Sharia law in Texas? Don't miss this incredible interview

On tonight's Glenn Beck Program, Glenn was joined by Dr. Taher El-Badawi and Imam Moujahed Bakhach to discuss the Islamic Tribunal in Texas. Believed to be the first such body operating in the United States, the tribunal operates as a legal non-profit and follows Sharia law. In the interview, Glenn let the two men speak at length about the role of the Islamic Tribunal in their community and why people shouldn't be afraid of Sharia law.

While both guests said that they don't have the authority to enforce the Islamic Tribunal's rulings and those involved have to decide for themselves if they will adhere, they also didn't shy away from some of the harsher punishments in Sharia law.

This is one interview you need to watch and decide for yourself how you feel about the story:

Below is the transcript of the interview. 

Glenn: Well, hello, America, and welcome to The Glenn Beck Program and to TheBlaze. This is the network that you are building. North Texas is the last place in the world I would expect to hear about sharia law in the local news, but that’s exactly what is happening. Texas, you’d better wake up. It’s now catching the eye of the nation, but the gentlemen you’re about to hear tonight are ones…they are the principals involved, and they have not been on the national news yet.

Let me quickly get you up to speed on the story. A group of Muslims have created what is believed to be the very first official sharia law system in the United States of America in the form of an Islamic tribunal. The leaders of the tribunal call it a “nonbinding arbitration firm that adheres to Islamic principles.” Leaders also claim that it would only make decisions on noncriminal cases and defer to state and local laws and courts on criminal cases.

Now, many people are concerned that this is the beginning of what has already happened in the UK, where they now have 85 sharia courts. The BBC investigated and found extensive abuse among women, among other human rights violations. Can we expect the same pattern to follow here in the United States?

I want to make it really clear. All of our churches, our synagogues, we have our own tribunals, if you will. You can be excommunicated from your church. You have councils that tell you and help counsel you on how to live your life in your own personal life. If that’s what this is, then we can’t expect anybody to be any different.

I spoke earlier today with the leaders of the Islamic tribunal. They are at the center of all of this. I want you to watch carefully and listen carefully, and you decide what this tribunal is really all about.

Interview:

When people hear sharia law, they tend to get a little nervous. Can you understand that?

Imam Bakhach: Yes, I understand that, but I want them to understand what is sharia law, why we didn’t speak about sharia law the way that they think about. Sharia law is not what they are talking about and they are protesting, because we protest the same way if that would be sharia law. Sharia law, the word sharia first as an Arabic term refers to a set of rules and regulations, principles, guidelines for the Muslim to live with, and this includes family issues, includes manners, behavior characters, including marriage divorces, including inheritance law, including a lot of aspects of the family and the social things.

Also, if there is true state, to say, to claim that I am Islamic, which we don’t have today, long time ago, even Saudi Arabia is not practicing sharia law the way that it should be, there’s no need to talk about it, because it does not exist. But we have here as we are dealing with the Islamic tribunal that we are trying to help those who came from different backgrounds, culture packages, and Muslim from different nationalities in this society just really being here, and they have issues.

When they have disputes, in a family dispute, to say, they appoint one or panel to arbitrate or to mediate and to tell them what they should do from Islamic point of view.

Glenn: So, if a woman goes to the tribunal, or she doesn’t go to the tribunal, she goes to a U.S. court to get a divorce, is she divorced?

Imam Bakhach: That’s the very great misconception. Both of them parallel with each other, because the Islamic divorce will not be sufficient without the American civil divorce. At the same time, if she went to the court that we have many times on most of the cases are true to say that go to the court first, being granted decree from the judge that being divorced in the court would not be sufficient for the Muslim individual, he or she, that to be enough. He still is in need or she is in need to have the Islamic divorce, because the marriage being established through the word of God—

Glenn: But will she get the divorce? If the U.S. gives her a divorce, will she get the divorce through the Islamic court as well?

Imam Bakhach: That’s what I’m saying, because here there’s no need for that maybe, but when she go back home to travel to go like…on a very common, the most and the strongest our ally in the Middle East, Jordan, will not accept the only American divorce. They ask the embassy from here and go back to the country. Go back, we need the Islamic divorce. So, where to go? She will come to our tribunal to be granted that way. As a mediator, I mediate. We mediate the issue first, and then there is no solution, you got the American divorce? Yes, so we can discuss that and have meeting for the process.

