This is where the discussion needs to become more serious.
Many Americans hear “Sharia” and imagine something roughly equivalent to Christian rules about prayer, fasting or personal morality.
For millions of Muslims, much of Sharia observance is indeed personal: prayer, fasting, dietary restrictions, charitable giving and financial practices.
But historically, Islamic jurisprudence has also addressed matters that Western societies place firmly within civil and criminal law.
Depending upon the country and interpretation, Sharia-based legal systems have addressed marriage, divorce, inheritance, financial transactions, sexual conduct, blasphemy, apostasy, criminal punishment and the legal status of religious minorities.
That doesn’t mean every Muslim supports every such application.
But it does explain why asking a prospective United States senator exactly what he means by following Sharia isn’t prejudice.
It is basic democratic accountability.
Because the question isn’t whether El-Sayed should be allowed to practice Islam.
The question is whether any portion of Islamic jurisprudence could influence how he exercises governmental power.
–
–