Translate

Sunday, March 8, 2020

92% OF NEW MUSLIM CANDIDATES WON'T EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR CONSTITUTION; ONE MINNESOTA REPUBLICAN MAKES IT BIPARTISAN

92% OF NEW MUSLIM CANDIDATES WON'T EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR CONSTITUTION; 
ONE MINNESOTA REPUBLICAN MAKES IT BIPARTISAN 
BY STEPHEN M. KIRBY
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
purposes:
It is not appropriate to label all, or even the majority of those, who question Islam and Muslims as Islamophobes.
(CAIR Report 2013, Legislating Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States, p. ix)
In January 2020, I wrote about the results of a survey I had done in which I presented four questions to eighty Muslim public officials across the United States; each question asked the Muslim public official to choose between following the U.S. Constitution/our man-made laws or Islamic Doctrine.  An eye-opening 93% of these Muslim public officials would not express support for the U.S. Constitution or our man-made laws.  Of the six who did express this support, only two allowed me to mention their name.[1]
I also submitted these same four questions to seven prominent Muslim Americans who have been publicly aspiring to reform Islam; I sent four similar questions, based on Canadian law, to six prominent Muslim Canadians who had also been publicly aspiring to reform Islam.  Of these thirteen aspiring reformers, only two Muslim Americans and one Muslim Canadian responded saying they supported man-made laws over the commands of Allah and the teachings of Muhammad.[2]
I then decided to submit the same four questions to 36 Muslim American candidates who appeared to be seeking public office for the first time.[3]
We shall first look at the four questions I used and then examine the variety of responses I received from those Muslims seeking public office.  I then list the Muslim candidates, by State, who did not respond.  This is followed by my concluding remarks.
The Questions
On February 10, 2020, I sent the following e-mail to a group of 36 Muslims who were running, or had been running, for public office at various levels of government across the United States; on February 17th I sent it again to the Muslims who had not initially responded:[4]
I have written extensively about Islam (six books and numerous articles and brochures) and think it important that non-Muslims gain a better understanding of Islam.
 If you are elected to public office you will take an oath of office that includes swearing, or affirming, to support the United States Constitution.  With that in mind, I am interested in your response, as a candidate who follows the religion of Islam, to the following questions:
No. 1:  Will you go on record now and state that our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech gives the right to anyone in the United States to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and will you also go on record now and state that you support and defend anyone’s right to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and that you condemn anyone who threatens death or physical harm to another person who is exercising that right?
No. 2:  Our 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in the United States. As part of that freedom, anyone in the United States has the right to join or leave any religion, or have no religion at all.  Will you go on record now and state that you support and defend the idea that in the United States a Muslim has not only the freedom to leave Islam, but to do so without fear of physical harm, and will you also go on record now and state that you condemn anyone who threatens physical harm to a Muslim who is exercising that freedom?
No. 3:  According to the words of Allah found in Koran 5:38 and the teachings of your prophet Muhammad, amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft.   But our U.S. Constitution, which consists of man-made laws, has the 8th Amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment such as this.  Do you agree with Allah and your prophet Muhammad that amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft in the United States, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting such punishments are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah and teaching of Muhammad?
No. 4:  According to the words of Allah found in Koran 4:3, Muslim men are allowed, but not required, to be married to up to four wives.  Being married to more than one wife in the United States is illegal according to our man-made bigamy laws.  Do you agree with Allah that it is legal for a Muslim man in the United States to be married to more than one woman, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting bigamy are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah?
I look forward to your responses.
Support for the U.S. Constitution
Only three Muslim candidates clearly stated that they would support the U.S. Constitution/our man-made laws over Islamic Doctrine; they each gave me permission to use their name:
Deedra Abboudd (D), Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Arizona
Iman-Utopia Layjou Bah (I), U.S. House of Representatives (AZ-2)
Rashid Malik (D), U.S. House of Representatives (GA-7)
Other Replies
I received various replies from five other Muslim candidates:
Leila Shukri Adan (D), U.S. House of Representatives (MN-5):  On February 17th Adan responded to my second e-mail:
Thank you so much for your email and for the reminder.  I am confirming receipt and will get back to you soon!
I have not heard back from Adan.
Muhammad Arif (D), United States Senate, Arizona:  Arif responded the same day to the February 10th e-mail.  He asked if we could meet for coffee or lunch to discuss the questions.  I explained that I lived too far away for that.  We exchanged several additional e-mails, and on February 11th he wrote:
Since you do not live in Arizona and I’m busy in my campaign because I have limited time … can I email you these answer [sic] next week … I apologize for delay [sic] because the questions I have to read carefully and answer in details [sic]
I replied that would be fine.  The “next week” came and went, and on February 22nd I sent him an e-mail asking when I could expect his responses.  I have not heard back from Arif.
