[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SHARIA-FREE AMERICA: WHY POLITICAL
ISLAM & SHARIA LAW ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND
LIMITED GOVERNMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-55
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-813 WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona Member
TOM McCLINTOCK, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
CHIP ROY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Georgia
BEN CLINE, Virginia ERIC SWALWELL, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas TED LIEU, California
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas J. LUIS CORREA, California
BARRY MOORE, Alabama MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KEVIN KILEY, California JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming LUCY McBATH, Georgia
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
WESLEY HUNT, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
BRANDON GILL, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT
CHIP ROY, Texas, Chair
TOM McCLINTOCK, California MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Ranking Member
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
WESLEY HUNT, Texas PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina BECCA BALINT, Vermont
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
BRANDON GILL, Texas DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, December 16, 2025
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Texas.... 1
The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
the State of Pennsylvania...................................... 5
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Maryland....................... 7
WITNESSES
Stephen M. Gele, Chair, Pelican Institute, Partner, Bivalacqua,
Gele & Ellis
Oral Testimony................................................. 10
Prepared Testimony............................................. 13
Robert Spencer, Shillman Fellow, David Horowitz Freedom Center
Oral Testimony................................................. 33
Prepared Testimony............................................. 35
Krista Shield, Texas State Director, RAIR Foundation USA
Oral Testimony................................................. 65
Prepared Testimony............................................. 67
Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University
Oral Testimony................................................. 77
Prepared Testimony............................................. 79
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution
and Limited Government, for the record......................... 106
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland,
for the record
An article entitled, ``Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-
Muslim Thought in U.S.,'' Jul. 24, 2011, The New York
Times
A copy of 18 U.S.C. 116--Female genital mutilation, Cornell
Law School
An article entitled, ``45% of Americans Say U.S. Should Be a
`Christian Nation,' '' Oct. 27, 2022, Pew Research Center
Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
An article entitled, ``No `Sharia Law' Is Coming to Texas,''
Oct. 26, 2025, CATO Institute
An article entitled, ``Republicans go all-in on `Sharia law'
attacks ahead of Texas primary,'' Jan. 26, 2026, Politico
An article entitled, ``Without a Border `Invasion,' Texas GOP
Turns to an Old Enemy, Islam,'' Feb. 10, 2026, The New
York Times
A statement to the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
from the State of Texas, and the Honorable Mary Gay
Scanlon, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Limited Government from the State of
Pennsylvania, from the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, Feb. 10, 2026
APPENDIX
Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
A statement from the Interfaith Coalition Against Domestic
and Sexual Violence, Feb.10, 2026
A statement to the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
from the State of Texas, and the Honorable Mary Gay
Scanlon, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Limited Government from the State of
Pennsylvania, from multiple religions organizations, Mar.
3, 2026
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD
Questions for Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason
University, submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon,
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and
Limited Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the
record
Response from Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason
University
SHARIA-FREE AMERICA: WHY POLITICAL
ISLAM &SHARIA LAW ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
----------
Tuesday, February 10, 2026
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Chip Roy
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Roy, McClintock, Hageman,
Grothman, Harris, Onder, Gill, Scanlon, Cohen, and Raskin.
Also present: Representative Biggs of Arizona.
Mr. Roy. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Sharia law in
America.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
There's a movement afoot across the United States that
seeks to overthrow our legal system and the Constitution to
replace it with a foreign legal system that upends our American
way of life. It seeks to replace these foundational elements of
our constitutional order with Islamic law, known as Sharia.
The principles of Sharia are at odds with the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, as Sharia fails to include
due process, treats non-Muslims as second-class citizens, and
prescribes barbaric punishments.
All the while, polygamy, misguided corporal punishment for
perceived violations of Islam, and acts of violence and
terrorism on behalf of Sharia are permitted by its adherents.
Sharia encourages violence, silences dissent, rejects religious
freedom, and subjugates women and children.
Let's be clear: This is not about having the freedom of
worshipping a religion of one's choosing, such as Islam, but
forcing a foreign legal code that is incompatible with our laws
and legal system, that provides unwanted consequences to the
American people. It's everything we have fought against for
more than 250 years.
Thomas Jefferson recognized this problem at the beginning
of the 19th century when he confronted Islamists in the Barbary
Wars to keep trade lanes open and end Islamic religious
slavery.
When envoys and future Presidents John Adams and Thomas
Jefferson inquired by what right the Islamic Barbary states
preyed on American shipping, enslaving both crews and
passengers, America's two foremost envoys were told by
Tripoli's Ambassador, quote,
It was written in the Koran, that all nations who should not
have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was
their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find
and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and
that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to
go to paradise.
While the rest is history, with American marines victorious
on the shores of Tripoli as their anthem rings, the American
people--this Congress--must recognize the same issue our
Founders identified and defeated over 200 years ago.
The Islamists are forcing their legal code onto
nonbelievers by violence or the threat of it by any means
necessary. The same problem of radical Islam enforcing Sharia
has reared its head in the 21st century, this time using
different tactics to advance it across the United States.
Some of you might think of Sharia as a 2010s buzzword. That
is wrong. Over the last few years, efforts to impose Sharia on
American communities have taken off, and nowhere more than in
my home State of Texas.
In 2024, members of a Plano mosque sought to create their
own 402-acre Islamic enclave governed by Sharia within the
State of Texas. It was called the East Plano Islamic Center, or
EPIC. Thankfully, after advocacy by many in Texas, the Texas
State government has currently stymied it from advancing.
The EPIC's leader, Yasir Qadhi, is a prominent imam with a
long history of involving himself in Islamist causes, openly
expressing hatred for Jews and support for Holocaust denial
ideas.
Despite claims Qadhi renounced his earlier extremism and
antisemitism, in October 2016, Qadhi offered a defense of the
Taliban. Following the October 7th attacks by the terrorist
group Hamas, in which over 1,200 Israelis were murdered, Qadhi
declared he had, quote, ``the luxury of bluntly saying I am not
going to condemn the fight of an oppressed people.''
However, the EPIC is only one example of Sharia taking root
in Texas. Shadow Islamic courts have also proliferated. One
Dallas tribunal, for example, purports to make final judgments
on legal disputes according to Islamic jurisprudence, placing
Sharia law above binding State and Federal law.
Both EPIC cities and Islamic tribunals are repugnant to the
spirit of the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom
and confirms that Federal law is supreme.
We see further evidence of a Sharia movement with imams
making concerning claims. For example, in a recent video posted
on X this month, a Texas imam said the following:
Mamdani is victory. We didn't succeed to conquer Vienna by the
sword for 200 years, and now it's 10 percent Muslims. We need
to enlarge the Muslim population in America.
Sheikh Ustadh, an imam from the EPIC Mosque in Texas,
preaches regularly that jihad against the non-Muslims and
martyrdom is the highest cause of reward in Islam, and he
praises Hamas and other terror groups, espousing the following,
quote:
My brothers and sisters, we are going to die anyway, so why
don't we aim to die as a shaheed.
Shaheed is Arabic for witness, but used in Islamic context for
martyrdom on behalf of Allah.
All this while the Muslim-observing population in Texas has
grown. For example, in 2000, there were 115,000 Muslims in
Texas. In 2020, the most recent data available, it's an
estimated 313,000, a 172 percent jump, and it's much greater
five years later.
One can make the claim that not all devotees agree or
enforce with Sharia, but no one can deny the increase of Muslim
observers in Texas, many of whom likely harbor support for
Sharia's tenets. Moreover, Texas ranks third among U.S. States
in the number of mosques with 224 counted in 2020 and estimated
over 300 today.
Let's look at immigration numbers from those who immigrate
from Muslim-majority countries, many of whom have settled in
Texas.
Since 2002, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, the United States has issued 4.6 million green cards,
or lawful permanent status, to nationals from Muslim-majority
nations, allowing them to remain here indefinitely.
Some of these countries include Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
Cameroon, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya,
Malaysia, Mauritania, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and the list goes on and on.
Put another way, there's been a 48 percent increase in
green cards to these countries from 2002-2023 after 9/11.
We must take a sobering look at our immigration policies to
ensure we do not admit those who refuse to assimilate and try
to establish their own legal code in contravention of our laws.
All this is particularly true when one looks at Muslims in the
United States' view of Sharia and in what capacity it should
exist in our country.
To give a nationwide perspective, a September 2024 survey
discovered the following about United States Muslims: Fifty
percent favored Sharia blasphemy law, making it illegal to show
a picture or cartoon of Muhammad; 46 percent were in favor to
form a Muslim political party; 39 percent supported broad
application of Sharia in the United States; 33 percent wanted
Islam declared as our national religion.
A previous Pew study found 19 percent of American Muslims
believed suicide bombing on behalf of Islam should be
justified. These results should be troubling to every American.
Additionally, Islamists and groups who adhere to Sharia
have tried to influence the Texas State education system to
drill Sharia into young minds. The Middle East nation Qatar has
been reported as Hamas' most important financial backer and
foreign ally. Qatar has provided $1.8 billion to the terrorist
group Hamas since 2012.
During his first term in the White House, President Trump
fired off a series of posts that cast Qatar as facilitating,
quote, ``radical ideology.''
That same year, former United States officials raised
concerns about Qatari support for terrorism. ``I don't know
instances in which Qatar aggressively goes after terrorist
finance networks of Hamas, Taliban, or Al-Qaeda,'' former
Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated.
Taken together, the U.S. arm of the Doha-based and Qatari
state-supported Qatar Foundation, known as Qatar Foundation
International, claims its goal is to promote and provide
support for certifying, quote, ``teachers of Arabic and primary
and/or secondary, K-12, public/State-funded schools.''
In Texas, QFI has directly funded Arabic language and
culture programs in several districts, raising questions about
the content and implications of such foreign-backed curricula
in public education.
Here are examples.
At the Manara Academy, a public charter school in Irving,
Texas, QFI-supported activities have included classroom
materials featuring maps of the Arab world that exclude Israel
entirely, replacing it with Palestine.
Austin Independent School District received a $100,000
grant from QFI to launch a new Arabic language and culture
program funding teacher salaries and curriculum development and
instructional materials similar to what I just described.
In 2015, Houston Independent School District obtained an
$85,000 grant to perpetuate those curricula.
Texas A&M University has received over $197 million through
the Qatar National Research Fund for research contracts;
additional undisclosed funds estimated at over $100 million
routed through the Texas Engineering Experiment Station.
In fact, it was just last year that A&M shuttered its Qatar
campus, which was being funded by the Qatar Foundation after it
faced significant concerns over foreign influence, national
security risks, and geopolitical ties.
This subversion should shock every American's conscience.
To better illustrate how pervasive this movement of radical
Islam and Sharia is in Texas, according to data compiled by the
Middle East Forum, of the 8,000-plus Islamic nonprofit
organizations in the United States, almost 650, or 10 percent,
are based in Texas.
