Order Robert Spencer’s new book, Holy Hell: Islam’s Abuse of Women and the Infidels Who Enable It: HERE.

An Islamic jihadi just shattered the standard leftist view of Sharia. Not that any leftist will notice, or adjust his view so that it accords with reality.

Last week, when I testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government about Sharia, the Democrats present were dismissive of the idea that there was any problem with Sharia at all. Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), and Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) insisted that Sharia is purely private religious law, and likening it more than once to Project 2025 as they attempted to shift the focus to the alleged misdeeds of the Trump administration in enforcing immigration law.

And despite the fact that several of the other witnesses and I offered evidence showing that Sharia is actually political, supremacist, violent, and expansionary, they no doubt went away thinking that. After all, they’re not going to take the word of “right-wing Islamophobes,” no matter how well substantiated.

The information about Sharia that leftists would do well to ponder, but won’t, came out during the interrogation of a jihadi who was being questioned over a terror plot. ABC.net.au reported Saturday that “a UK court has jailed two men for life for planning an Islamic State-inspired gun attack on a Jewish gathering in northern England.” The two men, Walid Saadaoui and Amar Hussein, “were arrested in May 2024, intended to target an antisemitism march in Manchester before killing more Jews in the northern English city.”

This was an extremely serious plot. “Judge Michael Wall told the defendants that if the plot had succeeded, it would ‘likely have been one of the deadliest terror attacks ever carried out on British soil.’”

However, Saadaoui and Hussein couldn’t carry out the massacre of their dreams, as their loose lips sank their ship: “Police thwarted their plans, hatched between December 2023 and May 2024, after the pair revealed them to an undercover operative posing as a like-minded extremist who could help import weapons.”

As it turns out, these jihadis had links to the Islamic State (ISIS): “During the pair’s trial last year, the court was told that Saadaoui hero-worshipped Abdelhamid Abaaoud, an Islamic State recruiter and ringleader for the November 2015 Paris attacks in which 130 people were massacred.”

Video of his interrogation shows Amar Hussein admitting to being a member of ISIS, and saying: “They are Muslim. That’s it. They are Muslim.” It is striking to see a jihadi affirm what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and David Cameron and so very many other politicians who were on the scene during the heyday of ISIS confidently denied before the world: that the Islamic State had anything to do with Islam.

The witless interviewer then asks him: “What is it about them that you support?” Hussein answers: “They are Muslim. They make Sharia. Yeah. They make Sharia. Yes.” Another interviewer then asks, “Is there a difference between ISIS and some other people who say they’re Muslims?” Hussein answers: “Yeah, they are all Muslims, they are hypocrite, but ISIS, they are real Muslim. They make Sharia.”

Authorities all over the West will ignore this. None, not one, will ponder its implications or do any research to try to determine whether or not what Hussein says is true. And they act this way to the detriment of their citizens.

It would have been interesting if somehow Amar Hussein could have been brought in to testify about Sharia to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government. Then the world would have been treated to the spectacle of these non-Muslim leftist congress members, Raskin, Scanlon, and Cohen, lecturing a man who was ready to die for Islam about how he was misunderstanding his religion, and how it’s actually a religion of peace. Hussein would have almost certainly responded with the contempt that such fantasies deserve, and it would have been time to grab some popcorn.

Unfortunately, Amar Hussein will not be testifying before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government. Savvy American intelligence and law enforcement officials, however, would do well to ponder his word and consider their implications. The future of the U.S. as a free society could depend on it.