Zainab Baloch (D), Mayor of Raleigh, North Carolina:  Baloch lost the 2019 general election to become the Mayor of Raleigh.  However, her subsequent social postings appeared to indicate that she was in politics for the long haul; she had written: “This isn’t a sprint, it’s a marathon.”  On February 17th she responded to my second e-mail:
I didn’t miss it [my first e-mail]. If I have time to respond to your harassing questions, I will. Have a great week!
I have not heard back from Baloch.
Ameena Matthews (D), U.S. House of Representatives (IL-1):  On February 24th, in reply to my second e-mail, I received the following from Dr. La’Shawn Littrice, Matthews’ Campaign Manager:
Hi, Steve. How are you?  I will forward this to Dr. Matthews and get it back to you by Wednesday [February 26th] of this week.
On February 28th I sent Littrice an e-mail asking her for an update.  I have not heard back from Littrice.
Reem Subei (D), Ohio State Senate:   In response to each of the two e-mails I sent Subei, I received the following form response:
Thank you for contacting Reem for Ohio. This campaign is about bringing justice and equality to all. Please click the link below to provide us with your preferred volunteering activity. Let’s build a system that works for everyone, because we all win when we all win. 
The link takes one to a form for volunteers to complete.  I have received no other response from Subei.
No Reply
These Muslim candidates did not reply:
California
Kaisar Ahmed (Nonpartisan) – San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors
Shahid Buttar (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (CA-12)
Fatima Shahnaz Iqbal-Zubair (D) – California State Assembly
Cenk Uygur (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (CA-25)
Colorado
Iman Jodeh (D) – Colorado State House of Representatives
Delaware
Madinah Wilson-Anton (D) – Delaware State House of Delegates
Georgia
Nabilah Islam (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (GA-7)
Illinois
Junaid “J” Afeef (D) – Kane County State’s Attorney
Rush Darwish (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (IL-3)
Mohammed Faheem (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (IL-8)
Sarah Gad (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (IL-1)
Inam Hussain (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (IL-8)
Moon Khan (D) – Circuit Court Clerk, DuPage County
Azam Nizamuddin (D) – Circuit Judge, Circuit Court of DuPage County
Abdelnasser Rashid (D) – Cook County Board of Review
Maryland
Saafir Rabb (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (MD-7)
Massachusetts
Ihssane Leckey (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (MA-4)
Nichole Mossalam (D) – Massachusetts State House of Representatives
Michigan
Solomon Rajput (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (MI-12)
Minnesota
Dalia Al-Aqidi (R) – U.S. House of Representatives (MN-5)
Omar Fateh (D) – Minnesota State Senate
New Jersey
Alp Basaran (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (NJ-9)
New York
Tahanie Aboushi (D) – Manhattan District Attorney
Shaniyat Chowdhury (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (NY-5)
Mary Jobaida (D) – New York State Assembly
Badrun Nahar Khan (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (NY-14)
Zohran Kwame Mamdani (D) – New York State Assembly
Ohio
Mohamud Jama (D) – Ohio State House of Representatives
Conclusion
These 36 Muslim Americans seeking public office would have to, if successful, take an oath of office that includes swearing (or affirming) to support the U.S. Constitution.  In theory then, one would think such Muslim Americans would be quite willing even now to express their support for that Constitution and our man-made laws.  The fact that 92% of them would not take this opportunity to express that support is troubling.
Troubling, but not surprising.  As we saw earlier, 93% of current Muslim public officials and 77% of aspiring Muslim reformers also declined to make such a choice.  This, in spite of the fact that anyone holding a public office in the United States is required to take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and our man-made laws, and we regularly hear from aspiring Muslim reformers that Islamic Doctrine needs to be modernized and made more compatible with Western laws.  But when faced with specific choices, instead of glittering generalities, 91% of all the Muslims listed in these three categories would not express support for Western laws over Islamic Doctrine.
One might wonder if it is fair to ask Muslims to make such a choice.  It certainly is because of the irreconcilable conflict between major tenets of Islamic Doctrine and Western Laws, especially the U.S. Constitution.[5]
Here is an additional consideration.  In its 2020 ‘Muslim Vote Campaign’ the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has included a questionnaire asking non-Muslim candidates and government officials whether or not they support specific “Muslim needs.”  CAIR explained:
CAIR’s 2020 questionnaire is an update to its 2016 questionnaire and provides sample questions for Muslims to ask local city council, mayoral, state legislative, gubernatorial, and congressional candidates running for office and government officials.
