Khizr Khan Says Constitution is Subordinate to Sharia Law. Not makin’ this up...

PO2 Mark Saffell - The GOP certainly has no problem using dead Benghazi Consular officers and their families for political gain. They've been doing it for 5 years now.

SPC Randy Semanko - Actually SPC Semanko, it is U.S. businessmen, corporations, and industries, that use those Visas that Mr. Khan administrates to get the talent they need from overseas. Mr. Khan's Visas are granted to highly skilled foreign national employees that companies hire to fill specific roles. Purely capitalist and corporate, just like the GOP loves.

MSgt Michael Smith so in your mind it is ok for HRC to call a Gold Star family liars but not ok what Trump said? If you believe in a double standard, please have the nerve to stand up and say whatever HRC does or says is ok and whatever Trump says is bad and wrong. OR if by chance you believe in equal treatment lets see you call HRC out for calling Families liars.

A sheep in sheeps clothing. Wow!

SSG (Join to see) I dont believe all of it no, but much of it I have read on other sites. His law practice, the website is now down though I am sure google has it cached. His donations to the democratic party. There is a lot of confirmed fact in this post along with some poetic license.

I looked it up and the only sources posting the Sharia law story are are right wing websites. Most are blogs or other bat shit crazy sources. I'm sure he has donated to the Democratic Party since he supports the nominee. The only "mainstream" source is CNN. It's a video with Katrina Pearson repeating the same charge. Khan denies it.

Mr Khan is a Muslim and his knowledge of Sharia Law goes well beyond the average believer (witness his scholarly article - link provided). Now, it is safe to argue that Sharia Law and American Constitutional Law are incompatible. Sharia Law is founded in the doctrine of submission to ecclesiastical authority inasmuch as individuals are incapable of governing themselves. For example, the strictures providing for women to cover themselves completely and be accompanied by male family members is based on the Islamic assumption that men are incapable of governing their urges. The basic assumption of Constitutional law is exactly the opposite: That all men are self-governing and fully responsible for their acts. Otherwise, how could one be trusted with complete freedom? That being said, there is no evidence that Mr Khan ever advocated replacing the Constitution with Sharia Law although, to be honest, any devout Muslim who does not seek this goal is an apostate.
https://www.scribd.com/document/320016152/Khizr-Khan-Juristic-Classification-Islamic-Law