‘Sharia Takeover’? What Conservatives Miss in the Debate Over Airport Foot Washing
Conservatives who are serious about combatting the threat of Islamism need to be very careful not to undermine our case by attacking reasonable accommodations for peaceful Muslims.
Muslim reformer M. Zuhdi Jasser has long warned against the threat of Islamism, the political approach to Islam that aims at conquest and subjugation. However, he also has distinguished it from the peaceful religious practices of Muslims.
While Islamism poses “an internal threat to our democracy and our freedoms,” Jasser emphasized the “necessary and important distinction between personal pietistic Islamic practice—which deserves full constitutional protection—and many applications of Sharia that infringe on individual and human rights.”
“If we’re sloppy and we mix those two concepts of Islamism versus the rest of Muslims, we are going to lose [the] battle” against radical Islam, he warned.
The Foot-Washing Debate
American airports routinely accommodate the free exercise of religion by providing chapels, prayer areas, and dietary options. Yet some airports have also started installing foot-washing stations, and this has caused an uproar.
Some have condemned the program to add the stations in the Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, for example, claiming that it represents a “Sharia takeover.”
TRENDING ARTICLES
Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, for example, said of the foot-washing stations, “This isn’t accommodation, it’s conquest.” He added, “The Sharia takeover happening right before our eyes must be stopped!”
Self has rightly sounded the alarm about radical Islam in other contexts, but I’d hesitate to describe the foot-washing stations as an example of Islamic conquest.
The airport said last week it would not move forward with the project.
Religious Accommodation
The Islamic practice of Wudu, ceremonial washing before the five daily prayers, doesn’t just involve cleansing your arms up to the elbow—it also requires washing your feet up to the ankle. This “ablution” is a prerequisite for Muslims following one of the five key practices of Islam.
Conservative activist Ryan Fournier argued that the washing stations are a matter of “standard infrastructure.”
“DFW is one of the busiest travel hubs on the planet,” he wrote on X. “Major U.S. airports like Chicago O’Hare and Indianapolis have had these and interfaith rooms for years to handle international traffic cleanly.”
Supporters argue that thousands of Muslims pass through the airport and need to wash their feet to pray at specific times. Without foot-washing stations, these Muslims might need to use the sinks, which creates practical problems, such as spilling water on the floor and inconveniencing other travelers.
Legitimate Concerns
Some critics have raised separate concerns regarding alleged favoritism and taxpayer funding.
“These ablution facilities appear designed to single out one subset of the population for special treatment based on religion,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said. “That is illegal.”
Abbott’s concern here is legitimate, and he demanded an investigation. If the airport’s policy privileges Muslims and does not afford similar reasonable accommodations to members of other faiths, it may run afoul of the law.
Some Texans may not want to pay for ablution stations. However, according to files from the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation reviewed by Fox News Digital, the $300,000 for the stations came from private funds, not taxpayers.
Key Questions to Ask
Americans should be vigilant to the growth of Islamism in the United States, but we also need to protect the First Amendment rights of Muslims. The First Amendment applies to believers of every faith and those of no faith at all.
When considering developments like foot-washing stations, we should ask a few key questions:
Does this represent an attempt to force the practice of Islam on others, or is this a reasonable accommodation under the First Amendment?
Does this unfairly prioritize Islam over other faiths?
Does this obscure or cover for radical Islam and make it more difficult to identify and oppose the true threat to Americans’ safety?
If conservatives fail to distinguish between ordinary religious practice and Islamism, we will end up targeting the wrong people. The Constitution protects peaceful Muslims who practice their faith, while Americans remain fully justified in opposing political movements that seek to subordinate constitutional freedom to Islamic law.
We should condemn any attacks motivated by radical Islam as we condemn attacks on peaceful Muslims who seek to exercise their faith.
Preserving that distinction is not weakness—it’s essential to winning the argument against Islamism.
Read the first chapter of The Woketopus right now for FREE
Today, even with President Trump’s victory, leftist elites have their tentacles in every aspect of our government.
The Daily Signal’s own Tyler O’Neil exposes this leftist cabal in his new book, The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.
In this book, O’Neil reveals how the Left’s NGO apparatus pursues its woke agenda, maneuvering like an octopus by circumventing Congress and entrenching its interests in the federal government.
You can read the first chapter of this new book for FREE in this eBook, The Woketopus: Chapter One using the secure link below.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you.
RELATED ARTICLES
Don’t miss the
Don’t miss the signal
