Read American Minute

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” … continue reading …

Download as PDF …

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:

‘… One day … 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.”

In October of 2014, women in Iran who were not wearing burqas were victims of acid attacks for violating Islamic sharia law.

On August 17, 2021, The New York Post reported that the Taliban executed a woman in broad daylight for violating sharia law by not wearing a burqa.

On March 19, 2026, a 19-year-old wrestling champion, Saleh Mohammadi, was executed in Iran for violating sharia by participating in a demonstration for democracy.

What is sharia?

The word “sharia” simply means the law, the path, or code of conduct.

It is trying to be like Mohammed, as he is the perfect Muslim, even though he admitted: “though I am the messenger of Allah, I do not know what he will be do with me.” Sura 46:9

What Mohammed permitted is permitted. It is called “halal.”

What Mohammed did not permit is not permitted. It is called “haram.”

Mohammed liked cats, therefore cats are halal. They are permitted.

Mohammed did not like dogs, therefore dogs are haram. They are not permitted.

Sharia is a long list of halals and harams, do’s and don’ts, and the local imam keeps the list.

But what if you really want to know why something is haram?

Be very careful asking that question, because if you ask too many questions you could be accused of doubting, and doubting is a sin punishable by death.

Qur’an – private revelations to Mohammed, made up of moderate religious “weak” verses he received in Mecca; and political-military “strong” verses he received in Medina.

Hadiths – 9,000 oral stories remembered about Mohammed by his wives and warriors. (Aisha bint Abi Bakr, wife, 2,210 hadiths; Umm Salama, wife, 375 Hadiths; Abu Hurayrah, warrior, 5,374 hadiths; Abdullah bin Umar, warrior, 2,630 Hadiths; Anas bin Malik, warrior, 2,286 hadiths.)

Sirat Rasul Allah – the biography of Mohammed, written c. 767 AD by Ibn Ishaq, revised c. 834 AD by Ibn Hishām.

Reliance of the Traveller – a summary of sharia jurisprudence written c. 1367, and taught at Egypt’s Al-Azhar University.

Rulings – 1,400 years of legal decisions (fatwa) by Islamic jurists (ulama) in 5 schools of thought (madhhabs): 4 Sunni (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali) and 1 Shia (Ja’fari).

Sharia is contrary to nearly all of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as Article 18:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief.”

Is sharia compatible with U.S. Law?

President Obama 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, is there an inherent contradiction?

Can one swear to defend the Constitution upon a book that instructs followers to overthrow it?

Sharia claims to be directly from Allah, enforced top-down. Its promoters consider man-made law of “government from the consent of the governed” as sinful.

When one compares 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.”

A former Muslim, Nissar Hussain, is leading a movement in England to outlaw the vigilante killing of those who leave Islam – Legalize Apostasy.

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.

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.”

The Supreme Court decision of Town of Greece v. Galloway was cited by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in upholding “In God We Trust” on national currency, August 28, 2018:

“In Galloway, the Supreme Court offered an unequivocal directive: ‘The Establishment Clause must be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understandings’ … Historical practices often reveal what the Establishment Clause was originally understood to permit.”

As Islamic populations grow, they exert clandestine pressure on inhabitants of a host neighborhood to set aside Judeo-Christian “historical practices and understandings” and instead comply with sharia.

A majority of the top 50 areas persecuting Christian have degrees of sharia enforced in an unofficial neighborhood basis, often by Wahabi-Salafi influenced groups, such as: Taliban, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Muslim Brotherhood.

It is the equivalent of cartels or gangs, like the Mafia, KKK, Antifa, Bloods, Crips, MS13 or Tren de Aragua, simply choosing to call themselves “a religion” and liberal judges would allow them to teach their beliefs in schools and carry out vigilante justice taking over neighborhoods.

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)

As a result, his fundamentalist followers consider Islam 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.

Keith Ellison swore into office with his hand upon the Qur’an which advocates inequality towards non-Muslims.

This is similar to National Socialist Workers Party leaders in Germany swearing upon Hitler’s Mein Kampf to protect Jews.

Winston Churchill described Hitler’s Mein Kampf as a “new Koran,” 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.”

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 in America.

