Systems at odds
Date
09/05/2026
Hosted By
Systems at odds
0:00
WORLD Radio - Systems at odds
A new book argues that classical Islamic law conflicts fundamentally with the U.S. Constitution on apostasy, due process, and the rights of women and non-Muslims. Mary Reichard speaks with A.S. Ibrahim, professor of Islamic studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who says Christians should love their Muslim neighbors while opposing political Islam.
A.S. Ibrahim, author and professor of Islamic studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Photo courtesy of A.S. Ibrahim
Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.
MARY REICHARD: 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 A.S. 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 Versus the U.S. 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.
REICHARD: All right, let's get down to some brass tacks, so to speak, some real examples. So our first amendment protects the freedom to adopt, reject, change, or criticize a religion. What does traditional Islamic law prescribe for those things?
IBRAHIM: You leave Islam, you get killed. Of course, many Muslims today around us would say, no, no, no, no, no, we will never do that. But what I am talking about is what the primary sources of Islam dictate. 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 Sharia, 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 Sharia, this person gives away his life. So the First Amendment says: the government cannot touch your religious choices.
Sharia says, nope, you are dead.
REICHARD: And we have examples of that. I mean, I'm thinking of Charlie Hebdo in Paris. You can probably think of other specific individuals who have lost their lives because they converted.
IBRAHIM: Very true. Very true. And it is basically in many countries and many, especially the countries that claim to be applying Islamic law, the Sharia, we have this as the reality. Of course, you can also hear from some people that there is just, just 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 Sharia actually states regarding whoever changes their religion.
REICHARD: 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 Sharia distinguish between Muslims and non Muslims in the realm of legal rights and political authority, even taxation?
IBRAHIM: This is a great question, ma'am. And 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 Sharia. 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 political authority over a Muslim population. So we can unpack this, but that's the statement. Number two, there is something under Sharia that is called the Dhimmi system. Christians and Jews are classified as Dhimmis. 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 Dhimmi system is applied. Number two.
For 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 the year.
If you are from a different religion, you are not viewed equally. Court testimony, a Christian generally cannot testify against Muslim. You see how this whole thing is completely opposite to our U.S. 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 Dhimmitude, and the Christians are lower class citizens, non-Muslims cannot build houses of worship. They cannot ring church bells or display crosses on buildings. I remember in Egypt growing up, we cannot really fix a leaking bathroom. Why? We need permission from the governor. We cannot build another church. Why? You need presidential approval. So this is just to give some insights on what you were asking.
REICHARD: Right. I'm thinking of Dearborn, Michigan, and it doesn't look like an American city anymore. Do you know anything about how is Sharia slowly being implemented there? Are you able to speak to that?
IBRAHIM: Even if not publicly, even if not stated publicly, you have things happening under the scene that, well, if you have a whole city, a whole town full of Muslims and it's run by Islamists, by people who want to see Islam as not only as worship, but also as a ruling system applied even among families, women who want to get a divorce, they cannot just go for a civil divorce because of the shame within families, within the closed society. So I would say that if you just go and speak with people in places that are full of Muslims—like what you're mentioning in Dearborn—you will feel you will hear a lot of examples of things that this is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution at all.
REICHARD: Well, let's talk about women and women's rights now that you mentioned earlier. You talked about how female testimony is not valued the same as a man's. How does Islamic law treat women otherwise—inheritance, freedom of movement, say—differently from males?
IBRAHIM: Right, right, right. That's a great question and it connects with the previous question because we were talking about what would happen if in a little town what is applied, even if not publicly, is sharia, is Islamic law. So according to Islamic law, testimony is not equal between men and women. So the Quran, Islam scripture, explicitly requires two women to substitute for one male witness. That's according to Muhammad's statement, because in his opinion, in Muhammad's opinion, and according to trusted Muslim sources, women are deficient in reason. I'm not making this up, that's a solid tradition that is stated according to Muhammad.
Number two, inheritance. The Quran and Islamic Sharia explicitly state that for the male, two of the share of a female. So a male would receive double the portion of what a female would receive.
Political leadership. Muhammad declared in the most trusted Muslim sources that a people who place a woman over them as a leader in charge of their affairs will never succeed. So, according to Muhammad's views established in the Muslim tradition, don't have any woman over you in any sort of any sort.
