Anti-Shari’a state laws use neutral wording to target Muslims specifically.

Evidence

A number of states passed explicit anti-Shariā€˜a legislation or superficially neutral but de facto Islamophobic measures that restricted state courts from considering foreign, international, or religious law. While not explicitly including the words ā€œIslamā€ or ā€œShariā€˜a,ā€ these laws are specifically aimed at the faith and the citizens who observe it. The 2016 presidential race and the induction of the Trump administration facilitates even more opportunity for states to pass anti-Shariā€˜a bills. Indeed, the prolific spike in private Islamophobia since Trump was inaugurated, emboldened by the structural policies enacted by him on the federal level, have furnished the anti-Shariā€˜a movement with momentum and support from Washington to introduce more bills, and very likely, enact more state laws. — Khaled A. Beydoun, American Islamophobia_ Understanding…, 309

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Illustrates the de facto Islamophobic measure — neutral wording with discriminatory intent.
  • XREF: Connects to the structural Islamophobia definition Beydoun develops and to Rana’s apparatus analysis. — connects to: Anti-Shari’a bills converted private Islamophobia into state structural policy — Khaled A. Beydoun, American Islamophobia_ Understanding…, 306; Constitutional violations are deemed acceptable when targeting Islam or Muslims. — Khaled A. Beydoun, American Islamophobia_ Understanding…, 310; The template’s neutral language masks a singular anti-Muslim targeting intent. — Arsalan Iftikhar, Fear of a Muslim Planet_ Global…, 630 (+2 more)
  • corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Khaled A. Beydoun, American Islamophobia_ Understanding…, 309

Broader Connections