Sharia on the Federal Bench

Below is the latest from Sharia TipSheet.

Is the Second Muslim Federal Judicial Nominee a Sharia Supremacist?

January 31, 2022

The first Muslim federal judicial nominee, Zahid Quraishi, skated to a federal judgeship last year without any serious inquiry into his personal beliefs regarding sharia supremacy, jihad, or the obvious conflicts between sharia law and the U.S. Constitution. He was asked, perfunctorily, what he knows about sharia law, and he claimed not to know anything about it. His answer, which was not believable, was allowed to stand, untouched.

This set a very bad precedent that, if left unchallenged, will allow all future Muslim nominees for federal judgeships to evade critical questioning and ascend to the bench even if they believe in sharia supremacy with violent jihad as the means to achieve it in accordance with the dictates of standard Islamic doctrine.

Any observant Muslim nominee will hold these beliefs, because these beliefs come straight from the Quran, hadith, and Islamic scholarly consensus. There are many passages in the Quran calling for violent jihad. Here are just three:

  • Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme. Quran 8:40
  • I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads; strike off the very tips of their fingers. Quran 8:12
  • If you encounter the disbelievers in a battle, strike-off their heads. Take them as captives when they are defeated. Quran 47:4

Moreover, several passages in standard Islamic doctrine call for sharia supremacy, that is, world domination and the forced conversion of all humanity to Islam. Here are just three:

  • Muhammad said: “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the Messenger and in all that I have brought.” Muslim: C9B1N31 (hadith)
  • The only religion acceptable before God is Islam. Quran 3:19
  • He it is who has sent his Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to make it victorious over all religion even though the infidels may resist. Quran 61:9

We must summon the political will to reverse the precedent set in the Quraishi nomination and engage subsequent Muslim nominees on their personal beliefs. Their personal beliefs are consequential because sharia poses an existential threat to the United States and conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land, in numerous ways.

The time to reverse that precedent is now. A second Muslim has been nominated for a federal judgeship. Nusrat Jahan Choudhury is the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois. If confirmed, Choudhury would become a federal judge for the Eastern District of New York.

Because standard Islamic doctrine — the direct unchangeable word of Allah in the Muslim belief system — espouses sharia supremacy and violent jihad as the means to achieve it, and because sharia law conflicts with the U.S. Constitution in fundamental ways, Choudhury should be asked the questions set forth below at her confirmation hearing.

Because lawmakers fell down on the job the first time, we really have no idea whether or not the first Muslim federal judge is a sharia supremacist. Is the second Muslim federal judicial nominee a sharia supremacist? This time, and every time, our elected representatives owe us an answer. This time, and every time, the ‘I don’t know anything about sharia law’ dodge from nominees who freely say they are Muslim just won’t cut it.

These questions will be communicated to lawmakers and to the nominee. If she responds directly, the Sharia TipSheet will print her answers verbatim.

Questions for the Nominee

It has been reported you are a Muslim. While there is no religious test for federal office, the Senate and the American people are entitled to know whether your religious beliefs are compatible or incompatible with U.S. law — law which, if you are confirmed, you will be asked to swear to uphold. As a preliminary question, do you as a Muslim affirm and adhere to Islamic doctrine from the Quran, hadith, and other authoritative Islamic sources?

Islamic doctrine holds that sharia law should be the supreme law of the land throughout the entire world. It further holds that sharia law is divine in origin and thus superior to any human-made law, including the U.S. Constitution. If confirmed, you will be asked to swear an oath you will uphold the U.S. Constitution, which by virtue of its Article VI, is the supreme law of the land. Do you renounce the portions of Islamic doctrine calling for the supremacy of sharia law and the subjugation of all human-made law to sharia law?

Islamic doctrine holds that jihad is the means by which the supremacy of sharia law is to be achieved. Do you renounce the portions of Islamic doctrine calling for jihad to achieve sharia supremacy?

What role, if any, should sharia law play in federal cases? In family law?

Will you go on record now and state that our First Amendment right to freedom of speech gives the right to anyone in the United States to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and will you also go on record now and state that you support and defend anyone’s right to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and that you condemn anyone who threatens death or physical harm to another person who is exercising that right?

Our First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in the United States. As part of that freedom, anyone in the United States has the right to join or leave any religion, or have no religion at all. Will you go on record now and state that you support and defend the idea that in the United States a Muslim has not only the freedom to leave Islam, but to do so without fear of physical harm, and will you also go on record now and state that you condemn anyone who threatens physical harm to a Muslim who is exercising that freedom?

According to the words of Allah found in Quran 5:38 and the teachings of your prophet Muhammad, amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft. But our U.S. Constitution, which consists of man-made laws, has the 8th Amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment such as this. Do you agree with Allah and your prophet Muhammad that amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft in the United States, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting such punishments are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah and teaching of Muhammad?

According to the words of Allah found in Quran 4:3, Muslim men are allowed, but not required, to be married to up to four wives. Being married to more than one wife in the United States is illegal according to our man-made bigamy laws. Do you agree with Allah that it is legal for a Muslim man in the United States to be married to more than one woman, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting bigamy are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th-century command of Allah?

Do you affirm or renounce the following from Islamic sources and scholars:

  • “the worst of all the moving creatures, in the sight of Allah, are those who reject Faith and do not believe” (Quran 8:55)?
  • the approval of wife-beating (Quran 4:34)?
  • the approval of child marriage (Quran 65:4)
  • the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man’s in court (various sources collected here)?
  • the nonrecognition of marital rape?

If confirmed, would you enforce U.S. antiterrorism laws against your fellow Muslims accused of violating those laws (e.g., providing material support for terrorism — 18 U.S. Code § 2339B)?

Are you a member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA)?

Do you agree with AMJA that

  • Muslims should not work in American law enforcement?
  • Muslims should not be “pleased with a legal system that does not come from Allah”?
  • Muslims should seek justice in Islamic courts, not secular courts?

Seen and Agreed:

Steve Amundson
David Baldovin
Janis Chester, M.D.
Maureen Cooney
Anni Cyrus
Graeme George
Carl Goldberg
Jim Horn
Dan Hromada
Debbie Jones
Steve Kirby
Sharon Kowalski
Michael Peppe
Gary R. Porter
Don M Powers, Esq.
Mike Ramirez — San Antonio, TX
Roger Russin
Jim Simpson
David S. Whitley
Mary Wierbicki
Chris Wright — Sharia TipSheet — Liberato.US

10 thoughts on “Sharia on the Federal Bench

  1. “According to the words of Allah found in Quran 5:38 and the teachings of your prophet Muhammad, amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft.”

    The Fifth Amendment also acknowledges amputation as a punishment for crime: “… nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb …”.

    “the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man’s in court”
    So the identical testimony of three women must be believed over the contrary testimony of one man. What is most disturbing here is that the credibility of a witness depends on nothing other than the witness’s sex.

  2. Very simple…1. Ask if they believe Mo was a prophet of Allah. 2. Ask which words of Mo they deny are the words of Allah. 3. All verses of racist misogynist violence can then be stated and asked about individually. Either they deny all that is disgusting about Islam or they reveal that they themselves are disgusting.

  3. Would the nominee and those putting the nominee forward , all be dhimmokkkrats? Collaborators and sympathizers with moslems against the Constitutional Republic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.