

  • T||

    God is a bullet.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    More importantly, can God change his laws? Can God make it okay to kill babies? Is God-sanctioned rape okay?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    More importantly, can God change his laws? Can God make it okay to kill babies? Is God-sanctioned rape okay?


    God is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. He does as He pleaseth. His might maketh right.

    And he did order Saul to kill a few babies, even the unborn ones. 1 Samuel 15.

  • ||

    Which poses a greater threat to the American Constitution: sharia or religious intolerance?

    Let's phrase this correctly--

    Which poses a greater threat to the American Constitution: religious intolerance or religious intolerance?.

    See, sharia requires religious intolerance--among many other fine attributes. It goes along with women's second class status and the criminalization of homosexuality.

    Say, if imposing religious intolerance is so bad for the Constitution, and sharia features that, and you don't have a problem with sharia--maybe you're bad for the Constitution as well.

  • MWG||

    Let's phrase this correctly--

    Which poses a greater threat to the American Constitution: Muslims (Who make up an EXTREMELY small percentage of the overall US population) implementing Sharia Law in the US or the religious right (who make up a much LARGER percentage of the overall US population)?

    Get it now?

  • ||

    There is a difference between saying

    1. Sharia law sucks but will never be enforced here and

    2. Who cares if Sharia law is enforced because it is actually pretty good.

    Dalmai seems to be saying number 2.

  • ||

    No she isn't. She's just pointing out what Burke said back in the day.

    Sheesh.

  • dhex||

    Dalmai seems to be saying number 2.

    i take it back; you don't give ideologues a bad name.

    you give idiots a bad name.

    The ideas of Americans who are highly religious(Christians are who you mean) may run into conflict with the Constitution, but they tend to defer to the Constitution.

    when i think of deference to the rights of others, i think of the extremely religious. (that's sarcasm)

  • ||

    Muslims pose a much more serious threat to the US Constitution because their dogma is inherently anthetical to the ideas expressed in the Constitution.

    The ideas of Americans who are highly religious(Christians are who you mean) may run into conflict with the Constitution, but they tend to defer to the Constitution.

  • MWG||

    Ugh... I can't believe I have to dumb this down even more for you.

    Who has more ability to influence policy within the US? Muslims or Christians?

  • ||

    Which poses a greater threat to the US Constitution: Earth colliding with a mile-wide asteroid, or ObamaCare being ruled constitutional?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You should read the comments on this article in IsraPundit .
    Bruce O'Hara

    Major Nidal Hasan, of Fort Hood fame, also swore an oath to uphold the laws of the U.S., as well as the constitution of the U.S.


    Michael Ejercito

    So did a lot of Christians now serving time in the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks in Leavenworth.

    Are we to mistrust Christians because of this?

    If there is any evidence that Sahail Mohammed will defy his oath, present it. Unless and until he shows his true colors, he should have the same benefit of a doubt as any Christian appointed to a similar position.


    Jerry

    In reply to Michael Ejercito I would like to say that no wheres in the Christian religion (as well as most others) is the commandment to subjugate or kill non believers. Hopefully then Mohammed is a bad Muslim who doesn’t follow his religion.


    Bruce O'Hara

    Good job, Laura !!

    Mr. Ejercito said: “If there is any evidence that Sahail Mohammed will defy his oath, present it. Unless and until he shows his true colors, he should have the same benefit of a doubt as any Christian appointed to a similar position.”

    Sir, there have been over 17,000 jihadist terror attacks around the world since 9/11/01. moslems have lost their right to the benefit of ANY doubt. Don’t blame me…they’re the ones who are killing people.


    Sid

    Any Muslim Judge will favor what Islam dictates they favor. That’s just common sense. To not see that is an insult to all who perished on 9-11.


    Michael Ejercito

    Just like how Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will favor what Catholicism and the Pope dictates he favors, right?


    Bruce O'Hara

    Yeah, right, Scalia takes his marching orders from the Pope. Keep defending rabid dogs, but don’t be surprised when they turn on you.
  • GrizzlyAdam||

    "...Edmund Burke (and one of F.A. Hayek’s heroes), actually admired sharia because it subordinated rulers to religious law rather than giving them carte blanche over subjects..."

    Uh huh.

  • ||

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

    Marginalizing Muslims from participating in American society is objectively pro-al Qaeda.

  • ||

    You mean like calling them jackholes for wanting to build a mosque on their own property?

