Suit Over High School Assignment On Islam Moves Forward

In Wood v. Board of Education of Charles County, (D MD, Sept. 30, 2016), a Maryland federal district court refused to completely dismiss a suit by parents of an 11th grader who complained that their daughter's World History assignments "promot[ed] the Islamic religion over other faiths" and "required the students . . . to profess statements on the teachings and beliefs of Islam in written worksheets as graded homework assignments." The father warned the school against retaliating against his daughter for her adherence to her Christian faith. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief as moot since their daughter had now graduated.  However the court allowed the parents to move ahead with their Establishment Clause and compelled speech claim for damages against the school's principal and vice principal, saying in part:

Here, while discovery and trial may or may not prove otherwise, Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that in addition to learning facts about the background and beliefs relevant to Islam, Defendants required C.W. to “confess” the Islamic Profession of Faith....

The court also allowed the father-- who was barred from school grounds after threatening media coverage and a lawsuit-- to move ahead with his claim of retaliation. The court dismissed due process, Title VI and Title IX claims. See prior related posting.)

Anti-Islamic Group Sues Claiming Federal Law Shields Social Media Censorship

Yesterday the American Freedom Defense Initiative, its President Pamela Geller, its Vice President and the organization Jihad Watch sued the federal government contending that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields Facebook, Twitter and YouTube when they censor anti-Islamic postings by plaintiffs.  The complaint (full text) in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Lynch, (D DC, filed 7/13/2016), alleges that censorship and discrimination by social media outlets violate California anti-discrimination laws, but the CDA section on "Protection for 'Good Samaritan' blocking and screening of offensive material" allows Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to engage in discriminatory conduct. Among the allegations in the complaint against the social media sites are:

The discriminatory way in which Facebook applies its restrictions is evidenced by the fact that Facebook allows vicious posts and pages against Israel to stand, but when Plaintiff Geller and others expose the truth behind that Islamic hatred, the speech is prohibited.,,,

The Twitter policy, in effect, mirrors Islamic blasphemy standards as applied to censor speech critical of Islam, such as Plaintiffs’ speech.

The Center for Security Policy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

NYT Investigates Religious Fundamentalism In Saudi Arabia Today

The New York Times carries a very long investigative piece on the state of fundamentalist Islam in Saudi Arabia today. Beginning on the front page of today's print edition, the article in the Times online edition is titled A Saudi Morals Enforcer Called for a More Liberal Islam. Then the Death Threats Began. It focuses in part on a former employee of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice who earned the wrath of fundamentalists when he decided that much of what Saudis practice as religion is in fact merely Arabian cultural norms.

Israeli Court Says Shouting Allahu Akbar Can Amount To Breach of Peace

In Israel last week, a Jerusalem Magistrate's Court ruled that shouting Allahu akbar (God is great) at a group of Jews on the Temple Mount can be the basis for a conviction for disturbing the peace. According to The Algemeiner, the court wrote in part:

[chanting] Allahu akbar during prayer, at a site of prayer and in the spot in the prayer [book] where it is called for does not constitute a breach of the peace, but a fundamental right. However, when those calls are used as a form of demonstration or protest, or as a way of creating a riot or unrest, they do not constitute prayers and are therefore a clear disturbance of the peace.

Alien Tort Suit Against Turkish Cleric Dismissed

In Ates v. Gulen, (MD PA, June 29, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed an Alien Tort Statute lawsuit (as well as related state law claims) that had been brought by three residents of Turkey against Fethullah Gulen, a Muslim cleric from Turkey presently living in Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs are followers of a Muslim sect known as the Dogan Movement which is critical of Gulen's Anatolian version of Islam.  Plaintiffs claim that Gulen, using influence he wielded over police, prosecutors and judges in Turkey, engaged in a campaign of persecution against plaintiffs, ultimately having them arrested and detained in Turkey for up to 20 months. The court elaborated;

Plaintiffs' action revolves around their key allegation that, in April of 2009, Golen "in effect issued instructions to his followers illegally to misuse the Turkish law enforcement system against the members of the Dogan Movement...."

The court concluded that it lacks jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute because there had been insufficient evidence of conduct that "touches and concerns" the territory of the United States to overcome the presumption that the Alien Tort Statute does not have extraterritorial application. The court found that the action is also barred by the act of state doctrine. Wall Street Journal reports on the decision.

British Tribunal: Deportation of Imam Does Not Violate Islamic Center's Religious Freedom

In Hamat v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (UK UT, June 6, 2016), Britain's Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) rejected a claim that the government is unlawfully interfering with the choice of a religious leader by the Afghanistan Islamic Cultural Centre by deporting its imam who was in the country illegally. Britain's Human Rights Act, Sec. 13, which implements provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, provides in part:

If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.

The Tribunal held:

Whilst the effect of the appellant's removal inevitably has the effect of depriving the AICC and its membership of the imam of their choice, this was not the motive of the respondent's actions.... [T]he decision had not interfered with the freedom of choice of the Afghan Muslim community because their actions have not been prompted by a wish to favour one imam over another. The personality of the appellant has not influenced the decision....

