Gingrich's war on Shariah
WASHINGTON — The epochs of Newt Gingrich’s public life are defined by the books that have revolutionized him—generally of the type that sell well at airports. There is Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” trilogy, Alvin Toffler’s “The Third Wave,” Napoleon Hill’s “Think and Grow Rich,” Steven Covey’s “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” and various foundational texts of Total Quality Management and Lean Six Sigma.
These idea crushes are mostly harmless. Sometimes they are not. Gingrich has embraced Dinesh D’Souza’s slapdash thesis about Barack Obama’s Kenyan, anti-colonial ideology as “the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.” And Gingrich has recently been captured by the theory, developed in books such as Andrew McCarthy’s “The Grand Jihad,” that Shariah law is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and the world as we know it.
Does this seem an exaggerated description of Gingrich’s view? Here is the former speaker: “Shariah 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. America’s problem, Gingrich argued, is not primarily terrorism; it is Shariah—“the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth.”
Shariah 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 Shariah,” 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 Shariah 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.
So Gingrich would be America’s first officially anti-Shariah president. And he knows exactly what Shariah really means. It is totalitarianism.
Who else shares this interpretation of Shariah law? Well, totalitarians naturally do. Gingrich joins Iranian clerics, Taliban leaders and Salafists of various stripes in believing that the most authentic expression of Shariah law is fundamentalism and despotism.
Other Muslims—many other Muslims—dispute this. The varied traditions of Islamic jurisprudence assign different weights to scripture, tradition, reason and consensus in the interpretation of Islamic law. Some assert it is identical to the cultural and legal practices of seventh-century Arabia, creating a real global danger. But others believe it is a set of transcendent principles of justice separable from its initial cultural expression and binding mainly on the individual.
Most Muslims respect Islamic law. But the interpretation of Shariah varies greatly from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia to Tanzania to Detroit.
Yet Gingrich insists: “Shariah in its natural form has principles and punishments totally abhorrent to the Western world.”
With due respect to the speaker and his recent reading, what qualification does he have to identify Shariah’s “natural form”? In America, public officials respect the conscience of citizens while protecting them from violence. The proper role of government is to aggressively fight terrorism, not to engage in theological judgments.
The governing implications of Gingrich’s views are uncharted. Would President Gingrich reaffirm his belief that the most radical form of Islamic law is the most authentic? Would he tell American Muslims that to be good citizens they should renounce Shariah? Would he argue in his inaugural address, as he has argued before, that “America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization”?
No strategy would be more likely to produce resentment, alienation and radicalism.
And how would President Gingrich deal with predominantly Muslim nations if the war against terrorism were transformed into a struggle against Shariah? Wouldn’t every Muslim friend and ally be discredited and undermined by having a relationship with the anti-Shariah superpower? Wouldn’t imams across the world feel compelled to condemn a Catholic president’s simplistic interpretation of Islamic theology? Wouldn’t Islamic radicals welcome the civilizational struggle that Gingrich offers? No strategy would be more likely to undermine the cause of America and the safety of its people.
Of course, none of this is possible. As president, Gingrich would be forced to repudiate his previous views out of strategic necessity. But those views demonstrate a disturbing tendency: the passionate embrace of shallow ideas.
Michael Gerson is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group. His email address is michaelgerson@washpost.com.
Dec 20, 2011 at 2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
*Both conservative Christians and conservative Muslims believe we should forbid illegal drugs, premarital sex, pornography, abortion and homosexuality.*
Does the former group advocate execution of women accused of "sorcery" and/or "witchcraft"? Because the latter group certainly does and one such execution just took place in Saudi Arabia. In Iran, they dangle people by the neck from cranes for the "crime" of being homosexual.
It's amazing the lengths some people will go--the mental contortions some people will make--just in an attempt to damage someone's candidacy.
Dec 14, 2011 at 3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
So Ezoner, you want to compare FOX News to Mad magazine? Ok by me, they both embellish the truth in very entertaining ways.
Dec 13, 2011 at 6 p.m.
Dec 13, 2011 at 5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ezoner, perhaps you could point out any inaccuracies in my previous comment?
