BanSharia.com is a joint project of scores of influential
American patriots, subject matter experts, national security professionals and
organizations committed to our constitutional Republic, the freedoms it
guarantees and the Western civilization it underpins. We are committed to
exposing the toxic threat sharia represents to all we hold dear and preventing
its adherents from achieving their goal of imposing it – violently or
stealthily – on the rest of us.
The Anti-Constitutional Character Of Sharia
e as a country have drifted from our founding ideas,
which makes it harder to recognize and resist doctrines that clash with them.
When that happens, we risk our peace, prosperity, and even the basic framework
of our nation. With that in mind, it’s worth looking again at America’s first
principles and why they conflict with the political, military, and legal system
known as sharia.
The Founding Documents
America’s core beliefs are set out in the Declaration of Independence: all
people are created equal, with rights given by their Creator. Government exists
to secure those rights, and its power comes from the consent of the governed.
The Constitution follows through on that promise: “to secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Crucially, “We the People” created the Constitution. The people, acting
together, chose a system designed to protect natural rights and personal
liberty. That system rests on both reason and faith, without letting government
dictate religious truth or letting religion dictate civil law. It’s a framework
built to let reason and revelation coexist without either ruling the other.
Separation of Church and State
Our separation of church and state reflects that balance. It’s not hostility
to faith; it’s a safeguard for both faith and freedom. Thomas Jefferson’s
Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty expressed the idea plainly: God created
the mind free, and attempts to control belief by force only produce hypocrisy
and harm. In practice, this means the state doesn’t coerce belief, and
religious authority doesn’t control the state.
Tolerance in America Versus the Quran
American liberty depends on mutual tolerance — but it was never meant to
tolerate totalitarian systems that aim to suppress basic rights. Sharia, taken
as a comprehensive political-legal program, presents itself as a system to
govern all aspects of life under divine rule. By that standard, the mind is not
free; it is bound to a legal code claimed to be God’s will. That starting point
clashes with the American premise that individuals possess natural rights the
government must protect.
Intolerance towards Apostates
One sharp conflict concerns apostasy. Core texts cited for sharia include
commands to kill those who leave the faith. Such rules cannot be squared with
the Constitution’s protections for life, liberty, due process, and free
conscience. And this is just one example; many features of sharia’s legal
program are at odds with constitutional limits and guarantees.
Professionally, anyone responsible for national security or public office
should understand opposing doctrines. If a doctrine is incompatible with the
Constitution, officials sworn to uphold that Constitution must recognize and
defend against it.
The Founders and Islam
America’s earliest leaders grasped these issues. When Thomas Jefferson and
John Adams dealt with North African states demanding tribute, they asked why
war was justified against nations that had done no harm. The answer they
received referenced religious law and a duty to fight non-submitting nations.
Jefferson studied the Quran to understand the claims driving that policy and
resolved that America would pay for defense, not tribute.
John Quincy Adams later wrote at length about enduring institutions within
Islamic law, including concepts of jihad and subordinate status for conquered
peoples. His point was not to inflame, but to make clear that systems built on
religious supremacy and perpetual struggle stand in deep tension with a
constitutional order built on equal rights, consent, and limited government.
In short, the problem isn’t a “radical” offshoot set against a benign
mainstream. The conflict arises wherever sharia is advanced as a supreme
political-legal code. That puts it on a collision course with the Constitution.
This has practical consequences. The Constitution is the supreme law of the
land. No competing legal code can be slipped into our system — openly or
quietly — without violating that principle. Those who would impose a foreign
legal code in place of the Constitution cannot honestly swear an oath to
support and defend it. And advocating violent or subversive action to replace
our constitutional government is a matter for criminal law.
America’s tradition is generous and welcoming — on a reciprocal basis. We
should not let buzzwords like “diversity” or “inclusion” be turned into tools
to undermine the liberties that make diversity and inclusion possible in the
first place. In the past, we didn’t pretend Nazi ideology fit alongside
American principles. We recognized the contradiction and acted accordingly. We
should be just as clear-eyed today.
The key texts that define sharia’s claims are readily available in English.
There’s no excuse for public leaders to be ignorant of doctrines promoted by sharia-adherent
organizations or by violent groups alike. Given sharia’s intolerance toward
dissenters and disfavored groups, and its claim to legal supremacy, the
conclusion is straightforward: sharia as a political-legal program is
incompatible with the United States Constitution.
