“Have you even read the United States Constitution?” Khizr Kahn asked at the DNC, holding up his pocket version and offering to loan it to Trump. “Look for the words ‘liberty’ and ‘equal protection of law.'” This was declared by many in the Clinton claque to be the most damning indictment of Trump’s awfulness, coming from an aggrieved father, dignified in his righteous anger, and what’s more, an immigrant from Pakistan, who knew more about the fundamental document of our secular religion than Trump the Smirking Plutocrat.
Still, one had to wonder, what exactly is in the Constitution that Khizr Khan thought relevant to Trump’s remarks about Islam? I’ve looked for the appearance of the word “liberty” in the Constitution, and I suspect that Mr. Khan had in mind its appearance in the Fifth Amendment, which declares that no one can be deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” I assume that Khizr Khan believes that clause would apply to Trump’s remark: “When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.” I suspect that Mr. Khan is counting on the Supreme Court to use the “equal protection of the laws” clause of the 14th amendment, which applies to the federal government through the 5th amendment’s Due Process Clause, to strike down any discrimination based on religion (for what Trump’s remark meant was equivalent to a ban on Muslims). Such discrimination is, however, not forbidden, though subject to the highest standard of constitutional review. Discrimination on the basis of religion, like race, involves “suspect classifications,” and triggers strict scrutiny. This means that the government must show a “compelling state interest” to justify the discrimination. National security, or the prevention of major loss of life, are both examples, it could be argued, of such a “compelling state interest.” Those supporting such a ban on Muslim immigration at least have a constitutional case to make that Khizr Khan’s aggrieved rhetoric obscured. Perhaps Trump should have replied to Khizr Khan and said something about “strict scrutiny” and a “compelling state interest,” which would at least dispel the smug conviction of so many that a ban on Muslim immigration “of course is unconstitutional.” That’s what most people think. It’s not nearly that simple.
But the second, and much more important chance, that the Trump camp passed up was this: Trump ought to have appeared a day or two after Khan’s appearance, holding in his hand a “pocket Koran,” which could be the full Koran, or, more usefully, an abridged version, containing the 100-odd “jihad verses.” Trump would hold up that version of the Koran, saying: ““Have you even read the Koran, Mr. Khan? Why don’t you look for the words ‘Jihad’ and ‘Jizyah’ and ‘Kafir’? What do you make, Mr. Khan, of such verses as 9:5 and 9:29? I’m sure you’ve read them. You know, there’s the one about “slay the idolaters whenever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” And the other one – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” I’m sure you know those, Mr. Khan. Oh, and by the way, folks, I ordered a few hundred copies of this abridged version of the Qur’an, which you should have found on your seats this morning, but if not, just ask my staff for a copy. It makes for interesting reading. And I’m sure your readers and viewers would like you to tell them more about them.”
What, after all, would Khan reply? That he’s never heard of those verses? Or that he has, but they are being “taken out of context”? Or would he simply try to shut that discussion down: “Never mind about the Koran, I was talking about the Constitution. The Koran is irrelevant.” But most Americans will not be convinced by such a reply and, their curiosity piqued, will want to find out for themselves just what is in this Koran that Khan wants to keep from having discussed. Now that these words – “jihad,” “jizyah,” “kafir” – and specific verses would have been pushed by Trump into the wider public consciousness, even the most partisan of journalists will have to talk about them, and ideally, will feel compelled to discuss not just the particular verses — 9:5 and 9:29 — quoted by Trump, but others in that abridged Koran, and will have to start reporting on that list of “jihad verses” that has been thrust into his hands.
But Trump didn’t do this. He missed an opportunity to help himself and educate the public. Perhaps, even now, there’s still time to hold up that pocket Koran. If not Trump, then could someone else come riding to the pedagogic rescue?

Islamorefugee says
A wonderful idea to counter and teach a lesson to the cunning Islamist and their owners. Indeed it was a chance missed. But whenever these cunning Islamist try to take asylum behind the Western values, they are to be pelted with these vile verses of their black book.
