U.S. Law vs. Sharia Law

By: Bill Federer

 

The world was shocked when Taliban executed a woman in broad daylight simply for not wearing a burqa, as reported by the New York Post, August 17, 2021.

 

Whether the unorganized withdrawal of U.S. troops out of Afghanistan was a fiasco of President Biden’s advisors, or the strategic implementation of a returning to Obama the era policies of surrendering the Middle East to Islamists, the U.S. military left behind stockpiles of weapons, bullet proof cars, and sophisticated equipment, including Black Hawk helicopters for the Taliban’s use.

BPR reported August 20, 2021:

 

“Reports are coming out of Afghanistan that the Taliban has a list of people who helped U.S. forces and are now going door-to-door searching for them and then brutally hanging those that they find.

 

Lt. Colonel Oliver North joined Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday night and broke some very disturbing news.

 

“They’ve got the bank records. They got it all thanks to the embassy … It is being reported that the Taliban has captured the payroll data from the American embassy and the Kabul banks showing the names, addresses, and phone numbers for locals now being hunted down.”

FrontPage Magazine reported August 19, 2021:

 

“As the Taliban moved into Kabul and demanded the unconditional surrender of the central government, Taliban commander Muhammed Arif Mustafa told CNN:

 

‘It’s our belief that one day, mujahedin will have victory, and Islamic law will come not to just Afghanistan, but all over the world.

 

We are not in a hurry. We believe it will come one day. Jihad will not end until the last day’ …

 

The Taliban does indeed want peace … the peace that will follow the world’s submission to the hegemony of Islamic law.”

Is Islamic Law compatible with U.S. Law?

 

President Obama proudly announced in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009:

 

“When the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the Holy Qur’an.”

 

As nice as this sounds, could there possibly be an underlying contradiction? Can one swear to defend the Constitution upon a book that instructs followers to overthrow it?

There are five schools of Islamic law, called “sharia,” four are Sunni and one is Shite.

 

As Islamic populations grow in neighborhoods, clandestine pressure increases for inhabitants to comply with aspects of sharia.

This behavior is observed in nations around the world, such as with Islamist organizer Anjem Choudary of Islam4UK, who stated (London Daily Express, 10/15/09):

 

“We have had enough of democracy and man-made law … We will call for a complete upheaval of the British ruling system … and demand full implementation of sharia in Britain.”

When one compares the aspects of sharia with the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments, there are incompatibilities.

 

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote in the foreword of the book Law in the Middle East (1955):

 

“The law of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western law.”

The FIRST AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion, yet Mohammed said “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57).

 

Sharia relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs among Muslims, and cannot display a Cross, Christmas decorations, or a Star of David.

 

The Quran states in Sura 4:89, “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”

The FIRST AMENDMENT states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet sharia enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer, ringing church bells, or say anything considered “insulting to Islam.”

 

The French philosopher Voltaire once said: “If you want to know who controls you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize.”

The FIRST AMENDMENT states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet sharia states non-Muslims cannot repair places of worship or rebuild destroyed ones; they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings; they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

The FIRST AMENDMENT states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet sharia states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

The SECOND AMENDMENT states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet sharia states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

The THIRD AMENDMENT states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet sharia states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

The FOURTH AMENDMENT guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet sharia states non-Muslims do not have this protection; and if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

The FIFTH AMENDMENT states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Mohammed said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

The SIXTH AMENDMENT guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the SEVENTH AMENDMENT states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet sharia does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting them from testifying in court against Muslims.

The EIGHTH AMENDMENT states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Qur’an states: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done-a deterrent from Allah.” (Sura 5:38)

 

A woman who is guilty of adultery, fornication, or who has been raped is also punished by flogging “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2)

Sharia allows men to beat women: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34).

 

Another sharia practice is honor killing of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families.

Sharia practicing fundamentalists have been reported to punish those breaking laws by beatings, mutilations, electrocutions, rapes, burying alive, burning, stabbing, acid attacks, torturing, strangling, drowning, stoning and beheading.

The NINTH and TENTH AMENDMENTS protect rights not listed in Constitution by reserving them to the states and to the citizens within the states.

 

Under sharia, citizens, especially women and non-Muslims, do not have inherent God-given rights.

The THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the sharia accommodates slavery as Mohammed owned slaves.

The FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet sharia does not consider Jews, Christians or other non-Muslims as equal before the law with Muslims.

 

Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Muhammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).

The FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of sharia does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves above Allah by making their own laws.

The SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT has some similarities with sharia, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Mohammed said “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)

The SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT senators directly elected by the people.

 

Sharia does not believe people, especially women and non-Muslims, should be allowed to choose their leaders.

The EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT has some similarities with sharia, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.” This is the same with sharia.

The NINETEENTH AMENDMENT allows women to vote, yet in most sharia controlled countries women cannot vote, as they are considered inferior to men.

 

“Men are superior to women” (Sura 2:228) and “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because men spend their wealth to maintain women” (Sura 34:4).

The TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT allows for the sale of liquor, yet sharia does not allow individuals to sell or consume wine and liquor in public.

The TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT limits a President to two terms, but sharia is opposed to citizens, especially women and non-Muslims, voting for Presidents. Sharia seeks to recognize a divinely-appointed Caliph.

The TWENTY-THIRD AMENDMENT allowed citizens of Washington, DC., to vote in Presidential elections.

 

Again, sharia is opposed to allowing citizens, especially women and non-Muslims, to vote.

The TWENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT abolished poll taxes, where someone was required to pay a fee in order to vote.

 

Again, sharia is opposed to citizens, especially women and non-Muslims, voting.

The TWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT addresses succession to the Presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities.

 

Again, sharia does not believe people, especially women and non-Muslims, should be allowed to choose their leaders.

TWENTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT allowed 18-year-olds to vote.

 

Again, sharia is opposed to citizens, especially women and non-Muslims, voting, as it considers its laws as divine.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote in the foreword of the book Law in the Middle East (1955):

 

“Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts.

 

Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge … reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties.

 

In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western law.”

A majority of the top fifty areas persecuting Christian have degrees of sharia, which is often enforced on an unofficial neighborhood basis.

Nations with regions enforcing varying elements of sharia include:

 

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Comoros, Egypt, Gaza, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Instances of sharia exist in different countries to varying degrees, such as:

 

1. Indonesia (flogging, caning; sharia applied strictly in Aceh province)

2. Turkey (some restrictions on alcohol)

3. Brunei (caning; alcohol is illegal)

4. Jordan (two years or less for honor killings)

5. Eritrea (girls as young as 8 can be married; spousal rape is not recognized)

6. Syria (one year or less for honor killings)

7. Djibouti (sharia law regarding divorce)

8. Chechnya (modest dress enforced; alcohol and gambling suppressed by local authorities)

9. Niger (girls can be married off before they reach puberty)

10. Nigeria (sharia is enforced in the northern states)

11. Kenya (ad hoc sharia enforced in the east near the border with Somalia)

12. Gambia (sharia courts decide all family matters, including for non-Muslims)

13. Qatar (public consumption is illegal during Ramadan; alcohol heavily restricted; blood money acceptable punishment for murder; “kafala” law, which is also shared by all Gulf states but Bahrain, is technically slavery)

14. Uganda (Kadhi courts overseeing family and civil matters)

Muhammad was a religious leader, and also a political and military leader.

 

As a result, to some of his followers, Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political and military system.

 

Worldwide, there is no single individual or group that has the authority to insist that followers of Muhammad cease from imitating his political and military example

 

A sharia practicing person bowing toward Mecca is effectively pledging political and military allegiance to a globalist Islamist agenda they consider superior to the country they live in.

Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran presents a dilemma.

In light of increased terrorism in Western nations, it is understandable how some feel uneasy about Keith Ellison swearing into office with his hand upon a book which advocates inequality towards non-Muslims.

 

It would be similar to a leader in Germany’s National Socialist Workers Party swearing upon Hitler’s Mein Kampf to protect non-Aryans.

Describing Hitler’s Mein Kampf as a “new Koran,” Winston Churchill wrote in Second World War (Vol. 1, Ch. 4, From War to War, p. 50-55):

 

“Mein Kampf, a treatise on Hitler’s political philosophy … the technique of party propaganda … the concept of a National-Socialist State … Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message …

 

The main thesis of Mein Kampf is simple. Man is a fighting animal; therefore the nation, being a community of fighters, is a fighting unit …

 

The fighting capacity of a race depends on its purity. Hence the need for ridding it of foreign defilements.

 

The Jewish race, owing to its universality, is of necessity pacifist …

 

Only brute force can ensure the survival of the race; hence the necessity for military forms. The race must fight; a race that rests must rust and perish.”

In light of brute force groups like ISIS, Taliban, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Muslim Brotherhood moving into host countries and enforcing sharia, the question is posed, could gangs such as the Bloods, Crips, MS-13, Antifa, cartels, Mafia, or the KKK be allowed to infiltrate neighborhoods and enforce vigilante justice by claiming it is part of their religion?

