Totalitarians have an uncanny appreciation for the
subversive effect of foreign propagandists. The Nazis had Lord Haw-Haw,
Imperial Japan its Tokyo Rose, the Soviets the World Council of Churches (among
many others) and the North Vietnamese Jane Fonda. Now, our time’s
totalitarian ideologues – the Islamofascists – have the New York Times.
This may not seem to be exactly a news flash. After all,
the Times has been rendering
invaluable service to the enemy’s information operations and military
campaigns for years. To cite but a few examples: In December 2005, the paper
disclosed a highly classified program for monitoring suspected
terrorists’ communications on this war’s global battlefield. In
June 2006, it revealed another enormously sensitive surveillance effort
concerning movement of funds around the world. And practically every day, what
passes for its news pages and editorials run down the Nation’s
leadership, military and progress in defeating our foes.
The New York Times marked
a deplorable new milestone this weekend, however – a true nadir in
collaborating with the enemy in the War of Ideas. Its Sunday magazine featured
an article by Harvard law professor Noah Feldman entitled “Why Shariah?
Millions of Muslims think Shariah means the rule of law. Could they be
right?” According to the Times’ Mr. Feldman, the answer is a
The disinforming character of this essay is evident to the
trained eye from the opening paragraph. Feldman depicts sympathetically the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who “gave a nuanced, scholarly
lecture” recently in London.
Dr. Williams we are told offered “the tentative suggestion…that,
subject to the agreement of all parties and the strict requirement of
protecting equal rights for women, it might be a good idea to consider allowing
Islamic and Orthodox Jewish courts to handle marriage and divorce.”
Then, it seems through no fault of his own, “all hell broke loose”
on the poor, thoughtful clergyman.
Actually, what the head of the Church of England declared
on the BBC was that it was “unavoidable” that Shariah law – a
theo-political-legal code that the Islamofascists seek to impose on Muslims
and non-Muslims alike in all of its barbaric, intolerant, totalitarian and misogynistic
glory – will be observed in the United Kingdom. The man now
derided as “the Grand Mufti of Canterbury” was exhibiting the
classic symptoms of an unbeliever who chooses to submit to the rule of Islam,
rather than accept the other choice under Shariah, namely being put to death.
The former is known as a dhimmi.
In an article that can only be described charitably as selective in its rendering of the facts,
Feldman paints a portrait of Shariah that would earn admiration from the
inventor of the Big Lie, Adolf Hitler. In fact, the text could have been
written by the Muslim Brotherhood – an Islamofascist movement that is, by
its own documents, charged with “destroying [the United States] from within”
and “by its own hands.” Actually, it is no exaggeration to say
that the Times’ Magazine
has provided a six-page advertisement for the Brotherhood, effectively
portraying it as a force for democracy and the rule of law that would make
Thomas Jefferson swoon.
The Harvard professor, who helped write the new Iraqi
constitution with its requirement that all laws must conform to Shariah, seems
open to the Islamofascists’ determination to have the same apply
elsewhere. He concludes with this rhapsody: “…With all its risks
and dangers, the Islamists’ aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of
law while coming to terms with contemporary circumstances is bold and noble
– and may represent a path to just and legitimate government in much of
the Muslim world.”
Let’s call this what it is: a paean to dhimmitude.
The people who are actually going to have to “come to terms with
contemporary circumstances” are not
the Islamists. They are hewing to the immutable traditions of Shariah going
back to the 9th century, as interpreted by the consensus of the
faith’s “authorities,” the only figures allowed to speak for
It is the cruelest of delusions to contend that such
Shariah law will produce “just and legitimate governments” anywhere. Feldman struggles to explain
why it isn’t so in two of the four places ruled by Shariah today –
Iran and Saudi Arabia; he doesn’t even try to do so with respect to Sudan
or Gaza, let alone the nightmare that formerly was Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.
Sunday’s New York
Times article could be chalked up to another travesty by a paper
that has long since lost its way, but for one fact: It comes at a moment when
the Islamofascists are poised to make a potentially decisive breakthrough.
Unless action is taken swiftly, they will achieve a strategic penetration of
Wall Street in the form of “Shariah-Compliant Finance” (SCF).
Confusion, let alone deliberate disinformation, about the true nature of
Shariah, constitutes an invitation to disaster.
After all, the calamitous credit crisis is vaporizing
such pillars of American capitalism as Bear Sterns. Other investment houses and
commercial banks are desperate for cash. Islamist Sovereign Wealth Funds (more
accurately described as Dictators Slush Funds) and other champions of SCF are
offering to recycle trillions of dollars here – if only Wall Street will
allow Muslim Brothers and other Islamofascists to call the shots, dictating who
gets capital and credit on the basis of Shariah adherence. Archbishop Williams
judged Shariah law unavoidable in Britain
in part because the UK
has already embraced Shariah-Compliant Finance.
If we fall for this deadly Trojan horse and the
seditious Shariah agenda that animates it, the New Dhimmi Times and Professor
Feldman will deserve no small portion of the blame.