Debi Brand says
Read the rest of post at: http://islamexposed.blogspot.com/2016/08/mr-khan-sir-i-am-compelled-to-question.html
Dexter L. Wilson says
Khizr Khan is a lawyer who specializes in getting Muslims into this country by getting them green cards and visas. So, if Trump becomes president, his livelihood would be affected. What was his real concern, his son’s service that later Trump honored or his livelihood? He also is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood which Egypt and some other countries who obviously are more observant than our government and the media outlawed them. I still haven’t heard from our major media about his background. He claims he does not support sharia but by Freedom Outpost made observations that he thinks Islamic laws should be higher than our constitutional rights. So lets hear the truth in the media about this.
Carolyne says
I have also read somewhere that Mr. Khan had once been associated with a law firm in Washington which either had business dealings with the Clinton Foundation or perhaps were donors. This is a clear conflict of interest if he did not reveal this connection. I know it wasn’t revealed publically, but maybe this is how the Clinton bunch got him.
Karyakarta1992 says
“Holding up a pocket Koran” and quoting from it is a brilliant idea! Unfortunately, Mr. Trump’s campaign is losing the battle of ideas – failing to question the Clinton-Obama people on their de facto status as apologists for Islamic terrorism.
Hopefully, some patriotic Americans can at least enact such a scene with someone resembling Mr. Trump – and make the video go viral on social media.
Sassy says
Bad idea.
The corrupt media would have reoriented Trump’s campaign by focusing and debating the Qur’an while Hillary sails on bashing Trump.
Instead, Trump did well by ignoring the issue and simply exposing Khan for not knowing what is truly in the Constitution as well as Khan’s pedigree.
billybob says
“The … media would … [be] focusing [on] and debating the Qur’an.” Wait a minute – that’s exactly what we want them to do, and what the absolutely never do! If they did that, exposing all these violent passages, it would nearly be game over! …but never, ever, will you see the MSM question these verses, because questioning the wisdom of Allah is forbidden under (self imposed) Sharia.
William says
In this article, Mr. Fitzgerald shows how vulnerable the Islam apologists are. It is a pity that a person with the right temperament and sufficient knowledge of Islam has not been able to confront the charlatans in a very public venue. A presidential candidature would be a perfect opportunity to pull the rug from under the sand castle. (sorry for the mixed metaphors).
katherine says
Khinzir Khan had actually exposed his own vulnerability by highlighting the US Constitution. A devout Muslim would be in a quandary if asked to choose between supporting the US or Sharia laws because he’s damned either way.
It is so disappointing to see that Donald doesn’t even have the wit or perspicuity to challenge him properly giving Obama the excuse to call him an incompetent .
Debi Brand says
“It is so disappointing to see that Donald doesn’t even have the wit or perspicuity to challenge him properly giving Obama the excuse to call him an incompetent .”
Amen, katherine.
billybob says
“Trump ought to have appeared a day or two after Khan’s appearance, holding in his hand a “pocket Koran”
So many things Trump “ought to have” done, but he didn’t, because he is no politician. There is an art to politics, obviously, and it’s not all bad. We often use that word “politician” in the pejorative, when we are criticizing one of them – with words like “corrupt politicians” or “slick politician”, but that word is actually value neutral.
To be a politician is a very useful skill. We are all politicians to some extent when we learn to get along with our colleagues at work. We keep our thoughts and our personal opinions to ourselves for the most part and adopt a professional manner – if we are professionals, anyhow. We also hold our tongues. The workplace is not where you go to practise free speech. After work, however, we find outlets to say what we think and feel.
A representative of the people, on the other hand, must have a high degree of political skills, for one, just to survive in a very competitive area, where the other side is ready to destroy you with the first opening you give them. If you do survive, you have even more requirements for your political skills if you have a hope in hell of implementing your platform for your electorate. You need to win allies to your cause and break through bureaucratic barriers to get anything done.
If by some long shot miracle Trump does manage to get himself elected, do you suppose this blundering idiot can possibly build an alliance to breakthrough the barriers and actually accomplish something, while all the time taking fire on his flanks? Gimme a break – he doesn’t have a hope in hell!
common sense says
This administration already sand bagged the reality of Shariah and Islamic Jihad when they showed Robert the door and Phillip Haney as well as many others. The DHS is a tool for the Democrats and so is the national media. This would blow up in his face no pun intended.