Glenn: Is a woman’s testimony as valuable as a man’s testimony?

Imam Bakhach: Absolutely. Most of the cases that woman applying, not for men. Actually, we see the men object. I have a case yesterday, today is Monday, yesterday in Fort Worth, a lady from Djibouti. They married tribal system way. I’m not familiar with that. I’m from Lebanon. What they do, the chief of the tribe, he performed the marriage, and it was verbal. There is no document to sign. There is no paper, nothing. She came here as a refugee, been here now two years. Her husband was not granted the refugee status, so he still in Djibouti.

Now she wants to finish the relationship. What to do? She doesn’t have the money to go to the court or to give the lawyers or something, but she need only Islamic divorce. What to do? When I asked give me the address, there’s no address. “Why there’s no address?” to me, I wondered. She said because he has three cows and one donkey in that village. There is no way to reach. So, how to reach him to contact him to tell him that your wife applying for divorce? I didn’t accept the case yet to say, but this case happened yesterday, is the most recent situation we have.

Muslim community, wherever they are, they came from different background, different culture packages, and different traditions, you know, so different understanding. Misunderstandings really common among the men to understand that wife have no right to apply for divorce. We say no, it’s not true. Fourteen hundred years ago, God gave her the right to apply for divorce, but what we as Islamic tribunal do, advise to go first to the court and then to be granted that way, whatever now, especially when they have children and custody and all the child support and the visitation rights and no traveling, documents, international law, all this stuff that we cannot ourself handle it.

Glenn: So help me out, because, you know, I look at sharia law as it is being used around the world, and it allows for abuse. It allows for slavery. It allows for the stoning of homosexuals. I mean, it pretty much makes lawful everything that most Americans despise.

Imam Bakhach: That’s what the mistake misconception. I’m very thankful to all of you to help us to come here to clarify this position. As you know, there is a criminal court, and there is civil court. We cannot, no way to discuss the criminal court because all the time scary tactics here, sharia, no sharia, in a way that cutting the hand off or chopping the head, this is not sharia. It is not sharia. What we see and overseas now with ISIS, ISIL, the whole Muslim world condemned that and rejected it, unacceptable.

Glenn: Not true.

Imam Bakhach: At least from our side to say we condemn that.

Glenn: Where’s the reformation come from then? You’re saying that you don’t practice that kind of sharia law. Who is the reformer that you look to that says—

Imam Bakhach: For every Muslim actually that’s a student of knowledge or a scholar to start, first of all, the sharia law does not refer to the government, not refer to the civil…it was in the hand of scholars, religious scholars, to translate the text that mentioned in the Qur’an, and that’s called the first resource of the law. With the Jews, they have their law. The Christians, they have law. So the law based on any, as we say to any Muslim, wherever you are living, if you have a problem, first to say what God says in the book. Then you go to the next.

Glenn: But Jews and Christians don’t believe that man making laws is an abomination, where it’s my understanding that in the Islamic culture, man doesn’t make laws, God makes laws, and that’s sharia law.

Imam Bakhach: Who is beyond the sharia? The sharia means a holy text mentioned, whether general or specific. For example, Muslims, we do not drink alcohol. Why? Because God says in the Qur’an don’t drink alcohol.

Glenn: Right.

Imam Bakhach: Why we don’t eat swine, for example, prohibited, so the law prohibition, that permissibility is mentioned in the Qur’an even when we pray and when we respect our parents, respect the elders, all of this in the law. My point really I want to make clear here is not the issue of cutting the hands and even the criminal law. It’s not just because somebody steal and then cut the hand. It’s not that way. There is a system of investigation, a system of hearing, and a system of finding out if it’s criminal. We have execution. Just recently somebody executed in the jail because confessed and proven beyond doubt.

Glenn: There is a separation here. I’m assuming you both would say the Constitution is great, but God willing, you would rather live under sharia law, under Islamic rule.

