Is Islam Incompatible with American Liberty and Prosperity?

Each year, our group meets to discuss the most important issues of the year.  Last month, we agreed on nine issues which are posted at this link: We chose these 9 Key Issues for 2026 at our May 9 meeting. Should we choose these 2 more at our June 6 meeting? – Liberty and Prosperity

Click Here for Link to Video:  Glenn Beck: This Islamic scholar said the quiet part out loud…

We could not reach agreement on two issues.  One of them was this:

Is Islam, as understood and applied by most of its believers, incompatible with American Liberty and Prosperity?

By definition, a Muslim must believe that Muhammad was the “last prophet”, “most morally excellent human”, and “best example of how to live.” That belief requires every Muslim to submit to an Islamic law based on Muhammad’s actions and teachings known as “sharia.” This requires every Muslim to deny the supremacy of the United States Constitution and all laws inconsistent with Sharia. Every Muslim must deny the “self-evident truths” of our Declaration of Independence. Every Muslim must deny that non-believers are “created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and that governments are instituted to secure those rights and to exercise “just powers” with the “consent of the governed.”  A significant number of Muslims believe that Sharia Law requires them to kill any Muslim, including family members, who embrace American culture and reject Islam. They also believe they have a personal obligation to wage jihad (holy war) against “kaffirs” (non-believers) and that those who are killed in such wars are forgiven for all sins and guaranteed eternal life in Paradise.

This proposal has caused much spirited discussion within our group.  We plan to vote on this measure at our monthly business meeting on June 6.  Please join the discussion in person or online.  We will share them. You can email us with your opinions and suggestions at info@libertyandprosperity.com.

Opinion #1: I agree with what you said. Both short and long. But the short statement will instantly raise many questions that we need everybody in the room to know how to answer. So one question that will come up is doesn’t every religion, ultimately place God above government? And therefore, because a person believes in God, they cannot have their primary loyalty to the United States constitution. Since God is above the Constitution  Or other various forms of that question? And that question can come in many forms that appear very different, so one might say, well, doesn’t can’t you say the same thing about Jesus and the Christians that that since Jesus is more than the ultimate person, Christians believe that Jesus is God and since Jesus is God doesn’t my allegiance to Jesus? Come before my allegiance to the United States constitution. Now, of course, the whole idea is  That the United States constitution is a mixture of what you call judeo-christian ideas mixed with a couple more modern ideas of the enlightenment from John Locke and others and Ben Franklin, who I think some of them don’t even really believe in God, at all. So but that’s another point you get what I’m saying that that statement that it’s not protected by the First Amendment.  Will immediately draw a questions and we need probably have a whole session in the room on how to answer those questions.So I okay, this is getting long.So I agree to a subject to the agreement that we have spend some real time on how to answer the obvious questions that will raise.

Click Here for link to video:  “The Moderate Case: Islam is the greatest threat to western civilization…”

Opinion #2: The incompatibility between Islam and American liberty is rooted in the fundamental conflict between Sharia and the Constitution. Islam is not merely a set of personal spiritual beliefs; it is a comprehensive legal-political system that mandates the total submission of society to the dictates of the Quran and Sunnah. In the Islamic worldview, sovereignty belongs to Allah, not the people, which is the direct antithesis of the American principle of government by the consent of the governed.

The primary points of friction are as follows:

1. Sovereignty and Law: The First Amendment presumes that the government shall notestablish a religion, leaving the individual free to practice their faith within the bounds of civil law. Conversely, Islam seeks to replace civil law with a theological code that governs every aspect of public and private life, including finance, criminal justice, and marital relations. Where the Constitution creates a framework for limited, secular authority, Sharia demands an absolute, theocratic state.
2. Equality and Rights: American liberty is built upon the concept of natural rights, which apply equally to all citizens. Islam, as codified in classical jurisprudence, relies on explicit hierarchies. It denies equality to non-Muslims (dhimmi status), restricts the rights of women, and treats apostasy as a capital offense. These tenets fundamentally undermine the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law and the inherent rights recognized by our Founders.
3. Inherent Expansionism: Islam mandates dawah (the call to faith) and often includes the objective of establishing the rule of Allah across all lands. This is not compatible with the quietude and assimilation expected of other religious traditions within the American sphere. Historically and contemporaneously, the push for the Islamization of Western spaces is an explicit political project that treats local customs, traditions, and laws as obstacles to be overcome or eventually submitted to.
4. Viewing Islam as a mere “religion” protected by the First Amendment is a category error that facilitates subversion. The First Amendment was designed to protect the religious exercises of a people who share a common heritage of Western Christian civilization. It was never intended to provide a legal shield for a geopolitical and legal ideology that explicitly aims to dismantle the infrastructure of the nation that provides that protection. Promoting the unrestricted presence of a system that rejects our founding principles is an act of institutional suicide. Liberty cannot be successfully extended to those whose primary objective is to replace it.

Opinion #3: I am opposed to the point on Islam for several reasons.

First, you expressed concern earlier about the public receptivity of our points when you suggested we temper the language on deportations by creating a temporal carve-out. I find this point on Islam much more egregious, and it opens us up to attacks of bigotry and irrationality, which I’ll explain below. I imagine many people would have reservations about joining or partnering with an organization that openly espouses this view.

Second, your explanation rests on some false premises. It is not true that every Muslim must submit to a particular species of Sharia Law that is incompatible with the Constitution. In fact, there is no universal version of Sharia Law in the first place. Most Muslims live in secular societies that are not governed by a Sharia legal system. Also, where statistically do you find that a “significant number” of Muslims believe Sharia Law requires them to commit acts of violence? What is the number? Most importantly, it is false that the First Amendment does not protect Islam, and suggesting otherwise makes us look foolish and damages our credibility.

Third, I think you’re missing the forest for the trees by focusing on Islam when this is really an issue about legal immigration and could be woven into point 4. Rather than targeting one group of people, why don’t we say outright what is now implied in our call to repeal the Hart-Celler Act: that we want to restrict immigration to Western countries with which we share a common culture, values, and beliefs? That is both less antagonistic and cuts to the root of the actual issue: legal immigration and the cultural and demographic dilution of our society.

Opinion 4: Indonesia: Muslim mob stops church from worshiping at congregation’s new location in just-rented building

Opinion #5: