Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 7:13pm

Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution

[Update I:  I have streamlined the following post to be easily readable to the average layman, but informative enough for a lawyer or law professor to learn a bit more on the similarities and differences between Sharia and U.S. Law]

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.  (For disclosure I am not a lawyer nor a legal expert in Sharia or U.S. Law.)

First, what is Sharia?

Wikipedia states 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.

The following is a truncated version with a couple of modifications (eliminating repetitious ibids and links) of multiple Wikipedia entries [with my comments]:

Legal and Court Proceedings:

Wikipedia states that 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 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, 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 [in most sources outside of Wikipedia Sharia states that a woman’s testimony only carries the weight of 1/4th of a man’s], 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 dire proceedings, 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. [that’s one way of putting it]

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
14 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Teresa
Friday, June 25, AD 2010 9:44pm

“Is Sharia compatible with the U.S. Constitution?”

“The simple answer is of course “no”.”

I agree 100%.

Thank you for taking the time to write this most informative article on the differences between Sharia law and the Constitution or/and Civil Law within the U.S.

Freedom which is one of America’s core principles is not compatible with Sharia Law.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Saturday, June 26, AD 2010 7:16pm

This is “one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

The motto is “e pluribus unum” not “e pluribus pluribus.”

There is no liberty or justice under sharia, nor is there either under the yoke of Muhammedanism: the summation of evil and all heresies.

The filthy pagans cannot charge or pay interest; so they have a sort of subterfuge that makes the loan/interest like a lease or installmant sale plan at a profit (not interest) over tte monthly to the seller. I had to try to twist that mare’s nest to fit US accounting and taxes. It was frustrating dealing with the morons.

Juri
Juri
Monday, June 28, AD 2010 2:09pm

Religion is never to be instituted in government. Not just Islam.

Tito Edwards
Monday, June 28, AD 2010 2:17pm

Juri,

The U.S. Constitution is loaded with Christian idioms and language.

Are you exhibiting some form of Christophobia?

trackback
Tuesday, June 29, AD 2010 4:59pm

[…] Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution « The American Catholic […]

trackback
Tuesday, July 6, AD 2010 7:36pm

[…] Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution « The American Catholic […]

Sunnstarr
Sunnstarr
Saturday, July 17, AD 2010 9:14pm

The article ‘Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution’ misses three (3) very important points for Catholics:

1. Islam is misclassified as a religion for a reason – Islam is a governmental system of ‘conquest and control’ that is both ‘expansionist and intolerant’.

2. There is nothing missing in the Laws of the United States of America that needs to be fixed by so-called Sharia Law.

3. The U.S. Constitution is a divinely-inspired work that speaks of a Republic (i.e. no monarchy) with God-given (i.e. no church) inalienable rights of the individual.

In point one, Catholics should know the difference between a religion and a cult: A true religion revolves around a spiritual ‘deity’ (i.e. a one and only God); whereas a cult revolves around a human being or multiple pagan gods. To understand this better, one needs only compare the life and teachings of Jesus to the life and teachings of the founders (i.e. human beings) of other cults or religions. The Crusades were a reaction to Islamic aggression and expansion into the Holy Land.

To point two, Catholics will be the first to remind others that in America, it is religion that is protected from government and not the other way around. It is ‘freedom of religion’ and not ‘freedom from religion’ that we are privileged to enjoy here. In Saudi Arabia, no Christian churches are allowed. All over the world, intolerance towards Christians often results in mass murder and destruction of churches. Christianity is the only true religion of peace.

As for point three, Catholics need to take a stand between ‘one world governance’ (i.e. economic, religious and military globalism) and ‘American Sovereignty’. (i.e. as guaranteed to them in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.) Catholics also need to be aware of the difference between a collective and mandated ‘social justice’, administered by a socialist government and the spiritually-correct ‘morality and generosity’ exemplified by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Last but not least, Catholics really need to educate themselves about the reason why the Constitution requires Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the United States to be ‘Natural Born Citizens’. (i.e born in the U.S. to parents that are both citizens, etc.) The reason for this is to avoid ‘divided loyalty’. John F. Kennedy, the first and only Catholic President was quite eloquent and clear about his loyalty to the people of the U.S. vs. the Pope. The current president has demonstrated his loyalties are divided between International Globalist Banking and Expansionist Global Islam. Somehow, he seems to have left the American people out of the equation.

We need to pray for America as we’ve never prayed for her before. And may God bless and protect our Holy Catholic Church.

trackback
Saturday, July 31, AD 2010 6:01pm

If the Sharia Law gets enacted anywhere in America, the Constitution is truly DEAD!…

I received a very interesting email from the Gastonia Tea Party regarding the Sharia Law. It said that the Sharia Law may be secretly being enacted in the United States of America and that it will end the Constitution for good plus allow the beating of…

trackback
Monday, August 9, AD 2010 7:44am

[…] an example of the difference in Sharia Law as opposed to our American system, found at theamerican-catholic.com: Instead of precedents and codes, Sharia relies on medieval jurist’s manuals and collections of […]

Pauli
Thursday, September 2, AD 2010 7:03am

This is a great short summary, thanks! These are details that most people don’t know.

Numbers 7 & 8 could be greatly expounded upon. What I’ve heard/read somewhere is that the reason why many women never report rape is that if they cannot prove they were raped and yet in the course of the trial they “admit” to having sex they may be stoned for adultery under Sharia law.

trackback
Wednesday, October 6, AD 2010 8:26am

[…] Sharia law is a set of instructions that is supposed to guide a Muslim through life. It is essentially a set path that is to be followed by all Muslims. It is a combination of elements from the words of Mohammed written in the Hadith and the Koran. […]

trackback
Thursday, November 11, AD 2010 3:11am

[…] that it advocates against the other laws in a given country. You can find other specific concerns here. Among other concerns are the one stated as #9 on our source […]

trackback
Monday, November 15, AD 2010 9:27pm

[…] 30, there are never any juries under Islamic shariah law for any case, civil or criminal – 800 years of American constitutional and Western jurisprudence go down the tubes, and a local imam picks the winner. The results are not just primitive, but barbarous, especially […]

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top