Shariah: Coming to a city near you?

OPINION:

As a non-New Yorker, I have to know: Are Big Apple voters really comfortable electing a leader who has outright refused to condemn violent insurrection that inevitably brings about a serious disregard for human rights and civil liberties?

In a June interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” reporter Kristen Welker directly asked the Uganda-born, Shiite Muslim (and now New York City Democratic mayoral candidate) Zohran Mamdani three times whether he would condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada.”

He outright refused each time. This drew deep concern even from those in his party.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer released a statement affirming that this type of call for violence should never be acceptable. Even Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel criticized Mr. Mamdani for not condemning the phrase. Of course, the refusal also drew the overwhelming criticism of New York City’s Jewish community.

A call for an intifada is ultimately a call to establish Islamic rule through violent extremism and force. “Globalize the intifada” emerged as a rallying cry among anti-Zionist activists, gaining traction after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which killed more than 1,200 people. Within days, pro-Palestinian demonstrators in the U.S. began chanting the phrase on college campuses, and within months, it echoed from Manhattan to London.

The slogan’s spread prompted New York City Mayor Eric Adams to denounce it as anti-Israel hate incompatible with the city’s values. The term intifada, Arabic for “uprising,” has been used to describe violent rebellions across the Arab world since the 1950s. There was the 1952 “Iraqi Intifada,” which bolstered radical Islamic governance, and the 1964 “October Intifada” in Sudan, which established an Islamic-led regime. By 1984, more than five intifadas had replaced Western-oriented governments with Islamic theocracies in the Middle East and North Africa.

The Arab Spring movements from 2010 to 2011 in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria and Yemen solidified radical Islamic rule. Any type of intifada is a call to install Islamic systems by any means necessary, even through the use of violence.

History shows that such calls are not merely related to violent subversions of Islamic rebellions. They are clear calls for the installation of Islamic rule. One of the key tenets of this is the installation of Shariah, Islamic law, which is growing globally at an alarming rate. In 1980, Saudi Arabia was the only country officially adopting Shariah as its legal system. By 2000, that number had risen to 16. Now, more than 35 of the world’s 195 countries have adopted Shariah.

This should draw the concern of anyone who cares about liberty and freedom. Shariah thrives on totalitarian power because, at its heart, it is about consolidated control — something to which the self-described socialist Mr. Mamdani seems inordinately drawn. He has proposed government price controls and government-controlled grocery stores in the name of “affordability.” He has made clear he is a staunch opponent of capitalism (the system that made much of his family’s wealth) and a proponent of a totalitarian form of government control. Another case of the left’s elitist mindset: What is good for me is not good for thee.

Those who understand Shariah know that it goes hand in hand with human oppression. I’ve seen this up close, as I work in northern Nigeria, where 12 states have adopted a strict form of Shariah. Shariah’s track record on human rights leaves much to be desired. Almost all 35 countries that have adopted it are on the “human rights watchlist” at “closed” or “repressed” levels. Nearly half of all the countries on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom’s watchlist are Shariah countries, and 90% of the countries on the Open Doors International World Watch List for persecution are countries that have implemented some form of Shariah. The data is clear: With Shariah comes persecution of all rights and the trampling of civil liberties.

Shariah courts make rulings on nearly every aspect of life. They enforce Islamic principles on civil and criminal matters. These rulings are guided by the subjective interpretations of Islamic scholars (called fiqhs) who make decisions (ahkam) on civil issues such as marriage, custody and inheritance. They also rule on criminal issues. These include apostasy, blasphemy, alcohol consumption, stealing, adultery and homosexuality. Punishments (known as hadud) vary but are severe in strict Quran-adhering regions and range from death for apostasy, blasphemy or homosexuality; caning (often 40 lashes) for alcohol or drug use; hand amputation for theft; and stoning, flogging or genital mutilation for other offenses.

All this in a system where nearly all fiqhs are male and a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s.

To make matters worse, the threat of a Shariah takeover is not isolated to New York City. Right now, in America’s heartland, Minneapolis Democrats have endorsed Omar Fateh, a Muslim with similar sympathies, for mayor.

I have spent nearly a third of my adult life in regions that impose a strict interpretation of the Quran and often enforce the cruel punishments of Shariah. It deeply concerns me that many Americans are courting candidates entrenched in systems that are completely antithetical to the freedoms and liberties America champions. Millions of people around the globe are clamoring to escape their oppression and come to the United States to find a better life. It’s sad to think that one day they may arrive and find the same tyranny they fought to escape.

• Brad Brandon is the founder and CEO of Across Nigeria.