Dec 13, 2011 at 4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Poo the difference is abviously well beyond your capacity to understand. I have been to countries where Shariah law is in place. You should live there for awhile and then we will see what your opinion is. If, with your strong convictions, you live through the experience.
Dec 13, 2011 at 4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sharia law makes God the center of life - private, public and political. Clearly no difference on this point between conservative Christians and conservative Muslims. Both conservative Christians and conservative Muslims believe we should forbid illegal drugs, premarital sex, pornography, abortion and homosexuality. Both conservative Christians and conservative Muslims feel it is their mission to spread their religion to the rest of the world, often resulting in millions of people being killed in holy wars.
-
Could it be that this is a clash of conservative religious viewpoints that share more in common with each other than adherents are afraid to acknowledge?
Dec 13, 2011 at 3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Panama -- You slam those that watch or listen to fox -- yet not those that refernec the Huff Post..... a rag on par with Star Mag or better yet, MAD Magazine......
Dec 13, 2011 at 3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Well , Red, you know that evolution is just a theory...like gravity.
Dec 13, 2011 at 3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
All praises due to Allah...oops...er...ummmm...God Bless 'Merica! 'Merica! 'Merica! 'Merica! Yeah. That's the ticket.
Dec 13, 2011 at 2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
"...the passionate embrace of shallow ideas"
-
That seems to be a common among the Republicans who currently seek or actively hold public office. Especially those FOX News like to quote.
-
serious, it is not possible to sway those individuals who operate out of pure ideology rather than thoughtful analysis. What else do you call individuals who continue to pursue a notion that's been proven incorrect beyond a shadow of a doubt? "Birthers", perhaps?
Dec 13, 2011 at 1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Newt has traditionally feared many boogey men. His latest are Muslims. As he always has, Newt will implode and Romney will get the nomination. When I continually hear people say how intelligent Newt is, I tend to vomit. He is an ignorant bigot! He knows almost nothing about Islam that is not based upon bigotry, and very little else about any other topic.
Dec 13, 2011 at 1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
serious: I am not labeling you or people who disagree with me in general; just people who believe that there is a secret plan to force Shariah law on America. If you are a well-educated, thoughtful professional, you wouldn't believe this or the other conspiracy theories being touted by the far right (Obama was born in Kenya and is a Muslim, global warming is a gigantic hoax perpetrated by thousands of deceitful scientists, etc. etc.)
Dec 13, 2011 at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
*contentions about Shariah law are intended to appeal to the ignorant, theocratic and reactionary people that represent the base *
Shariah law is incompatible with representational democracy. It doesn't matter what political party you support. And if you want to see "theocracy" in action, take a look at the Islamic Republic of Iran or the recently demised Afghan Talib government.
Dec 13, 2011 at 11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
We have our own constitution, we don't need some foreign bogus law, this America.
Dec 13, 2011 at 11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
dustyd, How very condescending of you to label those with whom you disagree "ignorant, theocratic, and reactionary." I beg to differ. Many, if not most, of us are very well-educated, thoughtful professionals in our fields who care very deeply about this country and the issues we are facing as a nation. Do you really think that just because you are on the other side of the issues that you love your children and/or grandchildren any more than we love ours? We want the same economic stability, clean water, safe streets, and good health care for our children as you do, though we may disagree on how to achieve those goals.
-
If your goal is to sway another to your way of thinking, using a well-written argument will take you further than insults.
Dec 13, 2011 at 11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh, the world is going to end soon so it won't matter anyway.
Dec 13, 2011 at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
You can call me ignorant, theocratic and reactionary or whatever. This is no religious conspiracy theory it is actual fact. Full Shariah law is no different than Communism, the Nazis and or all the rest that have ended in the dust bin of history, right where they belong
Dec 13, 2011 at 8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gingrich's ignorant, theocratic and reactionary contentions about Shariah law are intended to appeal to the ignorant, theocratic and reactionary people that represent the base of his support. In my estimation, they comprise about 40% of the Republican party and, perhaps, 20% of the American electorate. They are concentrated in the South and in the evangelical community and, being distrustful of science and scholarship, they are especially moved by religious conspiracy theories.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.