Nadler’s Constitutional Witness Says Sharia Law More Humane Than Ours


It figures. One of the “constitutional scholars” selected by Jerry Nadler to testify thinks that Sharia Law is more humane than the Constitution and the laws of the United States. I didn’t know there were humane ways to behead or stone someone. Silly me. Noah Feldman, who is a law professor at Harvard (Where else) is a huge fan of Sharia Law and would like to see it imposed here.

Feldman argued:

“In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation.”

Feldman says the West needs Sharia Law and Islam. I’m pretty sure I don’t need either one, do you? How do you come to the conclusion that Sharia Law is more humane when you can have your hands whacked off for stealing a loaf of bread or a woman who gets stoned to death because she was raped and the judges decide she didn’t fight hard enough?

From The Gateway Pundit

He actually argued in a NY Times op-ed titled, “Why Shariah?” that Islamic Sharia law is more humane than US law:

For generations, Western students of the traditional Islamic constitution have assumed that the scholars could offer no meaningful check on the ruler. As one historian has recently put it, although Shariah functioned as a constitution, “the constitution was not enforceable,” because neither scholars nor subjects could “compel their ruler to observe the law in the exercise of government.” But almost no constitution anywhere in the world enables judges or nongovernmental actors to “compel” the obedience of an executive who controls the means of force. The Supreme Court of the United States has no army behind it. Institutions that lack the power of the sword must use more subtle means to constrain executives. Like the American constitutional balance of powers, the traditional Islamic balance was maintained by words and ideas, and not just by forcible compulsion.

So today’s Muslims are not being completely fanciful when they act and speak as though Shariah can structure a constitutional state subject to the rule of law. One big reason that Islamist political parties do so well running on a Shariah platform is that their constituents recognize that Shariah once augured a balanced state in which legal rights were respected.