Candidate responses to CAIR’s election questionnaire will assist American Muslims in evaluating each candidate’s leadership criteria and their ability to unite and engage the community on policies and programs that meet Muslim needs.
The questions and the issues included in the questionnaire emphasize the American Muslim community’s concerns, as well as those of its civil rights, immigrant rights and worker rights allies.[6]
Here is a sampling of the issues about which the American Muslim community is concerned:[7]
1. Do you plan to address the rise in Islamophobia and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States?
2. Do you support the right of Muslim inmates to make religious accommodation requests for religious headwear, like hijabs, kufis, and other head coverings?
3. Do you support the right of Muslim inmates to make religious accommodation requests for copies of the Quran and other religious texts, prayer mats, prayer beads, and other religious items?
4. Do you support the right of Muslim inmates to make religious accommodation requests for modified meal schedules while fasting during Ramadan?
5. Do you support the right of Muslim inmates to make religious accommodation requests for daily congregational prayers and Friday religious services?
6. Do you support public school systems with significant Muslim populations in your congressional district and/or state closing for the Muslim holidays of Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, when many students or faculty would otherwise be absent?
The focus of CAIR’s questions is on the need for non-Muslims to accommodate certain Islamic religious teachings.  Since CAIR has turned the focus on certain Islamic religious teachings, it is only appropriate that the focus should now be turned on all Islamic religious teachings, especially those that are irreconcilably in conflict with the U.S. Constitution and our man-made laws.  Muslims running for and holding public office need to be asked about these conflicts and expected to publicly, categorically choose between the U.S. Constitution/our man-made laws and those contradictory teachings of their religion.
We need to pay heed to these words of Winston Churchill from 1940:
This is no time for ease and comfort.  It is the time to dare and endure.
Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.
[1]           Stephen M. Kirby, “93% of Muslim Public Officials Would Not Express Support for the Constitution They Swore to Uphold,” Jihad Watch, January 7, 2020, https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/01/93-of-muslim-public-officials-would-not-express-support-for-the-constitution-they-swore-to-uphold.
[2]           Stephen M. Kirby, “The Adventures of Asking Muslim Reformers to Categorically Choose between Western Laws and Islam,” Jihad Watch, January 16, 2020, https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/01/the-adventures-of-asking-muslim-reformers-to-categorically-choose-between-western-laws-and-islam.
[3]           I would like to thank Deplorable Kel for a majority of these names: https://deplorablekel.com/category/u-s-elections/2020-election/.
[4]           These questions were taken from Chapter 10 of my latest book, Islamic Doctrine Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials (Washington DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2019); https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2019/12/03/csp-press-releases-primer-on-islamic-doctrine-versus-the-u-s-constitution/.
[5]           For details about this irreconcilable conflict see Islamic Doctrine Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.  For ways in which Islamic Doctrine allows Muslims to appear to take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and our man-made laws, see Chapter 1, “Taking the Oath of Office.”
[6]           “CAIR Launches 2020 ‘Muslims Vote’ Campaign with Release of Candidate Questionnaire, Calendar of Election Dates,” CAIR, January 21, 2020, https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-launches-2020-muslims-vote-campaign-with-release-of-candidate-questionnaire-calendar-of-election-dates/.
[7]           “Sample Questions for Candidates and Public Officials,” CAIR, 2020, https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cairhq/pages/1125/attachments/original/1579621884/2020_Sample_Questions.pdf?1579621884.

GERMANY: COURT RULES AGAINST HIJAB IN COURTROOMS; SMASHES EFFORT TO "ENSHRINE SHARIA LAW IN GERMAN LEGAL SYSTEM"

GERMANY: COURT RULES AGAINST HIJAB 
IN COURTROOMS; SMASHES EFFORT TO "ENSHRINE SHARIA LAW IN GERMAN LEGAL SYSTEM" 
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
purposes:
Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has made a groundbreaking ruling which has favored the constitutional rights of the people over the argument of religious rights of Muslim women to wear the Islamic headscarf in German courtrooms.
The case involves a 38-year-old German-Moroccan law student who was born in Frankfurt and customarily wears a headscarf in public. In January 2017, she began legal training in the German state of Hesse, where the law bans any expression of religion in its courtrooms for judges, lawyers and legal trainees.
Some, like the author below, believe that “the court’s landmark ruling effectively smashes a backdoor effort to enshrine Sharia law into the German legal system.” The Moroccan law student’s lawyer has called the ban “tantamount to a declaration of war.” And that it is. The tenets of Islam mandate war between disbelieving countries (dar al harb) and Muslim ones (dar al Islam). There is an ongoing effort in Western countries to impose Islamic values; the two main areas of conflict have been the Islamic veil and free speech.
