Friday, August 4, 2017

Fact Checking Ben Shapiro’s “myth of the tiny minority” does sharia law have singular interpretation? Part-1

my apologies for making this a several parts article instead of a single response, but I'm already 30% in the video and we already have 56 footnotes, Due to the length of the refutation, I decided to split the refutation to several parts to make it easier to read

I want to give my most sincere apology for not posting anything in either this blog or in DTT, since brother kaleef gave me administer co-author ability on his website, the reason why nothing was posted on DTT of my works is because brother Kaleef the owner of the website told me he wants to gather all my works on TROP website and mix them into one big article containing all my responses to make it harder for TROP to come back and response, I agreed and therefore my only article that was posted in DTT was deleted after few minutes and waiting for me to mix it with all my other works and release that one big total response to TROP, this is going to take some time given the fact that I’m busy with work and self-study.
Note: my work on TROP have been migrated to Discover the truth, the first article is up, I will resume my work on TROP ones I finish with this article
Wikipedia describes him as follows (this is Wikipedia take it with a grain of salt):
Benjamin Aaron Shapiro (born January 15, 1984) is an American conservative political commentator, columnist, author, radio talk show host, media executive, activist and attorney
A native of Los Angeles, California, Shapiro graduated Yeshiva University High School of Los Angeles at age 16, after skipping two grades. He graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from the University of California, Los Angeles at age 20, with a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science in 2004 and graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School in 2007. He subsequently practiced law at Goodwin Procter LLP. Today he runs an independent legal consultancy firm, Benjamin Shapiro Legal Consulting, in Los Angeles[1]
In the mean time I decided to make a quick reply to Ben Shapiro most famous (and probably one of his worst videos) regarding moderate Muslims support for extremism, I have decided to tackle Ben Shapiro because of the latest announcement of Cenk from the young Turks that he will debate ben, neither any of them are people I prefer, but that gave me some interest to do some research on Ben, and what I found out is that he is a far right anti refugee anti immigration anti Islamic lunatic, a softer version of Milo yiannopoulos, he seems to support some ideas driven by trump yet oppose him at the same time, however I didn’t bother to do research on his personality, I picked his video regarding moderate Muslims support of extremism, and how he deceptively make the case that it’s actually the majority of Muslims supports extremism, in this article not only I,’m gonna refute his video point by point, I’m going to flip the table and see how the Jews (the religion ben attribute himself to) actually have more support for terrorism, and in fact Military terrorism
ben Shapiro was not new to me, I came across him many years ago, but since Cenk from the young Turks announced he will debate him I saw all ben Shapiro fanboys reacting and claiming that Ben will destroy Cenk in the debate, so I was interested in his videos regarding Islam, and as always I always go after the big ones that have more views and controversy, I might do more work in the future on Ben Shapiro, but I have to return to my refutations on the website the religion of peace, ones I’m done with them I might focus more on Ben other works more specifically Iraq war support, and then move to wikiislam.
However, I should point out that I’m not the first one to make a rebuttal to him, channel4 made an article regarding his false assumptions, I will leave it here

Fact Checking:

We are going to observe how the people of the countries view sharia law according to several studies
In addition, we are going to examine their official government constitution if it was available online, while at the same time fact checking ben sources and see if he misrepresented/misquoted his sources.
Please refer to the section regarding Egypt Constitution as I will dedicate underneath it a sub mini section for research regarding how sharia law was interpreted and changed in history, to disprove the notion that sharia law has always been the same and always been radical.

To be fair, Ben start his video with a disclaimer @00:47 that the question is not whether Islam is violent, the question is about its adherents “now the question, isn’t is Islam itself is violent, it’s what it adherents believe because that is what they act upon, there is plenty of violent material in the old and new testament hay I’m an orthodox jew I read the old testament a lot but delivers on those particular texts ramming our liners in the towers or beheading journalists or mutilating female genitalia”
So much error in several statements, about one thing I can give positive, is that he is not taking the cliche of “Islam is violent and here are a couple of Quranic verses” so let’s give him props to that, and for fairness I won’t do the same with old and new testament to prove my case that non-Muslims are often more violent, I’m going to use his on logic and paint a brush and generalize almost all non-Muslims based on few statistics

