Pages: 1 2
The rise of shariah law in Europe has created a separate society that hates civilized values. According to one US diplomatic document, one survey conducted in the United Kingdom shows that 40% of Muslim students at British universities wanted to implement shariah law for everyone, not just for Muslims. Not coincidentally, 32% supported murder under Islam. Britain is already enforcing Islamic law ine 85 shariah courts. Polygamy has become commonplace. So have other controversial elements of shariah law. There should be no problem with Muslims solving their problems their own way. But there is a problem when secular courts allow their principles to be trumped by religious extremism.
So why, all of a sudden, is the New York Times interested in defending religious extremism – particularly when that religious extremism is upheld by courts in the United States? Isn’t this the same paper that despises religious Christian displays that aren’t misogynist? Isn’t this the same publicaiton that zealously guards the non-constitutional separation between church and state?
The Times’ bias comes out here in a major way. They don’t like Judaism – of all the tactics they could use, the most obvious would be to stand on religious freedom and make the case that Yerushalmi is a hypocrite in his condemnation of shariah. But they don’t do that, because that would require them to stand up for the application of Jewish law, which they oppose. In the end, this is all about pro-Islamism, which they feel is the highest form of multiculturalism. They do not believe that Islam in any form is a true threat, even if it means endorsing shariah applied through US courts. And to make that point, they’ll sacrifice wives and daughters, and then blame a Hasidic Jew.
Pages: 1 2