It isn’t enough that human rights abuses against women and religious minorities are a norm in Sharia states. Those who uphold the sharia — regarded as divine, immutable law in Islam — want to see Sharia imposed globally. This is a tenet of the Islamic faith.
“German Court Blocks Attempt to Enshrine Sharia Law,” by Soeren Kern, Jewish Voice, March 5, 2020:
Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that the constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms of Muslims can be curtailed if public displays of religiosity — in this case wearing Islamic headscarves in German courtrooms — endanger the ideological and religious neutrality of the state.
The court’s landmark ruling effectively smashes a backdoor effort to enshrine Sharia law into the German legal system.
The case involves a 38-year-old German-Moroccan law student who was born in Frankfurt and customarily wears a headscarf in public. In January 2017, she began legal training in the German state of Hesse, where the law bans any expression of religion in its courtrooms for judges, lawyers and legal trainees.
According to the law, legal trainees (Rechtsreferendar) are allowed to wear a headscarf — except when they are performing certain official tasks in which they serve as representatives of the judiciary or the state. This means, for instance, that trainee lawyers are not allowed to wear a headscarf when presiding over a hearing, taking evidence or representing the public prosecution office.
The complainant filed a lawsuit claiming that the headscarf ban interfered with her right to freedom of religion. She argued that she was being forced to choose between performing the intended tasks or fulfilling a religious clothing requirement that she considers imperative.
The Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) ruled that, according to the law in Hesse, legal trainees have a duty to conduct themselves neutrally with respect to religion and that, when wearing a headscarf, the complainant was therefore barred from performing any tasks in the course of which she might be perceived as being a representative of the justice system or the state.
The complainant filed an appeal, which was rejected by the Hesse Higher Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). She then filed an appeal with the Federal Constitutional Court, which affirmed the lower court rulings. In a statement published on February 27, 2020, the high court explained:
“The principle of the state’s religious and ideological neutrality can be considered a constitutional interest that may justify an interference with freedom of religion in this case. The state’s duty to be neutral necessarily also entails a duty for public officials to be neutral since the state can only act through individuals. However, when public officials exercise their fundamental rights as private individuals in the performance of their duties, this cannot be attributed to the state in every case. Yet it can potentially be attributed to the state in cases where the state has specific influence on the visible character of an official act — as is the case in the justice system.
“Freedom of religion can be subject to a further constitutional limitation inherent in the Basic Law (Grundgesetz): the proper functioning of the justice system in general, which is one of the essential elements underpinning the rule of law and is firmly rooted in the values enshrined in the Basic Law, given that every court decision ultimately serves to safeguard fundamental rights.
“The proper functioning of the justice system requires that society not only place trust in individual judges, but also in the justice system in general. It is true that it will not be possible to achieve absolute trust among the entire population. However, it falls to the state to improve levels of trust. In the present case, the negative freedom of religion afforded parties to legal proceedings is also an argument in favor of the ban on wearing a headscarf.
“In the justice system, the state exercises public authority vis-à-vis the individual in the classic hierarchical sense, which gives rise to more serious impairments than public authority exercised in interdenominational state schools, which are meant to reflect society’s pluralism in religious matters….
“From a constitutional-law perspective, the legislature’s decision to establish a duty of neutral conduct with respect to ideological and religious matters for legal trainees must therefore be respected….
“In support of the complainant’s position, it must be taken into consideration that to her, the headscarf is not only a sign of affiliation with a certain religious group that could be taken off at any time — like, for example, the cross worn on a necklace. Rather, wearing the headscarf to her means fulfilling a requirement that she considers imperative. As there is no similarly widespread equivalent requirement in the Christian faith, a general ban on manifestations of religious belief has a stronger impact on the complainant than on other religious public officials….
“In support of the constitutionality of the ban, it must be taken into consideration that it is limited to a few individual tasks. The ban applies where legal trainees perform judicial tasks, represent the public prosecution office in trial hearings and take on quasi-judicial roles. In doing so, legal trainees — like civil servants — must represent the values that the Basic Law lays down for the justice system.”
Hesse’s Minister of Justice Eva Kühne-Hörmann (CDU) described the ruling as “groundbreaking” (wegweisend):
“With this groundbreaking decision, the court sent an important signal in favor of the ideological neutrality of state institutions. Especially in today’s society, in which people from many countries around the world live with different cultural biographies and also with different religions, the state order must place more value than ever on its ideological neutrality. This is only possible if the state parties to judicial proceedings are not allowed to show religious insignia.”…