Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Critics allege Elena Kagan is sympathetic to Sharia law
Daily Caller ^ | 8/5/2010 | Caroline May

Posted on 08/05/2010 8:13:02 AM PDT by markomalley

Few fireworks erupted as the Senate opened up floor debate over Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan this week. Conventional wisdom remains that President Barack Obama’s second nomination to the high court will be confirmed with little trouble.

Despite the appearance of a fait accompli, numerous conservative groups have provided a wide range of reasons to oppose the Kagan nomination. Among the oft listed concerns are: her lack of experience, her perceived hostility to the military and free speech, her abortion and gay rights records, and her apparent reverence for foreign law. All these points have acted to obscure what some argue is one of her primary disqualifications — her sympathetic view of Sharia, or Islamic law.

Kagan’s detractors point to her time as the dean of Harvard Law School as the primary demonstration of her approval of Sharia. Andrew McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, wrote in an article on The National Review’s website that as Harvard Law School dean, Kagan  “became the champion of sharia.”

Included in Kagan’s offensives as dean, according to McCarthy, was condoning the acceptance of $20 million from Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal — who blamed the attacks of 9/11 on American foreign policy — to fund programs on Islam. She also spearheaded the “Islamic Finance Project,” a program aimed at mainstreaming Sharia-compliant finance in America. And, as some point out, she awarded the Harvard Medal of Freedom to the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry, who critics say is a promoter of Sharia.

Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, told The Daily Caller that Kagan would help advance Sharia law in America out of ignorance. “[Kagan] would knowingly and wittingly abet the advance of Sharia, but she wouldn’t do it understanding anything about Sharia. She would do it out of her ignorance.”

Spencer attributes Kagan’s fondness for Sharia to naïveté and liberalism. “There is a general tendency on the part of political liberals in the United States today to take a benign view of Islam and Islamic law,” he said. “They are generally uninformed and share a hatred of the West and Western civilization.”

According to Spencer, Kagan will be a willing accomplice in the ongoing stealth jihad — or the institution of Sharia into non-Muslim societies via non-violent means, such as the courts and mainstreaming Islamic customs — currently underway against the West. “The goal of the jihad is to assert the primacy of Islamic law over non-Muslim society and over Muslim societies where it is not fully enforced, and that can take place either through violent or non-violent means and the goal is the same,” he said.
Frank Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy, expressed concerns over Kagan’s seeming sympathy toward Sharia law in a recent Washington Times column. He wrote that, if confirmed, Kagan has an obligation to recuse herself from any case involving Islamic law. “One headed that way involves a federal lawsuit brought by David Yerushalmi and the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of an Iraq war veteran who thinks the constitutional separation of church and state is violated by U.S. government ownership of the world’s largest purveyor of Shariah-compliant financial products (the very thing Ms. Kagan’s Islamic Finance Project promotes at Harvard): AIG.”

Spencer says that he doubts the question of Kagan’s support for Sharia will come up in this week’s Senate debate. “In general American lawmakers have been entirely remiss on this issue. They have been uninformed and content in their ignorance. In some ways they have been bamboozled by the successful efforts by Islamic supremacist groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to portray any opposition to Sharia as hatred and bigotry and intolerance,” he said. “Of course no politician wants to be portrayed as that. It is the kiss of death.”


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: crushislam; democrats; dhimmicrats; elenakagan; islam; kagan; liberalfascism; scotus
((sigh))
1 posted on 08/05/2010 8:13:03 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

She’s sympathetic to everything wrong. Disgusting!!


2 posted on 08/05/2010 8:16:04 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (What)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The dems know this they don’t care they just want her overall radical progressive vote to SCOTUS.

She will go through if you dare say a word against this you’re a racist.

Next...Obama will specially appont Louie Farrakhan to the SCOTUS and no one shall utter a word.

Obama is King. Bow.


3 posted on 08/05/2010 8:16:32 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

In the US, Islam and its evil spawn, Sharia, is sedition.


