Anti-Sharia rhetoric frames Muslim legal practice as inherently subordinating and anti-Constitutional

Evidence

[Plaintiff’s Attorney (PA):] [I]f we follow the Constitution, do we allow there to be two sets of laws governing the behavior of individuals practicing religion in America? It must be clear that any practice of Islam in a free society, the United States, cannot and must not include the practice of Sharia law. Sharia law is a set of codes which are a declaration of subordination for anyone who is not a Muslim, and it’s a violation of human rights for those who are. Why would we extend to any religion the right to cancel out the Constitution for which we’re founded upon, for which gives us the ability to come in here in this courtroom and make an argument to this Court. — Cyra Akila Choudhury, Racecraft and Identity in the Emergence…, 375

Categorization

  • XREF: This is the opening of the anti-Sharia argument the author will analyze via racecraft; connects to the chapter’s core task versus Aziz’s Racial Muslim framing. — connects to: Anti-sharia legislation frames Islam as a foreign political conspiracy warranting criminalization; Anti-sharia legislation aimed to recategorize Islam from religion to political ideology — Cyra Akila Choudhury, Racecraft and Identity in the Emergence…, 284; Official rhetoric framing Islam as ideology licensed anti-Muslim suspicion — Sahar F. Aziz, The Racial Muslim: When Racism Quashes…, 864 (+7 more)
  • DEFINE: Shows the rhetorical construction being studied: Sharia is defined as categorically opposite to US law and human rights.

Broader Connections