Wednesday, August 03, 2016

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.


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


Anonymous said...

NYDailyNews: Khizr Khan: Trump is draft dodger, must return Purple Heart gift

CNN: Khizr Khan: John McCain was my son's 'hero'
Khizr Khan: John McCain was my son's 'hero'
(figures, McCain was reckless during his privileged days of uniformed service - prior to captivity - as well)

I mention McCain's recklessness to illustrate the similarities to Khan's son's actions. Early on, a comment mentioned details which I could not confirm until now...
The comment:
====>"Kahn's son was an officer and stationed in Iraq. He demanded his troops to stand attention at the gates and be formally checked. This gate was used of course for entrance of goods etc coming in as well as Soldiers. Unfortunately, the day he demanded his troops for inspection at the front gate was at the same time a vehicle loaded with explosives detonated right at the gate killing him... He did not die protecting his men, he died putting them at risk."..."This has not been allowed since the Lebanon bombing to have soldiers stand at a gate for inspection. I believe it was a huge no-no, especially with concern to the safety of the troops."<====

This morning, this was posted at the BBC: Who was Capt Humayun Khan?
===>"While serving at Baqubah base, north-east of Baghdad, one of his duties was to inspect soldiers in the early morning near the compound's entrance gate.

On 8 June 2004, an inspection turned deadly when a taxi sped towards Khan's line of troops.

Acting quickly, he told his soldiers to step back and hit the ground as he moved towards the approaching car. He walked with his arm outstretched in a halt gesture for 10 to 15 seconds.

Just before reaching him, the driver detonated a suicide bomb."

Question remains ... do inspections of troops take place in vulnerable locations as mentioned above? or was this a hostile move abandoned at last minute?

The Last English Prince said...


Let me add more flesh to the bone. In the 1980's the Muslim Brotherhood began to refine their script regarding our Constitution. Based on calendar rules of play, in the 21st century the script became one of "The U.S. Constitution is an Islamic document" and "we were the original democracy:

Said Ramadan was the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the unimaginative author of the Muslim Brotherhood. His son, Tariq, is more stylized by the works of Qutb.

M. Hamidullah? I mentored for a decade under a legal Mufti who mentored under Hamidullah.

Said built the ideological framework. Qutb energized it. Hamidullah, a respected legal scholar in Islam. He died a few years ago. The Mufti now resides in Turkey.

The Last English Prince said...


Hassan al-Banna built the ideological framework. Qutb energized it.... etc.

Not enough coffee on board yet!


Anonymous said...

Didn’t Khan just say he wanted to leave the limelight yesterday?

Or was that simply code for, "my rate just quadrupled," to the DNC/Hillary camp

Anonymous said...

re: Khan's draft dodging accusation in the NYDailyNews (& NYT):

GotNews: BUSTED: New York Times Caught Lying About @RealDonaldTrump’s Draft Record To Slime Him Post #KhizrKhan
The New York Times Carlos Slim’s blog got caught in a lie today about Donald Trump’s military service.

The Times’ bloggers Steve Eder and David Phillips write:

Many men of Mr. Trump’s age were looking for ways to avoid the war, said Charles Freehof, a draft counselor at Brooklyn College at the time, noting that getting a letter from a physician was a particularly effective option.

“We had very little trouble with people coming back saying, ‘They wouldn’t accept my doctor’s note,’” Mr. Freehof said.

Mr. Trump had a 1-Y classification, which was considered a temporary exemption. But in practice, only a national emergency or an official declaration of war, which the United States avoided during the fighting in Vietnam, would have resulted in his being considered for service.

Neither occurred, and Mr. Trump remained 1-Y until 1972, when his status changed to 4-F, permanently disqualifying him.

“For all practical purposes, once you got the 1-Y, you were free and clear of vulnerability for the draft, even in the case of the lottery,” Mr. [Richard] Flahavan [of the Selective Service] said.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Twitter video of Jason Chaffitz directing questions about Hillary's e-mails to Mr. McCullough, ODNI OIG. McCullough is unable to provide the evidence requested because an unidentified agency restricts (even secured format versions) from Congress! "ORCON"=originator controlled - wont reveal which agency bars this exchange.

Show this to those who don't fully grasp the severity of @HillaryClinton's email breach. Because the media won't.

— Wesley S. Alexander (@YoungDems4Trump) July 12, 2016

The Last English Prince said...

For Mr. Khan's information, a veteran can give their Purple Heart to whomever they damn well please. They can hang their Purple Heart on their dog's collar, frame it, flash it to get a free meal - it is theirs and they earned it.

Not sure what "medal" Mr. Khan would get - but I doubt he would get a Purple Heart. He stabs a man in the back and then runs asses and elbows when bloggers catch up with him.

Mr Khan is trying to rip the script away from Mr. Trump. And now media is saying that Trump's behavior is "erratic". That is their new script.

Hell, if Trump is "erratic" I am probably psychotic and have multiple personalities.