I think we would all agree that radical Islam is not good for America and Sharia law has no place in this country. Dr. Carson was absolutely right when he said that Sharia law is the antithesis of a Constitutional Republic. Why that was controversial, I’ll never know.
I thought it fascinating that the left made such a fuss over something which, to us conservatives, appears so obvious. At first, I thought they were just saying how wrong Carson was out of hatred for the right and political correctness.
So I started outlining some of the glaring disparities between Constitutional conservatism and Islam’s Sharia law. As I wrote, it dawned on me that there is a third category: liberalism/progressivism/statism, however you wish to classify it. And I discovered something quite interesting—liberalism is closer to Sharia than it is to Constitutional conservatism.
Let me explain:
Article VI of the Constitution basically states that all laws must be crafted pursuant to the Constitution—that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and judges must be bound by it. Sharia law states that the source of all laws is Allah and that Sharia supersedes the Constitution. The basis of liberalism is that the source of all laws is the judiciary, and what liberal judges say the law is, the law is. Liberals have no problem with the courts superseding the Constitution.
The First Amendment provides for freedom of religion. It favors none over another and may not prohibit the free exercise thereof. In Sharia, there is only one religion–Islam–and those who reject Islam will be killed or subjected to dhimmi, second-class status. Liberalism demands that items of faith be removed from the public square. They prefer there be no religion, and those who choose the free exercise of their religion are persecuted.
The First Amendment also provides for freedom of speech—any speech—and freedom of the press. There is no free speech under Sharia law. Any speech deemed to defame Islam or Mohammed is considered blasphemy, punishable by imprisonment or death. Liberal judges rule against peaceable assembly outside abortion clinics. They try to shut down conservative free speech via the fairness doctrine. Anything uttered that offends them is considered hate speech and must be dealt with.
The Second Amendment specifies that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Under Sharia law, non-Muslims may own no weapons of any kind. Not guns, knives, swords, etc. Liberals institute gun-free zones and craft unconstitutional laws to limit and eventually confiscate guns, except for those who guard liberals. Like Sharia-adherent Muslims, some liberals would have non-liberals own no weapons at all.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution describes the right of due process. Under Sharia, no Muslim can be put to death for killing an infidel. Non-Muslims receive no such accommodation. Non-Muslims cannot testify against Muslims. Liberals specialize in trying non-liberals in the court of the leftist media and the political arena.
The Fifth Amendment also states that one cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property, and that no property can be taken for public use without just compensation. Sharia law states that if non-Muslims don’t convert to Islam, their lives and property are free for the taking (halal). The Left (and Donald Trump) are advocates of eminent domain–the taking of private property for another (not just public) use.
We all know the 10th amendment states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Under Sharia law, there are no "states"—there is but one central authority. Ditto for liberalism—there is but one central authority which dictates to all states.
I could continue, but I believe this is sufficient evidence to support my claim that liberalism is indeed closer to Sharia then to conservatism and the Constitution.