1 Trending: Cornyn And Tillis’ Anti-Blanche Jihad Epitomizes The GOP’s Hatred For Its Voters

2 Trending: How Obamacare Pushes Big Pharma To Overcharge You For Prescriptions

3 Trending: The Foreign Invasion In The UK Will Ruin Your English Countryside Vacation

4 Trending: Bill Would Make Insurance Cover Body-Acceptance Treatments For Trans Desisters

Why Today’s Islam Is Incompatible With The American Way Of Life

You can’t believe Muhammad is a prophet and that his commands are voluntary.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

This spring, Indiana’s Republican Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith called Islam “a demonic death cult” and said Americans needed “permission to hate again.” The phrasing, at least as excerpted, was unfortunate, and the backlash has been as expected. Several Muslim advocacy groups have called Beckwith’s comments “dangerous” and “hateful.”

But it is worth asking what he was reaching for, because the impulse beneath the words is not imaginary or shameful. Americans sense, correctly, that some systems in the world aspire to unmake the freedoms that protect them and their children, and that a free people is entitled to say so plainly and to resist.

Can a legal system that claims final authority over conscience, speech, and the courtroom be welcomed into a constitutional republic and trusted to remain in submission to the laws of the land? The question deserves more than a sound bite — and this week it received a serious attempt at an answer.

Writing in part in response to A. S. Ibrahim’s new book Sharia Versus the U.S. Constitution: Why Americans Must Choose Freedom, Mustafa Akyol — a Cato Institute senior fellow, former New York Times columnist, and perhaps the most articulate Muslim advocate of reconciling Islam with Western liberty — argued that it can. He argues that sharia, rightly understood, need be no more than a voluntary devotion, a way of living toward God that does no harm to any unwilling neighbor.

It is a gracious vision. It is also a familiar one. The same hope reaches us from academic panels, interfaith gatherings, and editorial pages — wherever thoughtful people wish that sharia could be received as a private faith rather than a public law binding even upon bystanders. The difficulty is that what Akyol wishes sharia to be is not what it is.

The ambiguity is not academic. At an open house at a Plano, Texas mosque this July, an outreach director reassured visitors: “Sharia is already here” — by which he meant feeding neighbors, caring for parents, giving to the poor. On that definition, sharia is simply devout private life, and no one need fear it.

Outside the same event stood an Iranian-born Christian who had lived under the other sharia. He did not hate Muslims, he said. He wanted Americans to understand that Islam “becomes offensive the minute it takes power” — when the blasphemy and apostasy laws begin. One word, two meanings. The whole question is which one governs when the choice is no longer voluntary.

Sharia is the meticulous legal implementation of Muhammad’s........

© The Federalist