Systems at odds

0:00Additional support comes from the voice of the martyrs, serving persecuted Christians for almost 60 years. VOM founder pastor Richard Wormbrand's story of persecution and torture by Communist Jailers shocked the Western world. Free copies of his book, Tortured for Christ, now available at vom.org slash Saturday Special. You're listening to a special weekend edition of the world and everything in it. I'm Mary Rygard. Today we're talking with a scholar whose background in research offer a clear-eyed look at the fundamental differences between Islamic law and the American constitutional system. My guest is A.S. Ibrahim. He's a professor of Islamic studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and author of a new book examining classical Sharia and Western freedoms. It's titled Sharia versus the U.S. Constitution.

1:01Why Americans must choose freedom? Ibrahim was born and raised as a Christian in Egypt. He studied primary Islamic sources in Arabic and now helps Westerners understand how classical Islamic law functions and where it directly collides with fundamental civil liberties. In our conversation we break down what Sharia dictates regarding apostasy, religious freedom, due process and the rights of women and non-Muslims as well as how Christians can show love to Muslim neighbors while standing firm against political Islam. My name is Ibrahim. I am a professor of Islamic studies at Southern Seminary and we are discussing the book that I recently published Sharia versus the U.S. Constitution and why Americans should choose freedom. Why we should choose freedom? Great topic. All right. Let's get down to some brass tax, so to speak, some real examples.

2:02So our first amendment protects the freedom to adopt, reject, change or criticize a religion. What does traditional Islamic law prescribe for those things? You leave Islam, you get killed. Of course many Muslims today around us would say, oh no, no, no, no, we will never do that. But what I am talking about is what the primary sources of Islam dictates. Apostasy in Islam is by Muhammad's definition equates to killing. You will be killed. He said, whoever changes his religion, kill him. One, two, criticizing Muhammad according to the Sharia, according to Islamic law is faced with death, killing the one who insults Muhammad. There is a lot of traditions about that and I studied all these traditions in Arabic in

3:06the primary sources and it is very clear that according to the Muslim primary sources, once you criticize Muhammad, you will face death. Converting to another religion, you will face death. A Muslim who becomes a Christian does not merely lose social standing under classical Sharia, this person gives away his life. So the first amendment says, the government cannot touch your religious choices. Sharia says, no, you are dead. And we have examples of that. I'm thinking of Charlie Ebedo in Paris. You can probably think of other specific individuals who have lost their lives because they converted. Very true. And it is basically in many countries, especially the countries that claim to be applying Islamic law, the Sharia, we have this as the reality.

4:11Of course you can also hear from some people that, oh, there is just a statement and it is not applied. But I would say that this is not about what is applied and what is not. It is about what Sharia actually states regarding whoever changes their religion. Let's take another concrete example here. So our constitution forbids religious tests for public office and requires equal treatment for citizens regardless of their faith. So how does Sharia distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims in the realm of legal rights and political authority even taxation? This is a great question, ma'am. And I will just give quick examples and the audience can read more in the book. Number one, political authority. There is no authority for a non-Muslim over a Muslim according to Sharia. This is clear, not disputed.

5:12So a Muslim man cannot be ruled by a non-Muslim, which just means like a Jew cannot hold political authority over a Muslim population. So we can unpack this, but that's the statement. Number two, there is something under Sharia that is called the Dima. Dima, Dima, Dima, Dima. Christians and Jews are classified as Dima. These are second class citizens, so to speak. So basically as a Christian growing up in Egypt, even if I am a citizen of Egypt, I am not viewed as equal and I am not viewed as someone who can get the same rights. Even if many Muslim friends are really nice, cool and all this, but front of the law, I am not equal, especially when the Dima system is applied.

6:13Number two, for example, blood money. Most schools of Islamic law say that if a Muslim kills a Christian, the financial penalty is only half to what it would be if the victim were Muslim. That tells you how Sharia, as Islamic law, views people differently. We can talk later about how it views women, for example, but for the year. If you are from a different religion, you are not viewed equally. Court testimony. A Christian generally cannot testify against Muslim. You see how this whole thing is completely opposite to our US constitution. It is not compatible. And that's the point I am making over and over in the book. Finally, building churches under classical Sharia, under the issue of the demitude and

7:16Christians are low-wirtless citizens. Non-Muslims cannot build houses of worship. They cannot drink church builds or display crosses on buildings. I remember in Egypt growing up, we cannot really fix a leaking bathroom. Why we need permission from the governor. We cannot build another church. Why? You need a presidential approval. So this is just to give some insights on what you were asking. Right. This wasn't in my list of questions to you, but I'm thinking of Dearborn Michigan. It doesn't look like an American city anymore. Is Sharia slowly being implemented there? Are you able to speak to that? Even if not publicly, even if not stated publicly, you have things happening under the scene. That, well, if you have a whole city, a whole town, full of Muslims and it's run by Islamists,

8:23by people who want to see Islam as not only as a worship, but also as a ruling system applied, even among families, women who want to get a divorce, they cannot just go for a civil divorce because of the shame within families, within the closed society. So I would say that if you just go and speak with people in places that are full of Muslims, like what you're mentioning in Dearborn, you will hear a lot of examples of things that, oh, this is not compatible with the US Constitution at all. So yeah. Well, let's talk about women and women's rights now that you mentioned earlier. You talked about how female testimony is not valued the same as a man's. How does Islamic law treat women? Otherwise, inheritance, freedom of movement, say differently from males?