Marriage, a husband has the Quranic right of unilateral divorce. Women in general do not have the same rights as men.
Finally—and this is one of the most troubling statements under the Sharia—under Islamic law, the physical punishment of a man to his wife, the physical discipline, according to Quran 434, a husband's authority over a disobedient wife permits this husband to physically beat his wife.
All this is just to give you the statements of Sharia. However, we understand that Muslims today want to put Islam in some way as a suitable alternative religion in the West. So they would say, no, no, no, we don't beat wives, we don't do that. But what I'm talking about is what the primary sources say about these matters. And how throughout the centuries Muslims applied these laws by the letter.
REICHARD: Okay. There's so much more that can be said about all of that, but we have limited time. So I'll move on to another example of incompatibility. Our constitution's eighth amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment. So I'm wondering, how do Islamic penalties for, say, theft violate our eighth amendment?
IBRAHIM: Yes. According to Sharia, Allah commanded that amputation cut the hands and the feet from an opposite side. I don't know why opposite side, but that's what the Quran stated. What about adultery? Kill someone by stoning. They will be stoned. What about fornication? Flogging. And what about homosexuals? Don't even talk about this. Throw them away from buildings or kill them. That's the general understanding of Sharia. So that's what we identify in modern terms as really cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment exists because free societies decided the state's power cannot overreach over the human body, that it has limits. And Sharia exists because its authors, its dictating authority, Allah and His Messenger believed that Allah has power over the human body, and it's like really that what resulted in these punishments as stated in Sharia.
REICHARD: Ibrahim, I'm wondering what do you think of these young women and these homosexuals on the left who are all for Islam?
IBRAHIM: They don't know Arabic. They don't know Islamic sources. They have in their head, Mary, they have in their head an Islam that they invented. They think of an Islam that does not exist. So you keep reading, especially on the left, Muhammad was a feminist. I'm like, do these people read? Do they have any idea what's written in the Muslim tradition? Islam is a religion of peace. Okay, tell me how. I'm not saying Islam is a religion of war. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, what are you talking about? Islam began as a conquering religion. Within 100 years after Muhammad's death.
The Muslim the Arab Muslim armies invaded the entire Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian lands. And what kind of peace are you talking about? So basically, Mary, here they are inventing a religion that they only believe in, in their head that has nothing to do with the primary sources of Islam.
REICHARD: So our due process rights under the Constitution require neutral courts, verifiable evidence, notice, and the opportunity to defend yourself. So how does classical Sharia differ from our due process rights?
IBRAHIM: As I mentioned earlier, male and female witnessing is not equal. But let me tell you another example about the Sharia that could trouble many people here. Sharia requires four male Muslim witnesses to establish adultery accusation. So if a woman stands up and says, Hey, I was assaulted and raped according to Islamic law. Sorry, ma'am, we cannot accept this unless you get four men to testify to the rape. I'm like, how is that even possible? Like, is that even logical? But this is what Sharia requires. This sounds crazy for some, sounds strict for some. Even some Muslims would say, we want to ensure the legitimacy of the accusation, until you realize that this makes prosecution of rape nearly impossible. And I grew up in the Middle East and I saw a lot of women who tried their very best to establish this accusation and they reached nothing because Sharia forbids.
Any justification without four male witnesses. Non-Muslim testimony is another matter. A Christian testimony against a Muslim is inadmissible. It's like Christians don't exist under the legal system of witnessing in sha under Sharia. Blasphemy accusation in Pakistan, we all heard decade ago or so, the Christian woman named Asia Bibi, who just was accused of blaspheming against Muhammad. What happened? She went to court for years, she was accused of all horrible things, and then she had to flee Pakistan and go to Canada, and now she is a refugee in Canada. All this to say that, yes, due process is a major thing in the American constitutional system, and Sharia has different parameters and particularities.
REICHARD: Speaking of rape, let's look to the UK. We have proof now of 250,000 rapes, and no, nobody's been brought to justice. What examples from Britain—I mean that's a blaring one—what examples from Britain should Americans see as warnings against permitting one religion's law to supersede civil law.