One of the major Islamic networks that operate in Texas is
the Qubits, which is tied to various Muslim Brotherhood
branches and Hamas.
How about the Council on American-Islamic Relations'
influence in Texas, an Islamist organization that actively
associates with other Islamist and Sharia-supporting groups
like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood?
Three months ago, Governor Abbott designated CAIR as a
foreign terrorist and transnational criminal organization, and
for good reason. CAIR is listed as an unindicted coconspirator
in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation case, the largest terror
financing prosecution in United States history, a case centered
in Richardson, Texas.
Additionally, Nabil Sadoun, a former Dallas resident and
CAIR board member, was deported to Jordan in 2010 and denied
reentry after the U.S. Government alleged, he had lied on
naturalization documents when he denied membership with Hamas
and the Muslim Brotherhood.
These examples underscore CAIR's network of spreading
Sharia across Texas and the rest of the country. I'll end with
one more example in Texas.
In September, video footage surfaced of an imam in Houston
going to convenience stores in Houston threatening to occupy if
the presumed Muslim store owners did not stop selling Haram
products: Alcohol, pork, lottery tickets, and other prohibited
items under Sharia.
While some may attribute this as nonissue or benign, can
any of my colleagues point to individuals of other faiths whose
tenets demand this type of force--not opinion, but force--of
subservience to it.
The overtaking by Sharia isn't limited to Texas; it's the
entire West. An Islamic cleric from New Jersey said of Muslims
overtaking the electoral system, mayors, school boards, and
local communities, quote:
Where is Mecca now? It's coming. Change is coming to America.
And what is Allah saying? You are the best of nations. You're
better than everybody else. Let's work toward that. Let's work
toward a Muslim mayor.
This should be a stark warning to all Americans in all 50
States. If Texas falls, so does the Nation.
These efforts to undermine the Constitution and demonstrate
political Islam have only been worsened by an unchecked
immigration system that admitted Sharia adherents into our
borders.
Europe gives us a clear example of what will happen if we
don't close the door on Sharia now. In England and Wales, more
than 85 Sharia courts operate as a parallel Islamic government
depriving women of the rights they are entitled to under
British law.
This year, the United Arab Emirates announced that it will
end all support for Emirati students studying in the U.K.
because of fears that students will be exposed to and join the
Muslim Brotherhood, which the UAE has declared a terrorist
organization, but the U.K. has not.
As recent as last March, supporters of Sharia and other
Islamists have signaled their desire to advance jihad to other
nations. The Qatar-based International Union of Muslim
Scholars, a global network of Muslim scholars, called for,
quote, ``armed jihad'' against our friend and ally Israel.
You might think the Sharia crisis is only in foreign
countries or has not yet arrived in the United States, but it
is here.
Now is the time to protect every American's right to freely
practice their own faith and defend the supremacy of our shared
political system. Now, is the time to take decisive action as
our Founders did when confronted with the same issues today.
Our Nation is founded on these ideas. Sharia law shares
none of these principles. By its Arabic definition, it is a
law, one pushed in our country for too long. It has no place in
American government, not now or ever.
With that, I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms.
Scanlon, for her opening statement.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Chair Roy. Thank you to our
witnesses for being here today.
When the Chair began his remarks with a concern about
forces trying to undermine our Constitution, I thought we might
have some unintended agreement; but, unfortunately, I don't
think that's the case.
I can't think of anything more un-American than for Members
of Congress to be stoking fear and suspicion against fellow
Americans or anyone else on the explicit basis of their
religious beliefs.
No matter what hysterical rhetoric we hear from our
Republican colleagues, our Constitution is clear. In this
country, people have the right to hold and express whatever
religious beliefs they choose, or none at all.
You don't have to agree with those beliefs, but no one can
use the power of the government to punish or discriminate
against those who do. There's nothing foreign or suspicious
about that. In fact, there's nothing more American.
Whether our colleagues actually believe the histrionic and
unsupported statements they've made about Muslims and Sharia
law, I'm not sure.
It does appear that today's hearing is the most recent
expression of a cynical political ploy driven by the Texas
Republican primary where early voting starts in a week, and
Federal, State, and local candidates are trying to outdo one
another with anti-Sharia, anti-Muslim sentiment to score
political points.
In the words of one Texas Republican political strategist:
``The Muslim community is the boogeyman for this cycle.''
It seems the pretext for all this bluster is a proposed
real estate development in the Dallas suburbs led by the area's
growing Muslim population, but there's no evidence it has
anything to do with imposing Sharia law on nonbelievers of
Islam.
There's no evidence it's a Sharia compound, as Texas
Republicans have alleged. The Trump Justice Department itself
closed an investigation into the development, finding no basis
for any violation of fair housing laws.
As with so many things, Republicans bring to this
Committee, there's just no ``there'' there. Their view seems to
be, as long as they can scapegoat someone or something for
political gain, who cares, right?
It's entirely clear they don't care at all whether fellow
Americans or others end up as collateral damage to the anti-
Muslim hatred and fear that's being stoked.
In addition, this hearing appears designed to support
unconstitutional legislation. Last October, Chair Roy
introduced H.R. 5722, a bill that requires the government to,
among other things, deny any immigration benefit, visa,
immigration relief, or admission to the United States to any
foreign national who adheres to Sharia law. It similarly
directs the government to remove any foreign national already
here if the government determines that the person is an
adherent of Sharia law.
This kind of government discrimination based purely on a
person's religious beliefs--not actions--is a blatant violation
of the First Amendment's free exercise and free speech
guarantees.
To the extent that this bill implicitly favors Christianity
or another faith over Islam by singling out Islam for
government disfavor, it could violate both the spirit and the
letter of the Establishment Clause.
By banning an adherent of Sharia law from the country, the
bill essentially targets any observant Muslim for government
discrimination.
Sharia is concerned with guiding individual, personal
religious observance, not shaping national laws. Just as other
belief systems guide the adherents of those faiths, Sharia
guides Muslims in how to pray, dress, eat, or fast, and
includes rules about marriage, divorce, and the raising of
children.
To say that an adherent of Sharia law should be excluded or
removed from the country is to say that all Muslims should be
excluded or removed from the country because of their religious
beliefs and observances.
It goes against everything that America stands for, and we
need look no further for confirmation of that than one of our
Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson.
In his autobiography, Jefferson wrote about what he
considered one of his proudest achievements: The drafting of
the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom of 1786, a precursor
to our First Amendment. He affirmed that religious freedom was
meant to encompass within the mantle of its protection people
of every denomination.
In addition to expressing the fundamentally American belief
in the right to freely practice one's religion and to prevent
the government from favoring one religion over another,
Jefferson's writing specifically referenced, among other
faiths, believers in Islam, illustrating that from our
Republic's earliest days, Muslims were intended to be included
within the fabric of American life.
The kind of demagoguery that this hearing represents is
unbecoming of this Subcommittee as one that is dedicated to the
Constitution and unbecoming of Members of Congress.
Our attention should be focused on the Trump
Administration's repeated attacks on our constitutional order
and on Americans' rights, including the rights to free speech,
a free press, to peaceably assemble, to petition the government
for redress of grievances.
We shouldn't be furthering ugly Islamophobia and justifying
a blatantly unconstitutional bill. It's shameful, and it's un-
American.
I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Raskin, for his opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the
witnesses for joining us today.
We live in a country so great that we don't need the anti-
Sharia and anti-Muslim legislation our friends are proposing
today because our Constitution already forbids theocratic
imposition and establishment of any kind at all, whether it's
Christian White nationalism expressed in compulsory Ten
Commandments displays, an Orthodox Jewish set-aside school
district in New York, or any effort to replace secular public
law with a religious sectarian code, whether that's Sharia law,
the Analects of Confucius, the Torah, or anything else.
This completely unnecessary hearing, another distraction
from the administration's coverup of the Epstein files and the
continuing brutal violation of people's constitutional rights
in Minneapolis, is a wonderful opportunity to remind ourselves
why our Constitution has three essential religion clauses and
why they do all of the work that people are talking about doing
today--the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, and
the clause guaranteeing no religious test for public office.
If you take time to study them, they will dispel all the
anxiety stirred up by legislation and agitation like this.
Anything legitimate that our colleagues want to say about
preventing the imposition of Sharia law in America is already
accomplished by the Establishment Clause. Everybody can rest
easy with Thomas Jefferson's wall of separation between church
and State that he identified in his famous letter to the
Danbury Baptists.
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. I looked online
and there were like four or five different versions. Let's take
one which said protecting religion, life, family, intellect,
property, and wealth. Another one said protecting honesty,
trustworthiness, mercy, humility, moderation, and honoring
promises.
Whatever it is, if somebody said that we want to put Muslim
Sharia law up in all the schools and all the government
buildings, we would know very quickly how to deal with that
because we're not writing on a blank slate.
In fact, we're in something of a furor over the laws
compelling the posting of the Ten Commandments right now that
were recently passed in Louisiana and Texas, but the Supreme
Court already struck down such Ten Commandment laws in 1980,
more than 45 years ago, in a case called Stone v. Graham, as a
plain violation of the Establishment Clause, which forbids
governmental endorsement of any religious text or any religious
doctrine.
We don't even have one agreed-upon version of the Ten
Commandments. There's a Catholic version, there's a Lutheran
version, there's an Episcopalian version, and many others you
can find online. Which one would the government even endorse?
Well, we've got Members of this body who vehemently
denounce Sharia law but also agree with Louisiana and Texas
that we should be posting the Ten Commandments of some
particular sectarian variety up in the schools.
When this came up last Congress, there were members of the
Oversight Committee who said we should not only be putting the
Ten Commandments up in public schools but in Congress and all
public buildings. I told them the Ten Commandments have been
doing fine for millennia without an endorsement by the Freedom
Caucus in the House of Representatives.
One guy told me, well, you know the Ten Commandments are
the basis for the Bill of Rights. I was kind of confused,
because there are ten in each one. I said, let's test the
proposition. The First Commandment says, ``Thou shall have no
other God before me.'' The First Amendment says, ``Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' I
don't think the First Commandment dictates the First Amendment.
They wanted to go to the floor and have an up-or-down vote
on the Ten Commandments. I said, ``if we're going to vote on
the Ten Commandments in 2025, we should vote on each
commandment separately, and you shouldn't be allowed to vote on
any commandment you yourself have ever violated.'' That would
make more sense.
In any event, this is res judicata, it's a closed case. The
government cannot endorse Muslim law, Jewish law, Christian
law, Methodist law, Baptist law, and none of it. We don't need
a special anti-Sharia law or a special anti-Sharia caucus. The
First Amendment already takes care of it.
Well, anything illegitimate or discriminatory that our
colleagues would want to selectively impose on Muslims is
conversely a violation of the Free Exercise Clause and also
forbidden by the Constitutions.
Muslims afraid that Congress might actually impose one of
these anti-Sharia bills--and, of course, they're just
introduced for political purposes, I don't think they have any
delusions that they're going to pass Congress--but, if you were
afraid of that, all you would have to do is read the case law
to understand why that can't be done.
Check out, for example, a case with the wonderful name
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah in 1992,
where the city of Hialeah in Florida selectively banned animal
rituals and sacrifice by people practicing the Santeria
religion.
The Supreme Court shrewdly said, look, if you want to have
general laws that apply to every religion and to every citizen
that ban certain kinds of animal slaughter as cruel or unusual
or particularly harmful, then you can do it, but you can't pass
a law that targets a specific religion. Justice Kennedy called
it ``religious gerrymandering.''
I don't know, Mr. Chair, about the East Plano Islamic
Center, which sounds like a compound with a mosque and some
residential and some restaurants and so on. Of course, those
kinds of religious compounds exist across America, whether
we're talking about the Amish, the Mennonites, Catholics, and
Jews, you name it. Lots of those exist.
They do violate a separate principle if the government
actually gives, clothes them with secular power. I would agree
with you if they're giving them the power to set up their own
police force, their own school system, that would violate the
Supreme Court's decision in a case called Kiryas Joel Village
School District v. Grumet.
That was in 1994, where New York created a separate public
school district for members of the Satmar Hasidic Jewish
religion in upstate New York. The Supreme Court said, ``No, you
can't endow a religious group with secular power.''
If that's going on there, then I'm with you. If it's not
going on, then it's just a compound. If they own the property,
it's private property and they bought it, why would we want to
mess around with that? That sounds like you're just vilifying
and demonizing people because you don't like their religion,
and I know you wouldn't do that.
Let me just say, finally, to uniquely blockade members of a
particular religion--here Islam--from participating in
government or politics, the kind of thing you do hear from
people calling for Ilhan Omar to be expelled from Congress or
deported from the country, that plainly violates Article VI,
Clause 3, of the Constitution, which says,
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to
any office or public trust under the United States.
Let's repose some of our faith and trust in the founders of
the Constitution, the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise
Clause, the ban on religious tests for public office. They've
been working pretty well for America. They take care of every
single thing that anybody is talking about in this hearing.
I do think we'd be much better off getting back to the work
of the country right now, trying to deal with the runaway
problem of inflation or to deal with the problem of the
continuing administration coverup of the Epstein files.
Any of those, would be a little more valuable. Although
I've got to say, as a washed-up professor of constitutional
law, I do welcome the opportunity to remind people about the
First Amendment.
I yield back to you, Chair Roy.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member for his opening
statement. Without objection, all other opening statements will
be included in the record. We will now introduce today's
witnesses.
First, Mr. Stephen Gele. Mr. Gele is the Chair of the
Pelican Institute for Public Policy, a nonprofit organization
that works to reduce barriers to opportunity in Louisiana. He's
also a partner at the law firm of Bivalacqua, Gele & Ellis in
New Orleans.
Mr. Robert Spencer. Mr. Spencer is a Shillman Fellow at the
David Horowitz Freedom Center, a nonprofit organization that
advocates for free societies. He's authored 32 books on Islam
and jihadism.
Ms. Krista Schild. Ms. Schild is the Texas Director for the
RAIR Foundation, a grassroots organization that advocates for
American values. She has volunteered for decades for causes
that serve vulnerable populations, particularly women and
girls.
Finally, Professor Ilya Somin. Professor Somin is a
Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George
Mason University. His research focuses on constitutional law,
property law, democratic theory, federalism, and migration.
We thank our witnesses for appearing today, and we'll begin
by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right
hand?
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
the affirmative.
Thank you. Please, may be seated.
Please know that your written testimony will be entered
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
summarize your testimony in five minutes. I'll also remind each
of you to turn the microphone on in front of you so that
everybody can hear, and it will be inserted into the record.
Mr. Gele, you may begin with your five minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN GELE
Mr. Gele. Thank you, Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and
the Members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me here today to
discuss the phenomena of alternative, Sharia law-based
institutions; why the enforcement by American courts of decrees
issued by such institutions would be inconsistent with the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States
Constitution; and potential legal remedies to prevent such
violation of fundamental constitutional rights.
I'm an attorney practicing in the State of Louisiana for
over 32 years. During the last 17 years, I've had the
opportunity, largely on behalf of the Center for Security
Policy, to research and study the interaction of foreign law,
including Islamic Sharia, with American law.
The interaction of foreign law with American law and
American courts arises in four contexts: The enforcement of
foreign judgments by American courts via comity; the
application of foreign law in American courts through conflicts
of law; the enforcement of choice of law clauses in contracts;
the enforcement of forum selection clauses in contracts; the
enforcement of arbitration clauses in contracts; and the
transfer of lawsuits to foreign jurisdictions under the
doctrine of forum nonconveniens.
In all these contexts, American courts--and even American
law enforcement--could be called on to enforce foreign law,
even though the enforcement of foreign law would violate
fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States
Constitution.
I've studied the numerous occasions in which foreign
discordant law, including Sharia, has been litigated before
American courts. Although the vast majority of foreign law
applications are routine and do not violate American
constitutional norms, over the past half century the number of
cases adjudicating the application of discordant foreign law in
American State courts, including through arbitrations, has
steadily increased.
The most prominent category of foreign law that has been
increasingly intruding on American courts is Islamic Sharia
law, a body of law which consistently violates American public
policy and fundamental constitutional rights, including the
right to equal protection, including equal protection based on
race, religion, and gender, the right of due process, freedom
of religion, and freedom of speech. Numerous tenets of Sharia
show bias against women, the LGBTQ community, non-Muslims,
former Muslims, and people designated as blasphemers.
Courts in dozens of Muslim-majority nations, and some non-
Muslim nations, currently apply Sharia. In hundreds of reported
cases throughout the United States, litigants have attempted to
apply Sharia, often succeeding.
Examples include the enforcement of foreign child custody
judgments or jurisdiction not based on the best interest of the
child, but instead based on gender or religious discrimination;
the transfer of cases to foreign countries whose courts
discriminate on gender or religion; the enforcement of Islamic
marriage contracts--dubbed mahrs--as prenuptial agreements;
talaq or other Sharia divorces; and increasingly, the creation
of arbitration tribunals applying Sharia law within the United
States.
The law applied by such tribunals discriminates based on
gender and religion, and in cases of custody disputes does not
apply the best interests of the child standard. Those
arbitration tribunals also lack traditional American legal
formalities, lessening due
process.
Furthermore, legislation over the past half century has
suppressed certain American legal protections against the
intrusion of discordant foreign law. Public policy exceptions
and common law rules have been overwritten by uniform acts
adopted by the States, sometimes related to foreign treaties.
Some uniform acts now treat foreign country judgments like
sister State judgments essentially extending the Full Faith and
Credit Clause of the United States Constitution to foreign
nations.
Moreover, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
has explicitly held that foreign court orders are not subject
to the constraints of American constitutional law.
Responding to this encroachment of discordant foreign law
into the United States, multiple efforts have been undertaken,
primarily at the State but also the Federal level, to address
discordant foreign law. The model statute, American Laws for
American Courts, passed, in some form, in 13 States to protect
fundamental constitutional rights against the infiltration of
foreign law, such as Sharia. Additional State acts and Federal
acts have also passed, including the SPEECH Act.
Americans for over 250 years have toiled and suffered,
including spilling blood, toward guaranteeing fundamental
constitutional rights. No U.S. citizen should be denied the
fundamental liberties guaranteed in our constitutional
Republic. The intrusion of discordant foreign laws, including
Sharia, into the American legal system should be resisted.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gele follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Gele, for your testimony. Mr.
Spencer, I remind you to turn your microphone on, and you have
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT SPENCER
Mr. Spencer. Thank you. The U.S. Constitution and Sharia
are incompatible, and the conflicts between the two legal
systems will grow as Sharia adherents increase in number in the
West. This fact has been obscured by misinformation about what
Sharia actually is.
When the city of Keller, Texas, scrapped an anti-Sharia
resolution in January 2026, the Hamas-linked Council on
American-
Islamic Relations, CAIR, stated that,
Like Canon law for Catholics and Halacha for Orthodox Jews,
Sharia refers to the rules that Muslims follow, including
praying five times a day, fasting in Ramadan, giving in
charity, and following the laws of the land in which they live.
If that were really all that Sharia were about, no
reasonable person would have any problem with it. CAIR doesn't
mention, however, that Sharia is inherently political,
supremacist, expansionist, and violent.
Far from being the Islamophobic conspiracy theories of
CAIR's imagining, these are facts that Muslim authorities on
Sharia openly attest.
The ``Reliance of the Traveller,'' ``Umdat al-Salik,'' is a
classic manual of Islamic sacred law, that is, Sharia. In 1990,
Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani, President of the International
Institute of Islamic Thought, as well as President of the Fiqh
Council of North America, stated that this Sharia manual was
useful as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence.
The most prestigious institution of Islamic learning in the
world, al-Azhar in Cairo, stated in 1991 that the same manual
of Sharia ``conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox
Sunni Community.''
We read in this same guide to Sharia that ``jihad means war
against non-Muslims,'' and that it is a communal obligation on
the Muslim community. The object of this war is to establish
the hegemony of Sharia over the conquered land.
For non-Muslims, this means an institutionalized, highly
codified second-class status that denies them basic rights.
Non-Muslims living under Sharia must ``pay the non-Muslim poll
tax,'' jizya, that is specified in the Koran Verse 929.
This religion-based tax is designed to indicate, as the
renowned Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir explained, that the non-
Muslims who are paying it are ``disgraced, humiliated, and
belittled.''
The non-Muslims in this State of disgrace and humiliation
are not allowed to build new houses of worship or repair old
ones, so their communities are in a perpetual State of decline.
They are forbidden to make any public display of their
religion. They're relegated to the most menial jobs in society,
for they are forbidden to hold authority over Muslims. If they
say anything critical about Islam, Muhammad, or the Koran,
they're liable to be put to death.
From all this it is clear that Sharia is not simply Muslim
personal religious law. On the contrary, Sharia-based legal and
civic institutions are contrary to America's founding
principles and violate Federal law and the Constitution in
numerous particulars.
The death penalty for mentioning what ``Reliance of the
Traveller'' terms as ``something impermissible about Allah, the
Prophet, or Islam,'' that is, blasphemy, is directly at
variance with First Amendment freedom of speech protections.
The Islamic imperative to establish the hegemony of Sharia
as the law of the land, as it is today in the Islamic Republic
of Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, is obviously at variance
with the First Amendment principle of nonestablishment of a
religion.
Even in its personal aspects, Sharia does contradict U.S.
law. The Koran states that a man should ``beat'' a woman from
whom ``he fears disobedience,'' that's Chapter 4, Verse 34.
Domestic violence is a crime in U.S. law, but it is not a crime
under Sharia, and we have the example of what happens in
Britain. Britain began establishing Sharia courts several years
ago with the understanding that cases that came under the
purview of British criminal law would be referred to the
British criminal courts.
Instead, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal on its website
urged the Crown Prosecution Service to ``reconsider'' bringing
criminal charges against Muslim men who had been accused of
domestic violence.
As this is in the Koran, same thing would happen here. If
Sharia is considered divine law, those Muslims who adhere to it
always consider that it takes precedence over the laws of the
land.
Moreover, emigration to a new land to bring Sharia to it is
also an Islamic imperative. The Koran, in Chapter 4, Verse 100,
promises a reward from Allah to those who ``emigrate for the
sake of Allah,'' which means for the purpose of bringing Sharia
to a non-Muslim land.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spencer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Appreciate your testimony.
Ms. Schild, again, I remind you to turn your microphone on, and
you have five minutes.
STATEMENT OF KRISTA SCHILD
Ms. Schild. Thank you, Mr. Chair, distinguished Members of
Congress. I'm Krista Schild, the Texas State Director for RAIR
Foundation USA.
I stand before you from deep love for America, our
Constitution, and the religious liberties it guarantees every
citizen. As a Christian who cherishes this Nation, I fiercely
defend its founding principles of freedom, equality, and self-
governance.
On September 11, 2001, as an American Airlines flight
attendant, I watched the second plane slam into the tower. My
heart sank. The world changed in that moment. Freedom itself
was under siege.
After 9/11, we believed the war was far away. Our brave
military went overseas to fight. We thought we were safe, but
we were tragically wrong.
A planned invasion took root, concealed and deliberate.
Foreign and Islamic terror-tied networks quietly infiltrated
every layer of Texas life while we looked away.
I travel across Texas listening to communities. Residents
tell me their neighborhoods are becoming unrecognizable.
Streets once familiar, now echo with foreign calls to prayer
that drown out church bells. Sons who fought these very forces
abroad return to find their hometown starting to resemble the
Middle East that they risked their lives to defend us against.
Texas is Ground Zero for the Islamic conquest of America.
We are deep into a 1,400-year Islamic immigration conquest
pattern, a patient, relentless strategy of settlement,
infiltration, and eventual dominance.
The Muslim Brotherhood's 1991 explanatory memorandum
entered in Federal court calls it a, quote, ``civilization
jihadist process to destroy the West from within.''
That plan has been capturing Texas for over 35 years. We
now have over 330 mosques. CAIR calls them, quote, ``our
infrastructure.'' Erdogan calls them, quote, ``our barracks.''
At least 650 Islamic nonprofits channeling influence.
Dozens of Islamic scholars and banks promoting Sharia
compliance finance. More than $4 billion in taxpayer funds
routed to Islamic entities since 2017. Our own money fueling
our demise.
Islamic leaders telling us they want to implement Sharia.
They glorify chopping off hands, killing homosexuals, wife
beating, and child marriage without apology.
Aggressive conversion campaigns, including terror-tied
groups, enter public schools without parental consent, to
distribute Korans, Sharia pamphlets, and hijabs to students.
The East Plano Islamic Center, EPIC, rebranded, quote,
``The Meadows,'' an enclave led by imam Yasir Qadhi, who calls
Jews and Christians, quote, ``the most evil of all evils'' and
demands Islamic theocracy over democracy. These are emerging
no-go zones.
Active Sharia courts. In the last legislative session, two
Pakistani-born representatives introduced over 20 bills
advancing Sharia, mandating Hallah in Texas schools, Muslim
Heritage Month, quote, ``Islamophobia censorship laws'' to
silence critics.
We already see Sharia enforcement in Texas, patrols
pressuring Houston Muslim businesses to conform, imams berating
Muslims for speaking to Christians, and families imposing
deadly punishments on those who refuse to submit.
My own family was connected to two young Texas girls who
chose to date non-Muslims. They were murdered by their own
father for not conforming to Islam.
That pain drives me every day. These examples are not
isolated. This is not assimilation. It is strategic
infiltration and conquest. It is patient, multigenerational,
and often funded by taxpayers. If we do not act, Sharia will
dominate.
We're here today to bring you legislative evidence and have
submitted that to prove to you that wherever Islam grows
freedom dies. We must choose freedom under the Constitution or
submission to Islam.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schild follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Schild. I will now recognize
Professor Somin. Again, a reminder to turn your microphone on,
and you have five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ILYA SOMIN
Mr. Somin. I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
address these important issues.
George Washington wrote that, ``America was founded in part
to create an asylum for the poor and oppressed of all nations
and religions.'' Thomas Jefferson, among others, made clear
that American religious freedom is supposed to extend to
Muslims, no less than to Christians, Jews, and others.
George Washington and Jefferson, they were right, whereas
the proposed Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act is wrong.
If enacted and upheld by the courts, it would expel tens of
thousands of people from the United States just because of
their religion by virtue of making any noncitizen adherent of
Sharia law subject to exclusion or deportation.
That violates the First Amendment, and it would do nothing
to improve American national security. Indeed, the only real
winners would be radical Islamist terrorists who would benefit
from this by getting a free propaganda victory.
The Constitution in the First Amendment states that,
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' That
clearly protects freedom of religion against discrimination,
and it applies to Muslims no less than to any other religious
group.
Almost all Muslims to some degree or another are Sharia law
adherents, because Sharia law is simply religious precepts of
Islam. Muslims disagree a lot among themselves about what
exactly those precepts mean and how they should be applied.
Nonetheless, a law targeting Sharia law adherents targets
Muslims in much the same way as a law targeting adherents of
Talmudic law would target Jews or a law targeting adherents of
Canon Law targets Catholics.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that the Free Speech
Clause protects religious freedom and expression, and thus this
law, if enacted, would violate the Free Speech Clause as well.
It does not matter that this law addresses noncitizen
immigrants, because there is no immigration exception to the
First Amendment. When it says that Congress shall make no law
restricting freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion,
that means no law, no exceptions.
It also does not matter that noncitizens don't have a
constitutional right to be in the United States. The Supreme
Court, including in decisions by conservative Justices, has
repeatedly made clear that discrimination against religious
believers with respect to government benefits that are not
constitutional rights still violates the Free Exercise Clause
and also, in some cases, the Free Speech Clause.
For example, there's no constitutional right to Social
Security benefits, but if Congress were to pass a law saying
only Christians are entitled to such benefits, that would
obviously be a violation of the First Amendment.
If enacted and wrongly upheld by the courts, this law would
set a dangerous precedent, because it could easily be used to
target any religious believers of any kind who run afoul of the
views of the majority, including conservative Christians, among
others.
This law also would cause great harm to innocent people. It
would expel hundreds of thousands of people from the United
States who have done no wrong and pose no threat.
Survey data shows the vast majority of Muslims in the
United States do not support terrorism, do not support the
creation of some kind of Islamic theocracy or anything of the
kind.
Indeed, many of the Muslims in the United States are
actually immigrants who fled oppression at the hands of radical
Islamist regimes, like those of Iran and the Taliban in
Afghanistan. Many of the latter are actually people who aided
U.S. forces in the war on terror. They do not deserve to be
excluded and deported.
In addition, if this were to pass and, again, be upheld
wrongly, it would actually help radical Islamist terrorists
waging war against the United States.
When President Trump in his first term enacted his much
more limited anti-Muslim travel ban, the Islamic terrorist
group ISIS hailed it as, quote, ``the blessed ban,'' because
they knew it would help their terrorist recruitment by feeding
their propaganda to the effect that the United States, and the
West generally, are enemies of all Muslims.
We should not give a gift to the terrorists, and we should
not damage ourselves by expelling hundreds of thousands of
people who are productively contributing to our economy and
society and have done no wrong other than perhaps have
religious beliefs that some people do not like.
It is true that some Muslims, like some Christians, Jews,
and others, may have awful views on various issues, but mass
expulsion and discrimination is not the answer to any problems
that might pose. We should instead simply enforce the religious
freedom provision of our Constitution and other relevant laws
banning terrorism or violence or the like.
In sum, this law is unconstitutional. If enacted, it would
cause great harm. Therefore, this Subcommittee would do well to
reject it out of hand. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Somin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Professor Somin. We will now proceed
under the five-minute rule with questions.
Without objection, Mr. Biggs, a Member of the Judiciary
Committee, will be permitted to participate in today's hearing
for the purpose of questioning the witnesses if a Member yields
him time for that purpose.
With that, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Missouri, Mr. Onder, for five minutes.
Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield my time to
Representative Biggs.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Onder, for
yielding time.
I'm curious, Professor, are you familiar with a case called
Reynolds v. United States, 1879 case?
Mr. Somin. I am, yes.
Mr. Biggs. You must be, because part of your rationale on
page 6 of your statement seems to go right along with the
rationale of the original Reynolds case, which was that belief
versus practice--belief OK, practice not necessarily OK, right?
You would agree with that, right? I'm looking at page 6,
your line that says,
Many aspects of Sharia law govern such issues as prayer,
fasting, and dietary restrictions that apply to religious
believers.
You would say that stuff is OK, protected even under Reynolds,
right?
Mr. Somin. Certainly free exercise of religion includes--
Mr. Biggs. You would agree that praying, fasting, dietary
restrictions, that's A-OK under Reynolds, right?
Mr. Somin. I do not think Reynolds gives the government a
general power to ban prayer, fasting, and so on. No, it does
not.
Mr. Biggs. That's right. I agree with that. In that
particular case, the Court said ``polygamy is domy (ph),'' it
is bad, you cannot practice polygamy anymore. Do you remember
that?
Mr. Somin. I do.
Mr. Biggs. Yes. Now, I want to go to you, Mr. Gele. Let's
just talk about some of the practices that seem to be broad in
this idea of Sharia, because Sharia is an expansive term here.
I'm looking, and it says here that where Sharia is--on page
1, of your statement,
The enforcement of foreign child custody judgments, that's
coming into America and we're relying on Sharia interpretations
from other places.
Is that accurate?
Mr. Gele. Yes. There's been numerous cases in which child
custody judgments from either Islamic countries or even non-
Islamic countries that have Sharia courts--
Mr. Biggs. How does that square with Reynolds, where you
have a distinction between religious practices and behavior?
Here we have Sharia determining actual child custody issues
totally irrespective of religious practices.
How does that square with Reynolds?
Mr. Gele. Well, clearly, Reynolds would allow the
government to regulate child custody, whether or not the child
custody rules were favored or disfavored by a religion.
However, there is a lack in our law of addressing comity of
foreign judgments in the constitutionality of the process for
which those foreign courts reach their judgments. There's even
a Ninth Circuit case, the Naoko case, where the Ninth Circuit
explicitly said that you can't do a constitutional analysis on
a foreign judgment.
Under current law, it appears as though foreign courts can
do things that our courts would never imagine doing, would
clearly violate constitutional rights, and those judgments are
being brought here, and the judgments are being, on many
occasions, enforced.