Trump obviously does not have the oratory skills of a Gingrich or even say Marco Rubio to pull out a Koran and go that route.
Too many people would still think his priorities would be mis-placed AT best. Gonna have to win without anti Koran rhetoric. He’ll have to focus all that on ISIS and terrorist orgs in general. Anyone who wants to scrub the Islamic ‘stealth’ jihad that now chokes our govt would be wise to do so quietly.
Richard Paulsen says
By chance found an email. From democracy. org@e.mail
To all democrats.
It is forbidden for democrats to say anything bad about islam or other democrats.
Democrats ordered to talk bad and lies about Donald Trump.
Try to stop his meetings. You will be greatly rewarded.
Board of democrats.
Barook says
As a Canadian who supports Trump I just went onto his campaign website and posted this website and requested his campaign manager to read it and show it to Trump
Nigel GFF says
OT
Will the islamophobia never end?
http://suttonnick.tumblr.com/post/148803353276/fridays-telegraph-front-page-blind-eye-turned
Muslim voter fraud ignored.
Howard Kainz says
This is so dumb. Khan’s son made a heroic sacrifice. Khan himself didn’t. People now don’t “sacrifice” their children. Clinton could have been asked the same question that Trump was asked. Neither of them are notable for heroic sacrifices.
Carolyne says
Mr. and Mrs. Khan used their son’s death to advance Mr. Khan’s political agenda–importing as many Muslims as possible. They would do well to remember that Muslims killed their son. Donald Trump did not.
Angemon says
Yes, someone interested in honest discourse would. The crowd who just wants to say “Trump was schooled on the constitution by a muslim migrant”? Doubt it.
gravenimage says
*Excellent* piece. To have a Mohammedan lecturing us about the Constitution could not, indeed, be more perverse.
And questions for Khan should not just be about the Qur’an, but about his documented *support for ugly Shari’ah law*. This, from Breitbart:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/10/huffington-post-denies-khizr-khans-denialism/
This is what Khan wrote back in 1983:
“All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims”.
He also praised a contribution to a book, “Human Rights in Islam”, which included advocacy for wife-beating or the barbaric Hadood punishments, which include amputation and flogging.
David says
Yes! Kahn would have us just “scrap” the Constitution and make vicious muslums sharia the law of the land!
I’m hopeful there are still enough SANE, thinking CITIZENS who will never let that happen.
Phil says
Mrs. Khan would be better unseen as well as unheard. A niqab would look swell over those chins.
beyondculturewars says
There is one word you cannot find in the Constitution: it is SHARIA.
Carmel says
I think this is a very good idea. It would be very helpful too, if someone could print small pamphlets that one could buy for 50 cents or one dollar. I would be happy to buy one hundred of them and leave a copy in a bus , in subways , in cafés , hidden between two volumes in libraries etc…so more peoples know about basic facts in Islam such as : « Never take a non -muslim as a friend . Just pretend to.» «Taqiya : a word that means a muslim shall lie to non-muslims to deceived them ,» etc..
After a time, most of Americans would know what are muslims aims and how they operate.
Michael Copeland says
“No stronger retrograde force exissts in the world.”
Print your own Churchill on islam wallet cards:
http://www.libertygb.org.uk/news/churchill-islam-wallet-cards
STJOHNOFGRAFTON says
I agree about Trump’s missed opportunity on exposing a captive audience to those damning verses in the Koran. But then most of us are missing opportunities to show the evil verses of the Koran to others. The inherent evil is there, hidden in plain sight. Yet somehow it’s like trying to wade through waist high molasses. Most people don’t even want to try. It’s a kind of moral paralysis. The so called writing is on the wall but apparently we don’t feel threatened enough!
Carolyne says
When I have tried to explain Islam to my acquaintances, I am met with the following: “They aren’t all like that,” or “We just have to get used to it.” Many think its just another religion and their minds are closed to the truth. It is true the truth is ugly and almost unbelievable and many can’t face it. It is this attitude which has allowed a Muslim to be elected President and a woman on the payroll of Saudi Arabia to become Secretary of State and likely President.
Demsci says
Absolutely briljant article! I so hope some advisors of Trump read Jihad Watch, thus this article. And give Donald this sterling advice!