Now, let it begin
@01:46 ben start his video citing Indonesian poll from Pew research center in 2009 which showed “almost 50% of Indonesians actually support strict sharia law  not just in Indonesia but a lot of countries and 70% blame U.S and Israel or somebody else for 9/11, so you make that calculation about 143 million people are radicalized”
Wow, hold on there a second, 143 million radicalized? I mean not only you didn’t give the title or the link to the research in the description of your video but we haven’t even checked what version of sharia or what interpretation they support, but let’s check the figures

I couldn’t find that specific 2009 study done by Pew research center, it seems it was updated by a 2013 study conducted regarding sharia law support across Muslim world, Indonesia ranked with percentage of 72% support for sharia, now you might say “well there you have it, Indonesians are radicals” but if you truly think that merely supporting sharia will qualify to label you as “radical” then you are only making yourself sound more deluded, let’s take a look at that same study
“In South Asia, high percentages in all the countries surveyed support making sharia the official law, including nearly universal support among Muslims in Afghanistan (99%). More than eight-in-ten Muslims in Pakistan (84%) and Bangladesh (82%) also hold this view. The percentage of Muslims who say they favor making Islamic law the official law in their country is nearly as high across the Southeast Asian countries surveyed (86% in Malaysia, 77% in Thailand and 72% in Indonesia)”[2]
However, further reading years a strange finding, I that same article, pew research center makes the following bold statements
“Among Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. Only in five of 21 countries where this follow-up question was asked do at least half say all citizens should be subject to Islamic law.

The belief that sharia should extend to non-Muslims is most widespread in the Middle East and North Africa, where at least four-in-ten Muslims in all countries except Iraq (38%) and Morocco (29%) hold this opinion. Egyptian Muslims (74%) are the most likely to say it should apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, while 58% in Jordan hold this view.

By contrast, Muslims in Southern and Eastern Europe who favor making sharia the official law of the land are among the least likely to say it should apply to all citizens in their country. Across the nations surveyed in the region, fewer than a third take this view. This includes 22% of Russian Muslims (who were asked about the applying sharia in their country’s ethnic Muslim republics).”[3]

However, I managed to pull up the claim Ben was referring to
“In other regions, opinion varies widely by country. For example, in Southeast Asia, half of Indonesian Muslims who favor sharia as the official law say it should apply to all citizens”[4]
But why is there 143 million radicalized? Believe it or not, this is not reflective of the figure regarding sharia law, the number 143 million was actually conducted from the percentage of 70% Muslims blaming U.S and Israel or someone else for 9/11, but be so deceptively mixed it with the 50 % to show that this 143 million is actually the 50% who support sharia, not a bad start Ben, already misquoting a source and already misattribute statistics to it, (two errors in one sentence)
Indonesia population is combust of 261.1 million, so saying 143 million are radicalized is equivalent to 182.77 million that is equivalent to 70% of Indonesia population, if we use the percentage he attributed to radicalization (50%) the number is 130.55 radicals slightly lower than ben number
But let’s step aside for a moment, does sharia law has a singular fixed interpretation? The answer might surprise you, it’s no
Sharia law can be interpreted by subjective ideas driven from Muftis (jurists) that relies its core bases on Quran and Sunnah (at least according to sunnies, shias have their own)[5]

@02:05 he cites Egypt “Egypt 80 million Muslims according to that same 2009 poll 65% want strict Islamic sharia law in all Islamic countries and almost 70% said they have positive or mixed feelings about bin laden so that’s 55.2 million more radicals”
Again there is no 2009 poll, this is outdated, the closest we have is a 2013 study of Islamic view on sharia law, but here Ben is actually correct, roughly 70% of Egypt support sharia law is law of the land, but the accurate number of those support sharia law in Egypt based on 74% poll is 70.81 million more than Ben figure, but then again back to the non sequitur argument
1-a Muslim supports or favor sharia law
2-conclusion: therefore, that Muslim is radical
This is a non-sequitur fallacy
For example, let us see Iraqi Constitution [6](my country constitution) which is based on sharia law
According to article 2 of Iraqi constitution keep in mind Ben will cite Iraq later on in his video, so consider this a preemptive response
“Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of
A.      No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam
B.      No law may be enacted that contradicts the principles of democracy.
C.       No law may be enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this Constitution”[7]
“Article 19:
First: The judiciary is independent and no power is above the judiciary except the
Law. (Sharia)
Second: There is no crime or punishment except by law. The punishment shall only be for an act that the law considers a crime when perpetrated. A harsher punishment than the applicable punishment at the time of the offense may not be imposed.
Third: Litigation shall be a protected and guaranteed right for all.
Fourth: The right to a defense shall be sacred and guaranteed in all phases of investigation and the trial. Fifth: The accused is innocent until proven guilty in a fair legal trial. The accused may not be tried for the same crime for a second time after acquittal unless new the evidence is produced.”

