Despite leftists' views to the contrary, the U.S. and the western world emerged from a distinctly Judeo-Christian understanding of the human person, law, and authority. Christianity proclaims a God who is love (1 John 4:8), who became man and died to redeem humanity (John 3:16), and who grants salvation as an unmerited gift received through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). This produced a political philosophy that locates dignity in every individual, as we are made in God's image (Genesis 1:27), limits the state's power, and insists that legitimate government exists to secure inalienable rights rather than to enforce divine commands.

Islam begins from the opposite premise. Allah is absolute will and sovereignty, not relational love. The Qur'an explicitly rejects the Trinity (4:171), the incarnation, and the crucifixion (4:157), reducing Jesus to one prophet among many, and subordinating him to Mohammad. Salvation is earned by submission (islām) and weighed on scales of deeds; there is no assurance of grace, only hope that the number of good works outweighs the bad. This theological framework shapes an entirely different view of law and governance: Sharia is Allah's immutable decree, covering every aspect of life from worship to criminal punishment, and no human authority -- parliament, court, or constitution -- may overrule it.

The political consequences are direct and inescapable.

Sharia is theocratic by definition. Classical scholars and modern authorities alike insist that sovereignty belongs to Allah alone (Qur'an 12:40). Lawmaking by elected representatives is therefore illegitimate; it constitutes neglect -- associating partners with God. In contrast, a constitutional republic derives its powers from the consent of the governed.

These two sources of authority cannot be reconciled.

The American and Western legal tradition, rooted in Christian equality (Galatians 3:28), demands equal protection under the law. Sharia institutionalizes inequality: non-Muslims are "dhimmis" subject to "jizya" and legal disabilities (Qur'an 9:29); a woman's testimony is worth half a man's in financial cases (Qur'an 2:282); apostates and blasphemers face death in all the major schools of Islamic law. "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him" -- Sahih al-Bukhari 6922. These are not aberrations but core rulings still enforced in multiple Muslim-majority states and advocated by bodies such as the International Union of Muslim Scholars.

Jesus invited voluntary belief ("whoever believes..."); Mohammad waged war to expand and defend the faith. Freedom to change or critique religion is foundational to the West; it is capital treason under Sharia. Blasphemy laws in Pakistan, Sudan, and Iran, and the death fatwas against Salman Rushdie and others, are not medieval relics -- they are mainstream applications of texts Muslims regard as eternal.

Western law evolves through reason, precedent, and democratic process. Sharia, as the literal command of Allah, admits only limited interpretation within strict boundaries set by 7th-11th century jurists. Attempts to square this circle -- "Sharia-compatible" constitutions in Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan -- have repeatedly collapsed into theocracy or civil war as soon as Islamists gain sufficient power.

This pattern has repeated throughout history. Wherever Muslim populations have become politically dominant, demands for Sharia accommodations follow: separate family-law councils in Britain, blasphemy resolutions at the UN pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, no-go zones in European cities where police hesitate to enforce national law. These are not the actions of a faith content with private devotion; they are the predictable first steps toward establishing Allah's rule on earth.

Christianity transformed societies by persuasion and example, producing hospitals, universities, and the concept of limited government. Islam expanded by conquest, oppression and governance, from the Ridda wars to the gates of Vienna, and its texts still enjoin believers to "fight those who do not believe" until they pay jizya "in willing submission" (Qur'an 9:29).

A constitutional republic animated by Christian anthropology can tolerate the private practice of Islam, just as it tolerates any religion. But it cannot adopt Sharia as a parallel or superior legal system without committing suicide.

One cannot serve two ultimate authorities -- one derived from "We the People" under God-given rights, the other from a 7th-century revelation that claims exclusive sovereignty. The two systems are not just different; they are mutually exclusive at the deepest level of first principles.

Image: Easy-Peasy AI