In October 2025, a bill entitled Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act (H. R. 5722) was submitted to the US Congress. The proposal sparked a widespread debate that reveals deep civilizational tensions that go beyond the scope of ordinary immigration policy. It is not just a question of borders, visas, or administrative procedures.
It is a fundamental dispute about the nature of law, the sources of morality, and whether the United States will remain faithful to the principles on which it was founded: constitutionality, equality before the law, and freedom of conscience rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
The bill aims to prohibit entry into the United States by persons who adhere to Sharia law as a binding legal system and to allow for the deportation of those who are found to have such affiliations. At the same time, it introduces the principle of final decision-making by executive bodies without judicial review.
Congressman Chip Roy is introducing the bill out of a belief that the United States faces a serious threat that concerns not only security but the very foundations of the constitutional order and Western civilization. In his words, the spread of Sharia law appears to be an ideological attack on the US Constitution, freedom of expression, religious freedom, and the dignity of women.
Roy warns that some supporters of this political-religious doctrine may, under the guise of refugee status or migration, seek to create a parallel legal system that would replace American laws and the principles of the republic.
At the same time, he points to the experience of Europe as a cautionary example of what can happen when states underestimate the cultural and legal incompatibility of Sharia law with the Western understanding of freedom. In his view, this is not just a legislative dispute, but a broader struggle to preserve the Judeo-Christian values that have shaped American society.
Critics, especially organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, call the bill unconstitutional and discriminatory. But we need to ask ourselves another question: Does the state have the right to defend itself against an ideology that denies the very foundations of its legal and moral order?
Sharia as a legal system
A fundamental misunderstanding in this debate is the deliberate or naive conflation of the Islamic faith as a personal belief with Sharia as a complex legal and political system.
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as religions have a spiritual dimension that a democratic state protects within the framework of freedom of religion. Sharia, however, is not only a moral code, but a normative legal order that claims superiority over secular law.
In countries where Sharia law is applied as state or parallel law, we see systematic violations of fundamental human rights: inequality between men and women, punishments such as stoning or amputation, punishment for apostasy, and restrictions on religious freedom.
These practices are not historical relics, but a reality in parts of the Islamic world even today. For this reason, Sharia cannot be understood as a private matter of faith, but as a political ideology with totalitarian elements.
The Constitution and the Christian Roots of US Law
The United States of America was founded on the belief that law should be rooted in natural law, which, according to the Declaration of Independence, is based on the truth that all people are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Declaration of Independence speaks of "unalienable rights" that are not granted by the government, but which the government has a duty to protect.
This concept is deeply Christian and directly contradicts legal systems that derive norms from religious texts without regard for individual dignity.
The US Constitution is intended for a "moral and religious people." By this we do not mean a theocracy, but a society in which moral principles are based on Christian anthropology: man as a being created in the image of God, endowed with reason and free will.
Sharia, on the other hand, sees man primarily as subordinate to God's will as interpreted by religious authorities, with individual rights giving way to collective obedience.
Equality before the law
Proponents of multiculturalism often argue that American society already tolerates different legal systems, such as rabbinical courts and canon law. This argument is misleading.
Jewish and Christian intra-church courts operate exclusively on the basis of voluntary arbitration and never have jurisdiction in criminal matters. They are always subordinate to the constitution and secular courts.
Sharia, however, claims complete regulation of life—from family law to criminal sanctions—and in many cases rejects the supremacy of secular law.
If the state were to tolerate a parallel legal system, it would open the door to legal chaos and the de facto abolition of equality before the law. The conservative view therefore rightly insists on the principle of one state, one constitution, one legal system.
Europe's experience as a warning
Several members of the Sharia Free America Caucus point to the experience of Western Europe, where ill-considered immigration policies and cultural relativism have led to the emergence of ghettos, parallel societies, and zones where state authority is weakened.
In some cities, there are unofficial Sharia councils that resolve family disputes, often to the detriment of women and children. European leaders now openly acknowledge the failure of multiculturalism. This is not only a political tragedy, but also a moral one.
True hospitality towards foreigners presupposes truth and order, not the abandonment of one's own values. Helping those who suffer does not mean allowing the import of ideologies that undermine the very foundations of freedom.
Critics of the law argue that it violates the First Amendment. However, this argument ignores the difference between belief and legal obligation. The state has no right to examine a person's inner convictions, but it does have the right—and the duty—to examine whether an individual rejects a legal system that is incompatible with the constitutional order.
We must distinguish between tolerance of a person and rejection of error. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas taught that error itself has no rights, although the person who is in error has dignity. The proposed law seeks precisely this distinction: it does not attack people, but rejects an ideology that is contrary to natural law and human dignity.
Pope Benedict XVI showed similar courage in naming civilizational tensions in his lecture in Regensburg in 2006. Despite warnings from Vatican advisers, he left in the text a quote about the relationship between Islam and violence because he considered it part of the necessary critical dialogue between faith and reason.
Benedict emphasized that he was primarily concerned with the truth, not with the reactions his words would provoke. Although the quote sparked protests in the Muslim world, the Pope later explained that it was not a personal attack, but rather an attempt to open up the question of religion and rationality.
Defending civilization is not hatred
The law to keep America free of Sharia law and the creation of the Sharia Free America Caucus are expressions of deep concern about the future of Western civilization. This is not an expression of fear or hatred, but a self-preservation reflex of a society that realizes that not all cultures and legal systems are compatible.
This law does not call for persecution, but for truth, order, and the protection of the weak. Sharia as a legal system systematically denies these values. Rejecting its entry into the American legal sphere is not a violation of freedom, but its defense.
If America is to remain a country where the law protects the dignity of every human being, it must have the courage to say "no" to legal ideologies that relativize that dignity.
In this light, H.R. 5722 is not just a political proposal, but a moral statement about who America wants—and must—remain.
Europe's move
If European countries were inspired by the American law on preserving a space free of Sharia law, it would not be a technical change to immigration rules, but a fundamental civilizational shift. After decades of hesitation, Europe would once again reclaim its own roots and acknowledge that legal and cultural relativism does not lead to peace, but to the breakdown of social order.
Above all, it would strengthen the sovereignty of states. European governments would clearly declare that there is one legal order on their territory based on constitutions, natural law, and Christian anthropology. This would prevent the further spread of parallel legal structures, which today in some countries effectively weaken the authority of the state and threaten equality before the law, especially for women and children.
At the same time, such a step would send a clear signal to migrants: Europe is not open to ideologies. Acceptance into society would be conditional on a willingness to respect local laws, culture, and values, not on reshaping them according to foreign religious and legal schemes.
Ultimately, Europe would have a chance for moral renewal. The courage to protect one's own civilization is not a sign of intolerance, but of responsibility. Without a return to the awareness that freedom needs boundaries and that truth has objective content, it will not be possible to preserve democratic societies.
Austria is a current example of how even European countries are beginning to tighten their integration rules. The ÖVP, SPÖ, and Neos coalition government has agreed that migrants who have been granted asylum will have to sign a "charter of values" or integration declaration, thereby committing themselves to respect the principles of the rule of law, equality before the law, and basic social norms. Violations of these rules will result in sanctions, such as a reduction in benefits.
Inspiration from similar laws could thus be the first step towards Europe ceasing to retreat and starting to stand up again.