Scary isn’t it? Iraq is backed by a theocratic Constitution with harsh punishments and regulations based on sharia law. Will….not so scary if we keep on reading.

Therefore, we establish that Sharia Law (at least Shia sharia law) is the official law of the land in my country, but since it contains the scary word (sharia), let we examine some key foundations in the Constitution

“Article 7:
First: Any entity or program that adopts, incites, facilitates, glorifies, promotes, or justifies racism or terrorism or accusations of being an infidel (takfir) or ethnic cleansing, especially the Saddamist Ba’ath in Iraq and its symbols, under any name whatsoever, shall be prohibited. Such entities may not be part of political pluralism in Iraq. This shall be regulated by law.
Second: The State shall undertake to combat terrorism in all its forms, and shall work to protect its territories from being a base, pathway, or field for terrorist
“Article 14:
Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief or opinion, or economic or social status”[9]
“Article 15:
Every individual has the right to enjoy life, security, and liberty. Deprivation or restriction of these rights is prohibited except in accordance with the law and based on a decision issued by a competent judicial authority”[10]
“Article 20:
Iraqi citizens, men, and women shall have the right to participate in public affairs and to enjoy political rights including the right to vote, elect, and run for office.”[11]
“Fourth: All forms of violence and abuse in the family, school, and society shall be prohibited.”[12]
“Article 37:
A.      The liberty and dignity of man shall be protected.
B.      No person may be kept in custody or investigated except according to a
C.       Judicial decision.
D.      All forms of psychological and physical torture and inhumane treatment
E.       Are prohibited. Any confession made under force, threat, or torture shall not be relied on, and the victim shall have the right to seek compensation for material and moral damages incurred in accordance with the law.
Second: The State shall guarantee protection of the individual from intellectual, political and religious coercion.
Third: Forced labor, slavery, slave trade, trafficking in women or children, and
Sex trade shall be prohibited.”[13]
I do not think any of the above regulations based on sharia law to be scary by any chance, will you agree?
Now a counter argument might be raised “will but Iraqi government is not applying these very basic constitutional legal articles” that on it’s on is a red herring fallacy, we are not talking about application of sharia law, but rather we are talking about the concept and the regulations stated in sharia law and wither it’s logical to assume all forms of sharia law to be radical, however, let’s now see one more bonus article, an article related to apostasy in the Constitution, you might think that it’s punishable by death….well, think again

“Article 38:
The State shall guarantee in a way that does not violate public order and morality:
A.      Freedom of expression using all means.
B.      Freedom of press, printing, advertisement, media, and publication.
C.       Freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration, and this shall be regulated
by law.”[14]
“Article 41:
Iraqis are free in their commitment to their personal status according to their religions,
Sects, beliefs, or choices, and this shall be regulated by law.
Article 42:
Each individual shall have the freedom of thought, conscience, and belief..[15]
The list goes on, I think I just made my point, you just can’t assume that supporting sharia law automatically makes you radical (this is also a reference to those who accuse Linda Sarsour of supporting sharia law)
I will provide more sources and arguments later on a mini section related to how radical is sharia law, but for the sake of the topic we need to continue on fact checking his claims, going back to Egypt
Again, let us examine Egypt constitution [16] [17]
However, since the English version is not trustworthy since it’s not the official translation, I will take the Arabic version since it’s the official one, and provide manual translation, I did, however, leave the English translation for those who don’t trust my translation

