Attempts to mix the western legal tradition with Islamic Sharia law will fail. In fact, they must fail. The points of conflict are too numerous and too deep. In other words, there is simply no way to apply both systems in the same place. Only one can win out.
This does not stop some courts from trying to combine these legal systems which have mutually conflicting beliefs. The results inevitably are convoluted decisions where justice is perverted rather than properly applied. And this is exactly what we have in the trial of Libyan Muslims involved in the deaths of the four Americans in Benghazi. This tragedy has been in and out of the headlines for some time. It has now resurfaced in an especially obnoxious way.
The outrage we have is a court decision that finds Ahmed Abu Khattala guilty of terrorism, but not-guilty of murder. How can this be? Was Sharia law used to avoid a potential murder conviction? Prosecutors argued that the evidence was sufficient to convict Khattala on all charges. But that didn’t happen. Note this comment by defense attorney Peterson: “Khattala is a deeply religious man who believes in conservative sharia law as outlined in the Quran, which ‘is not the same thing as terrorism.'” The thinking that statement represents is frightening.
“Jurors convicted Khattala on four counts, including providing material support for terrorism and destroying property and placing lives in jeopardy at the U.S. compound, but acquitted him on 14 others. Even with the mixed verdict, Khattala, 46, still faces the possibility of life imprisonment for his conviction on a federal firearms charge.
“Prosecutors accused Khattala of directing the attack aimed at killing personnel and plundering maps, documents and other property from the U.S. mission in Benghazi. But defense attorneys said their evidence against him was shoddy.
“Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in the first attack at the U.S. mission, along with Sean Patrick Smith, a State Department information management officer. Nearly eight hours later at a CIA complex nearby, two more Americans, contract security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, died in a mortar attack.”
The guilty verdicts that were returned do provide a measure of justice. Yet, the failure to convict him for murder is an outrage.
But beyond that is the idea that Sharia law should have anything to do with justice in America. It should not. If it did in this case, as the quote from defense attorney Peterson indicates, a very dangerous precedent has just been set. Taken to its conclusion, this line of thinking would allow “deeply religious” Muslims to violate U.S. laws with impunity provided they can establish an allegedly countervailing provision in their Sharia law that permits the acts in question. This is a recipe for legal chaos.
“‘He was there to kill Americans, and that is exactly what he and his men did,’ Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael C. DiLorenzo told jurors.”
This is murder as understood in the United States. Khattala’s adherence to the Islamic faith is irrelevant. Sharia law is irrelevant. This crime remains murder regardless of what belief system the defendant has adopted.
What follows is a highly politically-incorrect, yet very effective and appropriate solution to the problem. And it is the one that preserves our western legal tradition and the integrity of our court system: If someone wishes to be judged by Sharia law, such person needs to move to one of the many nations where that system of law is practiced.
Sharia law has no place in the United States.
Source: Associated Press