Perhaps it would be worth considering having every politicians take this pledge:

PLEDGE TO STOP CRUELTY & ABUSE OF WOMEN AND THE DEFENSELESS

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

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

·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 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 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 or acid attacks;

·I pledge to stand against CORPORAL PUNISHMENT — beheading, 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 — issued 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 and children rights;

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

·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.

“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.”

In a Richmond courtroom speech, Patrick Henry stated November 25, 1791, as recorded in Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (Philadelphia, 1817, by U.S. Attorney General William Wirt, pages 322-323):

“I know, sir, how well it becomes a liberal man and a Christian to forget and forgive.

As individuals professing a holy religion, it is our bounden duty to forgive injuries done us as individuals.

But when the character of Christian you add the character of patriot, you are in a different situation.

Our mild and holy system of religion inculcates an admirable maxim of forbearance. If your enemy smite one cheek, turn the other to him.

But you must stop there. You cannot apply this to your country. As members of a social community, this maxim does not apply to you.

When you consider injuries done to your country your political duty tells you of vengeance. Forgive as a private man, but never forgive public injuries.

Observations of this nature are exceedingly unpleasant, but it is my duty to use them.”

Proverbs 13:22 “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.”

Not all Middle East leaders wanted sharia.

Shah Reza Pahlavi of Iran, in office from 1941 to 1979, was a strong supporter of the United States and western ideals of freedoms.

The Shah met with Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford.

The Shah was betrayed by President Jimmy Carter, who ushered in Ayatollah Khomeini, who enforced sharia in Iran.

In Egypt, President Gamal Nasser did not want sharia, as he told a political gathering in 1958:

“I met with the head of the Muslim Brotherhood and he sat with me and made his requests.

What did he request? The first thing he asked for was to make wearing the hijab mandatory in Egypt and demand that every woman walking in the street wear a tarha scarf, [audience laughter] Every woman walking! [someone in audience shouted “let him wear it!”]

And I told him, if I make that a law they will say that we have returned to the days of Al-Hakim bi Amr Allah, who forbade people from walking at day and only allowed walking at night.

And my opinion is that every person in his own house decides for himself the rules.

And he replied “No, as the leader, you are responsible.”

I told him, “Sir, you have a daughter in the School of Medicine and she is not wearing a tarha. Why didn’t you make her wear a tarha? If you are unable to make one girl – who is your daughter – wear the tarha, you want me to put a tarha on 10 million woman myself? laughter]

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the father of the modern Republic of Turkey and its first President, 1924-1938, abolished sharia courts, made Friday a workday, and instituted the “weekend” of Saturday and Sunday.

He outlawed polygamy and elevated the status of women, appointing the first female judges, and insisting on education of girls.

He abolished women wearing of scarves, veils, chadors or burqas – the full-length body dress worn by Muslim women, and requiring women to wear skirts.

Ataturk stated:

“If henceforward the women do not share in the social life of the nation, we shall never attain to our full development. We shall remain irremediably backward, incapable of treating on equal terms with the civilizations of the West.”

Ataturk wrote in his book on citizenship (quoted in Ataturk, Yurttaslik Bilgileri, Yenigun Haber Ajansi, June 1997, p. 18):

“Mohammedanism was based on Arab nationalism above all nationalities …

Even before accepting the religion of the Arabs, the Turks were a great nation … He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government.”

Ataturk abolished the position of the Sultan and set up a secular government He ended the religious Caliphate, thus preventing Muslim religious leaders from controlling government affairs.

In an effort to cut ties with the fundamentalist past, he introduced the western use of last names, replaced Arabic Islamic names with Turkish names, and encouraged the next generation not take Arabic names but instead ethnic Turkish names.

Ataturk abolished the use of Arabic and Persian script and replaced it with the Latin alphabet. He abolished turbans and fezes, the red felt cap with a black tassel, and required men to wear western pants and suits.

Ataturk banned beards on men, and even required Muslim prayer leaders to be beardless. He replaced Arabic muezzin’s call to prayer and made praying a private affair.

Ataturk, as recorded in Ataturk, Yurttaslik Bilgileri, Yenigun Haber Ajansi, June 1997, p. 18, stated:

“The purpose of the religion founded by Muhammad, over all nations, was to drag them into Arab national politics … It might have suited tribes in the desert. It is no good for a modern, progressive state.”