Barack Obama told Muslims in Cairo, Egypt in 2009, "When the first Muslim was recently elected in Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the Holy Qur'an." So ask yourself this question as we progress down our path, "How can anyone swear to defend the Constitution upon a book that espouses just the opposite?

At the end of the day, I see some major problems with anyone who makes a claim they are a Muslim and say that they intend to protect the Constitution.

Take for example, that   the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, however Islamic Law enforces what is called a "dhimmi" status upon all non-Muslims. This "law" prohibits Christians, Jews, and other religious persons from observing any of their religious practices publicly. Those are things like ringing Church bells, saying anything in public during Islamic prayers, or even saying anything that Muslims would consider insulting to Islam.

The First Amendment also states that the Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But Mohammed clearly said, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." (Quoted from the Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, No. 57.) The Hadith are sayings of Mohammed as recorded by his wives, relatives and warriors. The Hadith is considered to be the most sacred of Islamic writings, second only to the Qur'an. Under the Haddith, non-Muslims are relegated to a "dhimmi" status, meaning they cannot practice their faith among Muslims or display religious symbols such as a cross or crucifix.

Further, the First Amendment states, Congress cannot take away "the right of the people to peaceably assemble." However, Islamic Law states that non-Muslims cannot even repair their places of worship, or build new ones. However, under Islamic law, they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings. That law also states a non-Muslim cannot bring their dead near a Muslim graveyard nor even mourn their dead publicly.

Going further, the First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" but Islamic law as contained in the Qur'an states that non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or even give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic officials.

Take the Second Amendment which states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But Islamic law says that non-Muslims cannot possess weapons of any kind, which would include daggers, swords, and knives.

Then consider the Third Amendment stating one cannot be forced to "quarter" someone in their house. But Islamic law clearly states non-Muslims must entertain and feed any Muslim who wants to stay in their house for up to three days.

The Fourth Amendment states and guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." But Islamic law states in their day that if a non-Muslim rides on a horse, the horse can be taken away.

Then there is the Fifth Amendment guaranteeing that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime...without due process of law." But Mohammed said, "No Muslim shall be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel, or non-Muslim)." (Seen in the Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, No. 50)

How about the Sixth Amendment which guarantees "a public trial by an impartial jury" and the Seventh Amendment stating "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." But Islamic Law does not allow non-Muslims equal treatment or standing under the law, going so far as to prohibit a non-Muslim from testifying against a Muslim.

Then there is the Eighth Amendment stating there will be "no cruel and unusual punishments inflicted," But the Qur'an clearly states: "Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done - a deterrent from Allah." (Sura 5:38) It is also interesting that some victims receive cruel punishment, "A woman who has been raped is also punished 'with a hundred stripes.'" (Sura 24:2)

The Thirteenth Amendment clearly states "there will be no slavery or involuntary servitude." The Qur'an openly teaches slavery, even as Mohammed owned slaves.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizens "equal protection of the laws." The Qur'an does not see equality of Muslims and non-Muslims.

Then there is the Fifteenth Amendment which provides guarantee of "the right of the citizens...to vote shall not be denied...on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Islamic Law as interpreted strictly prohibits voting since that is viewed as an individual trying to take the place of Allah by making laws.

The Nineteenth Amendment allows women the right to vote. But in Islamic Law, women are forbidden from voting.

The Twenty-First Amendment allows liquor sales. Islamic law prohibits non-Muslims from selling or drinking liquor openly.

When one views the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the life of Mohammed in light of our U.S. Constitution, it is no wonder the Founders and/or Framers said Islam should have no part in the founding of America. One is left with the question, why would anyone turn over our Constitution to anyone who professes faith in the Qur'an or proclaims to be a Muslim. To do so is equal to giving permission for treason to be committed. For at the end of day, listening to the message of Al Qaida's and ISIS's leaders you understand that they see their old defeats (such as Tripoli in the early 19^th Century) in a very personal and contemporary way. They are in a long war against America and our Constitution, even if we don't know it. And they are committed to winning that war.