...
By Faisal Kutty
Lawyer and Law Professor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
As Texas Republican candidates for Congress crisscross the state ahead of the 2026 primaries, they spread a familiar warning on the campaign trail: America is under threat from “Sharia law.” At the same time, lawmakers in Washington are holding congressional hearings on whether Islamic legal principles are “incompatible” with the Constitution. These developments mark the return of a long-discredited political narrative—one that resurfaces every few election cycles despite having no basis in law.
Earlier this month, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government convened a hearing titled “Sharia-Free America: Why Political Islam & Sharia Law Are Incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.” Witnesses were called to testify about alleged efforts to establish “alternative” Islamic legal systems in the United States. Meanwhile, in Texas, Republican candidates such as Sen. John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton have revived warnings about an imagined “Sharia takeover,” echoing rhetoric that first gained traction in the early 2010s.
...
Read More on Opinion
Then, as now, these claims are framed as defenses of American values. Then, as now, they are legally baseless.
There is no credible evidence—none—that American courts are being overtaken by Islamic law. U.S. judges are bound by the Constitution, statutes and precedent. Religious rules, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or otherwise, have no independent authority in American courts. They never have. They never will.
American courts have long recognized that individuals may organize aspects of their private lives according to religious principles—through arbitration agreements, family arrangements or internal governance—so long as the outcome complies with civil law. A Jewish couple may consult a rabbinical court. A Catholic institution may follow church doctrine. A Muslim family may seek religious guidance. None of this replaces American law. All of it remains subject to judicial review. Courts enforce outcomes, not theology.
When religious practices conflict with public policy, constitutional rights or statutory requirements, they are rejected. This principle has been applied consistently across religious traditions. The idea that Islamic law enjoys special deference—or is displacing constitutional authority—is simply false.
Yet despite this reality, “Sharia bans” and “foreign law” prohibitions have proliferated across the country. Presented as safeguards, they address a problem that did not exist. Courts were already prohibited from enforcing any law—foreign or domestic—that violated constitutional rights. These statutes added nothing of legal substance.
What these laws added instead was a signal of suspicion toward a particular community. They treated Muslim identity as inherently suspect. And they suggested—without evidence—that Muslim Americans were seeking to undermine the legal system. That is not neutral governance. It is identity-based legislation.
The recent House hearing underscored those concerns. Professor Ilya Somin of George Mason University testified that proposed “Sharia-free” legislation would be “manifestly unconstitutional,” warning that it would violate the First Amendment’s protections for religious freedom and expression. He emphasized that most Muslim immigrants pose no threat and that such laws would weaken constitutional norms. Others echoed this view.
Despite these warnings, lawmakers pressed forward.
The persistence of this rhetoric reflects the utility of cultural panic in today's politics. Abstract threats are easier to sustain than concrete ones. They are emotionally powerful and difficult to disprove in soundbites. They allow candidates to signal cultural allegiance without addressing substantive policy challenges. And they mobilize fear without requiring factual support.
“Sharia” has become less a reference to any actual legal system than a shorthand for anxiety about demographic and cultural change. That is not a theological issue. It is a constitutional one.
The consequences are not theoretical. Last week, Representative Randy Fine (R-Fla.) wrote on X, “the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.” The comment drew bipartisan criticism. Supporters said Fine was reacting to a provocative remark by a Muslim activist who referred to certain Islamic scholars' consideration of dogs as unclean. Context matters, but it does not justify collapsing an entire faith tradition—followed by more than two billion people worldwide and millions of Americans—into a caricature.
The controversy reveals how frequently Islam is treated as a single, fixed doctrine rather than a diverse tradition. American political discourse routinely treats the most rigid interpretation on any given issue as definitive of all of Islam—allowing critics to condemn the religion wholesale and extremists to claim exclusive authority. Both reinforce the same fiction: that Islam speaks in one voice.
When elected officials adopt that logic, they tacitly accept the premise behind “Sharia bans” and loyalty tests—that the faith itself is suspect. The First Amendment protects offensive speech. But dehumanization by public officials corrodes the civic foundations of pluralism.
The First Amendment requires government neutrality toward religion. Laws that single out one faith undermine that principle. They invite the state to define orthodoxy and police belief—precisely what the Constitution forbids.
History offers sobering parallels. Catholics, Jews and Mormons were once portrayed as incompatible with American law. Each group was accused of divided loyalty. Each accusation proved unfounded, but inflicted lasting harm.
The “Sharia threat” narrative follows the same pattern.
What is being tested today is not whether American law can withstand Islamic principles. It already has, for more than two centuries. The real test is whether constitutional norms can withstand permanent culture-war politics.
The return of the “Sharia threat” is not a sign of legal vulnerability. It is a sign of political insecurity. A confident legal system does not need scapegoats. A resilient Constitution does not require loyalty tests. And a free society does not preserve itself by targeting minorities.
Faisal Kutty is a Toronto-based lawyer, law professor, and frequent contributor to The Toronto Star.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines