Sharia Over Constitution: Muslim CIA Analyst Betrays America, Media and Government Cover for Islam (Video)

The Asif William Rahman case is a wake-up call America cannot afford to ignore. Rahman, a 34-year-old CIA analyst accused of leaking highly classified information about Israel’s military operations to Iran, represents not just a betrayal of trust but a glaring ideological threat that has infiltrated our most sensitive institutions.

Rahman was born on September 18, 1990, and raised in privilege. After graduating high school in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he was valedictorian, he fast-tracked through Yale University, earning his degree in just three years. Before his arrest, Rahman lived comfortably in Vienna, Virginia, with his wife while also benefiting from access to a multimillion-dollar family trust. Yet this gilded Democrat upbringing and elite education were not enough to tether his loyalty to the nation that had entrusted him with its secrets.

Instead, Rahman allegedly chose to side with America’s adversaries. Prosecutors revealed that his leaked intelligence delayed an Israeli military strike on Iran, risking not only the lives of America’s closest ally but destabilizing an already volatile Middle East. Rahman was arrested in Cambodia—where he worked at the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh—carrying encrypted notes and information related to U.S. missile capabilities. One of his “to-do” lists even contained chilling categories labeled “contingencies” and “run.”

Despite overwhelming evidence, the government and media have continued to whitewash Rahman’s ideology. Prosecutor Troy Edwards stated that Rahman acted out of “ideological motivation” yet refused to name that ideology. It’s no mystery, however, what motivated Rahman. Islam, and specifically Sharia law, dictates a higher allegiance to the global ummah (Muslim community) than to any man-made law, including the U.S. Constitution.

This case is not an anomaly—it is a symptom of America’s willful blindness to the conflict between Islam and our foundational values. Rahman’s alleged betrayal proves what should be painfully obvious: no devout Muslim can adhere to Sharia while simultaneously upholding the Constitution.

Islam’s Inherent Incompatibility with American Law

Islamic doctrine, as laid out in the Quran, hadiths, and centuries of Islamic jurisprudence, is unambiguous. Sharia is considered divine, rendering it superior to all man-made laws, including the U.S. Constitution. Article VI of our Constitution declares itself the supreme law of the land. This presents an obvious and irreconcilable conflict for any devout Muslim seeking a position of authority in our government, military, or law enforcement agencies.

Sharia is Islamic law. It is the religious legal system that governs the political, social, and moral duties of faithful Muslims. It is what is meant by “God’s Law.” Sharia is based on the Sunnah—the way of life of Muhammad as recorded in the Hadith (traditions). It is an organized body of rules derived from various Quran verses and historical narrations.

Sharia is not optional; it is prescribed for believers (Quran 5:48). Although Muslims as individuals often decide which parts to follow or ignore, the Quran (33:36) states that it is not fitting for a believer to disregard any matter already decided by Allah.

Does a devout Muslim renounce the supremacy of Sharia? Do they reject jihad, the very mechanism by which Sharia is to dominate? Likewise, a government that limits God’s Law in any way is considered an enemy of Allah and must be fought. The establishment of Sharia is a fundamental objective of every Islamic terror group. Once an Islamic state is in place, the Quran (9:29) and Sharia (o9.8) mandate Muslims to fight Jews and Christians who will not convert or accept inferior status.

This reality is intentionally obscured by proponents of Sharia in the West, who hide behind religion to only expose benign personal rules, such as those dealing with prayer or hygiene. This deceptive tactic paints critics as religious bigots while deflecting from Sharia’s inherently oppressive and violent nature.

In fact, Sharia explicitly opposes religious freedom, freedom of conscience, and the free exchange of ideas. It is violent, openly bigoted toward non-Muslims, discriminatory, and unflinchingly sexist. Large sections codify slavery, a reality ignored by Western apologists who attach a “phobia” label to anyone daring to highlight these truths.

These are not abstract philosophical questions. These are critical matters of national security and sovereignty. These are the questions we must demand answers to when Muslims are granted access to America’s most sensitive institutions.

The Asif Rahman Case: A Lesson in Naïveté

Rahman, despite having been entrusted with safeguarding American intelligence, allegedly chose to betray this nation by leaking information about an Israeli strike on Iran. If true, his ideology outweighed his oath to protect America. Prosecutors revealed that Rahman’s actions posed a “danger to human life” and caused Israel to delay its planned attack on Iran, further destabilizing an already volatile Middle East.

Rahman, who was arrested in Cambodia where he worked at the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh, had in his possession “eight pages of notes,” including two separate “to-do” lists. One contained encrypted text and an unencrypted line referencing U.S. missile capabilities. Another list, disturbingly, included categories labeled “contingencies” and “run.” Prosecutors stated the encryption has not yet been deciphered, raising concerns about what additional information Rahman might have concealed.

