Tweet This!

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution - A MUST READ!!!

Below I have compiled some more information concerning Sharia Law and the Constitution. I am thankful that we live in a country that grants us the the Freedom of Religion. I also know that there are plenty of peaceful Muslims in the United States and around the world that practice their faith and choose not to practice or adhere to Sharia Law.

As you will see in the following text, Sharia Law is NOT peaceful, it does NOT protect people's Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and it uses unfair procedures when deciding legal cases. Therefore, it is NOT conducive to the U.S. Constitution, and should NOT be considered when deciding legal cases. In my coorespondance with Mr. Awad, from C.A.I.R., ( he stated that most American Muslim do not adhere to the violent and radical parts of Sharia Law. If C.A.I.R. admits that Sharia Law is violent and radical, then why do they endorse it? Why do they say it adheres to the Constitution?

Concerning Mr. Awad's point on Oklahoma's SQ775 being unessecary because of the Constitution and other federal laws, I agree. However, unfortunately, the Constitution gets attacked and circumvented by judges and officals with agendas. Instead of doing their jobs, they practice judicial activism. This has led to numerous state governments taking action as they see fit.

I hope you find the below information useful - and troubling.

Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution

Is Sharia compatible with the U.S. Constitution? The simple answer is of course “no”.

But lets take a look at some aspects of Sharia Law and where it may or may not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

First, what is Sharia? Sharia refers to the sacred law of Islam. All Muslims believe Sharia is God’s law, but they have differences between themselves as to exactly what it entails. Which will be difficult to discern what to apply when, but we’ll labor along for the sake of discussion.

In Western countries, where Muslim immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced Sharia family law, for use in their own disputes. Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy, violence, and even warfare (Second Sudanese Civil War).

The recent incidents at the Arab International Festival have reinforced the poor image of Sharia inside the United States and its incompatibility with American culture and law.

Legal and Court Proceedings:

Sharia judicial proceedings have significant differences with other legal traditions, including those in both common law and civil law.

1. Sharia courts do not generally employ lawyers; plaintiffs and defendants represent themselves.

2. Trials are conducted solely by the judge, and there is no jury system.

3. There is no pre-trial discovery process, no cross-examination of witnesses, and no penalty of perjury (on the assumption that no witness would thus endanger his soul) Unlike common law, judges’ verdicts do not set bindingprecedents under the principle of stare decisis and unlike civil law, Sharia does not utilize formally codified statutes (these were first introduced only in the late 19th century during the decline of the Ottoman Empire, cf. mecelle).

4. Instead of precedents and codes, Sharia relies on medieval jurist’s manuals and collections of non-binding legal opinions, or fatwas, issued by religious scholars (ulama, particularly a mufti); these can be made binding for a particular case at the discretion of a judge.

5. Sharia courts’ rules of evidence also maintain a distinctive custom of prioritizing oral testimony and excluding written and documentary evidence (including forensic and circumstantial evidence), on the basis that it could be tampered with or forged.

6. A confession, an oath, or the oral testimony of a witness are the only evidence admissible in a Sharia court, written evidence is only admissible with the attestations of multiple, witnesses deemed reliable by the judge, i.e.notaries.

7. Testimony must be from at least two witnesses, and preferably free Muslim male witnesses, who are not related parties and who are of sound mind and reliable character; testimony to establish the crime of adultery, or zina must be from four direct witnesses.

8. Forensic evidence (i.e. fingerprints, ballistics, blood samples, DNA etc.) and other circumstantial evidence is likewise rejected in hudud cases in favor of eyewitnesses, a practice which can cause severe difficulties for women plaintiffs in rape cases.

9. Testimony from women is given only half the weight of men and testimony from non-Muslims may be excluded altogether (if against a Muslim).

10. In lieu of written evidence, oaths are accorded much greater weight; rather than being used simply to guarantee the truth of ensuing testimony, they are themselves used as evidence.

11. Plaintiffs lacking other evidence to support their claims may demand that defendants take an oath swearing their innocence, refusal thereof can result in a verdict for the plaintiff.

12. Sharia courts, with their tradition of pro se representation, simple rules of evidence, and absence of appeals courts, prosecutors, cross examination, complex documentary evidence and discovery proceedings, juries and voir direproceedings, circumstantial evidence, forensics, case law, standardized codes, exclusionary rules, and most of the other infrastructure of civil and common law court systems, have as a result, comparatively informal and streamlined proceedings.

13. This can provide significant increases in speed and efficiency (at the cost of the safeguards provided in secular legal systems), and can be an advantage in jurisdictions where the general court system is slow or corrupt, and where few litigants can afford lawyers. (end Wikipedia)

This is not a concise review of the difference nor similarities between U.S. Law and Sharia. It is only meant to educate us on what Sharia law is in comparison to our legal system.

***Tenets Of Shari Law***

The Reliance of the Traveller, Classic Manual of Islamic

Sacred Law is the authoritative Sunni Shariah rulebook

(available at

- Offensive, military Jihad is a religious obligation.

- Inferior status for all non-Muslims (“dhimma”).

- Capital punishment for slandering Islam.

- Capital punishment for apostasy (leaving Islam).

- Women may not leave the house without

husbands’ permission; beating disobedient

women, polygamy, forced child marriage, and

stoning of adulterers are permitted.

- Slavery is legal.

- Lying (taqiyya) to infidels is permitted.

- Capital punishment for homosexuals and lesbians.

Sharia on family law:

  • Women are eligible for only half of the inheritance of men
  • Virgins may be married against their will by a father or grandfather
  • Arab women may not marry non-Arab men
  • Women may not leave the house without a husband’s permission
  • Muslim men may marry 4 women, including Christians and Jews; Muslim women may marry Muslims
  • Men may beat insubordinate wives

Sharia on Jihad and religion:

  • Offensive war (military Jihad) against non-Muslims is a religious obligation
  • Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death without trial
  • Non-Muslims ruled by Islam must follow including discriminatory “dhimmi” taxes and laws.
  • Non-Muslims may not receive Muslim charity “zakat”, but may be bribed to convert to Islam but
  • Lying to infidels during Jihad, or to promote Islam, is permissible

Sharia on human rights:

  • Homosexuals and lesbians must be killed
  • Slavery is permitted and legitimate
  • Muslim men have unlimited sexual rights over slave women, even married slaves
  • Female sexual mutilation (cliterectomy) is obligatory
  • Adultery is punished with death by stoning
  • Women's testimony in court is worth half that of men (and is permitted only in property cases)
  • Non-Muslims may not testify in Shariah courts.

No comments: