Push to Ban Sharia Law Gains New Urgency as Americans Face Extremist Threats at Home

Following the commencement of joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran earlier this month, a spate of terrorist attacks in the United States reportedly motivated by Islamic extremist ideology has renewed fears of jihadist violence at home. This heightened threat environment is also drawing renewed attention to efforts to restrict the influence of Sharia law and other foreign religious codes that create fertile ground for such violence to grow.

Just hours after the strikes began, a gunman wearing a “Property of Allah” t-shirt opened fire at a bar in Texas, killing two people and wounding more than a dozen others. Days later, a jihadist with ties to ISIS shouted “Allahu Akbar” and killed Lieutenant Colonel Brandon Shah on the campus of Old Dominion University in Virginia. That same day, a man with ties to Hezbollah attacked a synagogue in Michigan.

While the circumstances of each attack differ, they point to the broader concern of the role of Islamist ideology in motivating violence and shaping parallel legal and cultural norms. That reality has injected new urgency into efforts to draw a clear line, ensuring that American law and the U.S. Constitution remain supreme and that foreign legal systems like Sharia law have no foothold in U.S. courts or public life.

Sharia law is a comprehensive legal and moral code derived from Islamic religious texts that governs not only personal behavior, but also civil, criminal, and political life. Unlike Western legal traditions, which largely separate church and state, Sharia in its traditional form does not draw that distinction, instead asserting authority over all aspects of society. In countries where it has been applied, it has sanctioned practices fundamentally at odds with American constitutional principles, particularly on issues like free speech, religious liberty, and equal protection under the law.

That concern is driving renewed interest in legislation such as the No Sharia Act, which would prohibit U.S. courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign legal rulings, including those based on Sharia, if doing so would violate constitutional rights. The bill is designed to ensure that disputes adjudicated in American courts remain firmly grounded in U.S. law, particularly in sensitive areas like marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance.

Other proposals go further. The Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act would direct federal authorities to deny visas, immigration benefits, or admission to individuals who adhere to or support the application of Sharia law in ways that conflict with the Constitution, while also expanding the government’s authority to remove those already present under similar grounds. The bill argues that such measures are necessary to prevent the importation of legal frameworks and ideologies that are incompatible with America’s system of ordered liberty.

Momentum for these policies is not limited to Washington. At the state level, Republican voters in Texas signaled strong support for similar action earlier this month. During the party’s March 3 primary, the Texas Republican Party adopted a ballot resolution declaring it the official position of the party to ban the application of Sharia law in the state – an effort which AMAC supported.

To understand why these concerns persist, many policymakers and scholars point to a fundamental distinction between Western legal traditions and the structure of Islamic law. The United States was founded on the principle that religious belief and civil authority must remain separate, but the Islamic system explicitly rejects that division, treating religious doctrine as the governing framework for public life.

Shortly after the September 11 attacks, historian Bernard Lewis – one of the foremost Western scholars of the Middle East – warned in an interview with me that many Americans misunderstood this distinction. Islam, he argued, is not simply a set of personal beliefs or spiritual practices, but a system that historically “concerns the whole of life,” encompassing law, governance, and social order. In that sense, he noted, “there is no separation between church and state.”

That fusion is also what creates the ideological space in which jihadist movements operate. Extremist groups from al-Qaeda to ISIS explicitly ground their actions in rigid, absolutist readings of Sharia – using it to justify both governance and warfare in the name of religion. In that view, Sharia is not merely a private code of conduct, but a framework for political authority that sanctions violence against those who do not submit to it.

Lewis also warned that Western societies underestimate the implications of importing legal and ideological systems that do not recognize the same boundaries between faith and state. Allowing parallel legal norms to take root, even in limited or informal ways, can create environments where more radical interpretations gain legitimacy over time.

If the past few weeks have shown anything, it’s that the threats facing the United States are not confined to distant battlefields. They are shaped by ideas, ideologies, and legal frameworks that are already present in the United States. The renewed push to block the influence of Sharia law reflects a growing recognition in Washington and beyond that ignoring those realities does not make them go away – it only gives them space to grow.

The question now is whether policymakers will act decisively, or once again wait until the consequences are impossible to ignore.

Ben Solis is the pen name of an international affairs journalist, historian, and researcher.