Khizr M. Khan has published papers supporting the supremacy of Islamic law over “man-made” Western law — including the very Constitution he championed in his Democratic National Convention speech attacking GOP presidential nod Donald Trump.

He was presented to the nation as a Constitution-loving (he carries a pocket copy, dontcha know!) immigrant who just happens to be from Pakistan, but it turns out that Khizr Khan is a recognized scholar on sharia law. And in his published writings, he seems to approve of subordinating the Constitution to Allah’s own sharia. Paul Sperry reports at Breitbart :

In 1983, for example, Khan wrote a glowing review of a book compiled from a seminar held in Kuwait called “Human Rights In Islam” in which he singles out for praise the keynote address of fellow Pakistani Allah K. Brohi, a pro-jihad Islamic jurist who was one of the closest advisers to late Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia ul-Haq, the father of the Taliban movement. Khan speaks admiringly of Brohi’s interpretation of human rights, even though it included the right to kill and mutilate those who violate Islamic laws and even the right of men to “beat” wives who act “unseemly.”

Brohi has quite a few “accomplishments” for Khan to admire:

[Brohi] restored Sharia punishments, such as amputations for theft and demands that rape victims produce four male witnesses or face adultery charges. He also made insulting the Muslim prophet Muhammad a crime punishable by death. To speed the Islamization of Pakistan, he and Zia issued a law that required judges to consult mullahs on every judicial decision for Sharia compliance.

And as for Khan’s wife, the silent Gold Star Mother:

Brohi goes on to argue that human rights bestowed by Islam include the right of men to “beat” their wives. “The best statement of the human rights is also to be found in the address delivered by the prophet [Muhammad] so often described as his last address,” Brohi said, quoting: “ ‘You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you. You have the right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms and to beat them but not with severity.’”

Khan touted the supremacy of sharia:

Khan provides his own advocacy for Sharia law in a separate academic paper titled “Juristic Classification of Islamic Law,” which he also wrote in 1983, while studying in Saudi Arabia. “The invariable and basic rules of Islamic law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah,” Khan writes. “All other juridical works… must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah.” He explains that Sharia is derived from the Quran and Sunnah, and that the Quran “is the absolute authority from which springs the very conception of legality and every legal obligation.”

What if sharia happens to conflict with the U.S. Constitution? I’d like to see if Khan has addressed that point in further detail.

Hat tip: Lee Cary