4 posted on 08/05/2010 8:19:49 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

“sympathetic to Sharia law”

Actually it is an attitude of being against the Constitution. Being as the president describes - a neg-def list of what the government cannot do.


5 posted on 08/05/2010 8:19:49 AM PDT by edcoil (Truth's commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
I am usually opposed to taking on a fight I know can't be won, but in this case I simply MUST make an exception! The Republicans don't stand a snow ball's chance in hell of stopping this nomination, elections have results, but she is so poisonous to America's conservatives that they should go petal to the metal to obstruct her. Even if all it does is give them credence to say “We told you so” later on down the road.

The lesson here is a really BIG, “ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!” And we need to have a comprehensive list of the consequences of the election of Obama and a Democrat Congress to use in the upcoming election.

It could be that too many voters have been so dumbed-down that there's not turning them, but we have to try.

6 posted on 08/05/2010 8:23:00 AM PDT by jwparkerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

She’s sympathetic to anything, because she stands for nothing. Her open headed ignorance requires that she accept everything.

Lousy candidate. We will leave to regret this - and it won’t take long.


7 posted on 08/05/2010 8:37:29 AM PDT by RexBeach ("Duty is ours; consequences are God's." Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Allege?????????


8 posted on 08/05/2010 8:41:17 AM PDT by fuzzybutt (Democrat Lawyers are the root of all evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

What is Sharia law’s position on homosexuality?


9 posted on 08/05/2010 8:49:57 AM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!

Prince Alwaleed is believed to be the person who financed Obama’s education
at Harvard

Included in Kagan’s offensives as dean, according to McCarthy, was condoning the acceptance of $20 million from Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal
Elena Kagan.... Supports Sharia Law for the US........”We The People” DO NOT WANT SHARIA LAW in the USA!!

Ms Kagan served as Solicitor general of the United States from March 09 until May this year.

She “blocked” all cases about Mr Obama’s “eligibility” from reach the Supreme Court..... Her name has come up in at least 9 cases against Mr. Obama’s eligibility

KAGAN ADMITS SHE FALSIFIED DOCUMENT! Why doesn’t this DISQUALIFY HER?
By DFXJuly 07, 2010 08:22

She admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that as a Clinton lawyer, she falsified a document and the confirmation hearings are still proceeding? It seems to me that this admission should automatically disqualify her as a nominee!!!


10 posted on 08/05/2010 8:50:27 AM PDT by ebysan (ebysan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ebysan

Since she’s a man she won’t be effected by Sharia law ...


11 posted on 08/05/2010 8:51:59 AM PDT by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

shariah law would rid a society of people like Elena Kagan and many of her cohort academics and intellectuals

at least, the female and homosexual ones


12 posted on 08/05/2010 8:52:30 AM PDT by silverleaf (Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verity

Would she be the stone thrower or the stone hittee?


13 posted on 08/05/2010 8:53:08 AM PDT by bgill (how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Here is my rule-of-thumb, call it Wilson’s Rule: Anyone who has been a college administrator or full-time professor is unqualified for elected or appointed office.


14 posted on 08/05/2010 8:55:30 AM PDT by Ford4000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bgill
It was a serious question.

In view of the burning issue of gay marriage, I could for see a major conflict with Sharia.

15 posted on 08/05/2010 9:09:40 AM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ford4000

Here is my rule-of-thumb, call it Wilson’s Rule: Anyone who has been a college administrator or full-time professor is unqualified for elected or appointed office.””

I suggest you look at the trial lawyers—they run the country and all branches of government.


16 posted on 08/05/2010 9:11:57 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot
Of course, trial lawyers ought be excluded too because it is a conflict of interest.

Academics are disqualified by their arrogant sense of superiority and cloistered cluelessness.

Administrators are disqualified because of their liberalism and utter spinelessness.

17 posted on 08/05/2010 9:20:32 AM PDT by Ford4000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Scott Brown will be voting against the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.