Mr. Biggs. Yes. They would be inconsistent with American
jurisprudence, but somehow, we're incorporating some foreign
jurisprudence into ours.
Now, I'll go to you, Mr. Spencer, for just a sec here. On
page 2, of your statement, you point out that the Koran states
a man should ``beat'' a woman from whom ``he fears
disobedience.''
Domestic violence. Domestic violence is a behavior as
opposed to a belief, but in the Sharia system it seems to be a
belief.
Mr. Spencer. Yes, it's certainly a belief. You can't have
something in the Koran and have Muslims say that they're
against it if they are going to be believing, observant
Muslims.
The problem becomes when they act on it in a Sharia
context, then you have the precedent of Britain that I was
explaining, that instead of referring it to the criminal courts
as they had agreed to do, they tried it under Sharia and told
the wife to go back and try to please her husband instead of
prosecuting the man who is committing the domestic abuse.
Mr. Biggs. Sharia actually became an institution or a third
rail that replaced the British judicial system, at least in
that particular case.
Mr. Spencer. Exactly.
Mr. Biggs. Ms. Schild, ultimately this really is the nub of
why we're here today. We see Sharia. We see its expansive
nature. Some people want to frame it in a certain way, it's
just how we pray, it's how we call to prayer, those types of
religious practices. It actually has massive institutional
ramifications.
Has it grown in Texas? What did this start out with? How
has it been impacted in Texas? I'm almost out of time. Mr.
Chair, if she can answer that question.
Mr. Roy. You may answer.
Ms. Schild. Yes. Mr. Chair, Members of Congress, Texas is
under assault from Islamic groups and foreign powers, Qatar,
Turkiye, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, waging a stealth war on
our soil, planting flags via mosques, schools, and enclaves.
They follow the Muslim Brotherhood's, quote, ``Civilization
jihad'' plan from the 1991 explanatory memorandum: Destroy
America from within by imposing Sharia and achieving global
dominance. This has been built for over 35 years and is now
deeply entrenched. Reversal requires urgent action. Texas is
Ground Zero. Sharia doctrine demands subjugation of non-
Muslims.
Mr. Roy. Ms. Schild, you've got to wrap your answer,
because we're overtime. Go ahead and wrap.
Ms. Schild. Yes. As RAIR Foundation's USA Texas Director, I
travel across the State constantly. What I'm hearing from
people in their communities who message me all the time what's
happening in their own backyard is that they are very afraid of
the Islamic Sharia expansion they see happening in our State
and what that means, because they see it happening in other
places in America.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Schild. With that, I'll now
recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Roy, thank you very much. I find something
to agree with what all the witnesses said. Let me start with
Ms. Schild and Mr. Spencer.
You basically have said that there are fanatics within the
Islamic faith who use the religion for their own purposes, and
I have no quarrel with you there, except I would extend the
point to say that's true of fanatics in every religious
tradition, in every religious community. In fact, any
particular crime or violent act that you would attribute to
Sharia fanatics you could also find taking place in other
communities too. Now, Mr. Gele, am I pronouncing your name
right?
Mr. Gele. Yes, you are. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Gele. You make a very interesting point to
me, but I want to try to break it down if we can. Let me start
with this.
If there is a couple that are faithful Muslims who say that
they are governed by Islamic law, but they get a divorce and
it's a custody arrangement, and they go to a regular family
court in any State in the country, do you agree with me that
the standard that must govern by a judge is what's in the best
interest of the child, even if, say, the husband is saying, no,
under Sharia law--and I'm making this up, because I don't know
if it's true--but under Sharia law, if the husband wants
custody, he gets custody.
That would be not just wrong, but it would be outside of
the law for a judge to say, ``I'm not going to use the law of
the State of Colorado or Tennessee or Maryland; I'm just going
to use Sharia law because both of you are Muslims.''
Mr. Gele. Every State in the United States applies the best
interest of the child standard to some extent. Every State in
the United States applies the law of that State. However, under
the laws of arbitration and the laws of comity of foreign
judgments, they will sometimes apply--
Mr. Raskin. OK, that's where I'm going now. Just to be
clear, it would be a violation of the law and clearly
reversible error if any District court in the land said we're
going to use Orthodox Jewish law or Islamic law or Seventh-day
Adventist law to decide a custody dispute or a marriage
dispute. We can only use the secular law, and it is reversible
error if it doesn't.
Now, you raise a really interesting point, though, which is
what happens if there is a society which actually has a
theocracy, like Saudi Arabia, for example, which I believe uses
Islamic law and Sharia law.
OK. Let's say they are the husband--again, hypothetically,
because I don't know the theological particulars, but let's say
the husband gets custody because he wants custody. Then, they
come over to America, and the wife argues, ``I should have
custody under the best interest of the child standard.''
Are you saying that under the comity of laws or respect for
foreign judgments that an American court is bound to accept the
judgment that took place in another society?
Mr. Gele. I'm not saying that. The Maryland courts have
said that--
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Gele. --in the case of Hussain v. Malik, and it's
happened in other instances.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Gele. The problem, Congressman, is that although the
law of the States is clear, the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction Enforcement Act has overruled traditional concepts
of comity, and it does not have a high threshold for enforcing
those foreign judgments.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Let me just stop you there, because I have
limited time. You've raised an interesting point. I don't think
it's addressed at all by the good Chair's legislation. I don't
think there's anything in the legislation that deals with your
point.
That's something I'm open to, because I like American law.
I don't think anybody here should be subject to laws of
authoritarian theocratic societies like Saudi Arabia.
Professor Somin, to you. What about the Chair's
legislation? Have you looked at that from a constitutional
perspective?
Mr. Somin. Yes, I have, and for the reasons I stated
before, it would be unconstitutional if enacted.
Mr. Raskin. You say that because you believe that--well,
you believe the language and the text--you're an originalist.
You're a textualist. You're the Cato Institute. You believe the
language in the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law
respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof. Therefore, if we said we're not going to
allow Sharia followers in the country; we're not going to allow
fundamentalists or Mormons in the country because they believe
in plural marriage, too; we're not going to believe anybody who
believes in something that's at odds with our beliefs in the
country--you're saying that this would violate the First
Amendment?
Mr. Somin. Yes, it would. The Supreme Court, including in
decisions by conservative justices, has repeatedly stated that
discrimination on the basis of religion with respect to
government benefits is unconstitutional.
Mr. Raskin. Yes, all right. Let me ask you one final thing.
OK.
Within Orthodox Judaism, there's a process called the
``get,'' which is that the couple may get a secular divorce,
but if the husband doesn't dispense this religious document
called a ``get,'' the woman can never get remarried again
within Orthodox Judaism. There was an effort when I was in the
Maryland Legislature to say, well, we are going to say that you
can't get a secular divorce if you're not going to grant the
woman this religious certificate or ``get.''
I just had to oppose it because it was conditioning a
secular good on a religious act, and I wonder if you think I
did the right thing there. These guys are schmucks. They are
not giving the women the ``get,'' but the women can get
remarried in secular court if they want to. They just can't do
it within the religious courts.
Mr. Somin. Yes, I agree with you. Orthodox Jews can
recognize or not recognize these divorces as they choose within
their religious community, but as far as secular law in the
United States is concerned, the law that matters are the law of
the State of Maryland in that case or whatever State they
happen to be in.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Chair. I yield
back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member. I now recognize the
gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock, for five minutes.
Mr. McClintock. Well, my thoughts are along a similar line.
We are talking about two very different things: Compulsory and
voluntary. The Democrats are correct that Jefferson believed in
religious liberty, which is the voluntary adoption by an
individual of religious beliefs and religious expression and
religious practice, and that is protected under our First
Amendment. That's something fundamentally different from the
compulsory imposition of religious practice on those who are
not accepting those beliefs.
Jefferson made the point in one of his letters that every
religion proclaims itself as the one true religion. How is
anybody going to able to sort through all that and find out the
one true religion for themselves if we don't allow the airing
of all those differences and allow people the freedom to
discuss and to debate them?
Our Constitution protects not only religious liberty. It
protects civil liberty as well. You've got the right to your
religion. You don't have the right to impose it on others.
You've got the right to extol or criticize religion for its
teachings or beliefs. Do any of our panelists disagree with
that?
OK. If somebody wants to adopt the Muslim religion and
abide by its practices in their personal lives, they have the
right to do so. Does anybody disagree with that?
OK. If somebody wants to enter into a contract with someone
who also adopts these practices, as long as those terms don't
violate the civil law, they have a right to do so. Does anybody
disagree with that one?
Mr. Gele. Representative, I would not agree with that in
the case of child custody--of arbitration of child custody.
Mr. McClintock. OK. Could you explain that a little bit
further?
Mr. Gele. Sure. Some States allow--particularly, Texas
allows the arbitration of child custody. Other States have just
banned it like New York. When there's a child involved, just
because the parents agree to have child custody arbitrated, it
does not mean the State should automatically enforce that child
custody judgment. States would have the option of either
banning the arbitration of child custody or there's a model law
or a governing.
Those States could pass governing the arbitration of child
custody, but I do not believe it's a good policy to allow
arbitrators to determine child custody without some basis of
court review.
Mr. McClintock. Well, if both the parents agree this would
be a contractual relationship. If both parents agree, what's
the beef? Again, it's both parents agree and it's in compliance
with the civil law.
Mr. Gele. Well, if in compliance with the civil law means a
judge reviewed it and found it was the best interest of the
child then I would certainly agree with that.
Mr. McClintock. Right. OK. We're in agreement on all those
things. My question is: Are there instances where Sharia law is
being imposed on people against their will in this country
today?
Mr. Gele. In the case of child custody, the arbitration
panels can be doing that.
Mr. McClintock. You just discussed--right. You just
discussed that, OK.
Mr. Gele. That could both be through foreign judgments or
through arbitration.
Mr. McClintock. OK. Are you aware of any proposals to enact
laws that would assist in imposing Sharia law on others or
giving it precedence over our own civil law? Anyone? OK. Well,
good.
Ms. Schild. There was actually a case in Collin County,
Texas, with actually a Republican female judge who looked at a
case of a divorce, and she sent the woman to a Sharia court,
and it was overturned by the Texas Supreme Court.
Mr. McClintock. Yes. Again, that's the remedy we have for
erroneous judicial decisions, and that is the appellate
process, and what you're saying is it worked in that case.
I've got about a minute left. I'll yield to the Chair since
I see Mr. Biggs has left.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from California. I would
just ask Mr. Spencer. Do you have anything to add to what Mr.
McClintock from California was just adding about any of those
concerns? You seem to want to. I just want to make sure.
Mr. Spencer. Yes. The aspects of Sharia that are really
controversial are political and not religious. The whole
hearing here is turning on the idea that it would be terrible
to restrict religious practice and in violation of the First
Amendment, but the difficulty here is that Sharia in all its
forms and wherever it has been implemented has been political
and not just religious--
Mr. McClintock. Oh, agreed.
Mr. Spencer. --and has been supremacist and not just
egalitarian. There is no Sharia state--
Mr. McClintock. If I could reclaim my time.
Mr. Roy. I yield back to the gentleman from California.
Mr. McClintock. If I could reclaim my time, I agree with
you. There is a political aspect of it, but that is protected
by our freedom of speech, our freedom to criticize, our freedom
to debate it, and our freedom to vote it down. Isn't that the
way the system works?
Mr. Spencer. Well, I don't think that the freedom of speech
is in play when you're talking about active efforts to subvert
constitutional order in the place of another one.
Mr. McClintock. When you're debating any political issue,
that's the essence of it. We all talk among ourselves.
Mr. Spencer. Obviously, you cannot the classic thing of
crying fire in a crowded theater. It's the same thing here.
There are laws against subversion. There are laws against
working against the constitutional order, and that's what's at
issue here. Sharia is not really open to debate. Everywhere
it's been implemented--in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, and Somalia--it's pretty much the same.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Spencer. I thank the gentleman from
California. I now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm a little confused
about this hearing. I think we all probably agree--I haven't
been here to hear everybody's agreement--but I think we all
agreed Sharia law is not something that anybody would want to
have to live under. It's oppressive, and it's a religion that's
forced on other people.
We've got a Constitution already that's under attack. The
emoluments clause is being shredded. The pardons power is being
abused in such a way that is--people question whether we should
have a pardon power because it is not being used for the
reasons by which it was put in the Constitution--for unusual
cases where justice wasn't served, et cetera--and it's being
used as a transaction event. We're talking about Sharia law?
We've got so much to deal with, Mr. Chair, with our
Constitution and protecting it, the First Amendment, the Fourth
Amendment, what's going on in Minnesota, the murdering of
citizens, fear on the streets, murdering and shooting people in
the back 10 times, shooting a woman in the face, not giving or
rendering aid to either one of them, not allowing doctors to
render aid to them, watching them die. Those are constitutional
problems. We're talking about Sharia law?
This is not really relevant to this Committee and to what's
going on in America today. There is so much we could be dealing
with concerning the Constitution and protecting America. The
White Christian nationalist ideology has been put forward.
One of the gentlemen here said something about--was it the
certain--it might have been you, Mr. Spencer--something that a
group put forward as their plan for the future, some
publication or some ideology. Did you mention that?
Mr. Spencer. I don't know. You might be referring to the
Explanatory Memorandum, which is--I didn't mention, but it's a
captured internal document of the Muslim Brotherhood detailing
its program for the United States, where it says the brothers
must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand
jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from
within and sabotaging its miserable house by their own hands
and the hands of the believers, so that the law's religion is
victorious over other religions.
Mr. Cohen. Right. That's pretty much what--
Mr. Spencer. I would suggest that just saying that we've
got other problems doesn't make that one go away.
Mr. Cohen. Sir, I've got the floor. Sir, I've got the
floor. You're not Pam Bondi.
Mr. Spencer. Sorry?
Mr. Cohen. I said I've got the floor. You're not Pam Bondi.
That's what I was getting at. What you're talking about sounds
like a Middle Eastern version of Project 2025, another type of
manifesto to take over and do all these things and to control
our government and to turn it around on its head.
We should be looking at Project 2025 and what they plan to
do to this country and what they're doing to this country. This
is not the country that Jefferson would have known. It's not
the country I've known. It's not the country that I think our
Constitution foresaw. None of this seems relevant. It seems
like--
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman kindly yield?
Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir, please.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you to the distinguished gentleman from
Tennessee.
There was a mass murderer in Norway who went on an anti-
Muslim rampage and killed 69 people. You'll recall his name was
Anders Breivik. He denounced Norwegian politicians as failing
to defend the country against the Muslim takeover.
I raise it because I want to introduce this article from
The New York Times. He invoked your work, Mr. Spencer. You are
probably aware of that. You probably know about this article
from The New York Times that he frequently quoted Robert
Spencer who operates the Jihad Watch website.
All which goes to demonstrate the point I was making before
that fanatics can take up any ideology, religious or secular,
and use it to commit horrific crimes, all which to me would
suggest that all of us should be careful about whether we're
speaking up for general principles like the separation of
church and State and against religious fanaticism of every
kind, or whether we're trying to demonize and vilify a
particular group. I don't know if you have any response.
Mr. Spencer. Well, yes. In terms of demonizing and
vilifying, obviously, this would be an example of it because
Anders Breivik quoted me, yes. He actually quoted a documentary
that I was in. Every time my name was mentioned as speaking,
it's listed as one of the times he mentioned, and then they
say, oh, he mentioned him 100 times or something.
Mr. Raskin. Anything about the massacre itself?
Mr. Spencer. The fact is that he also quoted Barack Obama.
Mr. Raskin. Anything about the massacre of all the innocent
people?
Mr. Spencer. He quoted John F. Kennedy. He quoted many,
many people.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Leaving aside the quotations, do you have
any thoughts on the massacre of the people?
Mr. Spencer. He actually took issue with me for not
counseling violence. To bring this up really is tantamount to
saying that Elizabeth Warren is responsible for the Dayton mass
murders because the mass murderer invoked her name.
Mr. Raskin. OK. OK. Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Cohen's time is
up. I would like to enter this from The New York Times article
into the record, ``Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim
Thought in the U.S.''
Mr. Cohen. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Roy. Without objection. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. I
now recognize my friend from North Carolina, Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank all of you on
the panel for what you have shared today.
While there has been a lot of talk about what we don't know
and we don't know this world or we don't know that world, let
me tell you what happened in my world, in the Eighth District
of North Carolina. This past year, in late 2025, the FBI in
coordination with local law enforcement arrested an 18-year-old
in Mint Hill, North Carolina, who was plotting to carry out a
deadly New Year's Eve attack in support of ISIS. According to
the DOJ, this 18-year-old--Christian Sturdivant is his name--
sought to become a martyr for ISIS.
Mr. Spencer, I just want to give you a chance to share. Can
you help me understand how a kid growing up in a suburb of
Charlotte, a rural area in North Carolina, can be radicalized
by the Islamic State.
Mr. Spencer. Mr. Harris, this is a very important issue
that law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the U.S. have
been entirely remiss and have ignored altogether. The fact is
that a young man like that in Mint Hill could easily go to
numerous sites on the internet, and quite possibly to people
within his own community, who would tell him that the Islamic
State, ISIS, represents authentic Islam and that violence
against unbelievers is a duty that he needed to carry out.
This is something that ISIS recruiters say all over the
world. They were able to attract thousands of Muslims from 100
different countries when they had their caliphate in Iraq and
Syria, and this is because their claim to Islamic authenticity
rang true among all too many Muslims, and nobody is countering
that.
Mr. Harris. I know this happened in Mint Hill, as I
mentioned. Can you tell me where else in the United States that
such radicali-
zation is happening?
Mr. Spencer. This has happened all over the country. We had
the Boston marathon murders that were two young Muslims, once
again, who were thought to be moderate at one time. We had the
Fort Hood massacre, San Bernardino, Chattanooga. The list goes
on. Orlando, Florida. The list goes on and on and on.
These are young Muslims in the United States who come to
believe by--for reasons that nobody has ever investigated
fully--that this is the authentic expression of their faith.
Mr. Harris. What role is the internet playing, you believe,
in the radicalization of American-born youth?
Mr. Spencer. Well, the Islamic State group has frequently
called on Muslims in the United States specifically to carry
out lone-wolf jihad terror attacks by just starting to murder
people at random when they get the opportunity. Because they
have this claim of Islamic authenticity, it's all too easy for
a young man to go online and see that and think that he will be
receiving a reward from Allah for carrying it out.
Mr. Harris. Well, as a pastor myself, I believe, obviously,
that religious liberty is critically important and something
we've got to be willing to do what we must to protect. However,
I also recognize that a person's religious liberty doesn't mean
they can impose their religious liberty on others.
Let me ask you this, Mr. Spencer. How do we balance our
respect for religious liberty with the threat you see posed by
Sharia law?
Mr. Spencer. It seems to me we have to be able to say to
the Muslim community that they are perfectly free to practice
their religion except where, in particular, it contravenes
other existing American laws.
For example, there were a couple doctors in Detroit a few
years back who were put on trial for practicing female genital
mutilation, and their defense was that this was part of their
Islamic faith and that they were carrying out as part of their
religious practice.
A judge ultimately threw the case out saying, yes, indeed,
this contravenes religious freedom, and we have to understand
that it would be unconstitutional to ban female genital
mutilation because it's part of Islam. The rights of those
girls whose lives are destroyed, they don't matter at all.
That's Sharia.
Mr. Harris. Well, and one thing--in just the last 40
seconds--that concerns me is the creation of these Islamic
tribunals that seek to mediate disputes between Muslims and
bind Muslims in the United States to Sharia law. We've seen
them popping up in cities like Dallas, which led Governor
Abbott to request law enforcement officials to investigate
these entities.
Mr. Gele, in just the last 15 seconds, would Sharia law-
based institutions such as these potentially violate Federal
law, and if so, how so?
Mr. Gele. They would probably not violate Federal law that
is particularly a statute, but what they would do is in some of
their rulings that their rulings were enforced by civil
courts--such as, of course, in Texas, as Texas law would
currently suggest--then that would violate certainly American
constitutional liberties, including due process, equal
protection, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.
Mr. Harris. OK. Thank you, sir. I'm out of time. I yield
back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I now
recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Scanlon, for her five minutes
of questions.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. It's been an interesting discussion
of one religious minority attempting to impose its beliefs on
the general population, which, of course, would violate the
First Amendment.
That our colleague, Mr. Cohen, did raise an interesting
point about the greatest danger perhaps lying not with Sharia
law but with White Christian nationalism--which is very
different than patriotic Americans who happen to be Christian--
but the White Christian nationalist movement, which is embodied
in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 manifesto. Which we
have seen over the last year the Trump Administration has
embraced both by putting people who drafted that document into
the administration but also by implementing its plans.
I will just run through a few of them. The plan calls for a
total abortion ban--which is not something that people of all
faiths believe in--including the overturning of FDA approval
for mife-pristone and restricting access to contraception.
These beliefs seek to reverse LGBTQ+ equality, including same-
sex marriage, and making it very difficult for people to access
gender-affirming care.
The policy promotes a very narrow definition of family as a
married mother and father, often portraying single motherhood
as an aspect or a cause of social decay. It proposes and the
Trump Administration has moved to abolish the Department of
Education, promoting school privatization through vouchers and
trying to fund private religious schools.
With respect to civil service, we've seen the moves to
reclassify tens of thousands of nonpartisan Federal civil
servants and replace them with political appointees willing to
swear allegiance to this particular ideology. Impacts on the
environment, et cetera. There's a whole host of ways here in
which this particular ideology has been embedded in our
government in recent times, despite the fact that it does pose
a threat to underlying constitutional values and other people's
religious beliefs.
