The problem with Gingrich’s simplistic attack on sharia
Michael Gerson condenses some of the arguments familiar to readers of LGF that have been keeping up with Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, and others who profit from stoking the fear of creeping (or gobbling) sharia.
‘Sharia is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and the world as we know it.’ Gingrich often precludes the possibility of exaggeration.
The Republican front-runner set out his argument about Islamic law in a speech last year to the American Enterprise Institute. The United States’ problem, Gingrich argued, is not primarily terrorism; it is sharia — ‘the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth.’ Sharia law, in his view, is inherently brutal — defined by oppression, stonings and beheadings. Its triumph is pursued not only by violent jihadists but by stealthy ones attending the mosque down the street. ‘The victory of sharia,’ he concludes, ‘would clearly mean the end of the government Lincoln was describing.’
It was not a casual theme. Gingrich Productions has generated a movie on the topic called ‘America at Risk: The War With No Name.’ Gingrich has called for a ‘federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States’ — leaving the impression of a threat as real in Topeka as it is in Riyadh.
And how would President Gingrich deal with predominantly Muslim nations if the war against terrorism were transformed into a struggle against sharia? Wouldn’t every Muslim friend and ally be discredited and undermined by having a relationship with the anti-sharia superpower? Wouldn’t Islamic radicals welcome the civilizational struggle that Gingrich offers? No strategy would be more likely to undermine the cause of the United States and the safety of its people.