The remarks I excerpted are remarks made by Mr. Con himself. Whether there were other remarks that disassociated him from what the words mean might be a question, but the quotes attributed to him in the Breitbart article indicate he is all in for Sharia being the supreme law any and everywhere.
Unless someone can show where Con flatly rejects any idea that Sharia should be superior to the law in the US and other non-Muslim nations, then he absolutely believes there should be "No man's law above Allah's law".
Yes, he is the author, no question.
Do the remarks reflect how adherents to Sharia see Sharia? Absolutely.
In my mind, the leap is that a person who accurately describes Sharia also holds that Sharia and Western law are compatible, or that a person who accurately describes Sharia also advocates that Sharia be implemented in the US.
Not that our debate matters - I don't like old man Khan's immigration-related activity and advocacy, and the question about whether or not he is secretly advancing Sharia in the US won't have any play at all in closing the Trump/Khan dispute, let alone in the election.
You and I disagree on the narrow point of Khan being a secret advocate for implementing Sharia in the US. I've expressed how I view the evidence (his words are a reasonably accurate scholarly work, not an expression of his personal point of view), and I understand that others disagree, and view his words as advocacy.