  • ||

    Supporting someone's right to build a monument to the hijackers--if that's what they want to do--on their own property? ...in the face of community opposition? Is not marginalizing them.

    I always stood up for their right to build what they want to build on their own property.

    If you can't tell the difference between supporting someone's right to do what they want on their own property and, on the other hand, criticizing their behavior?

    Then maybe you should get off the internet and go read a book.

    I think Larry Flynt is a scumbag. I also think he has a right to do what he does. If you can't see why those two statements are perfectly consistent, then you're a lost cause.

  • ||

    Marginalizing != coercing.

    I agree that you're not proposing coercion. Good for you. But you are proposing marginalization.

  • ||

    Wrong again, Robin.

    Criticizing some individual's behavior is not marginalizing Muslims because of their religion. Refusing to let Muslims build a mosque on their own property because of their religion is marginalizing them.

    Criticizing some individual's behavior is not marginalizing Muslims from participating in American society because of their religion. Trying to prevent some Muslim from being a judge because of his religion is marginalizing Muslims from participating in American society.

    "But you are proposing marginalization."

    You paint yourself into the most absurd corners! I mean, if you think saying we shouldn't marginalize Muslims from participating in American society--means I should never criticize an individual Muslim because of his behavior?!

    What does that say about you?

    Somehow you imagine that libertarians think no one should complain--about bad behavior?

    When you walk into these weird positions? It's frightening to think of all the damage you must do to the movement when you tell strangers you're a libertarian.

  • ||

    "Republicans and Democrats on the confirmation committee, evidently afraid that Mohammad (the lawyer, not the prophet) had a secret plot to turn Passaic County into a sharia state, asked him to define “jihad.”

    Someone should ask the Catholics on the committee if their ultimate allegiance is to the United States of America or the pope.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    A point I made on the IsraPundit comment thread about Justice Scalia.

  • Richard||

    Get back to me when the Pope calls for stoning rape victims, blasphemers, homosexuals...

  • ||

    "Get back to me when the Pope calls for stoning rape victims, blasphemers, homosexuals..."

    The nature of the conspiracy accusations directed at Catholics--as recently as the 1960s--may have been different, but the bigotry behind it is pretty much the same.

    The bigotry we saw directed at Irish and Italian immigrants was very similar to what we see directed at Muslims today. I should add that German immigrants were subjected to similar charges in the Gilded Age, typically derided as anarchist bomb throwers and the like, and let's not even get started on Japanese-Americans and how they were supposedly genetically bent towards obedience to the emperor.

    We have laws against stoning rape victims, blasphemers, homosexuals...etc. And if there were some evidence that this judge were inclined to ignore them, you might have a point.

    My point was that despite the prejudices Irish and Italian Catholics suffered--and being in New Jersey, some of those who asked that question on the committee no doubt had some Irish or Italian immigrant ancestors in the woodpile somewhere--Catholics of Irish and Italian ancestry have come to be as American as Joe DiMaggio, St. Patrick's Day and Pizza.

    Marginalizing Catholics because of their religion wasn't the answer then, and marginalizing Muslims because of their religion is not the answer now. The idea that this judge would let a murderer go free because the judge is a Muslim is absurd. The idea that this judge--because he's a Muslim--would sentence a "homosexual" to death for being gay is absurd.

  • ||

    There is a seperation of church and state inherent in Christianity 'render unto Caesar...'. Even this token seperation does not exist in Islam.

    The bigotry we see directed at Muslims came about as Muslims started referring to the US as the 'Great Satan', as Muslims started killing people, as Muslims started attacking our country--it didn't just appear out of whole cloth.

  • ||

    "There is a seperation of church and state inherent in Christianity 'render unto Caesar...'"

    Separation of Church and State is not inherent in Catholicism.

    Divorce wasn't legal in Italy until 1974. Divorce wasn't legal in Ireland until 1995!

    "The bigotry we see directed at Muslims came about as Muslims started referring to the US as the 'Great Satan', as Muslims started killing people, as Muslims started attacking our country--it didn't just appear out of whole cloth."

    The bigotry we directed against German-Americans was in no small part a function of their sympathies for Anarchism. The Haymarket Affair was real!

    Much of what eventually coalesced into Prohibition originated out of that anti-German sentiment, which exploded after World War I...