As I see it, although Khizr Khan is from a gold star family, it is HE, together with democratic partysupporters, taking his side, that opened this door.
And I for one, think that the constitution indeed is the counterpart of the Quran in a way. And juxtaposing the 2 is a very good idea.
I like the reasoning that under certain circumstances “Discrimination on ground of religion”, albeit only with heavy weighing arguments, is feasable!!
What I liked the most, is the idea that the abridged version of the Quran, containing the 109 Kuffar-hate-verses, is distributed widely and then touted and challenged!
Way to go, Hugh Fitzgerald!
RayK says
The US Constitution applies to US citizens and folks in the country legally. It does not apply to Syria, Saudi Arabia or any other country outside of the Unites States. Can you imagine the US .gov demanding that Saudi Arabia apply 5th and 8th Amendments to their courts and laws? No one in Saudi Arabia has the ‘right’ to US Constitutional protections.
L. B. Loding says
I don’t know how muck mr. Khan knows about US history, but in the past we didn’t give enemy combatants the same constitutional rights as her lawful citizens. His son committed one of the largest mass murders in modern history and mr Khan is a Hamas supporter. He can denounce his son’s actions all he wants and say he grieves for the families of the victims. But as a supporter uf Islamic Jihadists he would have to think the people his son killed in that gay nightclub deserved to die. That doesn’t exactly resonate with the DNC.
beyondculturewars says
You are confusing Capt. Khan with Orlando shooter.
Mr. Khan, as a MB/Shariah law supporter, must live with the fact that his son was killed by the people he has supported in the past. and that his son was fighting against the people he supports……
duh swami says
There are lots of ‘Gold Star’ families…Many are conservatives supporting Trump…The Nahoundian doesn’t care about them…Waving the Constitution makes him a taqiyya artist or an apostate…I doubt he is an apostate…
Donald DaCosta says
Conventional political wisdom has it that Trump should drop this issue like a hot rock. Sad, but true. No matter what Trump says, the media will parse and portray it as the reaction of an extreme, right wing, Islamophobic bigot, the unindicted, habitual felon, Hillary Clinton, will, in strident tones, proclaim that Trump doesn’t have the temperament to be POTUS and a distressingly large segment of the American voting public will have their pre-conceived, widely accepted notions validated; “Islam is a religion of peace.”
Mr. Khan, who is capitalizing on the death of his son by accusing Mr. Trump of disrespecting that sacrifice, is a political tool of the DNC and likely a hero of the clueless left and right who, 15 years after 9/11, remain ignorant of the threat posed by Islamic Jihadists. Willful blindness or the deliberate efforts of the western, politically correct “guardians of objective truth,” the so called “main stream media”?: truth and the MSM, an oxymoron if ever there was one.
Mr. Trump has joined the ranks of the real purveyors of objective truth concerning the nature and root cause of Islamic hatred for the entire infidel world, those labeled “Islamophobes,” a fictitious mental disorder, invented by Muslims, that has been extremely effective in convincing the west that any criticism of Islam or Muslims, no matter how trivial, is deserving of extreme condemnation followed by groveling, obsequious, profuse apologies far above and beyond any response or accommodation afforded any other religion.
Unless Mr. Trump is willing to take on the “impartial” intelligentsia and a largely clueless, infidel west, he’d best drop this issue and move on. I repeat, sad but true.
jewdog says
Hugh Fitzgerald should be the GOP nominee, not Trump. He would make mincemeat out of pretentious moonbats and Islamic wiseguys. Since he’s not, he should at least be drafted by the Trump team to help them out. Walid Phaes is on it – why not Hugh?
howzeyez says
hugh fitzgerald should the trumps ADVISOR and part of his administration! we MUST get trump elected or who knows what misery we will be subjected to and endure!!
Robert A. Gismondi says
The most relevant fact is this: Constitutional rights do not accrue to people outside the United States. Thus, it is Constitutional to ban some or all, at the discretion of the administration, for the good of the nation. This has been codified in federal law, and used, e.g., by Mr. Peanut AKA Jimmuh Carter, when he occupied the White House.
~~Robert A. Gismondi