9:27Right. That's a great question and it connects with the previous question because we were talking about what would happen if in a little town what is applied even if not publicly is Sharia, is Islamic law. So according to Islamic law, testimony is not equal between men and women. So the Quran, Islam's scripture explicitly requires two women to substitute for one male witness. That's according to Muhammad's statement because in his opinion, in Muhammad's opinion, and according to trusted Muslim sources, women are deficient in reason. I'm not making this up. That's a solid tradition that is stated according to Muhammad. Number two, inheritance. The Quran and Islamic Sharia explicitly stated that for the male, two of the share of a female.

10:35So a male would receive double portion of what a female would receive. Political leadership. Muhammad declared in the most trusted Muslim sources that a people who plays a woman over them as a leader in charge of their affairs will never succeed. So according to Muhammad's views established in the Muslim tradition, don't have any woman over you in any soul. Marriage. A husband has the Quranic right of unilateral divorce. Women in general do not have the same rights as women. And this is one of the most troubling statements under the Sharia, under Islamic law, the physical punishment of a man to his wife, the physical discipline. According to Quran, 434, a husband's authority over a disobedient wife permits this husband

11:43to physically beat his wife. All this is just to give you the statements of Sharia. However, we understand that Muslims today want to put Islam in some way as a suitable alternative religion in the West. So they would say, oh, no, no, no, we don't beat wives, we don't do this. But what I'm talking about is what the primary sources say about these matters and how throughout the centuries, Muslims applied these laws by the litter. Okay. There's so much more that could be said about all of that, but we have limited time. So I'll move on to another example of incompatibility. Our Constitution's eighth amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment. Yes. So I'm wondering how do Islamic penalties for, say, theft violate our eighth amendment? According to Sharia, Allah commanded that, amputation, cut the hands and the feet from an opposite

12:53side. I don't know why opposite side, but it's like that's what the Quran stated. What about adultery? Kill someone by stoning. They will be stoned. What about fornication? And what about homosexuals? Don't even talk about this. Through them away from buildings or kill them. That's the general understanding of Sharia. So that's what we identify in modern terms as really cruel and unusual punishment. The eighth amendment exists because free societies decided the state's power cannot overreach over the human body. It has limits. And Sharia exists because its authors, its dictating authority, Allah and His messenger

13:54believed that Allah has power over the human body and it's like really that what resulted in these punishments as stated in Sharia. Abraham, I'm wondering what do you think of these young women and these homosexuals on the left who are all for Islam? They don't know Arabic. They don't know Islamic sources. They have in their head Mary, they have in their head an Islam that they invented. They think of an Islam that does not exist. So you keep reading, especially on the left, Muhammad was a feminist. I'm like, do these people read? Do they have any idea what's written in the Muslim tradition? Oh, Islam is a religion of peace. Okay, tell me how. I'm not saying Islam is a religion of war. I'm not saying that.

14:55What I'm saying is what are you talking about? Islam began as a conquering religion within 100 years after Muhammad's death. The Muslim, the Arab Muslim army is invaded the entire Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian's lands. And what kind of peace are you talking about? So basically Mary here, they are inventing a religion that they only believe in in their head that has nothing to do with the primary sources of Islam. So our due process rights under the Constitution requires neutral courts, verifiable evidence, notice and the opportunity to defend yourself. So how does classical Sharia differ from our due process rights? As I mentioned earlier, male and female witnessing is not equal. But let me tell you another example about the Sharia that could trouble many people here.

16:03Sharia requires four male Muslim witnesses to establish adultery accusation. So if a woman stands up and says, hey, I was assaulted and raped. According to Islamic law, sorry, ma'am, we cannot accept this unless you get four men to testify to the rape. I'm like, how is that even possible? Like, is that even like logical? But this is what Sharia requires. This sounds crazy for some, sounds strict for some, even some Muslim would say, oh, we want to ensure the legitimacy of the accusation until you realize that this makes prosecution of rape nearly impossible. And I grew up in the Middle East and I saw a lot of women who tried their very best to

17:09establish this accusation and they reached nothing because Sharia forbids any justification without four male witnesses. Non-Muslim testimony is another matter. A Christian testimony against a Muslim is inadmissible. It's like Christians don't exist under the legal system of witnessing under Sharia. This is for me accusation in Pakistan. We all heard, educated ago or so, about the woman, the Christian woman named Acea Beebe who just was accused of blaspheming against Muhammad. What happened? She went in court for the years. She was accused of all horrible things and then she had to flee Pakistan and go to Canada and now she is a refugee in Canada. One is to say that yes, due process is a major thing in the American constitutional system

18:14and Sharia has different parameters and particularities. Speaking of rape, let's look to the UK. We have proof now of, I don't know the number, tens of thousands of rapes. 150,000. 150,000 rapes. Two hundred and 50,000. Two hundred and 50,000 rapes. Nobody's been brought to justice. What examples from Britain, I mean that's a blaring one. What examples from Britain should Americans see as warnings against permitting one religion's law to supersede civil law? Good question. What happened in Britain is this graceful is this honouring to any Western society and to the Western law and understanding of law and enforcing the law by the mid-2000s dozens of Sharia account where operating across Britain already.

