Khizr Khan Says Constitution is Subordinate to Sharia Law. Not makin’ this up...

PO2 Mark Saffell - The GOP certainly has no problem using dead Benghazi Consular officers and their families for political gain. They've been doing it for 5 years now.

SPC Randy Semanko - Actually SPC Semanko, it is U.S. businessmen, corporations, and industries, that use those Visas that Mr. Khan administrates to get the talent they need from overseas. Mr. Khan's Visas are granted to highly skilled foreign national employees that companies hire to fill specific roles. Purely capitalist and corporate, just like the GOP loves.

MSgt Michael Smith so in your mind it is ok for HRC to call a Gold Star family liars but not ok what Trump said? If you believe in a double standard, please have the nerve to stand up and say whatever HRC does or says is ok and whatever Trump says is bad and wrong. OR if by chance you believe in equal treatment lets see you call HRC out for calling Families liars.

A sheep in sheeps clothing. Wow!

SSG (Join to see) I dont believe all of it no, but much of it I have read on other sites. His law practice, the website is now down though I am sure google has it cached. His donations to the democratic party. There is a lot of confirmed fact in this post along with some poetic license.

I looked it up and the only sources posting the Sharia law story are are right wing websites. Most are blogs or other bat shit crazy sources. I'm sure he has donated to the Democratic Party since he supports the nominee. The only "mainstream" source is CNN. It's a video with Katrina Pearson repeating the same charge. Khan denies it.

Mr Khan is a Muslim and his knowledge of Sharia Law goes well beyond the average believer (witness his scholarly article - link provided). Now, it is safe to argue that Sharia Law and American Constitutional Law are incompatible. Sharia Law is founded in the doctrine of submission to ecclesiastical authority inasmuch as individuals are incapable of governing themselves. For example, the strictures providing for women to cover themselves completely and be accompanied by male family members is based on the Islamic assumption that men are incapable of governing their urges. The basic assumption of Constitutional law is exactly the opposite: That all men are self-governing and fully responsible for their acts. Otherwise, how could one be trusted with complete freedom? That being said, there is no evidence that Mr Khan ever advocated replacing the Constitution with Sharia Law although, to be honest, any devout Muslim who does not seek this goal is an apostate.
https://www.scribd.com/document/320016152/Khizr-Khan-Juristic-Classification-Islamic-Law

MAJ (Anonymous) - if you follow the Koran to the "T" you are.

MAJ (Anonymous) - I don't believe he did misunderstand, it said Sharia law is over any other law.....nothing to misunderstand.

MAJ (Anonymous) - here is a quote from his writings...Khan continues to write. “All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/01/khizr-khan-has-previously-written-extensively-on-sharia-law/#ixzz4GxmizbMg

MAJ (Anonymous) - from an Islamic site. HomeReligion and SpiritualityIslamLaw of Islam

How and when does Sharia justify the stoning of women?

Answered by: Christopher,An Expert in the Law of IslamCategory

AddThis Sharing Buttons

"Sharia is generally interpreted to offer death by stoning (capital lapidation) as a punishment in some cases of fornication (zina). Zina is sexual intercourse outside of a valid marriage or lawful ownership. Other, related activities may be punishable in other ways, but they are not classified as Zina. In order for someone to be guilty of zina, they must either confess the crime or be accused in a very specific way. Accusation requires that four reputable men describe the fornication in literal terms as direct witnesses. The witnesses must have witnessed the act from different angles or different areas of a room. If the witnesses fail to meet the requirements for accusation, the accused fornicator is not guilty and the witnesses become guilty of a separate crime. Therefore, accusations of zina are not made lightly.

If someone becomes guilty of zina, they are liable for punishment dependent on whether they are free and whether they are or have been married. Virgins (those who have never been married) are liable for lashes. Free virgins receive 100 lashes while slaves receive 50. Non-virgins (anyone who is or has been married) are liable for stoning. There are some jurists who claim that exile is a viable punishment in some cases. Other schools argue about details such as whether or not stoning should occur in a pit, etc.Zina is considered part of the hudud crimes of Sharia. These five crimes (apostasy, theft, fornication, intoxication, and highway robbery) are breaches of God’s “limits” and they are considered to be extremely reprehensible crimes. Non-virgins guilty of zina are liable for stoning because the Quran (one of the primary sources from which Islamic Law is derived) is explicit in saying so. Jurists have interpreted the pertinent passages in different ways, but the orthodox view is that non-virgins must be stoned to death."