Imam Bakhach: If you understand what the intents and the objectives and the principles of the Islamic law from Islamic perspective to say what the goal achieved, what the desire of God intended from these laws. We have five major departments—to preserve the faith for the individual, regardless what his faith is or the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, doesn’t matter in the society, to protect the soul that nobody to attack without any right.

I mean any right if not violated by a human being that he did not commit a crime to be deserving the punishment, then will be Islam very sure and very clear and very strict that nobody has a right to violate and attack this innocent person as we see today done by many so-called ISIS, ISIL, or others. That’s not Islamic sharia, by the way or to protect the mind or to preserve the mind or preserve the offspring, the children and the wealth, the fifth one.

So, all the objectives of the sharia are of Islamic law, to say, that’s called sharia in Arabic to preserve all this point. It’s not just cutting or chopping. That’s not the issue. We have nothing to do…let’s go back to the point. We are here today. We are here. We’re dealing with the issue of family disputes, and we mediate, and we arbitrate. They ask us we need help, what Islam say, because a lot of ignorance among the Muslims themselves.

So, what we should do? What should I do as a wife? Where to go? What do you advise me to do? Do I have the right or not have right? We have somebody an Islamic point of view, when a husband marry his wife, he must, not an optional, must give his wife gift and to be mentioned in the contract, and this gift can be paid during their life together or at divorce or after death if not paid during the lifetime. That’s her right, because from Islamic law that the wife is not requested to spend any penny on the house. If she want to volunteer chair, that’s okay but not requested.

The husband, there’s the commitment from the beginning of the marriage, I’m willing to commit myself to take care of you and the family. There’s talking of commitment but must be given. Why must be given? Because God says in the Qur’an the husband must give his wife. So here now come a time of dispute, he would run away from that. He will try. Fifty thousand dollars, $100,000, he doesn’t want to pay it, so what to do? The wife will ask the help.

The system, with my respect to all the judges, they have no idea what we’re talking about, so I was invited to different courts in Tyler Texas, in Dallas in family court that explain to us what we have, what you do, and how we perform and what does it mean, these things, because through the lawyers, they present the issue, Your Honor, that the husband commit himself to pay on this and this and that, so we need you to approve that and order him to get it through that court, not our court.

Glenn: I think where a lot of people come from is we can all live side by side, and we can all have different faiths. You know, every church has their own kind of little tribunal where, you know, you can be excommunicated, etc., etc., and if that’s what’s happening with the sharia court, then every religion has that, but I think where people come from is there has been no reformation.

I mean, our president just accused Christians of slaughtering people, you know, during the Crusades, but there’s been a reformation. There’s no reformation in Islam. I mean, for instance, the Qur’an says that the trees and the rocks will cry out there is a Jew hiding behind.

Imam Bakhach: It’s not true.

Glenn: It’s not true?

Imam Bakhach: No, I challenge you to bring me that. What’s her name, Barbara Walters, she challenged the minister of education in Saudi Arabia in his palace. I remember that years back.

Glenn: It is in the charter of Hamas.

Imam Bakhach: I don’t know about Hamas. I’ve nothing to do with that issue, but here we are here as Muslim too. You are referring to me that the Qur’an as in the God mentioned in this book, what you are saying about, the cry, that’s not true.

Glenn: Is it in the hadith?

Imam Bakhach: I’m sorry?

Glenn Is it in the hadith?

Imam Bakhach: This is fabricated.

Glenn: It’s fabricated? There is no place in any Islamic scripture that says that?

Imam Bakhach: No. You know, when you have every, let’s say the hadith sciences, I’m talking about, they have the sound hadith. They have weak hadith. They have a preferable hadith, so the ranking, more than 23 ranks and levels of hadith sciences that the scholars worked very hard on this to verify how many people added to what is not from. That’s the point.

Glenn: Okay, so well then, an easy way to solve this is you reject Hamas?

Imam Bakhach: Absolutely.

Glenn: One hundred percent reject?

Imam Bakhach: Not reject, condemned.

Glenn: Condemn Hamas?

Imam Bakhach: Absolutely.