19:18And then especially in the northern parts of the UK, you have cities that are full of immigrants coming from completely different systems of understanding of law, of religion. And I was told by many of my friends in England that there are some pockets where you cannot really enter. They apply Sharia, they apply punishments according to Sharia. And this is what began to happen, I would say from the 1990s all the way to now. And women appearing before these councils or these cities seeking divorce frequently received settlements that British civil courts would never have approved. So now you have two different legal systems operating in the same place. I believe that in 2016 KC review found Sharia councils discriminating against women

20:25in Britain and functioning as parallel legal systems. So the lesson for America is simple. Parallel legal systems do not stay parallel. They are not parallel. You cannot have two legal systems. You cannot have two constitutions. One constitution is we the people. That's what we call in America. The other constitution, Allah dictates and Muhammad implemented and applied. You cannot have these two. We need to pay the price to protect freedom in America. So here in the United States the constitution guarantees freedom of religious expression, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, all which Muslims can also claim as they practice their own religion. I want to ask you, does the constitution protect Muslims practicing Sharia law? It's part of the Baptist tradition after all going back to John Leland to protect freedom

21:29of religion in the United States for Christians, for atheists, for what Leland called the Muhammadans or Muslims. So how does that line up with Christian lawmakers wanting to ban Sharia here in the US? That's a very good question. I think the constitution absolutely protects the free exercise of religion, including the right of Muslims as individuals to worship, pray, fast, assemble. That's non-negotiable. The problem happens when Islam is framed as only a religion. It is not. Islam is not only a religion. That framing cripples any criticism, any judgment, because once you consider Islam as only a religion, that's a mistake, because once you say it's a religion, you would say, okay, freedom of religion. But it is not only a religion.

22:31It is a comprehensive political and legal system. Once it takes freedom in the land, it begins to dictate its own paradigm. Legal requirements, particularities of male and female and non-Muslim versus Muslims, as I explained earlier. The constitution protects religious beliefs, but it cannot protect and opposing advancing. Concerned ideology that goes against our own constitution. When Sharia rules are applied, whether regarding apostasy, blasphemy, inequality, they directly collide with the core American freedom and the American constitution. Okay. Now, should we Christians be afraid of Islam?

23:34So the answer is no. I would say don't be afraid of Muslims, but I would say be concerned about advancing Islam, advancing the ideology of Islam, especially the political Islam, Islamism unchecked. Be alarmed. Love Muslims. Christians should not be afraid of Muslims and they should not hate Muslims. We are Christ followers. Christians are cool to love their neighbors. However, at the same time, love does not require silence. And that's very important. Christians should clearly and confidently expose and oppose political Islam. They should oppose Islam's theological claims, teachings, and legal system, Sharia.

24:38Where they contradict biblical truth and moral foundations of the Western civilization, I would say the proper Christian response is neither fear nor hostility, but carriage and clarity. Only Muslims as people, while honestly confronting an ideology and legal system that is incompatible with biblical faith and the Western way of life shaped by it. Final question. If Americans just remember one thing from your book, what is the difference between welcoming Muslims as equal citizens and accepting Islamism as a governing legal ideology? One question, every Muslim American deserves the full protection of the Constitution. To pray, to fast, to raise children, even to vote, to serve, to thrive, that is not

25:40negotiable. But political Islam and Islamism is something categorically different. It's a vicious ideology and an American, an American political project organized, funded, and even strategically advanced that seeks to replace the constitutional order with a legal system that is completely different and it is very incompatible with the American Constitution. Confusing the two, which Islamist organizations depend on, is very wrong. Don't treat Islam as only a religion. Don't compromise the understanding that Islam has a political dimension in it that is completely goes against the fabric of the society.

26:40I'm in Ibrahim. Thank you so much for all this time. We really appreciate your expertise. Thank you so much for having me. You've been listening to an extended interview with scholar and author, A.S. Ibrahim. We'd love to hear what you thought about this conversation. Drop us a line at editor at wng.org. Again, that's editor at wng.org. If you enjoyed this special weekend edition of The World and Everything in it, please subscribe and leave a review wherever you listen to podcasts. It really makes a difference to help other people discover our work and expand our reach. Thank you so much for listening. We'll talk to you on Monday and have a great weekend. I'm Mary Rygerde. Additional support comes from the voice of the martyrs, serving persecuted Christians for nearly 60 years. Free copies of Tortured for Christ at vom.org slash Saturday Special.