Sharia Vs Constitution

The recent argument about the compatibility of Sharia and the U.S constitution has sparked a debate that will not be ending any time soon. While both sources of Law are meant for maintenance of law and order in the society, they possess some inherent characteristics that make them different from each on several fronts. From a critical analysis of the two sources, one realizes there are features of the Sharia law that are essentially conflicting with aspects of the U.S constitution. Fundamentally, all the amendments that are contained in the US Constitution demonstrate the differences that exist between the two sources of law especially on the issues regarding freedom of expression, the right to dissent and the right to a fair trial among other

For instance, while both oral and written evidence is admitted under the US justice system, the Sharia Law seems to advocate for oral evidence. The reason for preferring oral evidence to other types of evidence is that the others are subject to forgery or even tampering by interested parties. This is a ridiculous argument given that there are times when written evidence is most needed. For instance, in the case of rape, written evidence, including expert opinion is required for an impartial judgment to be made. In fact, the law is very clear all types of evidence are useful before a court of law and no priority should be given to any one of them. The only other way that written evidence is accepted in the Sharia court is when the judge decides so after establishing some witnesses to be used in the case. Even more unfortunate is the fact that the Sharia courts do not rely much on forensic evidence such as DNA, blood samples, and fingerprints when there are eyewitness accounts. As discussed above, it is women who stand to lose a lot from such a selective justice process which will not require any scientific evidence to prove that a crime has been committed. Under such laws, it is very difficult for women who are raped to prove their case when it is evident that the system is against them in the first place. For the above reason,

While the U.S Constitution seeks to protect the rights of the people and to ensure that their voices are heard accordingly, the Sharia Law appears to be suppressing the voices of the people. Even though the U.S Constitution borrows heavily from the Bible, the provisions in there are realistic, considerate and reflect the true wishes of the people. On the contrary, the provisions of the Sharia Law only seek to satisfy the interests of a few people at the expense of the majority. For instance, women and non-Muslims are not even recognized as human under the Sharia Law and are, therefore, not worthy of the law. Only Muslim men stand to benefit from the injustices of the Sharia Law while the other members of the community suffer in silence. At a time when great progress has been made regarding democracy and public participation, it is rather unfortunate that there are retrogressive laws that are allowed to flourish. The above discussion has clearly demonstrated that the level of conflict between the Sharia Law and the U.S Constitution is so high that the two sources of law can never be compatible at any given time. The paper has identified many different areas where the two documents conflict and concludes that the most notable ones are freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to dissent, right to a public trial, right to representation