In Human Events today, Robert Spencer compares Santorum to Paul and Romney when it comes to Islam. Guess who wins.
“Jihadism is evil and we need to say what it is,” Santorum said last March. “We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution.” He added correctly, and in sharp contrast to the prevailing view, that “Sharia law is not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature and origin, but it is a civil code. And it is incompatible with the civil code of the United States.”
Even though he made these remarks almost a year ago, as he rises in prominence, Santorum is going to get a lot of heat for this. The Islamic supremacist sympathizers in the mainstream media began calling to these remarks after the Iowa caucus, accusing Santorum of the phantom malady of “Islamophobia.”
One would hope that in response to these accusations Santorum would ask Leftist reporters (and Ron Paul, who recently accused him of “hating Muslims”) if they think that Sharia provisions such as the death penalty for apostates, stoning for adultery, amputation of the hand for theft, the denial of freedom of speech and institutionalized second-class status for women and non-Muslims are not evil.
If Santorum did that, it is likely that the media would then highlight some smooth Islamic supremacist deceiver who would claim that those things are not part of Sharia; however, there is not a single Muslim country that has ever implemented Sharia without implementing those measures, or one school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach such things. So Rick Santorum is on firm ground.
Read it all
Santorum more realistic than Romney and Paul on jihad
by Robert Spencer
After Rick Santorum’s surprising show in Iowa, he may be the only candidate standing between Mitt Romney and the Republican nomination. But there is no contest between the two as to which demonstrates a more realistic understanding of the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism. In that arena, Santorum wins hands down.
“Jihadism is evil and we need to say what it is,” Santorum said last March. “We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution.” He added correctly, and in sharp contrast to the prevailing view, that “Sharia law is not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature and origin, but it is a civil code. And it is incompatible with the civil code of the United States.”
Even though he made these remarks almost a year ago, as he rises in prominence, Santorum is going to get a lot of heat for this. The Islamic supremacist sympathizers in the mainstream media began calling to these remarks after the Iowa caucus, accusing Santorum of the phantom malady of “Islamophobia.”
One would hope that in response to these accusations Santorum would ask Leftist reporters (and Ron Paul, who recently accused him of “hating Muslims”) if they think that Sharia provisions such as the death penalty for apostates, stoning for adultery, amputation of the hand for theft, the denial of freedom of speech and institutionalized second-class status for women and non-Muslims are not evil.
If Santorum did that, it is likely that the media would then highlight some smooth Islamic supremacist deceiver who would claim that those things are not part of Sharia; however, there is not a single Muslim country that has ever implemented Sharia without implementing those measures, or one school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach such things. So Rick Santorum is on firm ground.
Read it all
No comments:
Post a Comment