McCarthy asserts that "Islam’s sharia is a code premised on the principles that Allah has prescribed the ideal way for human life to be lived; that people are required to submit to that prescription; and that Islamic governments exist to enforce that requirement," while the US constitution says we are free to live our lives as we choose.

As is consistent with many of the Islamaphobe arguments within this piece and others, it seems to be based on a high selective and negative-biased reading of the ancient text, rather than the actions and preachings of contemporary Muslims.

This concluding paragraph clearly links to Shryock's piece and his discussion around the fact that Islam is being denied the religious tolerance it is claimed to lack.

Nicely said by Uddin here. Bringing the religious hypocrisy to the forefront could/should have been the angle of the entire piece. The idealized view of Christianity being completely separated from government is more or less just a myth.

Evidence of ignorance/result of fearmongering. Equating a piece of clothing to imposition of religion on a secular marketplace I view as an extreme overreaction and evidence of a very real fear of Islam and the belief that the religion and its adherents would completely eliminate "the west."

While just conjecture, I think it is worth pointing out a potential point of tension between the west and Islam. The dewestoxification pieces we read for class all contain anti-western rhetoric. However, I believe this rhetoric to be a result of their true goal, which is pro-Iranian self interest and economic independence. As a result, they must necessarily throw off the bounds of their oppressors (the west, namely UK and USA). Linking the four thinkers together is their belief that Islam can help in this goal, as it is a kind of motivating and unifying force, temporally and geographically consistent to the area. It is not being said that Islam is INHERENTLY anti-west. In fact, Afghani argued that Islam should be combined with many western ideals, including technological progress and pursuit of scientific knowledge and rationality. On balance it seems to be the case that Islam is a viable alleyway to secure Iranian independence, not that the religion must forever be at war with the west (though to be fair, the fact that the west are unbelievers in Islam does make it more difficult for Muslims to aid them (Kohn/Mcbride 39).

This links back to a long and unfortunate history of anti-Semitic mandates throughout history.

While obviously a positive, it is incredible to think about how the DoJ felt motivated to issue such a brief.

In reference to the entire paragraph, not just this small section:

What's fascinating is that, as much as Muslims are distrusted/unliked by Americans, Shryock points out that they "express high levels of 'pride in being american'" (149).

These statistics are almost hard to believe. The aforementioned industry of fearmongering has certainly been sucessful by these metrics. Islam here stands in as a scapegoat, seen by some large percentage of the population as anti-american and anti-democracy, with no place in American society; the logical next steps of these beliefs are terrifying.

I also want to link this to Shryock's piece, where he claims that Arabs/Muslims in the US "express high levels of 'pride in being American'" (149). This contrast is hard to imagine, the non-Muslims of the US despise the Muslims, while the Muslims themselves are very proud to be American. Difficult to wrap one's head around. Hatred does not seem to be begetting hatred, a real positive note in this story.

100% of people should believe this for those of ALL religions, simply saying "at least some" are anti-American seems like an incredibly low bar!

The linked article here dives into several trusts funding right-wing, anti-Islamic rhetoric in the media which helped inspire a terror attack in Norway.

Strikingly in this article, Newt Gingrich claims that in its purest form, Shariah law is antithetical to the West. He seems to be holding the entire religion to the standard set by a few select passages from text written centuries ago, something he clearly would not appreciate done to Christianity.

Agreed. This stark change is frightening. I wish I had better context to see how Islam was viewed in the mainstream media prior to 9-11.

UNANIMOUS consent in both houses of congress... 18 years later Islam is being attacked as not even a religion.

The fact that the mosque lost the suit in the local courts is shocking. Letting a local judge decide whether or not Islam is a religion seems like a gross overstepping of authority/ability!

This is such a puzzling argument, or at least it is puzzling as presented here. How could a place of worship not benefit from religious protections? It is one thing to claim the religion of Islam has many flaws, but an entirely new one to claim that no religion exists at all within it! I simply cannot understand this second construction.

Again, see Col Stephen Labert's memo (Lipton 434).

Also links back to our Dec 3rd class discussion on prejudices against Muslims and an emphasis by the Islamophobes on "Shariah Law," a concept which is not even fully constructed by Muslims themselves and is primarily used in this fearmongering rhetoric.

See Lipton page 435: "the so-called separation between church and state was formed as a political strategy that sought to establish a peaceful coexistence among competing Protestant denominations 'based on those doctrines which were common to all Christian sects...'"

What I wonder, makes the politicized history of Christianity essentially different from Islam? Seems like the construction of Islam here is that it is NECESSARILY politically opposed to the west.

Reminiscent of the Air Force officer's internal memo from the Lipton reading, which claims Muslims are bent on establishing a global society for their salvation.