ISLAMISM IS A POLITICAL PROJECT: THE BEIEF THAT SOCIETY SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY RELIGIOUS LAW

When a preacher says the Constitution must yield to Sharia, Americans should listen

A radical minority, sometimes funded from abroad and amplified by social media, is pushing a hardline ideological agenda while benefiting from the liberties it seeks to weaken. 

 

By Stephen M. Flatow 

 

JNS

Dec 22, 2025 

 

Imam Tahir Anwar leading Friday Jummah prayers at the Prospect Center in Saratoga, California

 

Scroll through X long enough, and you’ll see it: Muslim preachers denouncing America as corrupt, portraying liberal democracy as a fraud, and—most alarming—arguing that Sharia law should replace the U.S. Constitution. Some clips are foreign. Some are domestic. Some are deceptively edited. But enough are real, and enough are applauded, that dismissing the phenomenon as “rage bait” is no longer responsible.

Let’s begin with a principle that should unite Americans across party and faith: Religious freedom is not the same thing as permission to dismantle the constitutional order. The First Amendment protects worship, belief and speech. It does not require Americans to pretend that every political theology is compatible with the system that protects us all.

There is a distinction we must make—carefully, consistently and without collective blame. Islam is a religion practiced peacefully by millions of Americans. Islamism is a political project: the belief that society should be governed by religious law, enforced by state power and ultimately superior to human-made constitutions. Criticizing Islamism is not “anti-Muslim.” It is the same civic vigilance we apply to any ideology, religious or secular, that claims America’s founding principles are illegitimate.

The rhetoric is not hypothetical. At events held in the United States, audiences have been asked directly whether Sharia takes precedence over “the laws of the land,” and the answer has been an unambiguous “absolutely.”

In other venues, speakers have floated the scenario of Muslims becoming a majority and then replacing America’s constitutional framework with religious law. Still others, speaking in the language of inevitability, tell listeners that liberal democracy is doomed and that Islam is the alternative. Whatever one thinks of those claims as theology, they are not merely theology. They are political assertions about power, authority and sovereignty.

We should not exaggerate these voices into a caricature of American Muslims. Most Muslim Americans are not preaching revolution. Many are deeply patriotic, serving in uniform, building businesses and raising families who want the same security and opportunity as everyone else. The danger is not “Muslims.” The danger is a radical minority—leaders speaking at Friday Jummah prayers, often networked online, sometimes funded from abroad and amplified by social media—that pushes a hardline ideological agenda while benefiting from the liberties it seeks to weaken.

Social media is gasoline on this fire in two ways. First, it amplifies propaganda, letting fringe ideologues reach millions at virtually no cost. Second, it now does so in an age of AI-enhanced manipulation, when propagandists can clip, caption, translate and distribute content at speed—and adversaries can also manufacture or distort clips to inflame distrust and polarization. The result is a toxic mix: Real radicals get a megaphone, and fake radicals can be manufactured to turn Americans against one another.

The response must be firm, constitutional and equal-opportunity. We do not need religious tests or loyalty oaths. We need leaders and institutions—political, civic, academic and religious—to speak plainly: In America, the Constitution is the common ground. You are free to practice your faith fully, but no faith gets to replace the Constitution. Organizations that claim to represent Muslim communities should be challenged when they evade that baseline. Muslim reformers and courageous community leaders who reject Islamism deserve support, not suspicion.

At the same time, we should enforce existing laws vigorously and neutrally. When preaching crosses into threats, harassment, intimidation, recruitment or material support for violence, it is not “just speech.” It is conducted with consequences. The rule of law can protect the country without sacrificing its values as long as we apply it consistently and resist the temptation to turn legitimate security concerns into broad-brush stigma.

We should also follow the money. Americans have learned, repeatedly, that foreign regimes do not donate millions to universities, nonprofits and advocacy networks out of charity alone.

When overseas money bankrolls institutions that preach hostility to American constitutionalism, transparency matters. Disclosure rules and enforcement tools should be applied evenly across the nonprofit sector, not as a religious dragnet but as a basic rule-of-law safeguard in a world where influence operations are real.

Finally, citizens have responsibilities, too. If a clip outrages you, that’s the moment to slow down. Verify before you share. Look for full sermons, dates and original sources. Don’t let algorithmic anger do the thinking for you. The goal of propaganda is not only to persuade; it is to divide, demoralize and paralyze.

America is strong enough to welcome diverse faiths, and it must be strong enough to insist on one civic rule: the Constitution is the sovereign framework for our public life. The answer to Islamist radicalization is neither suspicion of all Muslims nor denial that a problem exists. It is confident constitutionalism: equal rights, equal scrutiny and zero tolerance for ideologies—any ideologies—that preach the replacement of American self-government with religious rule.