When Doctrine Meets Denial: What Congress Heard – and Refused to Hear – About Sharia

The February 10 subcommittee hearing on ‘Sharia Law’ in America offered a rare moment inside a Western legislature. For once, panelists examined Islam’s own legal texts and institutional authorities, and described the consequences of those doctrines, visible across the Islamic world and now increasingly evident in Europe.

And yet, just as clearly, the hearing exposed something else: a determined resistance by some elected officials to engage with the doctrine.

In what should be a bipartisan issue of equal concern to all, Congressman Raskin stated:

• “Let’s say someone proposes that all public schools and government offices should post the core principles of Sharia law WHICH I DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE EXACTLY and I looked online and there were like four or five different versions but let’s take one which said protecting religion, life, family, intellect, property and wealth. Another one said, ‘Protecting honesty, trustworthiness, mercy, humility, moderation, and honouring promises.’ BUT WHATEVER IT IS….”

This admission highlights both the historical and doctrinal blind spot that has followed Western thinking from the beginning. Even Thomas Jefferson, who owned an English translation of the Koran, had access only to the text itself, not to the hadith collections, classical sharia manuals, and centuries of jurisprudence that transform those verses into a comprehensive system of law, governance, punishment, taxation, and supremacy. His defense of religious freedom was built around freedom of conscience and private belief, not the accommodation of a parallel legal order claiming authority over the state.

Today’s legislators operate with even less understanding than Jefferson had, openly conceding they do not know what sharia is, while reflexively defending it under the undefined category of “religion.” This failure to define religion, and to distinguish belief from governing law, sits at the heart of Western institutional paralysis.

Sharia as Law, Not Lifestyle

The panelists who testified presented Sharia not as a set of personal religious customs, but as a comprehensive legal and political system that governs society, enforces hierarchy, and advances supremacy. Their testimony aligned with what Islamic jurisprudence itself states plainly. Sharia is law. It is governance. It is not merely prayer, fasting, or private spirituality and it is enforceable by its members.

As Islamic doctrine itself makes clear:

• ‘He who amongst you sees something abominable [not sharia] should modify it with the help of his hand; and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should do it with his tongue, and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should (abhor it) from his heart, and that is the least of faith.’ (Muslim 49a)

Robert Spencer opened by dismantling the now standard talking point that Sharia is simply a Muslim version of Jewish dietary law or Christian moral teaching. He explained that authoritative Islamic law manuals, endorsed by major Islamic institutions, describe Sharia as a complete system regulating warfare, governance, social hierarchy, punishment, and expansion. These are the core doctrines of traditional Islamic jurisprudence.

Among those doctrines is the legal obligation of jihad:

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims”, and is a “communal obligation” (Reliance of the Traveller, a Classic Manual of Islamic law o9.0)

This obligation extends beyond combat to the expansion of Islamic dominion itself:

• Koran 4:100 He who emigrates (from his home) in the Cause of Allah, will find on earth many dwelling places and plenty to live by.

• Koran 9:33 It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it.

Spencer also addressed the deliberate misinformation campaign that portrays Sharia as harmless personal observance. Advocacy organizations routinely reduce it to prayer, charity, and fasting, while omitting its political, supremacist, and coercive dimensions. If that portrayal were accurate, he noted, no one would object. The problem is that it is false.

Mr. Gele focused on the growing infiltration of foreign legal systems into Western courts through arbitration and treaty mechanisms. Sharia based rulings are already being enforced indirectly, particularly in civil and family law. Standardized state laws increasingly treat foreign court judgments as equivalent to domestic rulings, sometimes without constitutional safeguards. This creates a backdoor through which parallel legal systems can override fundamental rights.

He further detailed how Sharia tribunals now operate openly across Europe and the United States. Disputes, especially within families, are routinely routed into religious arbitration structures embedded in Islamic marriage contracts. Custody decisions are frequently determined by age rather than the best interests of the child, and protections normally guaranteed under Western law are ignored. These proceedings rarely receive public scrutiny and often become visible only when appealed to higher courts. In practice, those most affected — women and children — are deprived of the protections Western legal systems are designed to provide.

One of the most detailed warnings came from Ms. Schild, who described what she called a decades long strategy of institutional expansion already underway in Texas. She noted that more than 330 mosques now operate across the state, which Islamic leaders themselves have described as “infrastructure” or, in the words of Turkish president Erdogan, “our barracks.” Alongside them are at least 650 Islamic nonprofit organizations channeling influence, dozens of Islamic scholars and banks promoting Sharia compliant finance, and more than four billion dollars in taxpayer funds routed to Islamic entities since 2017.

