Anti-sharia testimony framed lawful Muslim practice as a seditious, lawless threat

Evidence

The logic underlying these cases is that Muslims are naturally “predisposed” to commit violent acts and should therefore be put away. Downs explains that “to prove predisposition, the government claims that routine, normal behavior of the defendants––dress, religious observances, Islamic financial transactions, literature, etc.––indicates a ‘predisposition’ to commit terrorism, based on the false stereotype that all Muslims are predisposed to commit terrorism. If they are sufficiently ‘Muslim,’ they are sufficiently ‘predisposed.’” — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 463 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
  • XREF: connects to: Litigants weaponized court proceedings to spread anti-Muslim racist tropes — Cyra Akila Choudhury, Racecraft and Identity in the Emergence…, 345; Anti-sharia bills sought to criminalize mosque attendance by defining Islam as ideology; Self-styled anti-sharia experts lacked even basic knowledge of Islamic law — Cyra Akila Choudhury, Racecraft and Identity in the Emergence…, 409 (+15 more)

Broader Connections