Santorum’s half intelligence on sharia

Sharia is “evil” and incompatible with our society, Rick Santorum said last March, as reported at Jihad Watch.

It is good that he sees this. Unfortunately, he also seems to think that the way to deal with the threat of sharia is to empower it in every Muslim country we can get our hands on, via “democracy.” See his staunch advocacy of our criminal, al Qaeda-empowering intervention in Libya.

I saw or heard Santorum being interviewed numerous times during his two terms as a U.S. senator. He never struck me as particularly intelligent. He seemed like an average guy who was against abortion. His lack of intellectual acuity is still seen today in his approach to the Islam problem.

A person who saw sharia as an evil threat to us and who was also knowledgeable and reflective would recognize the following three things:

(1) Sharia is of the very nature of Islam, and therefore it is Islam that is the evil threat, not just sharia.

(2) Since Islam is itself evil, it cannot be reformed, whether through “democratization” or any other means.

(3) What we must therefore do is protect ourselves from Islam, by halting and reversing its spread to our society, not by attempting to “democratize” Islamic society, a policy that simply gives sharia-believing Muslims the opportunity to vote sharia into power.

Santorum evidently understands none of this. He thinks that we can protect ourselves from sharia, not by protecting ourselves from Islam, but by helping Muslims institutionalize and spread sharia. So, notwithstanding his strong-sounding statements about the evil of sharia, he is deeply unthoughtful, deeply uncomprehending, and would continue the ruinous policies of George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Bush said he was fighting “dead-enders” and “enemies of freedom.” Santorum says he’s fighting sharia. Apart from the difference of terminology, their actions would be the same.

- end of initial entry -

D. Edwards writes:

I disagree with your assessment of Santorum. I think he sees the true believers ruling Iran (and hastening the return of the mahdi) as a fundamental threat to U.S. security.

I site this: “Is This The Venezuelan Missile Base Being Built With Iranian Oil Profits?”

Obama had two choices in last three years: he could have supported the Iranian opposition or he could have supported the “Arab Spring.” Obama choose the latter. If Obama had supported the Iranian opposition, it would have knocked out an important element in jihadi government. This is I think what Santorum was advocating.

LA replies:

1. I of course believe that we must use military measures to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, something I’ve said many times. The fact that Santorum has same position is separate from the issues I was discussing.

2. Many of the pro-democracy people in Iran in 2009 were also sharia believers, just like the Mullahs. They just wanted to put a different group of sharia believers in power. “Democracy” would have helped them accomplish that.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 06, 2012 07:43 PM | Send