That keeps coming to mind as we have this conversation
about having the respect for religious liberty and people being
free to practice their own religion, but they're not supposed
to be imposing their own religion on others.
Professor Somin, can you speak--for the benefit of my
Republican colleagues, can you explain how the First
Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and the Free Establishment
Clause work together to prohibit the government from imposing
one group of Americans' religious views on another?
Mr. Somin. Sure, absolutely. Certainly, the Free Exercise
Clause prevents direct coercion of religion of any kind,
forcing people to engage in religious practices that they don't
want to engage in. The Establishment Clause prevents the
establishment of any kind of official religion, including the
kind of theocracy we see in Iran or in Saudi Arabia.
Also, relevant to this case and to the legislation we're
talking about today, the Free Exercise Clause in decisions by
Supreme Court justices--including by conservative ones in the
case of Carson v. Makin dealing with, yes, school vouchers--
they have ruled that it violates the Free Exercise Clause to
exclude people or organizations based on their religious
beliefs from benefits that are available to other people, even
though the State did not have an obligation to create school
vouchers under the Constitution in Maine.
When Maine did so, in Carson, the Supreme Court in the
decision joined by all six conservative justices correctly
ruled that excluding religious schools simply because they're
religious violates the First Amendment, and the same thing
would be true for an effort to exclude Muslim immigrants in the
United States simply because their adherence of Sharia law.
This jurisprudence, which conservatives accept almost
everywhere else, applies here as well.
Ms. Scanlon. We've recently seen some examples where this
administration has tried to exclude immigrants and deport
immigrants based on their First Amendment speech, for example,
publishing an op-ed. Can you talk about why, under the First
Amendment, the government can't deport noncitizens simply
because of their religious views?
Mr. Somin. Sure. I described this in my written testimony,
but the basic idea is that there is no immigration exception to
the First Amendment and that the rights protected by the First
Amendment apply to noncitizens on our territory no less than
the citizens, and does courts several times over the last year
have ruled against the Trump Administration's campaign of
speech-based deportations and rightly so.
Ms. Scanlon. I would just yield 25 seconds to Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. I actually have a UC request, Mr. Chair, if
that's OK.
Mr. Roy. Sure.
Mr. Raskin. This is 18 U.S.C. 116, Section C, and this is
banning female genital mutilation in America. It says it shall
not be a defense to a prosecution under the section that female
genital mutilation is required as a matter of religion, custom,
or tradition.
I don't know the judge that Mr. Spencer is referring to,
but that's why we have Appellate courts if somebody actually
allowed it in plain contravention of the statute.
Mr. Roy. Without objection. I will now recognize my
colleague and friend, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gill.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding this
hearing and for very boldly and clearly speaking about this.
This is an issue that I hear all the time from my constituents
in North Texas who are concerned about the rise of radical
Islam in Texas, and I want to thank the witnesses for being
here as well.
I have a few questions, and I want to start with you, Mr.
Somin. Can you tell me what percentage of U.S. Muslims believe
that Sharia law should be implemented in the United States?
Mr. Somin. I am not aware of survey data on that specific
question. However,--
Mr. Gill. I can tell you it's 39 percent. Thirty-nine
percent of Muslims in the United States want Sharia law
implemented in the next 20 years. Do you know what percentage
of Muslims in the United States support the formation of a
Muslim political party?
Mr. Somin. Again, I'm not familiar with survey data on that
particular question, but--
Mr. Gill. The number is 46 percent. I'll do a couple more.
Do you know what percentage of Muslims in the United States
support making it illegal to show a picture of the cartoon--or
a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad?
Mr. Somin. As with the other questions, a lot depends on
the wording and the sample, and I would want to see the
methodology here.
Mr. Gill. Fifty percent. That's a lot.
Let's do one more. Do you know what percentage of Muslims
in the United States believe that Islam should be declared as
our national religion?
Mr. Somin. Once again, I would want to look at the
methodology of the survey to question--
Mr. Gill. Thirty-three percent. This is from a survey
conducted by the Heritage Foundation in September 2024. It was
published on October 6, 2024.
I've got two more for you. Do you know what percentage of
American Muslims believe that Israel does not have a right to
exist as a Jewish homeland?
Mr. Somin. I don't know that one either, but if it's from a
survey by the Heritage Foundation, they are known for their bad
methodology.
Mr. Gill. It's 43 percent. You are happy--you can declare
that statistics you don't like aren't true, but that's not how
I'm going to operate here.
We got one more. Do you know what percentage of Muslims in
the United States say that Jewish people have too much power in
government policy?
Mr. Somin. Once again, I would refer you back to my
previous answer.
Mr. Gill. Fifty-seven percent. Do those facts concern you?
Mr. Somin. Again, I would want to see the nature of the
survey, and I would also know the--
Mr. Gill. No, I'm just asking if those statistics concern
you.
Mr. Somin. If they were accurate, they would be a matter of
concern, but I would want to see--
Mr. Gill. They are accurate, that they are a matter of
concern, and most Americans agree with me there.
Mr. Spencer, I'm going to move on to you. Let me ask you.
Is Islam as a political ideology, in your opinion, compatible
with America's constitutional governing framework?
Mr. Spencer. Oh, no, certainly not. It denies the freedom
of speech. It denies the equality of rights of non-Muslims with
Muslims, the equality of rights of women with men, and
contradicts U.S. law and numerous other particulars.
Mr. Gill. Can you tell me what is the goal of political
Islam?
Mr. Spencer. Well, Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, said
Islam must dominate and not be dominated. In every Sharia State
that is on Earth today and has ever been on Earth, non-Muslims
have not had equality of rights with Muslims in the society.
The idea is to enforce a subservient position for them so that
they know the pain in this world as well as the next of having
rejected Muhammad, which the Koran says that they will suffer.
Mr. Gill. Under Islamic law as it's commonly practiced, are
men and women treated with equal dignity?
Mr. Spencer. No, certainly not. I quoted before the passage
about women--beating women from whom you fear disobedience. The
Koran contains nothing about beating disobedient men.
Mr. Gill. Ms. Schild, I've got a few questions for you. Can
you explain to us very, very briefly what is EPIC City? Do you
mind turning your microphone on?
Mr. Roy. Your microphone.
Ms. Schild. Yes. To understand how Sharia relates to EPIC
City, you don't have to look any further than Imam Yasir Qadhi
of EPIC. He is the Chair of the Fiqh Council on North America,
the group that tells Muslims in the U.S. how to apply Sharia.
Mr. Gill. Do you know who is funding EPIC City?
Ms. Schild. Yes. Just one moment. I have some information
on funding.
When you ask where the money and infrastructure for EPIC
City are coming from, when EPIC City was first marketed, they
actively solicited investors, including foreign investors. That
fundraising model is now under serious legal scrutiny with
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. He sued East Plano Islamic
Center, its development arm, community capital partners,
alleging violations of Texas security laws in how funds were
raised and managed. This isn't isolated.
Mr. Gill. Thank you. My time is up, so I yield back. Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Roy. The Ranking Member.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I seek unanimous consent to enter
into the record an article published by the Cato Institute on
October 26, 2025, written by Mustafa Akyol, titled ``No `Sharia
Law' is Coming to Texas.''
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article
published by Politico on January 26, 2026, written by Liz
Crampton and Jessica Piper, titled ``Republicans go all-in on
Sharia law attacks ahead of Texas primary.''
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article
written by J. David Goodman published in The New York Times on
February 10, 2026, ``Without a `Border Invasion,' Texas GOP
Turns to an Old Enemy, Islam.''
Mr. Roy. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, I've got one too.
Mr. Roy. The Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. This is from the Pew Research Center, ``45
percent of Americans say the United States should be a
Christian Nation.''
Mr. Roy. Without objection.
Mr. Roy. I will now recognize myself for such time as I
shall consume.
Ms. Schild, let me ask you a quick question. Just try to go
through these pretty quickly, all right? Just a few things with
respect to Texas that my friend, Mr. Gill, was just talking
about. Is it true that--not just EPIC City--that there are
other similar-type compounds being built across the State of
Texas?
Ms. Schild. Yes.
Mr. Roy. Including North of Austin and including--there's a
big center in the West campus in the University of Texas.
Ms. Schild. Right.
Mr. Roy. Including other places and others. It's not just
located--just EPIC City. Is that correct?
Ms. Schild. That's correct. All over the State.
Mr. Roy. I also talk to a number of people, particularly in
the Dallas--Fort Worth metroplex--women in particular--who will
tell me that there are enclaves in areas throughout the
Dallas--Fort Worth metroplex where they do not go. Where there
are women, Texans, who say that because they are in areas that
have a high concentration of Muslim men, and because of the
nature of what's going on in those areas, that there are now,
quote, ``no-go zones'' in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. Is
that correct?
Ms. Schild. That's correct.
Mr. Roy. I have heard that from multiple people and
multiple places throughout that area, correct?
Ms. Schild. Correct.
Mr. Roy. Mr. Spencer--and I look to you on this question
here. I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who
were raising objection to legislation that--and a number of
bills that some of us introduced, particularly one that I
introduced--that was raising the issue of vetting individuals
as we're bringing them into the United States for their
adherence to Sharia law. That was the idea.
The idea is that Sharia law is inconsistent with our values
in Western civilization, so we should know if we're bringing
people into the country that may want to advance a system of
law or systems that are contrary to our laws.
Here's my question. In doing so, my colleagues acknowledged
and said that this would mean that Muslims generally would be
in fear of deportation or inability to be brought into the
country. Does that not suggest that there's a recognition that
Sharia law is central to most of the Muslim population
throughout the world and those that come to the United States?
Mr. Spencer. It would seem as if they're aware of that,
yes.
Mr. Roy. Is that true?
Mr. Spencer. Yes.
Mr. Roy. Is Sharia law central to most Muslims throughout
the world?
Mr. Spencer. Absolutely. Sharia is considered divine law,
and thus it takes precedence over all other legal systems. In
areas of the Muslim world where it is not fully implemented,
such as Egypt or Syria or other countries, it still has a
tremendous cultural influence such that elements of it are
often enforced by individuals or groups where the government
doesn't do so.
Mr. Roy. Is it not true also that there are some 50-plus
countries throughout the world, in which, Sharia is either
entirely the law or central to the law in a mixture of its
religious implementation but also its civil?
Mr. Spencer. Yes, that's right. There are 57 members of the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation: Fifty-six nations and the
Palestinian Authority.
Mr. Roy. Is it also not true that when we're talking about
the advance of the Islam population or the population of
Muslims that adhere to Islam in this country--that it is not
also true that there is significant funding by groups and
organizations to push that, including Sharia, into the United
States?
Mr. Spencer. Oh, there's no doubt whatsoever. For example,
Prince al-Waleed bin Talal from Saudi Arabia who has spent
millions and millions of dollars in funding universities, such
as Georgetown, where they have now the Prince Al-Waleed Center
for Muslim-Christian Understanding that is designed essentially
to whitewash Islam, jihad, and Sharia and present a version of
these things designed to foster complacency. You also have the
Government of Qatar doing the same thing on an even larger--
Mr. Roy. In addition to these countries, in addition to
foreign funding, there are organizations such as CAIR and other
organizations that are designed to implement and advance the
existence of Sharia and the advance of Islam and Islamism in
the United States. Is that true?
Mr. Spencer. Oh, certainly. Omar Ahmad, the cofounder of
CAIR, has been on record saying, ``the Koran should be the only
law of the land.'' He has denied saying this, but the original
reporter stuck by her story. Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR, the famous
spokesperson for the organization, said that he, ``wanted to
see the Government of the United States become Islamic sometime
in the future.'' This is something that is clear from all of
CAIR's actions.
Mr. Roy. Would it be safe to say that the goal of those
organizations and the Muslim Brotherhood, as my friend Mr. Gill
said--also from Texas--that the goal of those organizations in
advancing Islam and Islamist movement in the United States--
that the goal is for the Western Hemisphere and for the Western
civilization, the United States, and Texas as ground zero to
become Islamic?
Mr. Spencer. Oh, there's no doubt about it. That's very
clear from the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood
saying that the goal is that a law's religion is victorious
over other religions, and they're working toward eliminating
and destroying Western civilization from within. All the non-
Muslim apologists for Sharia that we see are indications of how
successful that effort has been.
Mr. Roy. One last question--and I'm over my time--and then
I will recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming.
Is that not inherently political and not just missional? In
other words, it's not just saying, hey, we would like people to
know Allah and to know the teachings of Muhammad and Islam as
much as a Christian might want to advance the mission of
Christ, but that it is political in ideology and in effect.
Mr. Spencer. There is no doubt whatsoever. This is all
about political power. Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of
CAIR, has made that quite clear in repeated statements speaking
about increasing the number of Muslim Congressman, getting
Muslim Senators, and increasing Muslim political power on that
basis.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman. I will now recognize the
gentlelady from Wyoming.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you and thank you all for being here
today.
In August 2025, an Austrian court issued a ruling
confirming an arbitration award based explicitly on Islamic
Sharia law. In the specific case, a contract was signed by two
men that mandated that an arbitration tribunal would resolve
conflicts based on Sharia law. The arbitration tribunal, after
a conflict arose, later decided against one of the two men and
forced him to pay $320,000, and the decision was upheld by the
Vienna regional court for civil matters.
The European Center for Law and Justice highlights examples
in Europe where Sharia law has been legally applied, including
in Greece, where under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, citizens
who are Muslims and residents in Western Thrace have used
Sharia law as a parallel legal system for private law. We know
that it has also happened here in America.
Mr. Gele, I would like to turn to you. Across parts of
Europe and more limited context in the United States, we have
learned that there are a number of so-called Sharia-based
tribunals that purport to resolve family and other civil
disputes using Sharia-centric principles. To your knowledge,
how far back have some of these tribunals been permitted to
operate in the United States and across Europe?
Mr. Gele. Across Europe, I can't speak to as well. Across
the United States, they have existed for at least several
decades. Certainly, the number of cases that they have been
handling appears to be increasing, and that increasing appears
to be accelerating. One of the difficulties in monitoring this
is that, typically, only Appellate court decisions are
reported.
Ms. Hageman. Right.
Mr. Gele. You would only truly find out about it if there
was an arbitration. If the arbitration award was then
challenged in a District court, sometimes those are reported.
Normally, it would only be reported if the appeal then went up
to an Appellate court. It's very hard to get good data.
Ms. Hageman. Well, could you explain the process by which a
family dispute, for example, may be resolved in a Sharia law-
applied setting in contrast to what we would expect to see in
an American family court proceeding?
Mr. Gele. Sure. Typically, it would begin with an Islamic
mahr, which is an Islamic marriage contract. That contract
would be signed normally before the marriage. Then, during the
marriage, if a dispute arose between the couple, they would
then--one of them would approach the Sharia tribunal.
Typically, an imam--sometimes an attorney, sometimes not,
sometimes not an imam--but, commonly, imams would then
essentially adjudge it.
There would typically not be most of the formalities within
American law. You wouldn't have, for example, a court reporter
recording everything down. You wouldn't always have formal
pleadings. Sometimes it would be as simple as basically a
meeting. Then, there would be a ruling. Those rulings aren't
always necessarily placed in clear judgments. A lot of the
formalities that we as lawyers do in American courts simply do
not exist in those systems.
Ms. Hageman. Well, that's very important because due
process and equal protection are foundational tenets guaranteed
under the United States Constitution and most State
constitutions, and they are available to every American citizen
who engages with the judiciary or seeks legal relief.
Mr. Gele, based on what knowledge there is of how Sharia
tribunals operate within Europe and to a more limited extent in
America, are there risks of participants--notably women and
minors--losing due process protections and equal treatment in a
Sharia-based system?
Mr. Gele. Yes. Those risks are quite significant. They have
manifested themselves in the few Appellate cases we've been
able to see. The remedies for those are not that difficult.
States can either ban the arbitration of family law matters,
particularly custody. Some States have done that for decades,
often blue States more than red States.
Additionally, there is a model act that's been put out that
would create some thresholds that the reviewing court would
then be able to look at the basis of the decision of the court.
In the case of custody, they would look at other children's
matters for visitation and look at the best interest of the
child. Currently, in many States--Texas particularly being
one--those safeguards do not exist.
Ms. Hageman. Why are women and minors more at risk in a
Sharia-based tribunal system?
Mr. Gele. Primarily for two reasons.
First, Sharia law tends to be discriminatory against women,
particularly compared to modern American law.
Second, Sharia law does not require any analysis of the
best interest of the child.
Normally, custody is based depending on what exact school
of Sharia is being applied. Custody is normally based on the
age of the child and based on the age the child will be given
to one of the two parents.
Ms. Hageman. In a Sharia-based system, there is a real risk
that people engaged in that would be losing due process and
equal protection rights. Is that fair?
Mr. Gele. Yes. It's almost guaranteed, particularly on the
equal protection side.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Gele. I thank the gentlelady from
Wyoming, and I'll now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin
for five minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. First, I want to respond to
something that was said earlier. Every weekend, I get home and
I meet different people around my district. Maybe I attend
Republican Party events, maybe church groups and their
fundraisers, American Legions, Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs, and
just random people when I sometimes just go door to door. I
have yet to find one person who is a self-avowed or even
unself-avowed Christian nationalist. I just never met that
person. Nevertheless, for whatever motivation to be divisive
and to run down this country in the eyes of our immigrants--I
think that's what their motivation is--the Democrats keep
talking about these mystery people.
I would think that if they existed, sooner or later, I
would at least run into one of those people, but I have yet to
run into any. I just want to make that point in case we may
have new arrivals in this country who might think--when
President Biden and various Democrats talk about this huge
movement in this country, they know that at least I have yet to
find one person who fits the bill.
OK. Now, Mr. Spencer, you were cutoff before, and I'm going
to give you just a few minutes. Is there anything you wanted to
say that weren't able to say when you were cutoff?
Mr. Spencer. To be honest with you, I don't remember when
the last time I was cutoff was, so--
Mr. Grothman. OK. I'm from Wisconsin, and in Wisconsin, we
have a military base called Fort McCoy. There was a huge number
of people who, on very short notice, inundated Fort McCoy.
Eventually, Federal prosecutors charged a couple of the Afghans
who were there with serious crimes, sexual assault of a minor,
committing domestic violence. I felt, in any event, that these
incidents underscored how inadequate vetting happened before
all these people were put in Wisconsin.
In any event, do you know about how many Afghans did the
Biden Administration bring to the U.S.?
Mr. Spencer. Oh, I believe it was about 85,000.
Mr. Grothman. I'll help you. My cheat sheet here says
200,000.
Mr. Spencer. OK. I'm sure that's much more accurate. In any
case, vetting was essentially nonexistent. These were people
who were, for the most part, not people who helped us in
Afghanistan, but that was--by the acknowledgment of Alejandro
Mayorkas, that they were people who didn't have the Special
Immigrant Visas that were given to people who hated us there.
What's noteworthy about the people who were arrested at
Fort McCoy is that they said they didn't know that they were
violating American law when they molested these young people
because what they did was legal in Afghanistan. That is an
indication and microcosm of the dangers of bringing over
Sharia-adherent Muslims. They are adherent of a legal system
and cultural mores that are radically different from American
law and strip--if we allow this, they will strip protections
from all kinds of people who will be their victims.
Mr. Grothman. OK. This did have serious and tragic
consequences, didn't it, by not vetting these folks?
Mr. Spencer. I'm sorry? I didn't catch that.
Mr. Grothman. This did have serious consequences, not
vetting these folks?
Mr. Spencer. Absolutely. Well, one example is the Afghans
who were arrested at Fort McCoy, but there's also the fact that
ISIS as well as the Taliban and al-Qaida are quite active in
Afghanistan. You bring over a lot of Afghans without any
vetting. You're bringing over almost certainly ISIS, al-Qaida,
and Taliban operatives who believe that they have a
responsibility before Allah to wage jihad in the infidel land.
That's going to be something we're going to be seeing the
consequences of for years to come.
Mr. Grothman. OK. What can Congress do to strengthen laws
to prevent this type of mass importation of unvetted aliens?
Mr. Spencer. Well, for one thing, vetting would be in
order. That needs to be intelligent and thorough, comprehensive
vetting that is not just are you a member of a terrorist group,
which is what it's been for years, but something--questions
that are much more specific that will tease out attitudes and
then make it a deportable offense to lie when you are answering
these questions.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Any one of the three of you on the right
side of me, are we right now actively tracking instances of
Sharia law and the patterns in places where it's most
prevalent? Like Google is coming on to find something on that?
Mr. Gele. To my knowledge, the U.S. Government is not doing
that whatsoever. The Center for Security Policy attempted that
a couple decades ago, basically looking through Louisiana
Appellate cases. They were able to find dozens on dozens. I've
been trying to monitor it. It is very difficult to monitor
because most cases--first, arbitration tribunals are not
reported. Most District court cases are not reported at the
State level, and properly using the search engines that tease
out the cases at the State appellate level is tricky.
Mr. Roy. The gentleman is over his time. Did the other two
want to quickly answer that question since he addressed all
three of you? Just quickly, do you know anything additional to
add?
Mr. Spencer. That's exactly what I was going to say.
Mr. Roy. OK.
Mr. Spencer. The U.S. Government is not doing this.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Grothman. Thanks. They might wind up getting results
they don't want.
Mr. Spencer. Exactly.
Mr. Roy. Well, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his
question. I thank the witnesses. Thank you for your
participation. This concludes today's hearing, and we thank
you.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions or for the
witnesses or additional materials for the record.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can
be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent
.aspx?EventID=118945.
[all]