    This feels like trying to explain to Archie Bunker that just because he truly believes in his bigotry--doesn't mean his bigotry is true! ...and it certainly doesn't mean that American society should enshrine that bigotry into practice--by refusing to approve Muslim judges?!

    That's like using the government to prohibit the manufacture and consumption of alcohol because German-Americans are dangerous, beer drinking rabble-rousers.

    Absurd.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Divorce wasn't legal in Italy until 1974. Divorce wasn't legal in Ireland until 1995!


    What a shame it became legal there.

  • ||

    That verse has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with separation of church and state. That idea has no weight whatsoever in the history of Christendom until the investiture controversies of the 1100s when it was invoked by Rome as a way of maintaining control over the appointment of bishops. It certainly would have been laughed at during the Christian period of the Roman Empire and throughout the Byzantine Empire.

    And of course your second paragraph is just more collectivization of guilt.

  • Spartacus||

    You mean as opposed to burning them?

  • Il Douchey||

    Huh, I guess "religious test" is one of those difficult-to-interpret phrases from a hundred years back or more, like "shall pass no law" and whatnot.

  • Richard||

    It means that they can't force you to belong to a church as a condition for public office. On the other hand, if you're a well-known wackadoodle Scientolgist, the governor doesn't have to appoint you, either.

  • ||

    I'm as big an opponent of the sharia bedwetters as you'll find at this blog, but Dalmia's sidebar on Ed Burk is fairly irrelevant to the issue at hand. In practice Muslim rulers had just as absolute power over their subjects as medieval Christian rulers did. Any religious text can easily be ignored or "reinterpreted" if one has control of the army and the money.

  • ||

    Well said!

  • ¢||

    (H&R readers inclined to think that my religious background has anything to do with this post should know that I ain’t no Mahomedan.)

    Obviously.

    Your predictability on any subject involving crackaz vs. Whitey-catspaw exotic types arises from a pathologically repressed faith in white supremacy—an ailment common to funny-named Westerners but rarely evinced by funny-named Muslims, because they have their own, superior neurotic outlet.

    U COLONIZED

  • Gina Roberts||

    Sharia IS religious intolerance. It is a legal system in which discrimination against non-muslim minorities is institutionalized.

  • MWG||

    Your point?

  • Kolohe||

    So what *is* Gov Christie's stance on green alien slave girls?

  • ||

    I don't know his stance, but his position is doggie style.

  • ||

    Fat Fattie doesn't give a shit about the rights of Muslims. He gives a shit about anyone questioning his authority. He shat himself just as much when he got busted airlifting his fat ass to his kid's ballgame on the taxpayer dime.

    Fat Fattie is no libertarian.

  • RyanXXX||

    I have to agree with others that this post is kind of jarring.

    The point about Burke doesn't really belong. It's interesting, and I didn't take it as an endorsement from Dalmia, but it's just irrelevant to the point about Christie

  • Devil's Advocate||

    I agree that is the crux of it. It was not a deft segue, which is why it has led to the "WTF?!" comments.

  • Jennifer||

    The screechy right-wing panic over Sharia law in America reminds me of the South Park episode where Butters decided he was going to be Professor Chaos, super-villain extraordinaire, and launched a nefarious plot to unleash a catastrophic flood that would wipe away the whole town ... by taking his parents' garden hose and turning it on full blast. And if Butters were a Muslim, paranoid fools would point to him as justification to ban the ownership of garden hoses before crazy fucking Muslims drown America to death!

  • JT||

    Actually its more like the one where they build the wall

  • ||

    In defense of the psychotic islamophobes, I do see some marginal improvements...

    The question now is whether their islamophobia justifies discriminating against certain judges--but they used to think their islamophobia somehow justified torturing people!

    And that is an improvement.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The question now is whether their islamophobia justifies discriminating against certain judges--but they used to think their islamophobia somehow justified torturing people!


    Nobody cited islamophobia as a justification for torturing people.

    Let us be clear. Al Qaeda terrorists deserve to be interrogated by methods used in the Saw movie franchise. The reason our soldiers do not do that is because it violates the UCMJ. On the other hand, it is no crime to merely accept intelligence from allied or third party interrogators who use methods of interrogation prohibited by the UCMJ.

  • ||

    "Nobody cited islamophobia as a justification for torturing people."

    They did! Right here at Hit & Run!

    I mercilessly ridiculed them for their cowardice--and immorality.