She warned that Islamic leaders openly advocate the implementation of Sharia, including punishments such as amputation and execution for homosexuality, while aggressive conversion campaigns have entered public schools without parental consent to distribute Korans, pamphlets, and hijabs to children. She cited the East Plano Islamic Center’s massive development project, now rebranded as “The Meadows,” led by an imam who has called Jews and Christians “the most evil of all evils” and openly calls for Islamic theocracy over democracy. According to her testimony, these developments are already producing no go zones and active Sharia courts.

In the most recent legislative session, two Pakistani born representatives introduced more than twenty bills advancing Sharia aligned policies, including mandating halal food in schools, establishing Muslim Heritage Month, and proposing “Islamophobia” censorship laws aimed at silencing critics. She further described existing Sharia enforcement through patrols pressuring Muslim businesses to conform, imams reprimanding Muslims for interacting with Christians, and families imposing violent punishments on those who refuse submission. Individuals who refuse to comply with Islamic rulings may face intimidation, coercion, even violence and death.

Together, the panel painted a clear picture: Sharia is not a lifestyle choice. It is a functioning legal system that increasingly operates alongside Western law.

Chairman Chip Roy: panelists inset

Then Came the Pushback

The most striking opposition came from Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee, who dismissed the premise of the hearing almost entirely. He repeatedly framed Sharia as nothing more than personal religious observance, comparable to Catholic canon law or Jewish tradition. According to his portrayal, Sharia governs prayer, clothing, food, marriage, and fasting — and nothing more.

This assertion directly contradicted the evidence presented moments earlier.

Cohen went further, accusing those raising concerns of demonizing Muslims for political gain. He argued that proposed legislative efforts addressing Sharia would violate the Constitution’s religious freedom protections. He suggested that the hearing itself was little more than scapegoating.

Rather than engage the substance of the doctrine and evidence provided, Cohen introduced moral equivalence arguments — that extremists exist in every ideology, religious or secular. Most notably, he attempted to discredit Spencer personally by invoking a Norwegian mass murderer who had once quoted Spencer’s work, implying that discussing Islamic doctrine fuels violence.

It was a familiar tactic: avoid the doctrine, attack the messenger.

Spencer calmly responded that citing someone who misused information does not invalidate the truth of the information itself. Islamic law’s own texts and institutions define its scope, not the actions of a criminal.

DISCUSSION

What became increasingly clear as the hearing unfolded was that the conflict was not about constitutional law. It was about whether Islamic doctrine itself would be acknowledged honestly.

On one side were witnesses presenting Sharia exactly as classical jurisprudence defines it — a comprehensive socio political legal system. On the other was a political insistence on reducing it to harmless religious practice, despite overwhelming doctrinal evidence to the contrary.

Several Republican congressmen engaged the witnesses seriously, pressing for concrete legal encroachments: Sharia based arbitration, foreign court rulings upheld in Western systems, and the risks posed by parallel legal systems. Examples from Europe illustrated how such systems, once tolerated, expand steadily.

Yet the opposing narrative never shifted. Sharia was continuously reframed as personal faith. Any attempt to discuss its legal authority was labelled fearmongering.

This exchange captured the central problem facing Western democracies today.

Islam does not advance primarily through violence. It advances through denial of its own doctrine by those charged with governing.

What remained largely unaddressed during the hearing, however, were several foundational elements of Islamic doctrine that explain why Sharia cannot be separated from Islam, and why attempts to treat it as mere religious custom consistently fail.

Sharia is not an optional interpretation layered onto Islam. It is the manifestation of Islam in legal form and is inseparable from it. The Koran itself states, “We put you, O Mohammed, on an ordained way, so follow it” (Koran 45:18). That “ordained way” is sharia. Islam further defines itself as a deen — a complete way of life encompassing belief, law, governance, and social order, not a religion confined to private worship. The Koran repeatedly presents Mohammed as the perfect model to be followed (Koran 33:21), and that model is preserved in the hadith, which form an essential component of Islamic jurisprudence. Within this system, Allah and Mohammed constitute the highest authorities; no human legislation may override them.

Equally absent from the discussion was the centrality of jihad, and the military use of the mosque as precedent, within Islamic doctrine. Mohammed himself functioned as a jihadi leader, and jihad is frequently described in Islamic sources as among the “best deeds,” promising honour, material spoils, and paradise. When armed struggle occupies this elevated moral position within a belief system, it is the doctrine itself that is extreme. Those who pursue it devoutly are not radicals departing from the faith, but adherents acting in accordance with its teachings.

Mohammed directed military preparation from the mosque itself, declaring:

• “Strength consists in archery. Strength consists in archery. Strength consists in archery.” (Muslim 1917)

Closely connected to this is the institutional financing of jihad. Far from being an aberration, funding jihad is embedded within one of Islam’s five pillars: zakat (Koran 9:60). Commonly portrayed in the West as simple charity, zakat has eight mandated categories of distribution, one of which is “the cause of Allah,” historically and legally understood as jihad, whether violent or stealth. Islamic jurisprudence requires that zakat be divided between the eight categories equally. (Reliance of the Traveller h8.7)

In Canada, for example, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, formerly CAIR CAN, is authorized by the Canadian Council of Imams to collect zakat under this category and is simultaneously registered as a federal charity. Each expansion of halal markets or Islamic finance mechanism therefore contributes substantially to jihad funding. This helps explain why between 80 and 90 percent of designated terrorist organizations in Western countries are Islamic in origin — they are not rogue deviations, but entities long supported through a core religious obligation.

Also missing from the hearing was the role of deception within Islamic jurisprudence. Concealment in the “cause of Allah” is not merely permitted but often encouraged. Sharia obliges Muslims to protect one another, conceal internal weaknesses, and employ strategic compliance when operating under non Islamic authority. The presentation of Islam as solely peaceful spirituality in Western contexts is facilitated through deception.

• “Scholars say that there is no harm in giving a misleading impression if required by an interest countenanced by Sacred Law.” (Reliance of the Traveller r10.3)

Islamic law further establishes that when a religious objective is itself obligatory, the means necessary to achieve it also become obligatory (Reliance of the Traveller r8.2). Concealment and strategic compliance may move from permitted to required when serving Islam’s advancement or protection.

• “And whoever covers (the faults of) a Muslim, Allah will cover (his faults) for him in the world and the Hereafter. And Allah is engaged in helping the worshipper as long as the worshipper is engaged in helping his brother.” (Tirmidhi 1930)

• ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves.’ (Koran 48:29)

Finally, the voluntary nature of membership itself was left largely unexplored. Under Sharia, apostasy is punishable by death. This is not a marginal interpretation but a classical legal ruling across the major schools of Islamic law. A system that enforces belief through capital punishment is not a personal faith choice. It is a governing authority.

Taken together, these elements explain why Sharia cannot be treated as religious practice alone. It is a comprehensive socio political, legal, economic, and military system — one that explicitly permits child marriage, slavery, polygamy, and female genital mutilation, and that asserts supremacy over all other forms of law and authority.

• Koran 9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture — [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

CONCLUSION

The panelists were not arguing about Muslims’ right to believe or worship. They were addressing the legal reality of a system that explicitly governs society, enforces inequality, and mandates supremacy over other systems of law. That reality, however, collided with a political culture unwilling to acknowledge it.

The conversation repeatedly retreated into constitutional slogans, accusations of prejudice, and extended detours into unrelated topics. For several congressmen, Islamic jurisprudence itself appeared off limits.

This is precisely why Sharia continues to gain institutional ground across Western societies. Not because the doctrine is hidden — it is openly codified — but because many, indeed a majority of those in authority, choose not to confront it.

The hearing offered a glimpse into the future path Western democracies face. One path involves honest engagement with doctrine, legal safeguards against parallel systems, and the preservation of universal human rights. The other continues the pattern of denial, accommodation, and policy drift that has already transformed much of Europe and the U.K. through legal compromise, cultural retreat, and a widening climate of fear.

If nothing else, the February 10 hearing made one thing unmistakably clear: the conflict is no longer about information. It is about political will. The question is whether Western institutions are prepared to acknowledge that Islam compels conduct, governance, and legal authority, not merely private belief — and that continuing to facilitate its institutional expansion is inimical to the future of America and its Constitution, as it is to the rest of the non Islamic world.

The solution is not to restrict belief, but to establish a clear legal threshold defining what belief systems qualify for state recognition and institutional support. Any system seeking charitable status, schools, specialized finance structures, ritual slaughter, foreign funding, or public accommodation must meet the universal human rights standards that emerged from the Enlightenment and are embedded in Western constitutions and charters: equality before the law, voluntary membership, non violence, and transparency.

This approach does not restrict belief, worship, or conscience in any way. The First Amendment protects freedom of belief — it does not require governments to grant legal status, tax privileges, institutional exemptions, or public authority to every system that calls itself a religion. States already classify organizations for charitable status, education, immigration privileges, zoning, and legal recognition without violating religious freedom. The same principle applies here.

Any system seeking public accommodation and legal benefits must meet constitutional and human rights standards. Islam, through Sharia, directly contravenes the First, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Supremacy Clause. Addressing that reality does not undermine liberty — it restores it.

---

AUTHOR’S NOTE: To understand the doctrine, the global strategy, and what must be done to stop it — read A Civilizational Reckoning: Understanding the Threat, Reclaiming the Future. https://www.amazon.ca/dp/106887600X

SOURCES:

[1] House Judiciary: