Sharia Law and the U.S. Legal System
Sharia Law is a type of medieval Fascism. It is essentially a set of laws made up by Islamic scholars which then became the laws of all the Islamic Caliphates. Now, radical Islam seeks to impose it on the U.S., whether through violent jihad or through cultural jihad, the latter of which is a jihad to overthrow our existing civil society and to impose Sharia Law from within. North America is the strongest bastion of freedom, democracy, humanistic values and secularism, where state and church have nothing in common, and this situation cannot be tolerated by Islamic fundamentalists. Hence, the desire to impose Sharia Law here, bit by bit.
“Religious” Sharia Law is a contradiction in terms, as it controls not only religious practices, but every aspect of the individual’s life. Under Sharia, leaving Islam is punishable by death. Under Sharia, when a woman is raped, she receives the death penalty for adultery while virtually nothing happens to the rapist. That is why Sharia Law appeals to rapists and other criminals, and it motivates them to become radical Islamists. That also helps explain why Islamic Jihadist Fascism thrives in America's prisons.
The United States is heading down the same road as Europe: Cultural jihad is eating into more and more of America's institutions. Some parts of Europe already have Sharia courts and “no-go” zones for the police where Sharia is enforced. Muslim radicals plan to use those areas as bases in order to expand into the rest of Europe, imposing their Fascist system which includes Sharia Law.
But Sharia Law and U.S. Constitution are diametrically opposed. Let us have a look at the Sharia Law as it is practiced today. Sharia judicial proceedings have significant differences with other legal processes, 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 for perjury (on the assumption that no witness would thus endanger his soul) Unlike common law, the judges’ verdicts do not set binding precedents 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).
4. Instead of precedents and codes, Sharia relies on medieval jurists’ 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 sole discretion of a judge. Some of these fatwas are incredibly outrageous. For example, in May, 2007, Dr. Izat Atiyah, a religious scholar who headed the department of the teachings of the Prophet at the Foundation of Religion College in Al Azhar University issued a fatwa stating that there were instances in the time of Prophet Muhammad when adult women breast-fed adult men in order to overcome the need for women to veil in front of men.
This would allow unrelated men and women to work together in the same office cubicle. "Breast-feeding an adult puts an end to the problem of the private meeting, and does not ban marriage. A woman at work can take off the veil or reveal her hair in front of someone whom she breast-fed."
5. The Sharia courts’ rules of evidence also maintain the 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 types of evidence admissible in a Sharia court. Written evidence is admissible only with the attestations of multiple witnesses deemed reliable by the judge, such as notaries.
7. Testimony must be from at least two witnesses, and preferably from 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. (Since a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man, it would take eight female eyewitnesses to certify that a woman was indeed raped!)
8. Forensic evidence (i.e. fingerprints, ballistics, blood samples, DNA, etc.) and other circumstantial evidence are rejected in hudud cases (crimes for which there are specific punishments in the Quran -- including theft, fornication, consumption of alcohol, and apostasy) in favor of eyewitnesses, a practice which can cause severe difficulties for female 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 in cases against a Muslim.
10. In lieu of written evidence, oral oaths are accorded much greater weight. Rather than being used simply to guarantee the truth of ensuing testimony, they are themselves used as evidence. (Since takiyya (dissembling) is a practice established in Quran Surah 3:28 (tuqah), the credibility of oaths against non-Muslim plaintiffs or defendants is highly questionable.)
11. Plaintiffs lacking other evidence to support their claims may demand that defendants take an oath swearing their innocence, and their refusal to do so can result in a verdict for the plaintiff.
12. The civil rights of women are denied or severely limited by Sharia Law with regard to the following family issues: consent to marriage (m3.13(1), honor murder (o1.2(4), wife beating (m10.12), marital rape (m5.1), divorce (n1.1(a), polygamy (m6.10), and child custody (m13.3 – m13.5). (Note: the References are to sections of the “classic manual of Islamic Sacred Law,” titled Reliance of the Traveler, which has been certified by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (USA) and Al-Azhar University.)
13. While it might be argued that Sharia courts are more streamlined and informal, those advantages are outweighed by an absence of U.S. Constitutional safeguards and protections. Sharia Law’s tradition of pro se representation, simple rules of evidence, and their absence of appeals courts, prosecutors, cross examination, complex documentary evidence and discovery proceedings, juries and voir dire proceedings, circumstantial evidence, forensics, case law, standardized codes, exclusionary rules, and most of the other infrastructure of civil and common law court systems rob citizens of their rights to due process under Articles 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Bill of Rights.
In short, Sharia Law is strict Islamic law. It is designed to guide devout Muslims in their personal and professional dealings, and has been used by the Taliban and others to justify limits on women's rights and harsh punishments, including amputation, lex talionis eye-for-an-eye retribution, and stoning. While non-Muslims are not supposed to be ruled by it, many of the provisions in Sharia Law directly impact non-Muslims. Examples include: the prohibition of non-Muslims marrying Muslim women, the reduced indemnity when a non-Muslim is the victim, the refusal of Muslims to conduct business involving haram items (including alcohol, pork, dogs, and loan interest), and the “requirement” for special, tax-payer provided accommodations for Muslims. You cannot have two systems of laws in the same country. Such a situation cannot ensure “equal justice for all.” Furthermore, if each religious faith had its own personal laws, there would be societal chaos.
The notion that Sharia Law can exist simultaneously with secular laws in the U.S. is an anathema. It is high time, that people who value the American justice system stand up and raise a voice against any suggestion of such a disastrous action.