Systems at odds

SPEAKER_1 (0:00)

Additional support comes from The Voice of the Martyrs, serving persecuted Christians for almost 60 years.

VOM founder, Pastor Richard Wurmbrand's story of persecution and torture by communist jailers shocked the Western world. Free copies of his book, Tortured for Christ, now available at vom.org/saturdayspecial.

Mary Reichard (0:29)

You're listening to a special weekend edition of The World and Everything In It. I'm Mary Reichard. Today we're talking with a scholar whose background and research offer a clear-eyed look at the fundamental differences between Islamic law and the American constitutional system. My guest is AS. Ibrahim. He's a professor of Islamic studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and author of a new book examining classical Sharia and Western freedoms. It's titled Sharia vs. the US. Constitution, Why Americans Must Choose Freedom.

Ibrahim was born and raised as a Christian in Egypt. He studied primary Islamic sources in Arabic and now helps Westerners understand how classical Islamic law functions and where it directly collides with fundamental civil liberties.

In our conversation, we break down what Sharia dictates regarding apostasy, religious freedom, due process, and the rights of women and non-Muslims, as well as how Christians can show love to Muslim neighbors while standing firm against political Islam.

A.S. Ibrahim (1:36)

My name is Ibrahim. I am a professor of Islamic studies at Southern Seminary and we are discussing the book that I recently published, Sharia vs. the US. Constitution and why Americans should choose freedom.

Mary Reichard (1:54)

Why we should choose freedom. Great topic. All right. Let's get down to some brass tacks, so to speak, some real examples. Our First Amendment protects the freedom to adopt, reject, change, or criticize a religion.

What does traditional Islamic law prescribe for those things?

A.S. Ibrahim (2:15)

You leave Islam, you get killed.

Of course, many Muslims today around us would say, oh, no, no, no, no, no, we will never do that. But what I am talking about is what the primary sources of Islam dictates. Apostasy in Islam is by Muhammad's definition equates to killing. You will be killed. He said, whoever changes his religion, kill him.

One. Two. Criticizing Muhammad according to the Shari'a, according to Islamic law, is faced with death. Killing the one who insults Muhammad. There is a lot of traditions about that. And I studied all these traditions in Arabic, in the primary sources. And it is very clear that according to the Muslim primary sources, once you criticize Muhammad, you will face death.

Converting to another religion, you will face death. A Muslim who becomes a Christian does not merely lose social standing. Under classical Shari'a, this person gives away his life. So, the First Amendment says, the government cannot touch your religious choices. Shari'a says, uh-uh, nope, you are dead.

Mary Reichard (3:47)

And we have examples of that. I'm thinking of Charlie Hebdo in Paris. You can probably think of other specific individuals who have lost their lives because they converted.

A.S. Ibrahim (3:57)

Very true.

And it is basically in many countries, in many, especially the countries that claim to be applying Islamic law, the Shari'a, we have this as the reality.

Of course, you can also hear from some people that, oh, there is just a statement and it is not applied. But I would say that this is not about what is applied and what is not. It is about what Shari'a actually states regarding whoever changes their religion.

Mary Reichard (4:32)

Let's take another concrete example here. So our Constitution forbids religious tests for public office and requires equal treatment for citizens regardless of their faith. So how does Shari'a distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims in the realm of legal rights and political authority, even taxation?

A.S. Ibrahim (4:52)

This is a great question, ma'am.

I will just give quick examples and the audience can read more in the book. Number one, political authority. There is no authority for a non-Muslim over a Muslim according to Shari'a. This is clear, not disputed. So a Muslim man cannot be ruled by a non-Muslim, which just this means like a Jew cannot hold a political authority over a Muslim population. So we can unpack this, but that's the statement. Number two, there is something under Shari'a that is called the Dimmie system. Christians and Jews are classified as Dimmies.

These are second class citizens, so to speak. So basically, as a Christian growing up in Egypt, even if I am a citizen of Egypt, I am not viewed as equal, and I am not viewed as someone who can get the same rights. Even if many Muslim friends are really nice, cool, and all this, but front of the law, I am not equal, especially when the Dimmie system is applied. Number three, for example, blood money. Most schools of Islamic law says that if a Muslim kills a Christian, the financial penalty is only half to what it would be if the victim were Muslim. That tells you how Sharia as Islamic law views people differently. We can talk later about how it views women, for example, but for here, if you are from a different religion, you are not viewed equally. Court testimony, a Christian generally cannot testify against Muslims. You see how this whole thing is completely opposite to our US. Constitution, it is not compatible. And that's the point I am making over and over in the book. Finally, building churches under classical sharia, under the issue of the demitude, and Christians are lower class citizens, non-Muslims cannot build houses of worship.