Khizr Khan Advocates That Sharia Supercedes the American Constitution - That Is Sedition

From Breitbart:

Notwithstanding his war-hero son’s genuinely patriotic example, Khizr M. Khan has published papers supporting the supremacy of Islamic law over “man-made” Western law — including the very Constitution he championed in his Democratic National Convention speech attacking GOP presidential nod Donald Trump. 

In 1983, for example, Khan wrote a glowing review of a book compiled from a seminar held in Kuwait called “Human Rights In Islam” in which he singles out for praise the keynote address of fellow Pakistani Allah K. Brohi, a pro-jihad Islamic jurist who was one of the closest advisers to late Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia ul-Haq, the father of the Taliban movement. 

Khan speaks admiringly of Brohi’s interpretation of human rights, even though it included the right to kill and mutilate those who violate Islamic laws and even the right of men to “beat” wives who act “unseemly.” 

As Pakistani minister of law and religious affairs, Brohi helped create hundreds of jihadi incubators called madrassas and restored Sharia punishments, such as amputations for theft and demands that rape victims produce four male witnesses or face adultery charges. 

He also made insulting the Muslim prophet Muhammad a crime punishable by death. To speed the Islamization of Pakistan, he and Zia issued a law that required judges to consult mullahs on every judicial decision for Sharia compliance. 

Khan, who says he immigrated to the U.S. in 1980 to escape Pakistan’s “military rule,” nonetheless spoke admiringly of Brohi in his review of his speech. He praised his remarks even though Brohi advocated for the enforcement of the medieval Sharia punishments, known as “hudood” (singular “hadd”), that were later adopted and carried out with brutal efficiency by the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan. 

Khan provides his own advocacy for Sharia law in a separate academic paper titled “Juristic Classification of Islamic Law,” which he also wrote in 1983, while studying in Saudi Arabia. 

“The invariable and basic rules of Islamic law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah,” Khan writes. 

“All other juridical works… must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah.” He explains that Sharia is derived from the Quran and Sunnah, and that the Quran “is the absolute authority from which springs the very conception of legality and every legal obligation.” 

Khan then notes that Quranic law includes “constitutional law.” 

“Family law is laid down in 70 injunctions; civil law in another 70; penal law in 30; jurisdiction and procedure in 13; constitutional law in 10; international relations in 25; and economic and financial order in 10,” he said. 

Khan defers to an early Islamic jurist who ruled: “For every issue concerning a Muslim, either there is a binding text (of the Shariah) that rules it, or there is a guidance that may indicate the way to truth. If there is a text, then the Muslim has to follow it.” 

A devout Muslim, Khan also cites two radical Muslim Brotherhood figures as scholarly sources — Said Ramadan and Muhammad Hamidullah. Though described by the Clinton camp and media as a “Pakistani-American lawyer,” less known is Khan’s an acknowledged expert on Sharia law doctrine. 

His 13-page article, which was published in the Houston Journal of International Law, has been cited in dozens of Islamic law articles and has been used in college syllabi for Islamic law courses as recently as 2013.

GO READ THE WHOLE THING. 

He is arguing here for the overthrow of the American Constitution. That is Sedition.

SEDITION:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)