NPR Posts An Expose On David Yerushalmi

Yesterday, I read an article on NPR's site that was essentially a primer or expose on David Yerushalmi, legal counsel extraordinaire to the counter jihad. (Hat tip to Bruce) As my long time (as in two weeks running) readers know, I'm highly critical of the adoption of the shari'a as a legal system anywhere. Of course, the shari'a encompasses far more than just a code of laws, barbaric penalties, and keeping women covered up like ninjas or beekeepers. When I get up and brush my teeth, that's "shari'a". It's simply part of the code or way by which I must conduct myself as a Muslim. Where it gets to be difficult is the fact that many Muslims think that the shari'a should encompass a binding legal system for everyone, everywhere and that the penalties to be given are from the immutable word of God.

As such, I am of two minds when dealing with a figure like David Yerushalmi. I sympathize with a desire to preserve secular values, and I further believe that secular governance is the only fair system of governance anywhere. Even in a country that professes to be 100% Muslim would I oppose the shari'a as the sole legal system or as a competing legal system. First, it's simply impossibly that any country could ever be completely Muslim. What if just one person were to become an apostate? Would that person's head be sawed off in accordance with the shari'a? Undoubtedly. So we must give people the option of leaving Islam if they so choose. If we're so convinced that Islam is the truth, this should be plain for all to see. They should seek to come to Islam by their own free will, not because they have been extorted and otherwise intimidated.

Muhammad (sallahu aleyhi wa sellam) is quoted as saying in Sahih al-Bukhari by 'Ikrima , "Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"


This hadith is narrated in what is one of the most authoritative texts in all of Islam. I reject it, as I reject all forms of barbarism enacted in the name of God in the modern era. Islam is far from alone in its death penalty for apostates, the difference is that only Islam practices that TODAY. Consider the Bible and Moses with regard to his treatment of the apostates who worshiped the golden calf.


And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:) Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to day to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day. Exodus 32:25-29


Or St. Stephen, who was martyred according to the King James Version of the Bible for "blasphemous words against Moses and God" Acts 6:11


Obviously, Jewish law once had a death penalty for apostates. When is the last time this was actually enforced? Quite some time ago. Somewhere between now and then, Jews and their Christian heirs made a decision to stop executing apostates. Such executions were still ongoing among Christians not but a few hundred years ago, so how is it that Christians and Jews have managed to shed this business but Muslims still have those among them who hound for it?


Secularism. That's the sole difference between the two. It is for this reason that I argue that the difference between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism is not their texts... because they aren't different in that respect, but they are different in their modern approach to secularism. It is secularism that has essentially neutered the worst portions of extant religious law for these faiths. There is a problem today with Islam that needs to be addressed by Muslims with a mind to rejection of medieval penalties. 


So that, in a nutshell, represents some of the core problems with the shari'a as a legal code. It will be enforced on Muslims and non-Muslims alike with potentially damaging effects. In this respect, I sympathize with Mr. Yerushalmi's work. However, I feel that focus on Islam as the sole source of religious indoctrination and attempts to subvert secular governance is misguided. Further, there is absolutely no danger of the shari'a being implemented in any fashion that leads to severed limbs, stoning, and other more graphic atrocity in America. It's ludicrous, we represent 1% of the population, even if we wanted to do this how would we manage to do so? With what political clout? Keith Ellison? 


So in the end, it amounts to conspiracy theory. Shari'a as a legal system is an extremely pressing matter in places like Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (where the United States supported a shari'a enshrined constitution!), and other Muslim majority states. America is not today and not even in 100 years in danger of achieving an Islamic majority or even a sizable Muslim MINORITY. It's a bit similar to fears during the French Revolution about "Jewish France". Conspiracy theory concerning an Islamic global take over is hardly different from very old anti-Semitism. 


I'll close with a video I watched some time ago featuring Mr. Yerushalmi discussing the differences between halacha and shari'a. It's interesting to see, because there's certainly a strong comparison between the two. He makes an excellent point that Jews are not interested in enforcing halacha on gentiles, and that's a key difference. Is it as big of an issue as he's trying to make it?