Article 2:
“Islam is the official religion of the land, and the concepts of sharia law is the official legal source and official jurisdictional authority”[18]
Therefore, we establish right now that Egypt Constitution is based on Sunni Sharia law.
Now what makes Egypt Constitution so special is that it allow the Jews and the Christians to govern their daily lives based on their own religion:
Article 3:
“The basis of jurisprudence and personal legal authority of Jews and Christian Egyptian are based on their own religious authority and they are governed by their own religion”[19]
So, not only is Egypt constitution(the country that gave us the most theocratic Islamic school Al-Azhar) is based on sharia law, but it also allows Christians and Jews to use their own religious laws to govern their daily life, I’m not sure what Ben fans will call this, but there is one word in my mind that I can use to describe this “non-radical”.
This is Egypt, a country described by Ben and his fans as “radical”  and it’s allowing the Christians and the Jews to use their own religious law (if it exist) to govern themselves, and Muslims in U.S of America, the country Ben is coming from doesn’t even allow Muslims to govern themselves using their own Islamic law? And you brag about how secular you are?
And to use ben words “we are just getting started”.
And like Iraqi constitution, the constitution dictates that the people are the primary source for the constitution legal authorities, meaning peoples opinion formed the Constitution
Article 4:
“The authority is to the people, they practice it and produce it, and the people are the source of legal authority…”[20]
Now this could be a figure of speech, but what is meant here is that peoples opinions and ideas formed the Constitution, meaning the constitution reflect the will of the people
Article 51:
“Personal dignity is a universal right to every citizen and should not be messed with, and the government should provide constant protection of it”[21]
Issue 52:
“Torture in all forms and types is a crime that is not subject to prescription”[22]
And as for apostasy and sexual orientation
“Article (53)
All citizens are equal before the Law. They are equal in rights, freedoms and general duties, without discrimination based on religion, belief, sex, origin, race, color, language, disability, social class, political or geographic affiliation or any other reason, Discrimination, and incitement of hatred are a crime punished by Law. The State shall take necessary measures for eliminating all forms of discrimination, and the Law shall regulate creating an independent commission for this purpose.”[23]
“Article (54)
Personal freedom is a natural right, shall be protected and may not be infringed upon. Except for the case of being caught in flagrante delicto, it is not permissible to arrest, search, detain, or restrict the freedom of anyone in any way except by virtue of a reasoned judicial order that was required in the context of an investigation. Every person whose freedom is restricted shall be immediately notified of the reasons therefor; shall be informed of his/her rights in writing; shall be immediately enabled to contact his/her relatives and lawyer; and shall be brought before the investigation authority within twenty-four (24) hours as of the time of restricting his/her freedom. The investigation may not start with the person unless his/her lawyer is present. A lawyer shall be seconded for persons who do not have one. Necessary assistance shall be rendered to people with disability according to procedures prescribed by Law. Every person whose freedom is restricted, as well as others, shall have the right to file a grievance before the court against this action. A decision shall be made on such grievance within one (1) week as of the date of action; otherwise, the person must be immediately released.18 The Law shall regulate the provisions, duration, and causes of temporary detention, as well as the cases in which damages are due to the state to compensate a person for such temporary detention or for serving punishment thereafter canceled pursuant to a final judgment reversing the judgment by virtue of which such punishment was imposed. In all events, it is not permissible to present an accused of trial in crimes that may be punishable by imprisonment unless a lawyer is present by virtue of a power of attorney from the accused or by secondment by the court”[24]

Now again as for apostasy
“Article (64)
Freedom of belief is absolute.
The freedom of practicing religious rituals and establishing worship places for the followers of Abrahamic religion is a right regulated by Law.”[25]
“Article (235)
In its first legislative term following the effective date of this Constitution, the House of Representatives shall issue a law to regulate constructing and renovating churches, in a manner that guarantees the freedom to practice religious rituals for Christians.”[26]
However, no constitution comes out without controversy

How Sharia Law is applied in Egypt and the Middle East and North Africa, and what Muslims views depict it?

