Spencer complains over headscarf in Tennessee

Spencer has obviously forgotten the distinction between personal law and “sociopolitical law”, and indeed, the existence of “socio-personal law”, that is, law governing how people interact with each other and behave around each other. He’s moaning about the decision of a school in Tennessee to allow a Muslima called Emily Smith (aged 18) to wear her hijab; they don’t allow most headwear, but make an exception because their attorneys advise them that religious headscarves are protected from the Constitution.

The “national civil rights group for Muslims,” CAIR, demands that non-Muslims accept as axiomatic that Muslims in America have no intention of following through on the Sharia’s political imperatives, while maintaining its personal ones – and if we don’t accept this, CAIR tars us as “hatemongers” and “bigots.” But what is the evidence of this? Where are the Sharia manuals redlined by CAIR or any other Muslim group to cross out the elements that mandate that states be governed according to Islamic law? And if Muslims in America have not really renounced these elements of Sharia, then is not Emily Smith’s action a declaration with enormous political implications?

Well, CAIR don’t need to “redline” any manual of Shari’ah in order to indicate which parts of the Shari’ah aren’t applicable to Muslims living in non-Muslim countries with laws they knew all along to be non-Islamic. The imposition of Shar’iah follows conquest, or a country choosing it. This doesn’t absolve Muslims of obeying the commands of Islam that apply to individuals, which in the case of women, does include covering the head.

So no, Emily Smith’s decision doesn’t have “enormous political implications”; it has none, in fact.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Robert Spencer, Patrick Sookhdeo and me
• KFC and the BNP
• Dentists as moral arbiters
• Fitz says kick Muslims out of Europe
• Spencer, the NDU scholars, the securocrat and his books