By Rich Matthews
McKINNEY — U.S. Rep. Keith Self says Texas is facing an existential threat from Islam.
“I told the governor last week, we are losing Texas to Islam today,” Self told Context Corner reporter Rich Matthews during a seven-minute interview conducted during the second day of early voting.
Self, the Republican representing Texas’ 3rd Congressional District, went considerably further.
He said imams across America are preaching “open sedition against the U.S. Constitution.” He said Muslims intend to make the Senate, House and Supreme Court Muslim. He described an alliance between socialists, communists and “Islamicists” whose shared objective, he said, is to destroy the American constitutional republic.
And he told Matthews that Islamic teaching ultimately requires Muslims to conquer the non-Muslim world.
Those are sweeping claims about a religious community numbering millions of Americans.
But during the interview, Self did not identify a specific American imam preaching the overthrow of the Constitution, a Muslim elected official attempting to impose Islamic law, a city council implementing Sharia, or an American Muslim organization carrying out the institutional takeover he described.
Context Corner is publishing the interview in full so viewers can hear Self’s statements and Matthews’ questions without editing.
‘We are losing Texas to Islam’
Matthews began by asking Self how important the anti-Sharia issue actually is to Texas voters.
Self said his campaign’s “baseline polling” showed Sharia was the No. 2 issue in Congressional District 3, calling it “a close second.”
He did not provide the name of the pollster, when the survey was conducted, its sample size, the wording of the question or the margin of error during the interview.
Self said concern about Sharia extends well beyond North Texas.
“Certainly, North Texas is ground zero,” he said, before adding that the issue has spread across Texas.
Then came one of the interview’s most striking statements:
“I told the governor last week, we are losing Texas to Islam today.”
Matthews asked why the issue appeared overwhelmingly partisan if it represented such a serious threat.
Self responded by describing what he called a “Red-Green alliance.”
He linked Democratic Socialists of America, communists and “Islamicists,” saying they share one objective:
“They want to take down the constitutional republic known as America.”
Self offered no specific example during the interview establishing such coordinated activity.
Matthews challenges Self: What about Muslims who simply want to live here?
Matthews then challenged the premise directly.
He told Self that a Muslim physician had performed his heart surgery and asked whether Self had met Muslims who practiced their faith while wanting to live peacefully in the United States.
Self acknowledged that such Muslims exist.
“There are Muslims that want to assimilate,” he said.
But Self argued that even those Muslims would ultimately be threatened if what he called “jihadists” gained political control through city councils, commissioners courts, junior colleges or other local institutions.
Self said such a takeover would eventually force Muslims who do not fully follow his characterization of Sharia to choose between compliance and death.
He referenced requirements involving clothing, family life and religious practice and said Muslims who refuse would face “the same judgment of death that I am.”
Self did not identify an American city council, commissioners court or college where such a system has been implemented.
Self invokes Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb
Self also cited the classical Islamic concepts of Dar al-Islam, or “abode of Islam,” and Dar al-Harb, historically translated as “abode of war.”
He told Matthews that Islamic teaching commands Muslims to “take over” the non-Muslim world.
Those terms do exist in classical Islamic jurisprudence.
But scholars describe them as categories developed by medieval jurists to understand relations between Muslim-governed and non-Muslim territories — not as a single modern doctrine universally followed by Muslims.
Islamic law itself spans more than 1,400 years, multiple schools of jurisprudence and vastly different societies. Scholars have repeatedly cautioned against treating Sharia as one uniform political code.
American Muslims also express widely differing understandings of their faith. Pew Research Center has found that a majority of U.S. Muslims say Islam has more than one valid interpretation.
‘They can lie’
Self made another allegation while discussing Muslims who might appear to support assimilation.
He cited tawriya, telling Matthews it is “the concept they can lie in the furtherance of Sharia, of Islam.”
Self did not explain the source for that characterization during the interview.
The term taqiya has a history in Arabic language and literature referring to concealment or double meaning. Islamic ethical and legal discussions about concealment, deception and circumstances involving danger are considerably more complex than a general license for Muslims to lie about their intentions.
Self nevertheless presented the concept as part of his warning about whether Muslims who appear peaceful can be trusted.
What happens if a Muslim leaves Islam?
Matthews compared Islamic religious obligations with his own Catholic faith.
Catholics also have commandments and religious obligations, Matthews noted, while individual Catholics remain free under American law to follow them or not.
Self said Islam is different.
“If you try to leave Islam, let’s say you try to convert to Christianity or whatever, you are then under the penalty of death,” he said.
Apostasy has historically been punishable by death under some interpretations of classical Islamic jurisprudence, and some modern governments continue to impose severe penalties for abandoning Islam.
But Muslim views on apostasy vary dramatically by country, community and interpretation.
Pew’s international research found substantial differences even among Muslims who favor Sharia as state law: support for executing converts ranged from large majorities in some countries to single digits in others.
Self’s statement therefore reflects one historically significant interpretation of Islamic law, but it does not establish that American Muslims universally believe converts should be killed.
‘They will make the Senate Muslim’
Matthews then raised Self’s own political history.
Self has previously campaigned among Muslim voters and visited mosques.
Was that a mistake?
Self said circumstances had changed.
He claimed that “two or three years ago,” perhaps four, imams across the United States reached a “tipping point” and “went on the offense.”
Self said:
“They are preaching open sedition against the U.S. Constitution across America.”
He continued:
“They will take down the Constitution. They will make the Senate Muslim. They will make the House Muslim. They will make the Supreme Court Muslim.”
Self said that is “exactly what they are commanded to do and that’s what they intend to do.”
The interview did not identify the imams Self was referring to, provide sermons containing those statements or establish a coordinated American Muslim campaign to take control of the three institutions he named.
Self has made similar accusations publicly before. In an August interview, he again said imams across America were preaching “sedition.”
Political participation is protected by the Constitution
There is an important constitutional distinction between attempting to overthrow government and seeking influence through elections.
American Muslims have the same constitutional right as Americans of other religions to vote, organize politically, run for office, advocate policies and seek appointment to government positions.
Article VI of the Constitution explicitly prohibits a religious test for federal office.
The First Amendment protects religious exercise, speech, assembly and the right to petition government.
And the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause already establishes that the Constitution and valid federal law are the “supreme Law of the Land.”
That means religious doctrine cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution in American courts.
It also means the Constitution does not prohibit a Muslim from becoming a senator, representative, judge or other government official because of that person’s faith.
The relevant question is therefore not whether Muslims are seeking political representation.
It is whether there is evidence that particular people or organizations are attempting illegally to overthrow constitutional government or replace American law.
Self did not present that evidence during this interview.
Self says the movement is growing
Self closed by pointing to growth in the Sharia-Free America Caucus, which he co-founded with Rep. Chip Roy.
Self said the caucus now has 70 members and pointed to state-level groups in Texas and Minnesota.
His congressional office publicly reported 68 members in June.
Self also cited Van Zandt County, where local officials adopted a resolution condemning Sharia, as evidence that concern over the issue is spreading.
“People are starting to wake up to this issue,” Self said.
The unanswered question
Matthews did not attempt to debate Islamic theology with the congressman.
Instead, his questions repeatedly returned to a simpler issue.
What about American Muslims who practice their faith, obey American law and want to live peacefully in the United States?
Self acknowledged that those Muslims exist.
But his larger argument depends on another proposition: that a nationwide Islamic movement has reached a tipping point and intends to capture American political institutions and replace the Constitution.
That is an extraordinary claim.
The seven-minute interview provides a clear record of Self making it.
It does not provide the evidence necessary to establish that the claim is true.
That leaves a question Context Corner intends to continue pursuing:
Who exactly does Keith Self say is trying to take down the U.S. Constitution — and what evidence demonstrates that they are doing it?
WATCH: Context Corner is publishing Rich Matthews’ complete interview with Rep. Keith Self without edits so readers can hear the congressman’s answers in full.
Sources: Full Context Corner interview with Rep. Keith Self; U.S. Constitution and Constitution Annotated; Office of Rep. Keith Self; Pew Research Center; Cambridge University Press