Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas demonstrate how political Islam grows quietly, relying on Americans remaining silent while an incompatible legal system takes root. This apolitical system entirely at odds with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we must confront it directly.
To have a meaningful discussion, we first need to understand what Sharia represents. It’s not just religious rules regarding prayer or dietary laws; it encompasses a comprehensive legal and political framework governing marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. This structure forms a parallel system that claims ultimate supremacy wherever it becomes established.
This distinction is crucial. Many Muslims in America desire nothing more to do with Sharia governance. They came here because they fled systems involving it. However, political Islam – the ideology aiming for its implementation as law – differs fundamentally from personal religious practice.
It functions like a global communist movement. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned that Islamist movements target dominance over Western societies rather than peaceful coexistence. This view is supported by historical evidence.
Political Islam doesn’t erupt suddenly or dramatically. It infiltrates subtly, through isolated communities operating under their own rules. The transformation of the development formerly known as EPIC City into what’s now called Meadow serves as a prime example. Initial plans for this enclave centered on creating a Muslim-exclusive community with governance adhering to Sharia-compatible financing principles.
Developers have been open about practices aimed at excluding non-Muslims, using fees and ownership setups to enforce religious exclusivity de facto. This is not true assimilation; it’s the deliberate establishment of a parallel society within what claims to be a constitutional republic.
In Texas, years ago, local Muslim leaders stated unequivocally that certain severe punishments from Sharia law were logical and effective measures. They discussed sanctions like cutting off hands for theft or stoning offenders for adultery, insisting they wouldn’t attempt such enforcement in the United States.
Yet when pressed, these same individuals couldn’t explain why divinely mandated rules would simply stop applying once people cross a border.
This inherent contradiction defines political Islam: It proclaims universal authority while insisting its most stringent regulations will never be applied here. This claim is fundamentally flawed and unsustainable under scrutiny. It has always been the case.
Europe provides warnings of this trajectory, with examples like no-go zones, separate legal systems, and clerics promoting dominance appearing in various forms across major cities. America’s strength traditionally lies in its melting pot diversity, but assimilation requires adherence to boundaries and upholding that foundational document – the Constitution – as the ultimate source of authority.
We seem complacent or fearful regarding this issue, mistaking silence for tolerance and evasion for fairness. However, political Islam sees such hesitation as weakness.
Religious freedom is a cornerstone right in America; Muslims practice their faith openly here, as they should. But political Islam poses an unacceptable challenge to American constitutional principles by attempting to deny equal rights, limit free expression, subjugate women, and prioritize religious law over civil legislation.
Projects like the Meadow aren’t isolated incidents. They are test beds, stepping stones, or proofs of concept for this ideology. Political Islam operates patiently, advancing through population growth, legal gray areas, and societal hesitation – counting on American reluctance to address it directly.
We cannot afford such delay. If we fail now to defend the constitutional principles that sustain our nation’s freedom, we risk facing a situation where we discover these alternative systems have gained power right here at home. The failure will be attributed simply to lack of awareness or courage.
The moment for drawing clear lines and speaking forthrightly is present. It requires defending the Constitution as the supreme law governing this country. We must act while there’s still an opportunity.
