Sharia Conspiracy Theories
by Dr. David L. Johnston
Lt. Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin recently served with the U.S. Special Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet his role was mostly in intelligence gathering as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence at the Pentagon. As a loyal patriot in the military, Boykin was and continues to be laser-focused on our nation's enemies.
No one would deny that transnational terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and its affiliates or Taliban-related fighters in Afghanistan and Pakistan (tribal-based with local aims) are sworn enemies of the U.S. What I would like to highlight here is Boykin's unshakable certainty that "Islam" equals Sharia law, and Sharia law equals a system inherently bent on world domination. In a recent article, posing as an expert on all things Islamic, he proclaims,
"Sharia law is the foundation of Islamic theocracy and totalitarianism. The establishment of global Sharia law is the goal of the adherents to authoritative Islam. The Koran is unequivocal in its directive to Muslims to establish a global Islamic state, or Caliphate, over which the Islamic messiah, or Mahdi, will rule with Sharia as the only law of the land. That is the intent of many influential Islamic elements in America."
Here I only test one of his claims: that Sharia as blueprint for global hegemony is the view of "many influential elements in America." God willing, I will follow up with three more blogs touching on other aspects of this most misunderstood aspect of the Islamic faith - Sharia law.
But first, just a little background into the wider (and influential) movement to which Boykin relates. In today's social science parlance, I speak here of "the anti-Sharia discourse." Indeed,
Boykin is the lead author of a book on this topic, Shariah: the Threat to America: an Exercise in Competitive Analysis (2010). It is published by a think-tank led by Frank Gaffney, who was a top security adviser for President Reagan. The book's description on Amazon.com reads: "This study is the result of months of analysis, discussion and drafting by a group of top security policy experts concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as 'shariah.'"
Many other voices from several quarters have joined in this chorus. I'll only mention one here, Steven Emerson and his Washington-based SAE Productions and its nonprofit wing, the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. And it seems that Emerson's "nonprofit" pitch that America stands on the brink of impending doom at the hand of Islamic radicals is in fact rather profitable. In 2008 alone he collected more than $3.3 million. Investigative journalist Bob Smietana got interested in this one arm of "a multimillion-dollar industry of self-proclaimed experts who spread hate toward Muslims in books and movies, on websites and through speaking appearances" by virtue of covering a trial in a suburb of Nashville, Tennessee.
Opponents of the construction of a mosque in Murfreesboro, TN, managed to monopolize six days of court hearings with lectures on how Islam is not a true religion but rather a conspiracy to take over America and sqash its cherished freedoms. Unsurprisingly, one of the witnesses was Frank Gaffney whose think-tank had determined that one of the board members of the new mosque had been a member of Hamas (an allegation denied by the member and his board). Gaffney reiterated what other self-proclaimed experts in Sharia law had said, namely that Islam and Sharia were inseparable and therefore posed a vital threat to U.S. security.
Fortunately, a coalition of Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims stood up to defend the construction of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. One of those prominent voices was that of Florida mega-church pastor Joel Hunter, who said that it was ludicrous for the opponents of the mosque to base their opposition on the claim that Islam was not a religion but a political system with a built-in legal code at war with American democracy. He added that Muslims are like other past minorities that faced tough challenges to be accepted in America. For that reason, he was not going to relent: "Islam is facing that now and we will not rest until they have equal rights with other religions."
The latest news is that the judge was ready to throw out the opponents' challenge to the green light for the building permit issued by the Regional Planning Commission, but they did manage to have another hearing scheduled for April 13. Regardless of the outcome, however, the fact that the opposition has gained so much traction is a testimony to the power of the magnetism of the anti-Sharia discourse.
Yet that line of thinking is totally divorced from the worldview of the vast majority of American Muslims. Not only did all the major Muslim organizations in this country immediately condemn the attacks of 2001; they fervently and unequivocally support the ethical ideals of democracy and human rights, including religious freedom. The imam of the Manhattan mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has been at the center of the "Park51" controversy (their new building a couple of blocks away from "Ground Zero"), is a veteran of interfaith dialogue. Imam Abdul Rauf explained what he has learned as an American Muslim in his book, What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America; A New Vision for Muslims and the West. As a young man he sailed into New York Harbor in December 1965, eyeing the Statue of Liberty. "Little did I realize then," he mused, "that I was to discover the riches of my faith tradition in this land. Like many immigrants from Muslim lands, I discovered my islam in America."
One of his discoveries was that with its Declaration of Independence and its Cosntitution the United States of America is a better "Muslim" country than most so-called "Muslim countries." I cannot here go into all the details, but let's start with this summary:
Muslim legal scholars have defined five areas of life that Islamic law must protect and further. These are life, mind (that is, mental well-being or sanity), religion, property (or wealth), and family (or lineage and progeny). Any system of rule that upholds, protects, and furthers these rights is therefore legally "Islamic," or Shariah-compliant, in its substance. Because these rights are God-given, they are inalienable and cannot be deprived of any man or woman without depriving them of their essential humanity.
Another part of his argument centers around the two central commandments of love for God and love of neighbor. The three Abrahamic faiths, and Islam's religious law (the Sharia) make this distinction. Their followers are to love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength. "Our Christian friends," he writes, "call this the 'vertical dimension' of religions practice." The second part is more sociological, having to do with the "horizontal dimension" of our faith - how we relate to those around us. The first dimension in Islamic law is called the 'ibadat, the ritual aspect of the faith (the five pillars of Islam, and the like). The second dimension is the mu'amalat, literally the mutual relationship of people in society, which covers family law, contractual or commercial law, and penal or criminal law. That second branch, as opposed to the fixed nature of the first, is extremely flexible. As long as those objectives of Sharia are met (as stated int he block quotation above), they are constantly in need of revision and reformulation, so as to respond to the changing needs of society over time.
More detail will come in subsequent blogs. Here I only emphasize that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf sits squarely in the center of mainstream American Islam. In an evangelical-Muslim dialogue to which Rick Love and I contributed, which was organized by Georgetown University last year, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was giving out free copies of his book. Muslims disagree on many details of theology, law and politics - as do Jews and Christians among themselves. But one thing is for sure: the conspiracy theories of Jerry Boykin and Steven Emerson have nothing to do with the view of Sharia law held by the overwhelming majorty of the Muslim American community.
PCI recognizes that blogs posted on the PCI website do not necessarily reflect the views of PCI, nor does it mean that the author is in full agreement with the views of PCI.