In National Review Online, Daniel Pipes and Steve Emerson excoriate Chris Christie, New Jersey’s governor as "siding with Islamist forces time and again."
Mat Duss at Think Progress picks this claim apart.
Perhaps the weirdest unsubstantiated declaration in the NRO piece is this one:
Christie takes an ostentatiously pro-Israel stance, as reflected by his speeches and his recent “Jersey to Jerusalem” trip; this makes him unusual, for a pro-Israel stance typically goes hand-in-hand with concern about Shari’a.
[[READMORE]]
Duss notes that Islamic sharia courts exist in Israel, and yet the state has somehow resisted becoming a caliphate.
I would add that the evidence that "a pro-Israel stance goes hand-in-hand with concern about sharia" points to the opposite meaning intended by the authors.
It would be hard not to describe as pro-Israel the Orthodox Union, the Reform movement, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and a clutch of JCRCs around the country.
Yet their "concern about sharia," as I wrote in a story a year ago, has more to do with how it is used as a blunt instrument against Muslims rather than its occasional appearances in American jurisprudence.
