After GOP nominee Donald Trump announced his plans to vet immigrants, especially those from nations known to harbor terrorists, CNN contributor and all-around leftist hack Sally Kohn went on the attack with a tweet defending Sharia law.
Hey @realDonaldTrump, many *progressive Muslims* — the ones we should support in ideological fight against extremism — believe in Sharia!!
— Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) August 16, 2016
Naturally, her tweet didn’t sit too well with many.
Something tells me she knows, she just doesn’t care.
There is nothing "progressive" about Sharia Law. That should be readily apparent to any thinking person. https://t.co/QoXuhRJtSq
— Ian McKelvey (@ian_mckelvey) August 16, 2016
But we’re talking about a leftist, so…
Twitchy said Kohn defended herself with an article by Jeffrey Goldberg about Israel using Sharia law for certain proceedings, but it’s not applicable to Western nations.
The Twitchy staff posted this excerpt from the Jewish Chronicle in 2008:
Most matters of personal status, especially marriage and divorce, are ruled in Israel by religious courts. For three religious groups, Jews, Muslims and Druze, there are official, state-appointed courts, who rule on these matters. For Christians, there are private ecclesiastical courts whose rulings are recognised de facto by the civil authorities.
The system began with an Act during the British Mandate, under which all recognised religious groups were allowed to deal with matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption in their own courts. After 1948, the system was continued but only in matters of personal status. By law, the sharia courts have exactly the same status as the rabbinical courts.
But Dr Aviad Hacohen, a constitutional law expert from Hebrew University and the head of the Mosiaca centre on state and religion, believes Israel’s system “has two main shortcomings.
“The first is that it creates a twin-track system of religious and civil law that are not always compatible.” Over-ruling of the religious courts by the Supreme Court is not uncommon, and in 1992, in the landmark case Bavli v Bavli, the Supreme Court ruled that civil courts take precedence over religious courts.
“The second shortcoming is that the system isn’t good for everyone. It can’t deal with mixed marriages, or those who are not recognised as belonging to a religion.”
Such arrangements between religious courts and the civil authorities are impossible in countries like the US and France, where there is a strict division between state and religion, but they exist in Germany and Belgium where some religious groups are allowed to rule on such matters.
So, Twitchy wondered, how is this working out for Germany and Belgium? And what about those progressive Muslims in countries that have embraced Sharia law — where homosexuals can be executed?
- Khizr Khan: Constitution ‘must always be subordinated to the Sharia’
- Newt Gingrich: Any Muslim who wants Sharia law should be deported — Video
- Homeland Security prohibited from using ‘jihad’ and ‘sharia’ – words that ‘disrespect’ Muslims
- Video: Florida prof. defends Sharia practice of cutting off hands, claims it saves lives
- CAIR: Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin part of anti-Islamic plot