here I’m, going to explore how sharia law was interpreted and changed in historical revision, yes this might be a diversion from the topic as the topic is fact checking Ben Shapiro and how he used his sources, but I feel it’s necessary to lay down the foundations of how we look at sharia law from now on, please when ever we discuss sharia law in any country among Ben Shapiro list refer back to this section since it will give you details on how sharia law was interpreted and who made the most sense out of it, I;m not going to throw too many sources and details at you because we have a video to refute not a topic like sharia to explore.
“Whatever the merits of Egypt’s post-Revolution roadmap – this process embroiled Islamists and non-Islamists in a contest over the definition of Egypt’s identity. This national discussion was unavoidable; perhaps it was essential. Yet as the Islamists dominated all elections in the transition, they translated this success into control over the constitutional writing process, arguing that their gains demonstrated their popular representation. Non-Islamists, however, reject the final text as unrepresentative of Egyptian society in its entirety. Instead, they see it as the victory of a narrow political interest best suited to maximize gains in electoral politics at that unique moment in Egypt’s history Liberals and leftists claim the process was “dominated” by Islamists, who packed the Constituent Assembly with party members and philosophical sympathizers. Islamists, in response, claim they agreed to forsake the right of their parliamentary majority to appoint the 100-member assembly for the sake of greater consensus.”[27]
The word Islamist, however, can be quite deceptive Daiana and Jason state the following
“Though he did not contribute to the classification of names, ‘Amr Darrag lodged a useful criticism on the premise of this report. He gave three reasons why an attempt to divide members into categories based on Islamism obscures the work of the assembly. First, Islamism is not a category of absolute definition. Darrag considers himself an Islamist but also holds views many would categorize as liberal. Second, 50% of the assembly was given to the Freedom and Justice and Nour Parties, but they did not exclusively nominate Islamists. Wahīd ‘Abd al-Majīd is a liberal, he says, but was selected by Darrag’s party. Third, Darrag stated that the members of the assembly were chosen and agreed upon by all by name, not simply by categorization.83 this is an assessment Messiha disputes”[28]
So far I don’t see anything radical at all, this is a constitution based on the people will, and based on sharia, let us continue on regarding Egypt's personal views
Almost 50% of congressional of the total 100 members of the constitutional assembly can be labeled (Islamists) 35 of them are directly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliated groups including the Salafist movements with their political parties ( nour for Salafists, and freedom and justice party for Muslim brotherhood and wasat party), but corresponding 15 can be labeled independent Islamists, but as discussed before, labeling someone as “Islamist” is trivial, as Islamists can hold individual liberal views, nevertheless according to the same study, state representatives who are Islamist compost of only 27% of the members of the constitutional assembly

The reason why I wanted to bring up what groups conducted the constitutional assembly especially to Egypt and not Iraq is that Egypt is often viewed as more radical

According to Gallup poll, 64% of Egyptians think sharia must be the only source of legislation
24% think it should be a source of legislation but not the only one[29]

Furthermore, applying the concept of strict sharia on its own is vague
“But even if the laws of personal status are supposed to be rooted in the sharia, it is not clear what interpretation of sharia they should be based on. The task has fallen to the parliament—the current law of personal status in Egypt, even if it has been derived from Islamic sources, is still legislated by a popularly elected body. And that is where most of the debate, therefore, takes place: what parts of the Islamic legal heritage should be codified through parliamentary legislation? And which interpretations are most appropriate for Egypt right now?”[30]
Now let us examine Egypt view on morality
Suicide is considered immoral by majority 62%[31]
41% think it’s never justified to do honor killing when men do it 31% think it’s never moral to do honor killing when women do it[32]

Keep in mind; this is only Egypt we have not dived into what other countries say
Let us examine now how pew center show Muslims support of sharia
“When Muslims around the world say they want sharia to be the law of the land, what role do they envision for religious law in their country? First, many, but by no means all, supporters of sharia believe the law of Islam should apply only to Muslims. In addition, those who favor Islamic law tend to be most comfortable with its application to questions of family and property.9 In some regions, fewer back the imposition of severe punishments in criminal cases, such as cutting off the hands of thieves – an area of sharia known in Arabic as hudud (see Glossary). But in South Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, medians of more than half back both severe criminal punishments and the death penalty for Muslims who renounce their faith.
Muslims who favor making sharia the law of the land generally agree that the requirements of Islam should apply only to Muslims. Across the regions where the question was asked, medians of at least 51% say sharia should apply exclusively to adherents of the Muslim faith. This view is prevalent even in regions such as South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, where there is overwhelming support for enshrining sharia as the official law of the land”[33]
Back to Egypt
“At the country level, there are notable exceptions to the view that sharia should apply only to Muslims. These include Egypt, where 74% of Muslims say sharia should be the law of the land and nearly three-quarters of them (or 55% of all Egyptian Muslims) say Islamic law should apply to people of all faiths.”[34]
That is slightly half of the country state that it should only be applied to Muslims
Sharia supporters around the world widely agree that Muslim leaders and religious judges should decide family and property disputes. The median percentage of sharia supporters who favor applying the religious law in the domestic sphere is highest in Southeast Asia (84%), followed by South Asia (78%), the Middle East and North Africa (78%), and Central Asia (62%). In Southern and Eastern Europe, fewer (41%) think religious judges should oversee family and property issues. (See chart in How Should Sharia Be Applied? in Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia.)”[35]
According to Pew center 56% people in the middle east and north Africa support killing those who leave Islam, there are well over 381 million people living there (keep in mind this pew research center poll was conducted on only 38,000 so take it with grain of salt)
Politics and systems of government in Islamic theory were actively debated early in the nineteenth century. The vast majority of Islamic scholars believed Islam to be a religion and a state, meaning that Islam should regulate government and public life, while also serving as a religion. However, some voices began to argue that Islam serves only as a religion and should not be involved in governing; such ideas were unprecedented in Islamic history. Most prominent in this respect was the 1925 publication of the renowned book Islam and Fundamentals of Political Power by Ali Abdel Razek, a Sharia law judge and a graduate of Al-Azhar University, who studied briefly at the University of Oxford. Abdel Razek argued that the Caliphate is not a fundamental of Islam and is, instead, a mundane and political issue, a view that served as the foundation for calls to separate state and religion.[36]
Influence of forging laws in sharia law application in Turkey Exposure to Western culture led to the codification of legal rules. The Roman Code established in France in the early nineteenth century influenced the Ottoman Empire and its affiliated states to enact similar laws. The Mecelle (or Majallato AlAlahkam Aladleya, the official gazette of the Ottoman Empire during the nineteenth century used to issue official state documents and legislation), exemplified this phenomenon[37]
the divine interpretation and the classical historical influence have been both combinations of Quran Sunnah and don’t forget the legal authority, divine interpretation was very fundamental and rigid foundations of Islamic law, how ever this form of interpretation was created and influenced directly after 200 years from the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632, it was not contemporaneous to his time by any means possible, historical sharia law is the outgrowth of more than 1000 years of interpretation (1000 years of interpretation, let that sink in) it became the mix of classical law which we discussed earlier, practical law, case law, it’s very similar to the blend of case law and common law in western societies[38]
contemporary sharia law has started differently utilizing legal forms today, these are regular blend of secular law and historical sharia, they included new forms of laws mostly from Europe that engage in new laws not familiar to historical sharia and that is enviurmantal laws, contract or business laws, technology related laws and some forms of human institutions, so in time sharia law became less inclined with religion and more with state power and authority, secular influence in modern day sharia law became so overwhelming that sharia religious aspect was rendered only to issues related to family and religious interpretations of sacred texts[39]