    Most of it was about the Torture Memo and the Schlesinger Report...

    That wasn't the official line per se--but much of their argument did boil down to, "If you're not down with torturing these people, then you're not scared enough!"

    They thought Muslims should be tortured--because they were scared!

    They thought we should bomb, invade and occupy Iraq for the same reason too--because they were scared.

    They were scared of anthrax, and they were scared of Muslims on airplanes. ...but they were scared of Muslims too.

    Fear has been our presidents' favorite wedge issue for ten years now. People think what they're scared of justifies all kinds of things...

    When they're scared of guns? They think gun control is justified.

    When they're scared their kids are gonna try drugs? They think the War on Drugs is justified.

    When they're scared of the stock market crashing? They think the president squandering $700 billion out of our future paychecks on Wall Street is justified.

    Loads of people think their fear justifies all sorts of stupid and horrible things...

    And they think their islamophobia justifies discriminating against Muslims.

    That's how they justified Jim Crow, Indian removal, interning Americans of Japanese ancestry, etc. too! That sort of thing isn't confined to Americans--but we are really good at it!

    Oh, we got trouble!
    Right here in River City.

    I think that's one of the reasons people hate libertarians so much in times of crisis--as a bunch, we're pretty reluctant to jump on the fear-monger bandwagon...

    Anyway, people did use their fear of Muslims to justify torture--I saw 'em do it right here at Hit & Run.

    It was pathetic.

  • MJ||

    So as long as a person or persons are ineffective at killing you, you have to tolerate them trying to kill you? Does that really make sense to you?

  • Article VI||

    ...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

  • ||

    That doesn't apply to state offices.

  • JT||

    It deserves to be mentioned that in fact, all practicing Muslims practice Shariah law. When they pray five times a day, when they abstain from pork and alcohol, and when they attend Friday mosque, they are practicing Shariah law. So the idea that Shariah law is generically scary is stupid.

  • anarch||

    What is the formal difference, from the perspective of civil legislators, between Sharia and Halacha?

    Serious, if naive, question.

  • ||

    Sharia sounds scarier.

  • jtuf||

    Sharia sounds scarier.

    or cooler, depending on your social circle.

  • jtuf||

    Court rulings going back to the early 19th Century prevent the USA courts from deciding what Halacha says. The first case made it up to the Supreme Court. It involved a synagogue whose charter specified that it would be ruled by Halacha. When Reform Jews implemented changes there that violated Halacha, the Supreme Court ruled that the USA Courts could not enforce that part of the charter, because the courts could not determine what Halacha says. More recently, in the 1990's, a Baltimore judge ruled that a restaurant that advertised itself as kosher could not be sued for fraud even if it was not kosher, because the courts cannot decide what is kosher.

    I don't have reliable sources for court cases involving Sharia. Does anyone have examples to share?

  • ||

    I don't know of any court cases involving Sharia, but I want to add an "amen" to your observation about Halacha. Hell, some Jews can't even agree on who is, or isn't, Jewish, so it's a lot simpler and more rational to let the parties concerned sort it out.

  • jtuf||

    Bergen County, NJ is next to Passaic County. I've heard one or two people here make speeches accusing specific Muslims of having terrorist ties or plans to change America for the worse, but they've also made the same accusation against individual socialists. Without conducting an investigation into those accusations, it's impossible to tell if they are founded.

  • jtuf||

    Obsessing about the source of potential tyranny wastes energy that could be better spent fighting potential tyranny. A century ago, belief in Jesus justified a ban on selling things on the Christian Sabbath in New Jersey. Today, opposition to traffic justifies a ban on selling things on Sunday in Bergen County, NJ. Opposing tyranny regardless of the banner it waves is the best strategy.

  • jtuf||

    From the article:


    “I was disgusted, candidly, by some of the questions he was asked by both parties at the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Christie said last week at a news conference. “This Shariah law business is crap. It’s just crazy, and I’m tired of dealing with the crazies. It’s just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background.”

    Hmmm. "Crazy" is not a word to use lightly considering that NJ locks people up for being crazy.

    Goldberg's report only talked about Republican opposition to Sharia Law, but Christie's quote indicates that both Democrats and Republicans asked offensive questions about Sharia.

  • GaryM||

    Are you seriously saying that we're supposed to feel reassured that politicians who follow Sharia will legislate their religion rather than respecting the First Amendment?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement