Fear Mongering, Fiction, and Convenient Distractions: Shariah Law and the Constitution
Anti-Muslim bills purporting to defend against the “threat” of Shariah law are cropping up again in state legislatures across the country. The implication is obvious: Islamic law is going to somehow take over American courts. Don’t buy it, brothers and sisters. Let’s set the record straight.
They’re setting you up to fail. “Shariah law” sounds intimidating. It sounds un-American. Sound unconstitutional? The word “law” becomes confusing the moment you crack open the Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In order to exercise religion freely means all religions. Muslim Americans, Christian Americans, Jewish Americans—all of us have the same right to practice our faith however we choose in the privacy of our homes and churches.
Wait… What is Shariah?
The word Shariah simply means “path.” When people refer to Shariah law, they’re typically referring to a set of religious teachings and practices based on the Qur’an and the hadith (life and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad). For many Muslims, Shariah dictates the worship of God: praying five times a day, giving zakat (charity), fasting during Ramadan, following halal dietary laws, entering into Islamic marriage contracts, using Shariah-guided inheritance laws, and ensuring all business is ethical and fair.
It does NOT refer to a criminal justice system secretly operating within America. It does NOT refer to a Muslim plan to overthrow the Constitution. Shariah is about personal morality between a Muslim and their God. Want another comparison? Jewish people follow Halakha. Catholic Christians follow canon law. Don’t be distracted by sensationalism — we all live by moral guidelines that dictate how we worship.
Muslims can’t overtake America’s legal system any more than Jews or Catholics can. None of us is secretly dividing up the country into religious courts. Although there are laws increasingly being enacted that attack the First Amendment, such as anti-BDS laws, where even those looking to get contracts on the State level have to sign off on an agreement not to criticize Israel, now that sounds like it contravenes the spirit and letter of the Constitution, (reference RSMO 34.600) , Missouri’s “Anti-Discrimination Against Israel Act”. So should we assume that there’s a Judaic or Jewish law overtaking the Constitution? Which would be more evidence to at least enter a debate?
Anti-Shariah laws are predicated on something voters aren’t told: Public safety. But does crime data support that?
Data from the last twenty years demonstrates extremist attacks in the United States are far and exceedingly more likely to be committed by far-right extremists than Muslims. There is no evidence that Muslim Americans commit violent crimes at disproportionately higher rates, but to the contrary. Research that controls for socioeconomic factors has found that Muslim Americans tend to have lower incarceration rates than the national average. This is already known, especially by this administration, which is why the DOJ removed a study showing that right-wing extremism and violence is the number one domestic threat. So these national and state efforts are disengenous, and not intended to address the root causes and threats to this country.
National rates of murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated burglary are largely dependent on socioeconomic conditions, firearms accessibility, and population density, which are overwhelmingly non-Muslim, and yet it would still be wrong to assign that to a Christian religious metric. Religious demographics bear no relationship to those crimes. We have yet to see a comprehensive data set that proves Muslims commit crimes at higher rates than other religious groups. In fact, Muslims are statistically less likely to commit alcohol-related crimes due to religious restrictions on drinking. Nor is there anything credible where one can say Muslims want anything outside of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion, and their ability to have their culture respected in a country that was built on diversity.
Comparing Muslim communities in the United States to Islamic countries can be equally asinine. Statistically, if one looks at the global crime statistics, within the Top 10 of crime-ridden countries are non-Muslim governments. I don’t say this to create a negative Christian narrative, butto dispel the lunacy of those who attempt to distort and package “shariah” law with some attack on Democratic values. Matter of fact, in many regards, the democracy we experience from a progressive lens shows that the U.S. lags behind in its regard for women in leadership. In the modern era of government, there have been over 10 Muslim-majority countries that have had women leading in prominent positions in government, such as Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Prime Ministers. You know, just dispelling the whole “women are oppressed” narrative.
Muslims praying, growing their beard, or wearing a hijab is not going to sabotage democracy. Fear mongering about Shariah law is not going to make America safer.
Muslims wash their bodies multiple times a day, pray five times a day, many wear modest clothing, fast during Ramadan, and don’t drink alcohol or gamble or take on excessive interest rates. Does that scare you? Where do you draw the line? Is this the Western cultural precepts that you say are under attack?
Should we ban Islam because it teaches against pornography? Because it preaches against drinking alcohol? Because it challenges irresponsible capitalism? Islamic morals challenge parts of mainstream American culture, yes. They do not challenge the Constitution.
The Constitution prohibits making laws favoring one religion over another. It doesn’t forbid us from praying to our God, however we see fit in the privacy of our homes. Muslims exercising their faith doesn’t threaten America’s democratic system.
Muslims practicing Islam is threatening to politicians who want to distract you from real issues and energize voters based on fear.
