Shariah vs. the Constitution

A New York Times editorial on the current Mideast crisis is mostly a predictable attack on Mitt Romney, and an unusually dishonest one. But the conclusion is a clueless classic: "Libyan leaders have condemned the killings and promised to work to apprehend those responsible. Egyptian leaders, inexplicably, have not followed that lead."
Inexplicably! Let's see if we can explain. Here's a clue, from a Times news story:

What makes Egypt's uncertain course so vexing for the White House is that [President] Obama, more than any other foreign leader, has sided again and again with the Arab street in Cairo, even when it meant going expressly against the wishes of traditional allies, including the Egyptian military, the Persian Gulf states and Israel.

As recently as June, Mr. Obama was calling on the Egyptian military to quickly hand over power to the democratically elected civilian government--a move that helped [now-President Mohamed] Morsi, whose movement [the Muslim Brotherhood] has called for greater use of Islamic law, assume power. At the same time, the administration was chastising the military, which has for 30 years served as the bulwark of a crucial American strategic interest in the Middle East: the 1979 Camp David peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

For anti-American unrest to erupt in Egypt after all that could reflect a deeper divergence of a once-staunch ally from the United States.

The key phrase is "Islamic law," or Shariah.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444023704577649710571995978.html?mod=rss_opinion_main