However, we need to understand that not all sharia schools (4 of them) are conservative, Hanafi is regarded as liberal, Hanbali is regarded as conservative, Saudi Arabia took the most strict interpretation while Malaysia took the most liberal one[40]
Here in this book Tiffiany Howard argues that it’s the failed states that creates terror and political violence, for more analysis on how radical Islam was formed please read her book Failed States and the Origins of Violence: A Comparative Analysis of State Failure as a Root Cause of Terrorism and Political Violence.

now sharia law is based on Quran and Sunnah as some might think, but there is a third element to it, imam, someone who has the ability to interpret the life of Muhammad (Sunnah) in his own views, and thus become like a lens of sharia, that lens has its own degrees and aspects, so what ever come out of Imam mouth is his own views on how Sunnah is interpreted[41], so we have one-half of sharia source that is considered interchangeable, while another (Quran) not interchangeable.

We do have a period in time where Quran was the only source for sharia law, as the thinker Muhammad Iqbal state, “from the earliest times particularly up to the rise of the Abbasids, there was no written law of Islam apart from Quran”[42]
thus we can say that Islam and sharia are not static but moves with time Meanwhile Orientalists had arrived at similar conclusions. In 1853 Enger noted both the general likelihood of Roman influence on Islamic law and specific parallels in the terminology of ownership and methods of taxation.[43] Further parallels relating to sale and hire were adduced by van den Berg in 1868,[44] and in 1875 the question was taken up for extensive discussion by von Kremer in his Culturgeschichte. Von Kremer referred to van den Berg and added numerous parallels of his own; he rejected the theory that the Muslims studied Roman law books, but allowed for continuity of legal practice, and pointed out that several Roman institutions could have entered Islamic law indirectly through borrowing from the Jews.[45]
For further, more analysis on Roman influence on sharia law read Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law: The Origins of the Islamic Patronate by Patricia Crone

