Merriam Webster defines “religion” as “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.” Islam certainly qualifies as a religion by that definition. Religions profess to connect human beings to the divine. Islam professes to do that. At the same time, however, it is also a political system that is authoritarian, supremacist, discriminatory, expansionist, violent, and aggressive. Asma Uddin must be aware of that fact but ignores it entirely, instead giving the impression that Sharia is simply religious law, and opposition to Sharia is simply motivated by religious bigotry and “Islamophobia.”
In reality, Islamic law’s political aspects contradict Constitutional principles and American freedoms in numerous particulars, including its denial of the freedom of speech, the institutionalized discrimination against women, non-Muslims, and other groups, its death penalty for apostasy from Islam and for homosexual activity, and more. At a certain point there is going to have to be a national discussion about whether religious freedom grants Muslims the right to break other laws, or whether the aspects of Sharia that contradict American law are unwelcome in the United States. Asma Uddin and the Washington Post are trying to foreclose upon that discussion by muddling the issue.
Islam has always been political. Its political aspect has always been considered intrinsic to its nature. On this, the historical record is clear. See The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS: it shows definitively, from primary source material, that everywhere Islam has gone, it has gone as a political entity, and waged war against other political entities. Asma Uddin and the Washington Post are relying upon your ignorance of Islamic law and Islamic history to manipulate you into thinking that Sharia is benign and completely compatible with the United States’ character as a free society, even though every society where Sharia has ever been implemented has not been free.
“The baffling argument that has become mainstream under Trump: ‘Islam is not a religion,’” by Asma Uddin, Washington Post, March 19, 2019:
Anxiety and fear were palpable among American Muslims last week after the mass slaughter in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand: Would a violent attacker enter their mosque, too? But even in their moment of vulnerability, one lawmaker insisted Muslims were the “real cause of bloodshed.” Fraser Anning, a senator in Australia, said the core problem was Islam.
“The entire religion of Islam is simply the violent ideology of a 6th-century despot masquerading as a religious leader. … The truth is that Islam is not like any other faith. … It is the religious equivalent of fascism,” he said. “And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance does not make them blameless.”
For many Americans, Anning’s statement may seem like an outlier — an extreme right-wing sentiment that does not reflect mainstream politics. But it taps into something strategic and concerted, the idea that “Islam is not a religion.” Islam, this idea suggests, is instead a dangerous political ideology, and therefore Muslims have no right to respect, dignity or First Amendment protection for religious liberty.
The argument has been circulating for some time, but it has gained ground in recent years, at least partly because the voices making the argument have a prominent platform in the Trump administration. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn said “Islam is a political ideology” that “hides behind the notion of it being a religion.” Former White House aide Sebastian Gorka and former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon have also questioned Islam’s status as a religion. Frank Fleitz, who in 2018 was named chief of staff for President Trump’s National Security Council, has said in the past that American Muslims are susceptible to a “radical worldview that wants to destroy modern society, create a global caliphate and impose sharia law on everyone on Earth.”…