I think at one point her mouth was hanging open - literally. This is why I think more guys like Nawaz need air time. Even the supposedly “educated” on such issues need to hear it from the former terrorist’s mouth & he was reading from the Koran and talking about acting on what was written there - doesn’t get any plainer than that. During the interview, I kept thinking about Omuslim lying his ass off about how the terrorism has nothing to do with Islam ..... no ‘beer summit’ with this Nawaz, for sure. BTW, I would LOVE for a reporter to ask Omuslim what the first “I” in ISIL/ISIS stands for .... bet he’d contort into a pretzel trying to avoid saying the word “Islamic” (and the question would piss him off, too).
Some years ago Prince Charles tried to get a goup of “moderate” Muslims to condemn sharia, Islamic law which mandates the enslavement and/or execution of non-Muslims. Not one would condemn it because that is a central tenet of Islam. Ben Carson did a good job of pointing out that sharia is at enmity with the US Constitution. The whole concept of “live and let live” does not exist in Islam.
I don’t watch TV and haven’t seen this interview, but if described correctly, Kelly is stunned that these views are not some nutso, “extremist” interpretation but dead-center of what Islam is. Studies have been done showing that a large majority of Muslims in the US support sharia, which is a little bit like saying a large majority of Christians believe in Christ. Support for sharia is the defining doctrine of Islam, but Muslims don’t have to push for it unless/until they have a large enough percentage of the general population in an area to make it workable, and then they go through various stages of “cultural concessions” in the host country, working gradually toward a legal foundation for the institution of sharia. Legal concessions allowing Muslims to have their own sharia courts, getting “culturally-sensitive” law enforcement to overlook Muslim crimes like honor killings, etc are a systematic way for “non-extreme Muslims” (as Kelly might say) to carry out the central tenet of Islam: sharia, which includes the enslavement and/or execution of all non-Muslims.
And it is understood that sharia trumps any other allegiances. I remember everybody being astounded by the Afghani Muslim who converted to Christianity being sentenced to death in spite of them having a Constitution that guarantees religious liberty. They can have a Constitution that says anything the West wants it to say, and can agree to any UN “human rights” pledges that will put them in a position of power... because they all know that any pledge made comes BELOW sharia, so it doesn’t count for anything. It’s just taqiyya, lying for the sake of the furtherance of Islam’s goals. To save public face, Afghanistan ruled that this man had to have been insane to convert out of Islam so he was IIRC either institutionalized or sent out of the country as “insane”. Which, by the way, is the same tactic used by communists to get rid of dissenters - and by Obama’s regime, which was illegally put into place through a communist-Islamist alliance, IMHO. We know them by their fruits...