The logical fallacy behind #MarchAgainstSharia

Marches took place in New York, Chicago, Boston, Denver and Seattle, as well as other smaller cities across the country, with people holding Islamophobic signs, calling for the abolishment of Islam, banning of Muslims and equating Islam to extremist groups like the so-called Islamic State group.

Many of them were in favour of the controversial US President Donald Trump, who had centred his presidential campaign on xenophobia, promising to ban Muslims.

Some had even voiced concerns as the marchers came armed.

The marches had also taken place within the holy month of Ramadan, something particularly concerning for Muslims who had already previously been worried about the upsurge of Islamophobia. 

Weeks before Ramadan, US based organisation Muslim Advocates issued a warning, asking Muslims to be vigilant to prevent themselves from getting caught in any arson attack that could take place.

The tension amid the normalisation of Islamophobic rhetoric has allowed the dehumanisation and otherisation of Muslims to fit within the mainstream.

The tension amid the normalisation of Islamophobic rhetoric has allowed the dehumanisation and otherisation of Muslims to fit within the mainstream

For this reason, counter-marches took place to fight the narrative and for Muslims to reclaim their space in society.

Though, the rising rhetoric of hate is not the only reason behind the hostility towards Sharia law, there is also a misunderstanding of what Sharia law actually is.

Generally, concepts surrounding Sharia are skewed with extremist values, with both extremists and Islamophobes agreeing that Sharia is a misogynistic, hateful concept which seeks to impose a monotonous ideology that allegedly does not fit with “Western” culture.

This has led to many propagating that Muslim women cannot be feminists, or justifying their Islamophobia based on women’s emancipation and liberal ideals.

Coincidentally, it is usually men with pre-existing notions on Sharia that they wish to propagate, who end up showing some form of regard to the feminist movement once the religious debate arises.

In reality, Sharia is more fluid. It’s a loose code of conduct which stems from Islamic ethics with elements that are still debated by scholars. There is no one solid interpretation of Sharia, just as there is not one solid interpretation of Islam.

While Islamophobia does indeed play a role in the scaremongering around Sharia, it cannot be denied that misreading and misinterpretations of Islamic texts also play a role.

One common myth is that democracy is incompatible with Islam. Some have propagated that democracy is a man-made system, thus incompatible with Islam, because God is the ultimate ruler. Though, this consensus is widely contested, because the principle is a human leader, not the democratic ideology itself.

Some have propagated that democracy is a man-made system, thus incompatible with Islam, because God is the ultimate ruler

There have also been a wide range of Islamic scholars who have endorsed the idea of elections, such as Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, who regarded democracy. He had actually said it is wajib (duty) to vote in a lecture he gave in 1996.

With the debate remaining alive, coming to no definitive conclusion, the fluidity of Sharia persists.

In some cases, the fact that there is no definitive conclusion is seen as an adherence, rather than a shortfall – an acceptance that matters can be so complicated that it is impossible to have a “one size fits all” style ruling under the guise of religion.

“Built into the tradition of Sharia and fiqh is a fair amount of flexibility and a great deal of disagreements. The common practice of legal scholars ending their judgments or decisions with the statement, Allahu A'lam, or God knows best, is meant to indicate the gap between human decisions about Sharia and the reality in God's mind,” Dr Joshua Ralston – lecturer in theology told The New Arab.

“For most, Sharia is a problem that needs to be removed or a major elephant in the room that must be ignored. The rise of Dae'sh, the so-called Islamic State, and its accompanying claim to enforce Sharia only heightens these fears,” he said.

“In fact, Sharia is a shorthand for the Muslim way of life, one that covers everything from how one prays, how to give to the poor and needy, when it is appropriate to break a fast or when it is allowed to skip Ramadan fasting, how to buy property and how to slaughter an animal for a meal,” Ralston added.

The march against Sharia was one that not only perpetuated hate and misunderstanding, but was one that came as a result of hate and misunderstanding. Though politically charged, there needs to be a widespread reminder on what Sharia really is, without ruling out that Islamophobia is to blame for much of the violence towards western Muslims.