Taher El-badawi: I am here, I am sorry to say it, back to the first point, I am here to discuss issue with Islamic tribunal, so please don’t get up ask us to another situation. We are ready for any discussion. It is open.

Glenn: No, I know that.

Taher : We are ready for any point to discuss with, but the main point here, the reason we are here to discuss this issue what kind of cases Islamic tribunal handle, and you start with the sharia. Why the people afraid from sharia? I’m sorry to say it, one point related to this, cut head is not just in sharia law, just in Islamic law. It’s everywhere. Who said that just in Islamic law? That’s even another sharia, in Jewish sharia, in Christian sharia, in American here, we cut we cut head for some reason.

So, I’m asking you an easy question, if anyone kill another, he should get killed by law, by Islamic law, by government. He should get killed. What is wrong with that? If a thief jump, I’m sorry, to your house, scare your wife, scare your children, scare your neighbor, and they did that with our stores, this is the law, the law to cut his hand because if he feels my hands were cut because of that, he will think about this 100 times. He will never do it. If he do that one time, he will never do it again.

Look how many millions of dollars American here or other states or other states outside spend to keep the criminal in jail, a lot of millions of dollars. We can save that, just let him go, and that’s it, because he did something wrong in the whole community and this kill the whole community. Why not? So, back please to the point. Islamic tribunal, yes, we never deal with anything of that. We don’t have authority for that. We don’t have power for that. We just have two cases.

Glenn: You seem to be okay with that if you had the power for that, but you don’t have the power.

Taher: Absolutely not. As Imam said, we have system. We are very organized people. If, last time, sorry for this example, somebody killed my dad, I shouldn’t kill him. I have to take this case to the judge, and judge have to consult the governor. There’s a system, procedure, I have to follow, so it is not like this one killed this, let’s get him killed—no.

I give you just an easy example for leader, [indiscernible]. This is after Prophet Muhammad [indiscernible]. He sent one to Yemen, and he told him, before he leaves, he ask him always as a habit, “What did you do if the people bring a thief for you?” He said I will cut his hand. Okay, he said, you do that, okay? [indiscernible] said, after [indiscernible], he said, okay, if one person came with me without work, unemployed, I will cut your head because he has no job.

If you rob something from the store or grab something from here to eat, nothing happen to you, but if you have your job and enough income to care about your children, and you have house, and you have car, and you rob from any store or thief from here or there, you have…so this is the law, but please, the point with sharia I ask people, we are not here to do that at all. It is not our authority. It is not our power. It is not our job.

We have specific people to do that stuff, and those people have full of power and full of authority, full of knowledge too. So, we are not dealing with these cases at all. It is not our job, and our cases is family cases, just religious part, that’s it.

Imam Bakhach: Even the point that you mentioned, I mean, there is a procedure that there is a judge, hearing sessions to investigate and find out to bring the proof and the evidences beyond doubt that this man, he committed the crime, whether to confess or other evidences or witnesses that saw, the same with the system we see in the civil world today. Then, after all this procedure now found out that there is no doubt that this man, he committed this crime, not toward the hunger, not for the unemployment or whatever the reason, excuses, you know, there is an excuse and doubtful, you know, what’s the reason of doubt of what a crime committed for.

I think at that time the judge would say your case would be, if that any doubt, even the sharia article that you mention about that even a single doubt that this man did not with the intention ahead of time and planning of this, then it would be excused, lesser punishment will be then to be maybe in prison, maybe to pay lien, whatever. But beyond doubt, beyond all this, so there are a lot of procedures to wait until finally he is the one. Then what is the code? And the code, yes, we have a verse in the Qur’an that says—I will say it in Arab—

Taher: Absolutely right.

Imam Bakhach: We in Texas here, we used to have in cowboy time that to hang the people in the public square, downtown maybe to say. Why it was in public, not behind the walls in the jail? Because let the people to see the crime committed like this will be the same punishment and preserve, as we said, one of the principles and objectives that the sharia are to see what to accomplish that to observe and protect the rest of the society from such crime or such, you know, person to be evil that way.

Glenn: What do you think? We let them say their piece, and you have to decide. By the way, I’m not an Islamic scholar, but it is in the hadith what I referred to. Let me quote. “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, ’O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!’” That’s in the second-highest or most accepted volume of the hadith.

