Unfortunately, Blogger Ed Brayton analysis of Gaffney’s fraudulent sharia in the courts study is no longer on the web. He closed the account he had on that site, so the blog posts there no longer exist. I read it through and he did an excellent job of debunking the “creeping sharia” claims.

Nina Shea’s article is a misleading response to Amy Sullivan’s well-reasoned USA Today op-ed piece. Shea attempts to frame two isolated local events as indicative of a massive Sharia threat to American freedom, which makes about as much sense as tying a local mugging to the so-called Jewish-controlled international banking conspiracy. At no point during the case of the four Christian evangelists arrested at the 2010 Arab festival in Dearborn was Shariah offered as the rationale behind their arrests, nor did Shariah play any role in their trials. It wasn’t the first time American demonstrators have been improperly met with force for expressing their First Amendment rights (Kent State comes to mind) and it won’t be the last, but to use this as a basis for hyping a nonsensical conspiracy theory about Shariah (and, implicitly, the threat posed by Muslims in general) is irresponsible.

Also, Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp were arrested and charged under a warrant filed by Wayne County prosecutors, not the City of Dearborn. Again, Shariah was never presented, either explicitly or implicitly, as a rationale behind their detention or their prosecution. Local authorities were worried — maybe with good reason, maybe not — about the potential for civil violence the pair’s appearance presented, and may well have overreacted as a result. That is a far cry from a threat of Shariah takeover.

Shea is doing worse than comparing apples and oranges. She’s comparing apples to something that isn’t even edible.

Robert Steinback
Deputy Editor, Hatewatch blog
Southern Poverty Law Center

1. What does the charge have to do with Shariah? Nothing.

2. Let’s see what both sides have to say about their preaching. Christian fundamentalists have been known to badger people and even straight out insult them on the streets, and then claim persecution.

It is also possible that police simply overreacted to these situations because they wanted to prevent any potential incidents.

Threat of Sharia Should Be Taken Seriously

June 16, 2011
by Nina Shea

If the central point of a recent USA Today op-ed on Sharia is any indication of most American opinion-makers’ knowledge of Islamic law, we are in a good deal of trouble.

In “The Sharia myth sweeps America,” writer Amy Sullivan tries to deemphasize the role of Sharia in the Muslim world — and in Dearborn, Michigan.

She writes, “Dearborn’s Muslims have not sought to see the city run in accordance with Sharia.” If that’s what she thinks, Ms. Sullivan must not pay much attention to the news. In September, after Muslim complaints, four Christians were prosecuted for breaching the peace by discussing Christianity at the 2010 Arab Festival, held in Dearborn’s public streets. Though they were acquitted of that charge, one, “apostate” from Islam Negeen Mayel, was convicted in a district court of failure to obey a police order when she refused to stop filming her other three co-religionists as they preached the Gospel. As police said in court, however, the filming was perfectly legal.

Ms. Sullivan must also not know that in April, also in Dearborn, a court convicted and briefly jailed Koran-burning Florida pastors Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp — who sought to protest non-violently outside a mosque — for refusal to post a “peace” bond. The defense, backed by an ACLU amicus brief, argued that charging a demonstration fee based on the anticipated negative reaction to the message conveyed in the demonstration constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint of free speech.

Countries including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan and Afghanistan routinely enforce elements of Sharia, including apostasy and blasphemy laws. Those found guilty of leaving or criticizing Islam are punished by imprisonment or fine, if they’re lucky — and by death if they’re not. As renowned Muslim reformer, the late Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd, pointed out: “Having been at the receiving end of such allegations — and driven from my home in Egypt to exile in the Netherlands — I can state with conviction that charges of apostasy and blasphemy are key weapons in the fundamentalists’ arsenal, strategically employed to prevent reform of Muslim societies and instead confine the world’s Muslim population to a bleak, colorless prison of socio-cultural and political conformity.”

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, the United Nations’ largest voting bloc, is in the midst of pushing for universal Islamic blasphemy rules and Europe has begun to comply, using hate-speech bans and public order and blasphemy laws. In Denmark in May, Lars Hedegaard, head of the Free Press Society, was convicted of denigrating Islam for authoring a book critical of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed.

Writers like Ms. Sullivan, who implies GOP presidential hopefuls are engaging in “fear mongering” by publicly stating their opposition to Sharia in U.S. courts, do a disservice to their readers when they try for reasons of political correctness to minimize a very real threat to First Amendment freedoms. Discussion of Sharia is long overdue — and the GOP is right to be having it.

Nina Shea is a Senior Fellow and Director of Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom.

Highly unlikely. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president for life(or until retirement), in case you were asleep in US government class back in high school. Also while they interpret the Constitution, they cannot change it outright.

Aron