In some countries, Islamists use the democratic process to get elected, then once in power, they proceed to dismantle democracy.

 

The Economist reported (2/4/16) of Turkey’s leader:

 

“Mr Erdogan made a telling remark … ‘Democracy is like a train,’ he said; ‘you get off once you have reached your destination.'”

It is reported that a record number of Muslims are running for political office.

 

Perhaps it would be worth considering having all politicians take a pledge:

 

PLEDGE TO STOP CRUELTY & ABUSE OF WOMEN AND THE DEFENSELESS

 

·I pledge to stand against WIFE-BEATING — allowing a man to bully, batter or be physically abusive to his wife if she does not obey him or refuses to have sex with him;

 

·I pledge to stand against POLYGAMY — allowing a man to have multiple wives;

 

·I pledge to stand against PUNISHMENT OF RAPE VICTIMS — whipping, stoning or inflicting of corporal punishment on a woman who has been the victim of a rape;

 

·I pledge to stand against INEQUALITY — teaching chauvinism, that men are more equal than women before the law;

 

·I pledge to stand against SEX SLAVERY — allowing women to be forced into involuntary marriages and sex-trafficking;

 

·I pledge to stand against NO AGE OF CONSENT — allowing a man to marry a girl who is under the age of consent;

 

·I pledge to stand against NO FREEDOM TO BE ALONE IN PUBLIC — not allowing women to leave their homes without being accompanied by a male relative;

 

·I pledge to stand against DETERMINING OF DRESS — discriminating, threatening, uttering of abuse, or committing violence on a woman because she is seen in public not wearing a particular dress or covering;

 

·I pledge to stand against DEFENSELESS DIVORCE — facilitating men divorcing their wives without due process of American law, such as by simply saying “I divorce you” three times;

 

·I pledge to stand against NO ALIMONY — denying alimony to a woman who has been divorced, without due process of American law;

 

·I pledge to stand against NO VISITING RIGHTS — denying a woman who has been divorced access to her own children, without due process of American law;

 

·I pledge to stand against KIDNAPPING OF CHILDREN — facilitating a father taking a woman’s children to another country which has laws denying her rights to her own children;

 

·I pledge to stand against HONOR KILLINGS — supporting a system which effectively provides cover for a man who kills a wife or child that embarrassed him before his faith community;

 

·I pledge to stand against MUTILATION — practicing female genital mutilation, or defacing a woman, such as by cutting off her nose;

 

·I pledge to stand against CORPORAL PUNISHMENT — beheading, acid attacks, amputation, or any form of cutting off parts of a person’s body as punishment for a crime;

 

·I pledge to stand against NAME-CALLING — calling women who are not covered “whores,” or any race of people “apes or pigs”;

 

·I pledge to stand against DEATH THREATS — issuing against someone for leaving a faith community;

 

·I pledge to stand against NO HONESTY — lying to gain access into a group, party, or university, then using membership, financial contributions and intimidation to subvert the group into not opposing clandestine laws which deny women & children rights;

 

·I pledge to stand against GENOCIDE — advocating racism, extermination of ethnic groups, such as Jews, or Africans in southern Sudan;

 

·I pledge to stand against the PROHIBITION OF DOGS — discriminating against those with seeing-eye dogs, service dogs, or canine companions;

 

·I pledge to stand against those who claim AMERICAN LAW IS NOT LAW OF THE LAND — advocating for foreign laws and traditions to be superior to U.S. laws;

 

·I pledge to stand against DISDAIN FOR PLEDGE — disparaging or discouraging American citizens from pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Demonstrators in Dearborn, Michigan, held up a sign:

 

“We will use the freedoms of the Constitution to destroy the Constitution.” (The Cross in the Shadow of the Crescent, Lutzer, 2013)

 

Citizens must decide if sharia is compatible with the U.S. Constitution, or if those promoting it will be allowed to stealthily use the freedoms of the Constitution to implement sharia and eliminate the Constitution.

Dwight Eisenhower warned in a TIME Magazine article, “Eisenhower on Communism,” October 13, 1952:

 

“The Bill of Rights contains no grant of privilege for a group of people to destroy the Bill of Rights.

 

A group … dedicated to the ultimate destruction of all civil liberties, cannot be allowed to claim civil liberties as its privileged sanctuary from which to carry on subversion of the Government.”

—

 

 

Follow on: