top of page
Search

Ep 85 - The Sharia Panic

  • Jun 15
  • 6 min read

There are some words in American politics that are not meant to inform. They are meant to activate. They are not definitions. They are alarms. And for years, one of the right’s favorite little red buttons has been “Sharia law.” Say it with enough dread, add a grainy image of a mosque, toss in a few vague warnings about “creeping” this or “infiltration” that, and suddenly millions of people are convinced the Constitution is being held hostage in the basement of a halal grocery store.


The people screaming about religious law are often the same ones taking a hammer to the wall that protects us from it.
The people screaming about religious law are often the same ones taking a hammer to the wall that protects us from it.

The problem, of course, is that most of the people being taught to fear Sharia are not being taught what Sharia actually is. They are being handed a cartoon villain instead of an explanation. In the American imagination shaped by right-wing fear campaigns, “Sharia law” becomes one single sinister code, one unified threat, one secret plan to replace U.S. law. But that version is not education. It is propaganda with a fog machine.


Sharia is often translated as “Islamic law,” but even that phrase can mislead American ears. When we hear “law,” we tend to think of courts, police, judges, statutes, punishment, and government enforcement. But for many Muslims, Sharia is broader than that. It is a religious and moral framework for living faithfully. It can involve prayer, fasting, charity, dietary rules, family responsibilities, business ethics, inheritance, personal conduct, and community obligations. In other words, it is not automatically a government takeover. Sometimes it is simply a person trying to live according to their faith.


That distinction matters because America already understands this concept when the religion is familiar to the majority. A Catholic following church teaching is not replacing the Constitution with canon law. An Orthodox Jew following halakha is not overthrowing civil courts. A Christian making decisions based on scripture is not turning the Book of Acts into the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. But when a Muslim follows religious guidance, suddenly some people hear ominous music and start checking under the bed for “creeping Sharia.”


This is where the panic becomes dishonest. Sharia as personal religious guidance is not the same thing as Sharia imposed by the state. A Muslim praying, fasting during Ramadan, avoiding pork, giving to charity, seeking religious counseling, or choosing financial products that align with religious beliefs is not replacing American law. That is religious freedom. That is exactly the kind of thing this country claims to protect, at least when it is feeling honest with itself.


None of this means governments that use versions of religious law are beyond criticism. They are not. Any government that uses religion to justify authoritarianism, gender discrimination, violence, coercion, or human-rights abuses deserves scrutiny. But that is a completely different conversation from accusing American Muslims of plotting to overthrow the Constitution because they practice their faith. One is criticism of state power. The other is religious bigotry wearing a flag pin.


The basic legal reality is not complicated. In the United States, no religious law can override the Constitution. Not Islamic law. Not Christian law. Not Jewish law. Not any doctrine from any tradition. Religious belief is protected. Religious practice is protected within legal limits. But religious rule is not. An imam does not get to replace a judge. A mosque does not get to replace Congress. A religious code does not get to erase civil rights, criminal law, state law, federal law, or constitutional protections.


That should end the panic, but panic is not interested in being ended. It has fundraising emails to write. It has campaign speeches to fuel. It has cable segments to fill. The Sharia scare keeps coming back because it is useful. It gives politicians a villain. It gives pundits a word that sounds foreign enough to frighten people who have never been given a fair explanation. It turns Muslim religious life into evidence of danger. A mosque becomes suspicious. A prayer room becomes alarming. A Muslim candidate becomes a loyalty test. A halal menu starts looking, to the deeply committed hysteric, like the first domino in national collapse.


That is how manufactured crises work. They do not need evidence strong enough to hold up in daylight. They need repetition. They need atmosphere. They need people to feel before they think. And the emotional story underneath the Sharia panic is ugly: Muslims are not really like us. Muslims are less American. Muslims are secretly dangerous. Their religion is not really faith, it is a political weapon. That is not constitutional concern. That is suspicion dressed up for Sunday brunch.


The hypocrisy gets even thicker when we look at the people yelling the loudest. Many of the same voices warning that Islamic religious law must never influence American government are perfectly comfortable blurring the line between church and state when the religion involved is their version of Christianity. Then, suddenly, religious influence is not dangerous. It is “heritage.” It is “values.” It is “parental rights.” It is “restoring America.” Funny how theocracy becomes less terrifying when it arrives carrying a Bible and a campaign donation.


But church-state separation is not a toy that only works when your team is holding it. It is not a custom fence built to keep Islam out while letting Christian nationalism stroll through the front gate with a casserole. The wall between church and state protects everybody. It protects nonreligious people from religious rule, yes. But it also protects every religion from every other religion. It protects Christians from Muslims, Muslims from Christians, Jews from Christians, Christians from Jews, and everyone else from whichever religious faction happens to gain political power.


That is the boomerang the Sharia panic never wants to catch. If you believe government can enforce religious values, then you are not actually opposed to Sharia law on constitutional grounds. You are opposed to the wrong religion getting a turn. If the real concern is religious doctrine becoming civil law, then the rule has to apply across the board. No religious law gets to rule. Not theirs. Not yours. Not anyone’s.


A consistent principle would be simple: no religion gets to rule the United States, and every religion gets to exist in the United States. Religious people can vote, speak, organize, run for office, and bring their moral convictions into public life. But the law itself has to serve a public purpose beyond “my religion says so.” That is not anti-religion. That is the only arrangement that lets a pluralistic country survive without turning government into a theological cage match with zoning permits.


Muslim Americans are not asking for special treatment when they ask to practice their faith. They are asking for the same religious liberty conservatives claim to cherish. The freedom to worship. The freedom to gather. The freedom to pray. The freedom to live according to conscience, so long as they are not violating civil law or the rights of others. If religious freedom only applies when the religion looks familiar to the majority, then it is not religious freedom. It is favoritism with better branding.


That is the real danger of the Sharia scare. Not that Sharia is about to replace the Constitution. It is not. The real danger is that fear and bigotry are being used to convince Americans that some people’s religious freedom counts less than others. And once a country starts rationing rights based on familiarity, the damage does not stop with one minority group. It spreads.


The Constitution does not need to be saved from Muslim Americans practicing their faith. It needs to be protected from people who only remember religious liberty when they can use it as a weapon against someone else. The wall between church and state is not an attack on faith. It is a shield for everybody. And the people trying to tear it down while screaming about Sharia are not defending freedom. They are sawing through one of its load-bearing beams and yelling at Muslims for owning a hammer.



SOURCES

Sharia definition and overview - https://www.britannica.com/topic/sharia

Brennan Center report on foreign law bans and anti-Sharia legislation - https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/foreign-law-bans-demonize-islamic-faith

Center for American Progress report on foreign law bans and the anti-Sharia movement - https://www.americanprogress.org/article/foreign-law-bans/

ACLU overview of bans on Sharia and international law - https://www.aclu.org/documents/bans-sharia-and-international-law

ACLU report on Tenth Circuit blocking Oklahoma’s anti-Sharia amendment - https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/court-upholds-ruling-blocking-oklahoma-sharia-and-international-law-ban

ACLU report on federal court striking down Oklahoma’s anti-Sharia amendment - https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-strikes-down-oklahoma-sharia-and-international-law-ban

Sen. John Cornyn’s Defeat Sharia Law in America Act announcement - https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/news/cornyn-tuberville-introduce-defeat-sharia-law-in-america-act/

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet
Add a rating

© 2023 by Train of Thoughts. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page