10 right-wing conspiracy theories that have slowly invaded American politics – Salon.com

Posted: November 12, 2015 in American Politics, Environment, Religion, Science, Secularism

Paranoia is in our bloodstream. And with the emergence of social media, we’re more misinformed than ever before

5. Shariah Law – Coming To A Courtroom Near You

For more than six years, much of the American right has been afflicted with a feverish brain disorder that writer Adam Serwer calls “sharia panic.”

The fever shows no signs of breaking any time soon.

The disorder is a delusional and apparently highly contagious conspiracy theory that contends American Muslims are trying to undermine the U.S. Constitution and maybe even overthrow the government someday by implementing Shariah religious law in legal proceedings across the country.

The truth is that Shariah is essentially a code of ethics, or, as The New York Times put it, “Islam’s road map for living morally and achieving salvation.” In some Islamic countries, it forms the basis of an often harsh legal code that governs crime, public morality and other matters. It is occasionally used in other countries in private civil contracts between individuals (such as agreements between spouses to abide by its precepts in any future divorce), just as Christians or Jews will sometimes draw up private contracts about similar matters based on their own religions.

But it cannot, under the Constitution, supersede American law.

Nevertheless, to a growing number of mostly Republican legislators from Vermont to Alabama, Shariah has become — particularly around election time — a blueprint for world domination. So to thwart the sneaky Muslims — and pick up a few more votes — politicians have introduced bills in almost three dozen states in recent years, seeking to ban Shariah law in U.S. courts. In the last five years, eight states have actually passed such needless measures.

“All of this in spite of the fact that no instance of sharia law superseding U.S. Constitutional law exists,” Todd Green, author of The Fear of Islam: An Introduction to Islamophobia in the West, wrote in the Huffington Post this spring. In any case, he added, “at one percent of the population, Muslims are not in the position to impose any kind of law on any state.”

The bills are essentially the same across the country. They are modeled after legislation written by a 59-year-old Hasidic Jew, David Yerushalmi, a lawyer who is widely considered to be the driving force behind the anti-Shariah movement. He is also, according to the Anti-Defamation League, a man “with a record of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black bigotry.” One of Yerushalmi’s clients and close allies is Pamela Geller, perhaps the best-known and most unhinged anti-Muslim ideologue in the United States.

Yerushalmi began writing his model statute — “American Laws for American Courts” — in 2009. The statute, according to the Times, “would prevent state judges from considering foreign laws or rulings that violate constitutional rights in the United States.” Yerushalmi admitted later that his purpose was not so much to ban the imposition of Islamic religious law — already impossible under the Constitution — but “to get people asking this question, ‘What is Shariah?’”

In 2010, backed by a $60,000 campaign funded by the Muslim-bashing group ACT! for America, the bill was passed in Oklahoma with 70% of the vote. But the Oklahoma law explicitly targeted Shariah and was later struck down by a federal court. After that, the anti-Shariah movement wised up and watered down its bigotry, shifting its focus and language onto banning all foreign laws.

But “as these restrictions pile up,” according to an article in 2014 on the website of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, “the bans come full circle and reveal their true purpose: to demonize the Islamic faith.”

While conceding that Shariah was “not an imminent threat in Oklahoma yet,” Republican then-state Rep.Rex Duncan, a chief sponsor of that state’s anti-Shariah bill, told ABC News in 2010 that “[i]t’s a storm on the horizon in other states,” adding, “The only entities that could oppose this measure are those that admittedly support applying international law and sharia law in American courts.”

Cathie Adams, the former chairwoman of the Texas Republican Party and current leader of the Texas chapter of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, has said that immigration reform is a “tool of Satan that will lead to the enactment of Sharia law and usher in the End Times.”

The anti-Shariah movement is not confined to statehouses across the country. It has national allies as well. In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in 2010, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said, “I believe Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.” In 2011, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain told ThinkProgress that he would not appoint a Muslim to his administration or as a federal judge because there is “this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government.” In 2012, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate from Texas, Ted Cruz described Shariah as “an enormous problem.”

Source: 10 right-wing conspiracy theories that have slowly invaded American politics – Salon.com

  1. Not callimg 1.6 billion muslims rapists. But the doctrine is violent. It is quite telling that in the face of the Paris terror attacks yesterday that you still try to defend this long history of human rights abuse that is imbedded in the Quaranic doctrine. Study and then make judgements based on knowledge. Then we can talk. For now you merely want to deny and deflect. So, by.

    • Sorry but you are doing the equivalent of using the Westboro Baptist Church as a stand in for all of Christianity. Or the Christian militias recruiting child soldiers in Africa.
      It’s easy to find examples of “human rights abuse that is imbedded in the ‘Christian’ doctrine” as well.
      Deny and deflect? I think of it more as redefining preconceived premises. Yes, I am denying the validity of the basic premises from which all your arguments follow. I don’t buy the “Clash of Civilizations” assumptions underlying your position.

      ISIS is evil. No doubt about it. It’s the scope and motivation I question – who and what is really to blame.

  2. kaptonok says:

    The majority of Muslims do not want Shariah law any more than the majority of those labelled Christian want the old Jewish ten commandments..
    These things are their heritage and they must doff their caps to them and get on getting on.
    I expect most westernised Muslims are mighty glad they don’t live in Saudi Arabia.
    The danger in America is from the powerful Christian fundametalists for they could grab the reins.
    Once religion becomes dogma humanity slowly departs from the sufferer and they adhere at all cost to thier beliefs regardless of the consequences..
    This is the great danger of radicalisation and it is very difficult to undo.
    We all have the potential to be radicalised its part of our evolutionary baggage that enabled us to survive against all comers.
    Radicalisation is not just religious it can be political, pushing politics above humanity. Insisting on ideas instead of being human in our dealings.

  3. We have our first completely muslim city Council in the whole U.S. Hamtramck Michigan. Sweden has entire city blocks where first responders won’t go past signs posted as sharia law zones. Not quite what you call conspiracy,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s