The most accepted volume of the hadith uses it, saying, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘You Muslims will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ’O ’Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.’”

If we can’t trust an Imam, a scholar that knows the hadith, the two most respected volumes of the hadith, and he denies that he has ever even heard that, how do we trust the rest of what he said? Back in a minute.

When 'Abolish America' stops being symbolic

Al Drago / Stringer | Getty Images

Prosecutors stopped a New Year’s Eve bombing plot rooted in ideology that treats the US as an enemy to be destroyed.

Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles announced that four members of an anti-capitalist extremist group were arrested on Friday for plotting coordinated bombings in California on New Year’s Eve.

According to the Department of Justice, the suspects planned to detonate explosives concealed in backpacks at various businesses while also targeting ICE agents and vehicles. The attacks were supposed to coincide with midnight celebrations.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed.

The plot was disrupted before any lives were lost. The group behind the plot calls itself the Turtle Island Liberation Front. That name matters more than you might think.

When ideology turns operational

For years, the media has told us that radical, violent rhetoric on the left is mostly symbolic. They explained away the angry slogans, destructive language, and calls for “liberation” as performance or hyperbole.

Bombs are not metaphors, however.

Once explosives enter the picture, framing the issue as harmless expression becomes much more difficult. What makes this case different is the ideological ecosystem behind it.

The Turtle Island Liberation Front was not a single-issue group. It was anti-American, anti-capitalist, and explicitly revolutionary. Its members viewed the United States as an illegitimate occupying force rather than a sovereign nation. America, in their view, is not a nation, not a country; it is a structure that must be dismantled at any cost.

What ‘Turtle Island’ really means

“Turtle Island” is not an innocent cultural reference. In modern activist usage, it is shorthand for the claim that the United States has no moral or legal right to exist. It reframes the country as stolen land, permanently occupied by an illegitimate society.

Once people accept that premise, the use of violence against their perceived enemies becomes not only permissible, but virtuous. That framing is not unique to one movement. It appears again and again across radical networks that otherwise disagree on nearly everything.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements do not share the same vision for the future. They do not even trust one another. But they share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed. The alignment of radical, hostile ideologies is anything but a coincidence.

The red-green alliance

For decades, analysts have warned about what is often called the red-green alliance: the convergence of far-left revolutionary politics with Islamist movements. The alliance is not based on shared values, but on shared enemies. Capitalism, national sovereignty, Western culture, and constitutional government all fall into that category.

History has shown us how this process works. Revolutionary coalitions form to tear down an existing order, promising liberation and justice. Once power is seized, the alliance fractures, and the most ruthless faction takes control.

Iran’s 1979 revolution followed this exact pattern. Leftist revolutionaries helped topple the shah. Within a few years, tens of thousands of them were imprisoned, executed, or “disappeared” by the Islamist regime they helped install. Those who do not understand history, the saying goes, are doomed to repeat it.

ALEX WROBLEWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

This moment is different

What happened in California was not a foreign conflict bleeding into the United States or a solitary extremist acting on impulse. It was an organized domestic group, steeped in ideological narratives long validated by universities, activist networks, and the media.

The language that once circulated on campuses and social media is now appearing in criminal indictments. “Liberation” has become a justification for explosives. “Resistance” has become a plan with a date and a time. When groups openly call for the destruction of the United States and then prepare bombs to make it happen, the country has entered a new phase. Pretending things have not gotten worse, that we have not crossed a line as a country, is reckless denial.

Every movement like this depends on confusion. Its supporters insist that calls for America’s destruction are symbolic, even as they stockpile weapons. They denounce violence while preparing for it. They cloak criminal intent in the language of justice and morality. That ambiguity is not accidental. It is deliberate.

The California plot should end the debate over whether these red-green alliances exist. They do. The only question left is whether the country will recognize the pattern before more plots advance farther — and succeed.

This is not about one group, one ideology, or one arrest. It is about a growing coalition that has moved past rhetoric and into action. History leaves no doubt where that path leads. The only uncertainty is whether Americans will step in and stop it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.