18 posted on 08/05/2010 10:12:20 AM PDT by rockabyebaby (We are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo screwed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Everything up until now has been ground work. Establishing private Muslim communities like Dearborn, attacking America on 9/11 and then modifying the debate to rationalize more acceptance of Islam in the it’s wake by perverting the fundamental American belief in freedom and tolerance and using it against itself so to speak, (NY ground zero mosque), making Americans so afraid to seem bigoted that many will not say aloud what we all know; that 9/11 was a calculated attack perpetrated in the TRUE name of Islam, etc., etc.

Now this judicial confirmation would be the first tangible step in the Islamification of America. It’s in their playbook: move into a neighborhood and take it over, resist Western influence and keep your head down until sufficient numbers exist to use the democratic process against itself, install Shariah and finally exterminate non-moslems.

People must be able to see this like an accident in slow motion but as a society we are so impotent at this stage with our fear of appearing un- PC we would rather die than make ourselves feel uncomfortable. Truly sad. I hope a savior emerges be he human or perhaps better yet He.


19 posted on 08/05/2010 10:13:16 AM PDT by Ktulu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Everything up until now has been ground work. Establishing private Muslim communities like Dearborn, attacking America on 9/11 and then modifying the debate to rationalize more acceptance of Islam in the it’s wake by perverting the fundamental American belief in freedom and tolerance and using it against itself so to speak, (NY ground zero mosque), making Americans so afraid to seem bigoted that many will not say aloud what we all know; that 9/11 was a calculated attack perpetrated in the TRUE name of Islam, etc., etc.

Now this judicial confirmation would be the first tangible step in the Islamification of America. It’s in their playbook: move into a neighborhood and take it over, resist Western influence and keep your head down until sufficient numbers exist to use the democratic process against itself, install Shariah and finally exterminate non-moslems.

People must be able to see this like an accident in slow motion but as a society we are so impotent at this stage with our fear of appearing un- PC we would rather die than make ourselves feel uncomfortable. Truly sad. I hope a savior emerges be he human or perhaps better yet He.


20 posted on 08/05/2010 10:13:25 AM PDT by Ktulu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ktulu

sorry for the double post


21 posted on 08/05/2010 10:13:54 AM PDT by Ktulu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Oh really? Then lets put her in a burka and stone her. After a good lashing of course.


22 posted on 08/05/2010 10:17:18 AM PDT by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Elana Kagan knowingly falsified evidence in an attempt to defeat a partial birth abortion ban in Congress during the Clinton administration. The SCOTUS Confirmation Proceedings should have stopped at this point.


23 posted on 08/05/2010 10:30:30 AM PDT by pyx (Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ebysan

nothing to see here move along bow or be called racist


24 posted on 08/05/2010 10:36:58 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ebysan

Lyndsey Graham already promised a vote for her.


25 posted on 08/05/2010 10:38:29 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!

Graham says elections have consequences. Apparently they also get rubber stamps from spineless senators.


26 posted on 08/05/2010 11:33:22 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ebysan

Because like the “Wise Latina,” the Butch Kagan will rubberstamp anything that comes out of the Hussein sewer.


27 posted on 08/05/2010 1:37:02 PM PDT by Jacquerie (We live in a judicial tyranny - Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

She is an uber liberal who hates EVERYTHING about the United States. Thus she was Obastard’s obvious pick.


28 posted on 08/05/2010 2:45:04 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Satan is a Democrat and Obama is his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ford4000

Academics are disqualified by their arrogant sense of superiority and cloistered cluelessness.””

I am a professor but if you view my comments you might think otherwise. There are fewer arrogant libs and progs in the hard sciences, medicine, vet med, and engineering than there are in the “liberal arts.”


29 posted on 08/06/2010 7:54:25 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot

I would tend to agree with you about the hard sciences being less idiotic but then there is Steven Chu. Perhaps we ought to be afraid of academics that want to wield government power.


30 posted on 08/06/2010 9:55:04 AM PDT by Ford4000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ford4000

You are not far off. In lib arts—probably 90% are progs. In the hard sciences—maybe 50%. I base this on my experience with Vet Med and Human Med.


31 posted on 08/06/2010 10:17:12 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson