‘They want America to become Islamic!’: Rep. Chip Roy shocks House over Sharia law at fiery hearing

Washington has seen its share of political theater.

But few moments in recent memory have matched the intensity of what unfolded when Chip Roy took the microphone and delivered a blistering warning that left the House chamber buzzing:

“There’s a movement afoot across the United States that seeks to overthrow our legal system and replace it with Sharia law.”

The Texas congressman’s remarks — fiery, uncompromising, and packed with statistics — triggered gasps from some lawmakers, applause from others, and immediate backlash across social media.

Within hours, the phrase “America to become Islamic” was trending nationwide.

What exactly happened inside that hearing room? And why is the debate over Sharia law suddenly back at the center of American politics?

The Hearing That Turned Volcanic

The flashpoint came during a discussion about immigration vetting and the compatibility of Sharia law with the U.S. Constitution.

Roy pressed witnesses with rapid-fire questions about whether Sharia — Islamic religious law — is considered divine and whether it takes precedence over secular legal systems in Muslim-majority countries.

One witness responded bluntly: “Absolutely.”

Roy then pivoted to the United States.

Is there significant funding, he asked, from foreign governments and Islamic organizations to promote Sharia-compliant ideology within American institutions?

The answer: “There’s no doubt whatsoever.”

From there, the hearing escalated into a sweeping indictment of what Roy described as a coordinated effort to expand political Islam in the West — particularly in his home state of Texas.

Texas: “Ground Zero”?

Roy pointed to reports of a proposed 402-acre Islamic community project in Plano, Texas, associated with the East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC). The development, he argued, raised concerns about self-governance structures that could conflict with state and federal law.

He also referenced what he called “shadow Islamic tribunals” in the Dallas area, alleging that some arbitration bodies use religious principles in resolving disputes.

Legal scholars note that religious arbitration — whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim — can be permissible in civil matters as long as it does not override state or federal law. But Roy insisted the broader trend signals something more ominous.

“If Texas falls,” he warned dramatically, “so does the nation.”

Foreign Funding Allegations

During the hearing, Roy and other participants raised concerns about funding from Middle Eastern governments to American universities.

One frequently cited example was Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s financial contributions to institutions such as Georgetown University. Roy’s allies argue that such funding promotes a sanitized version of Islamic jurisprudence while downplaying extremist elements.

Universities that receive international funding maintain that academic centers are designed to promote scholarly dialogue and interfaith understanding — not political Islam.

Still, Roy’s framing suggested something far more coordinated and deliberate.

“This is about political power,” one witness testified. “Increasing Muslim congressmen. Increasing Muslim senators.”

The implication was clear: Roy sees demographic growth not as diversity — but as strategy.

The Immigration Angle

Roy also highlighted immigration data, noting that since 2002, millions of green cards have been issued to nationals from Muslim-majority countries.

He questioned whether current vetting procedures adequately assess ideological adherence to Sharia principles.

Critics immediately pushed back.

Civil rights organizations argue that such vetting proposals amount to religious profiling and violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.

“This isn’t about national security,” one advocacy group stated following the hearing. “It’s about stigmatizing millions of peaceful Muslim Americans.”

Roy, however, framed it differently.

“This is not about freedom of worship,” he said. “It’s about forcing a foreign legal code onto the American people.”

Europe as a Warning?

Roy pointed to Europe as a cautionary tale, referencing the existence of Sharia councils in the United Kingdom. These councils function as voluntary arbitration bodies in matters such as family disputes.

British authorities maintain that civil law remains supreme and that no religious tribunal can supersede national law.

But Roy painted a darker picture — one of parallel legal systems and eroding constitutional authority.

“Look at England and Wales,” he said. “Look at what’s happening.”

The message: America must not follow that path.

The Historical Card: Jefferson and the Barbary Wars

In perhaps the most dramatic moment of the hearing, Roy invoked Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Wars, drawing parallels between early 19th-century conflicts with North African states and modern concerns about radical Islam.

He quoted historical accounts of American envoys confronting piracy and slavery justified under religious pretexts.

To Roy, history offers a lesson: America has faced ideological threats before — and prevailed.

But historians caution that the Barbary Wars were complex geopolitical conflicts involving trade, piracy, and diplomacy — not a simple clash of civilizations.

The Numbers That Shocked the Room

Roy cited survey data suggesting that significant percentages of U.S. Muslims support certain aspects of Sharia, such as blasphemy restrictions.

Polling experts warn that survey wording can dramatically influence results and that support for “Sharia” often reflects personal moral guidance rather than a desire to replace U.S. law.

But in the charged atmosphere of the hearing, nuance was in short supply.

Roy’s argument rested on one core assertion: Sharia, as traditionally interpreted, is incompatible with the Constitution.

He listed due process concerns, treatment of non-Muslims, and corporal punishments as examples of conflicts.

Muslim scholars and American Islamic organizations strongly dispute those characterizations, emphasizing that American Muslims overwhelmingly accept constitutional law and practice their faith within its framework.

The Backlash

Reaction was swift.

Civil liberties groups accused Roy of promoting fear and painting Muslims with a broad brush.

Some Democratic lawmakers labeled the hearing “Islamophobic grandstanding.”

On conservative talk shows, however, Roy was praised as courageous.

“This is the conversation Washington doesn’t want to have,” one commentator declared.

The divide could not have been sharper.

A Larger Political Strategy?

Observers say the timing is no accident.

Immigration and national identity remain top-tier issues for voters heading into upcoming elections. By spotlighting Sharia and foreign influence, Roy taps into longstanding conservative anxieties about assimilation and sovereignty.

Whether this strategy mobilizes voters or alienates moderates remains to be seen.

The Bigger Question

At its core, the controversy raises a fundamental tension in American democracy:

How does a pluralistic society reconcile religious freedom with concerns about ideological extremism?

The Constitution guarantees the right to practice one’s faith. It also establishes a secular legal framework.

Roy argues that vigilance is necessary to protect that framework.

His critics argue that exaggeration fuels division and mistrust.

The Political Aftershock

One thing is certain: the hearing has reignited a debate many thought had cooled since the early 2010s.

Sharia law. Parallel legal systems. Immigration vetting. Cultural identity.

These themes are back — and louder than ever.

As Roy concluded his remarks, he framed the issue not as partisan politics but as constitutional defense.

“Now is the time,” he said, “to protect every American’s right to freely practice their own faith — and defend the supremacy of our shared political system.”

Whether Americans see his warning as prescient or provocative may define not just the next election — but the next chapter in the nation’s ongoing struggle to balance liberty, security, and identity.

In Washington, the echoes of that fiery hearing are still reverberating.