now, I think we established a clear picture, sharia law can’t be static, can’t be singular in its interpretation, many have made several changes to it, it had secular influence on it in it history, including forging influence in its legal forms, I have so much more to share with sources that can prove my point further, but we need to go back to the video we are refuting
so please next time you hear someone say these words “sharia law has always been the same radial and heavily influenced religious law on all times” please correct their views, whenever we hear Ben Shapiro say “oh they support sharia? Therefore they are radicals” whenever we hear this logic please refer back to this section dedicated to sharia interpretation in history.
all that I will do now, later on, is fact checking his claims and later on when I’m done with all the countries he cites I will result to the next sections regarding non-Muslim support for terrorism
@02:20 of Ben Shapiro video we enter Pakistan
“Pakistan has almost 179 million Muslims, 76% just over three quarters want strict sharia law in all Islamic countries that are another 135.4 million radicals”
Here if we use his percentage he is close to the estimated number but then again as I showed before, support for sharia law doesn’t automatically make you radical, now let us look at Pakistan Constitution [46]
Of course, it should be no doubt to anyone that Islam is the state religion of Pakistan and the fundamental force behind its legal authority
“Freedom of speech etc…
Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression and there shall be freedom of press…….”[47]
“20 freedom of religion
(a)   Every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion…”[48]
“9. No person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law”[49]
But let’s put the Constitution on one side, how do the people of Pakistan (the people ben accused of being radical) view ISIS?
While the majority doesn't have a specific view on isis, those who are actually what you call “radical” who support ISIS are a significant minority of 9%
putting it with his numbers, that is 16110000 radicals, but then again we need to understand where they are coming from, I shall also dedicate a section later on exploring the views of those Muslims who support terrorism and where take these views from
The majority of Pakistans however 64% say sharia law should be applied to Muslims only
“When Muslims in different regions of the world say they want sharia to be the law of the land, do they also share a vision for how sharia should be applied in practice? Overall, among those in favor of making sharia the law of the land, the survey finds broad support for allowing religious judges to adjudicate domestic disputes. Lower but substantial proportions of Muslims support severe punishments such as cutting off the hands of thieves or stoning people who commit adultery. The survey finds even lower support for executing apostates.”[50]
Pakistan regarding the application of sharia law on issues regarding marital status are significant majority of 87%

so just because you support sharia doesn’t mean you want to apply all of its application

Let’s understand first how Muslims are radicalized in both West and Middle East

now, we might go after the topic of jihad and divert from sharia law, some might think jihad is irrelevant, and they are right, but after all, jihad is linked to radicalization, and radicalization is the core argument ben Shapiro is using here.
in Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think By John L. Esposito one of the most brilliant Islamic scholars, he states the following
“the United stated didn’t know what the enemy thought or what they wanted the war only seen in broad geopolitical terms-part of the “domino theory” the world wide struggle to prevent the spread of monolithic communism just as present war is cast as war against global terrorism[51]

“A growing body of research suggests that election-year demands from politicians to stop admitting Syrian refugees and other Muslims would prove counterproductive and even dangerous, according to Sarah Lyons-Padilla, a Stanford social psychology expert.

She explains in a new article in the journal Behavioral Science and Policy that telling Muslims they are not welcome in the United States simply reinforces the narrative that the West is anti-Islam. In turn, this can actually fuel support for violent extremist groups like the Islamic State.”[52]
“Research findings

Lyons-Padilla is a research scientist for Stanford SPARQ: Social Psychological Answers to Real-World Questions. Her co-authors were Michele Gelfand, a psychology professor at the University of Maryland; Hedieh Mirahmadi and Mehreen Farooq, president, and senior fellow, respectively, at the World Organization for Resource Development and Education; and Marieke van Egmond, a researcher at Jacobs University in Bremen, Germany.

Lyons-Padilla and her colleagues administered surveys to about 200 immigrant and American-born Muslims in the United States. They also conducted 20 in-depth interviews with the subjects.

Prior studies, the researchers wrote, show that violent extremist organizations like the Islamic State group prey on youth who lack clear purpose and direction by promising them they can belong to a group and receive recognition for doing so.

This seems to work,” said Lyons-Padilla. “Some Muslim Americans who feel a lack of meaning in their lives report being more attracted to fundamentalist groups and radical ideologies.”

The new study found that:

The more Muslim Americans experience discrimination, the less purpose and meaning they feel. “This is especially the case for those who feel culturally homeless,” Lyons-Padilla said. “That is, belonging neither to one’s heritage culture nor to American culture.”
The vast majority of Muslims do not support violent extremism and say they want to combine American customs and values with those of their heritage culture. “This challenges the widespread belief that American values and Islamic principles are incompatible with one another,” said Lyons-Padilla.
She noted that research suggests that immigrants and minorities do best when they can successfully integrate their American identities with their other cultural identities. “Wherever we come from, we can all embrace both our heritage cultures and American patriotism.””[53]
How astonishing, so it’s not sharia law or Islam that causes people to become radicals, it’s Islamophobia and anti Muslim sentiments, you know, the one Ben Shapiro fans use “refugees and Muslims are not welcomed”
The more isolated Muslims in the west are, the more inclined to radicalization they are
“In the last 15 years, the threat of Muslim violent extremists emerging within Western countries has grown. Terrorist organizations based in the Middle East are recruiting Muslims in the United States and Europe via social media. Yet we know little about the factors that would drive Muslim immigrants in a Western country to heed this call and become radicalized, even at the cost of their own lives. Research into the psychology of terrorism suggests that a person’s cultural identity plays a key role in radicalization, so we surveyed 198 Muslims in the United States about their cultural identities and attitudes toward extremism. We found that immigrants who identify with neither their heritage culture nor the culture they are living in feel marginalized and insignificant. Experiences of discrimination make the situation worse and lead to greater support for radicalism, which promises a sense of meaning and life purpose. Such insights could be of use to policymakers engaged in efforts against violent extremism, including terrorism.”[54]

I repeat, holding up signs that are anti-Muslim and discriminate against Muslims in the west increases the chance for them to be radicalized, how can sharia law radicalize these Muslims? I have no clue
Secular ideology was the predominant wisdom in Egypt Gamal Abdul Nasir, he used secular political and Palestinian causes to justify his rhetoric to resist Israel, just like how Arab nationalism was used in the 1960s to justify violence, today religion is used to do so[55]

Please refer further more to Asadullah Al-andalusi video response to Sargon of Akkad video on suicide bombing and Islam, make sure you come back to it for any reference to suicide bombing ben does, I do so for the sake of brevity[56]

End of Part 1

[2] Sharia as Official Law of the Land
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] John L. Esposito"Islamic Law". The Oxford Dictionary of Islam.
[7] Iraq Constitution. Page.3
[8] Ibid page.4
[9] Ibid page.7
[10] ibid
[11] Ibid page.9
[14] Ibid.page13
[15] ibid
[18] Constitution of The Arab Republic of Egypt 2014, section 1 page.7
[19] ibid
[20] ibid
[21] Ibid.page20
[22] ibid
[23] ibid
[24] ibid
[25] Ibid page.23
[26] Ibid page.73
[27] The Development of Egypt’s Constitution: Analysis, Assessment, and Sorting through the Rhetoric, Cornelis Hulsman (ed), Diana Serôdio, and Jayson Casper, The Center for Intercultural Dialogue and Translations Page.40
[28] Ibid page.41
[32] ibid
[34] ibid
[35] ibid
[36] Islam and Sharia Law The Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East studies political and economic dynamics in the Middle East ISSUE BRIEF MAY 2016 YUSSEF AUF Atlantic Council RAFIK HARIRI CENTER FOR THE MIDDLE EAST
[37] HMecelle: Archives of Duke University Library, “Text of Mecelle (in Turkish),” 1884,, Constitutional, and Political Context in Egypt
[38] Governments in the Muslim World: The Search for Peace, Justice, and Fifty Million New Jobs by Charles F. Bingman page.153
[39] ibid
[40] Failed states and the origins of violence :  a comparative analysis of state failure as a root cause of terrorism and political violence by Tiffiany Howard, Page.66
[41] The Sacred Law of Islam: A Case Study of Women's Treatment in the Islamic Republic of Iran's Criminal Justice System By Hamid R Kusha page.81
[42] Contemporary Interpretation of Islamic Law By Ahmed Affi, Hassan Affi page.xxix
[43] M. Enger (ed.), Maverdii constitutiones politicae, Bonn 1853, pp. xiv, i4f, 22ff. Enger's suggestions as regards taxation were followed up by M. van Berchem, La propriite territoriale et Vimpotfonder sous les premiers califes, Geneva 1886, similarly on the basis of
[44]  L. W. C. van den Berg, De contractu "do ut des" iure mohammedano, Leiden and Batavia 1868, pp. I7f and passim.
[45] A. von Kremer, Culturgeschichte des Orients under den Chalifen. Vienna 1875-7, vol. h Ch. 9, especially pp. 532ff
[47] The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan page.23
[48] ibid
[49] ibid.page18
[51] Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think By John L. Esposito, Dalia Mogahed page.66
[53] ibid
[54] Belonging nowhere: Marginalization & radicalization risk among Muslim Immigrants by Sarah Lyons-Padilla, Michele J. Gelfand, Hedieh Mirahmadi, Mehreen Farooq, & Marieke van Egmond
[55] Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think By John L. Esposito, Dalia Mogahed page.74