IBRAHIM: Good question. What happened in Britain is disgraceful, is dishonoring to any Western society and to the Western law and understanding of law and enforcing the law. By the mid two thousands, dozens of Sharia councils were operating across Britain already. And then in especially in the northern parts of the UK, you have cities that are full of immigrants coming from completely different systems of understanding of law, of religion. And I was told by many of my friends in England that there are some pockets where you cannot really enter. They apply Sharia, they apply punishments according to Sharia. And this is what began to happen, I would say, from the 1990s all the way to now. And women appearing before these councils or these cities seeking divorce frequently received settlements that British civil courts would never have approved. So now you have two different legal systems operating in the same place. I believe that in 2016 Casey Review found Sharia councils discriminating against women in Britain and functioning as parallel legal systems.
So the lesson for America is simple: parallel legal systems do not stay parallel, they are not parallel. You cannot have two legal systems, you cannot have two constitutions. One constitution is we the people. That's what we call in America. The other constitution Allah dictates and Muhammad implemented and applied. You cannot have these two. We need to pay the price to protect freedom in America.
REICHARD: So here in the United States, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religious expression, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, all which Muslims can also claim as they practice their own religion. I want to ask you: does the Constitution protect Muslims practicing Sharia law? It's part of the Baptist tradition, after all, going back to John Leland to protect freedom of religion in the United States for Christians, for atheists, for what Leland called the Muhammadans or Muslims. So how does that line up with Christian lawmakers wanting to ban Sharia here in the U.S.?
IBRAHIM: That's a very good question. I think the constitution absolutely protects the free exercise of religion, including the right of Muslims as individuals to worship, pray, fast, assemble. That's non-negotiable. The problem happens when Islam is framed as only a religion. It is not. Islam is, is not only a religion. That framing cripples any criticism, any judgment, because once you consider Islam as only a religion, that's a mistake. Because once you say it's a religion, you would say, okay, freedom of religion. But it is not only a religion, it is a comprehensive political and legal system. Once it takes freedom in the land, it begins to dictate its own paradigm, legal requirements, particularities of male and female and non-Muslim versus Muslims, as I explained earlier. The constitution protects religious beliefs, but it cannot protect an opposing, advancing, conquering ideology that goes against our own constitution. When Sharia rules are applied, whether regarding apostasy, blasphemy, inequality, they directly collide with the core American freedom and the American Constitution.
REICHARD: Should we Christians be afraid of Islam?
IBRAHIM: No, the answer is no. I would say don't be afraid of Muslims, but I would say be concerned about advancing Islam, advancing the ideology of Islam, especially the political Islam, Islamism, unchecked. Be alarmed. Love Muslims.
Christians should not be afraid of Muslims and they should not hate Muslims. We are Christ followers. Christians are called to love their neighbors. However, at the same time, love does not require silence, and that's very important. Christians should clearly and confidently expose and oppose political Islam.
They should oppose Islam's theological claims, teachings, and legal system, Sharia, where they contradict biblical truth and moral foundations of the Western civilization. I would say the proper Christian response is neither fear nor hostility, but courage and clarity. Loving Muslims as people while honestly confronting an ideology and legal system that is incompatible with biblical faith and the western way of life shaped by it.
REICHARD: Final question: If Americans just remember one thing from your book, what is the difference between welcoming Muslims as equal citizens and accepting Islamism as a governing legal ideology?
IBRAHIM: Excellent question, Mary. Every Muslim American deserves the full protection of the constitution. To pray, to fast, to raise children, even to vote, to serve, to thrive. That is not negotiable. But political Islam and Islamism is something categorically different. It's a vicious ideology. A non-American political project, organized, funded, and even strategically advanced, that seeks to replace the constitutional order with a legal system that is completely different and it is very incompatible with the American constitution. Confusing the two which Islamic Islamist organizations depend on is very wrong.
Don't treat Islam as only a religion. Don't compromise the understanding that Islam has a political dimension in it that completely goes against the fabric of the society.
REICHARD: A.S. Ibrahim, thank you so much for all this time. We really appreciate your expertise.
IBRAHIM: Thank you so much for having me.
REICHARD: You’ve been listening to an extended interview with scholar and author A.S. Ibrahim. We’d love to hear what you thought about the conversation. Drop us a line at editor@wng.org. That’s editor@wng.org.
And if you enjoyed this special weekend edition of The World and Everything in It, please subscribe and leave a review wherever you listen to podcasts. It really helps other people discover our work and expand our reach.
Thanks so much for listening. We’ll talk to you Monday. Have a great weekend! I’m Mary Reichard.
WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.