Further troubling details emerged when court discussions revealed that Rahman allegedly leaked documents from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, disclosing Israel’s military assets in October. This leak followed Iran’s missile attack on Israel, where Iran launched 200 ballistic missiles. Israel’s counterattack was delayed, jeopardizing their national security and potentially costing lives.

The government must confront an undeniable reality: For Muslims who adhere to their faith, loyalty to the global Islamic ummah (community) and the mandates of Sharia can, and often do, take precedence over allegiance to America. This is not bigotry; this is doctrinal fact.

This case is not isolated. Organizations such as the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) openly propagate the idea that Muslims should reject secular legal systems and prioritize Sharia.

Despite the gravity of this betrayal, Western media—including so-called “conservative” outlets like Fox News—refuse to discuss the central issue: Rahman’s adherence to Islam and how Islamic doctrine, specifically Sharia, conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. The media’s silence is either willful ignorance or a deliberate whitewashing of an ideological threat that undermines national security. A Fox News report covering the Rahman case failed to even mention his religion, sidestepping the uncomfortable yet critical discussion of loyalty and doctrine.

Questions That Must Be Answered

If a Muslim seeks a position in our government or law enforcement, the American people have the right to ask critical questions:

1. Do you affirm and adhere to Islamic doctrine?
   • Sharia demands supremacy over all human-made systems, including the Constitution. Will you renounce this?
2. Do you reject jihad?
   • Jihad is central to the spread of Sharia. Will you denounce it unequivocally?
3. Where does your loyalty lie?
   • Do you prioritize the U.S. Constitution over the Quran and the mandates of Sharia?
4. Do you defend America’s First Amendment freedoms?
   • Will you uphold the right of every American to criticize your prophet Muhammad without fear of retribution or violence? Will you condemn any Muslim who threatens harm over this exercise of free speech?
5. Do you accept equality under American law?
   • Islam teaches that the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man and endorses brutal punishments such as amputations for theft. Will you reject these barbaric laws in favor of our Constitution and its prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment?
6. What role should sharia play in America?
   • Will you enforce U.S. antiterrorism laws, even when the accused are fellow Muslims? Will you support American laws over sharia-inspired rulings?

No Place for Sharia Adherents in Government

Consider this: The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), a leading Islamic authority in the U.S., has explicitly stated that Muslims should not work in American law enforcement because they cannot enforce man-made laws. They also call for Muslims to reject and be displeased with any legal system that does not derive from Allah.

AMJA’s 2008 fatwa made this position abundantly clear: “There are many evils which result from working in law enforcement, the greatest of which is compelling people to obey rulings which do not come from Allah.” AMJA further warned that such positions might cause Muslims to develop “reverence and love” for secular laws, jeopardizing their conviction in Sharia.

The fatwa goes even further. AMJA explicitly forbids Muslims from working for organizations like the FBI or in national security positions, accusing such agencies of unfairly targeting Muslims for their religious beliefs or charitable activities—an obvious reference to counterterrorism investigations.

If organizations like AMJA, which are deeply influential in the American Muslim community, openly discourage participation in secular law enforcement, how can we trust Muslims in these roles? The potential for ideological conflict is too great.

America Cannot Continue This Dangerous Experiment

It is time to end the politically correct charade that allows Islam to infiltrate the highest levels of American governance. The Constitution demands allegiance, yet Islamic doctrine explicitly forbids loyalty to any system outside of Sharia. The two are incompatible.

The Rahman case reveals not only betrayal but also the potential consequences of unchecked access to national secrets. His actions disrupted military plans in the Middle East and endangered lives. This is not an anomaly; this is a pattern enabled by ideological blindness and refusal to confront uncomfortable truths.

AMJA’s fatwas also make clear that Muslims are to seek every legal means to advance Sharia within non-Islamic countries. The duty to make Islam supreme, they argue, supersedes even the preservation of one’s life. “If saving [the individual’s] life destroys Islam, then saving Islam comes first, even if it means the individual is destroyed.

The American people must demand transparency and accountability. Muslim candidates for government, military, or law enforcement positions must be questioned rigorously. We must ensure their beliefs and loyalties align unequivocally with the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. Anything less is a betrayal of this nation’s security and values.

America is at a Crossroads

Will we uphold the supremacy of our Constitution, or will we allow Sharia’s quiet encroachment to undermine everything we hold sacred? The facts of the Rahman case—and AMJA’s fatwas—leave no room for denial. No matter how outwardly integrated or successful a religiously adherent Muslim appears—attending America’s best schools, working in the highest levels of government—their ultimate allegiance lies not with the nation they reside in but with the global Islamic ummah. Rahman’s betrayal is proof that loyalty to Islam supersedes all else. The choice is clear and must be made before it’s too late.