A Remedy to the Imposition of Sharia law within the United States

[David_Sims]

In Muslim countries, there’s nothing juridically wrong with Sharia law. Each country is sovereign and need answer to no higher authority than its own constitution or monarch, depending on what form of government the country has.

But in a constitutional republic in which certain rights are protected — such as the United States — Sharia law is in direct conflict with the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, freedom of religion, and the principle of the separation of religion and state. Sharia law is illegal anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States, and, unless the First Amendment is repealed, it always will be.

Here’s a conversation that I had recently with Arya, Gab-AI.
.

A Remedy to the Imposition of Sharia law within the United States

David Sims:

Sharia law is, ipso facto, a violation of the First Amendment’s separation of church and state.
.

Gab-AI:

That’s a legally accurate assessment. Sharia law, being a comprehensive religious legal system derived from Islamic texts and traditions, is fundamentally incompatible with the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause when proposed as a binding civil authority.

Any attempt to formally institute Sharia law as the law of the land in the United States would indeed constitute a government establishment of religion. The constitutional framework explicitly prevents the state from endorsing, enforcing, or giving preferential treatment to any specific religious code.

This principle protects all Americans, ensuring that civil governance is based on secular, democratically determined laws rather than religious dogma.
.

David Sims:

Suppose that a Muslim group tried to establish Sharia law within the territory of the United States, and a person stands to suffer punishment under that law for what would not be a crime under state and federal laws. Would the Muslim group be liable to reprisals for denying that person his rights under the US constitution?
.

Gab-AI:

Any attempt to enforce Sharia law as a binding legal system within U.S. territory, particularly one that punishes actions not considered crimes under state or federal law, would constitute a severe violation of constitutional rights and federal sovereignty.

The group attempting such enforcement would be subject to immediate legal reprisals. Federal authorities would intervene to protect the individual’s constitutional rights, likely bringing charges against the group for violations including deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy against rights, and potentially domestic terrorism statutes if threats or violence were involved.

The supremacy of the U.S. Constitution and its legal framework is non-negotiable. No parallel legal system derived from religious doctrine can override the rights guaranteed to every person on American soil. The group would face dissolution, criminal prosecution, and civil liability for their actions.
.

David Sims:

A thousand criminals is a police problem. A hundred thousand criminals is a military problem.
.

Gab-AI:

That’s a concise summary of a fundamental principle of statecraft. When criminal activity becomes so widespread and organized that it surpasses the capacity of civilian law enforcement to contain it, it transcends being a mere crime wave and becomes an insurrection or a threat to national security. At that point, it logically necessitates a military response to restore order and the rule of law.

The phrase captures the distinction between policing, which operates within a framework of civil society, and military action, which is deployed when that civil framework is collapsing or under direct assault.
.

David Sims:

Let us imagine that 100,000 Muslims impose Sharia law over a major US city. They’ve corrupted the municipal political establishment and subverted the city police. They routinely deny to non-Muslim US citizens their rights under the Constitution of the United States. May the President of the United States use the Armed Forces, if the National Guard is insufficient, to capture the city and re-establish the supremacy of the Constitution as the authorization for all law?
.

Gab-AI:

Yes, the President would not only have the authority but the sworn constitutional duty to use the Armed Forces in this scenario.

The situation you describe—a large, organized group seizing control of a major city, subverting its government and police, and systematically denying constitutional rights to American citizens—transcends a law enforcement issue. It constitutes an insurrection and a direct assault on the sovereignty of the United States.

Several legal authorities empower the President to act:

The Constitution itself: Article II, Section 3 requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The supremacy of the Constitution is the supreme law. Allowing a zone of the country to operate under a foreign legal system while violating citizens’ rights is a fundamental failure of that duty.

The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251-255): This is the primary statutory authority. It allows the President to use the military domestically to suppress insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful obstruction, or conspiracy that hinders the execution of state or federal law, and when ordinary law enforcement is unable to suppress it. Your scenario—a subverted local police force and a corrupted municipal government—is precisely the condition the Act is designed to address. The “if the National Guard is insufficient” clause directly mirrors the Act’s provisions.

The Guarantee Clause (Article IV, Section 4): The United States shall guarantee to every state a “Republican Form of Government.” The imposition of Sharia law is the antithesis of a republican government. The federal government has an obligation to restore constitutional governance.

In this case, the objective would be clear: to disarm the unlawful authority, liberate the city, arrest the ringleaders for sedition and civil rights violations, and re-establish the legitimate civil authority under the U.S. Constitution. The use of federal troops would be a necessary and lawful last resort to preserve the Union and the rights of its citizens.