“[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.”
Yes, because the only one who understands Sharia is Robert Spencer.
What a convoluted way of saying what he really wants to say, “Kagan will ‘advance Shariah.'”
So will she “knowingly” or “ignorantly” advance Sharia?
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.”
Essentially, if someone disagrees with Spencer they are cast as either “ignorant” or “taking a benign view of Islam and Islamic law.” This woman has devoted her whole life to the study of law, does he not think for a second that Kagan might know more about Islamic law than himself?
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.
More of the same old conspiracies. On Spencer’s hate blog, he posted this article with the comment, “Ignorance and naivete, mixed in with the fashionable Leftist contempt for America.” Is he referring to the reporter or to Kagan? He doesn’t dispute anything the reporter wrote and instead finds it fit to criticize liberals as being “accomplices in the ongoing stealth jihad.”