The Tribunal went on to hold that Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion) would be violated only if the government's action would "make the free exercise of religion a practical impossibility." Here there are numerous options for the religious organization to recruit a replacement. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Criticism of Religious Scholarship Is Not Religious Discrimination

Hascall v. Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit, (WD PA, June 28, 2016), is a suit by a Duquesne University Law School faculty member, Susan Hascall, who was denied tenure. A Pennsylvania federal district court refused to dismiss her charges of gender discrimination and retaliation. However it did, among others, dismiss her religious discrimination claim, holding that:

Plaintiff's attempts to rely on her scholarship of Islamic law as a sincerely held religious belief are misplaced.... Scholarship in Islamic and Sharia law does not, on its own, create a sincerely held religious belief. Plaintiff has pointed to no evidence that she herself practices Islam as a religion. Indeed, Plaintiff states in her Amended Complaint that she has not converted to Islam.... Without a sincerely held belief in Islam, Plaintiff cannot establish a claim for religious discrimination.... Plaintiff may very well have been subject to ridicule and derision from her colleagues due to the subject matter of her choice of scholarship; however, such conduct is not prohibited by law.

Legal Intelligencer reports on the decision.

New York Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit To Declare Muslim Marriage Valid

In Jackson K v. Parisa G, 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1487 (NY Sup Ct New York County, April 8, 2016), a New York state trial court refused to dismiss a suit by plaintiff who believed he had validly married defendant in an elaborate Iranian Islamic ceremony in New York, attended by 200 guests, even though the couple did not obtain a New York marriage license.  Alternatively plaintiff sought damages for fraud and conversion of a $25,000 engagement ring. A 20-minute ceremony was performed by Ms. Sholeh Sham, who now says she is not a member of the clergy and had no authority to marry the couple. Plaintiff however claims the marriage was valid under NY Domestic Relations Law Sec. 12 that validates marriages solemnized "in the manner heretofore used and practiced" by a particular religious denomination. The court said in part:

The court need not decide at this point whether it is possible for the court to determine the validity of the purported marriage on neutral principles. The ultimate issue is whether the ceremony meets the requirements set forth in DRL §12. Plaintiff argues that, in Defendant's denomination, no particular religious leader must solemnize a wedding ceremony. Under New York law, an officiant at a religious wedding ceremony need not be limited to a traditional concept of a member of the clergy or a minister ordained by a religious order..... Whether Ms. Shams was qualified to solemnize the marriage is an issue of fact....

The court also allowed plaintiff to move ahead with his claim of fraud, saying:

Here, the complaint includes detailed allegations to the effect that the Defendant accepted Plaintiff's marriage proposal and engagement ring on July 29, 2009...; that the Defendant told him that her family wanted to select the wedding  officiant to be certain that the marriage would be recognized in the Islamic Republic of Iran and valid under Iranian law.... 

... Plaintiff alleges that Defendant convinced him that Ms. Shams was authorized to marry them at the time she officiated at the September 4, 2010 Ceremony, and that they were actually married on September 4, 2010. Only after years of purported marriage did Defendant tell Plaintiff they were not married.

Bangladesh Court Throws Out Petition Seeking To End Islam As State Religion

As reported by Voice of America, yesterday a 3-judge panel of Bangladesh's High Court rejected on procedural grounds a controversial petition filed 28-years ago seeking to eliminate the designation of Islam as the country's state religion.  Petitioners argued that recognition of Islam-- practiced by 90% of the population-- as the state religion is inconsistent with the country's secular constitution and discriminates against religious minorities. As soon as the case opened in court yesterday, the judges ruled that because the secular group filing it never registered with authorities, it has no right to file a petition.

Australian Court Says Sex-Segregated Seating At Muslim Lecture Violates Anti-Discrimination Law

In Bevege v Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, (NSW Civ & Adm Trib, March 4, 2016), the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of the Australian state of New South Wales held that sex-segregated seating at a lecture sponsored by a Muslim group violates the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act of 1977. The sponsor of the lecture, Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, identifies itself as an 'international political party with a franchise in Australia."  When Alison Bevege attended the group's lecture on American intervention in Iraq and Syria, she was directed to a section of the auditorium reserved for women and children.  Hizb ut-Tahrir argued to the court that separate seating of men and women "is a part of Islam, and Muslims globally are adhering to this practice through choice as part of their belief and culture."

While the Anti-Discrimination Act has an exemption for acts or practices "of a body established to propagate religion that conforms to the doctrine of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion," (Sec. 56(d)), the court concluded that this exemption does not apply.  It was not shown that Hizb ut-Tahrir was established to propagate religion.  Also because Hizb ut-Tahrir argued that Bevege would have been allowed to choose her own seat if she had requested to do so, this shows that separate seating was not necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of Muslims attending the lecture.

To avoid similar discrimination in the future, the court ordered that at events sponsored by the organization there must be notices that gender segregated seating is not compulsory, and ushers must be made aware of this.  Law and Religion Australia has more on the decision.

President Obama Speaks At Baltimore Mosque

Yesterday President Obama made his first visit to a mosque in the United States and gave a wide-ranging 45-minute address (full text) emphasizing both the contributions and concerns of the Muslim community in the United States.  Speaking at the Islamic Society of Baltimore, he focused on the American tradition of religious liberty, dealt directly with the challenges posed to American society by groups such as al Quaeda and ISIL, and called on the American Muslim community "to show that it is possible to be faithful to Islam and to be part of a pluralistic society."  Near the end of his remarks, the President addressed himself explicitly to Muslim youth in the United States:

 In our lives, we all have many identities.  We are sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters.  We’re classmates; Cub Scout troop members.  We’re followers of our faith.  We’re citizens of our country.  And today, there are voices in this world, particularly over the Internet, who are constantly claiming that you have to choose between your identities -- as a Muslim, for example, or an American.  Do not believe them.  If you’re ever wondering whether you fit in here, let me say it as clearly as I can, as President of the United States:  You fit in here -- right here.  (Applause.)  You’re right where you belong.  You’re part of America, too.  (Applause.)  You’re not Muslim or American.  You’re Muslim and American. (Applause.) 

Don’t grow cynical.  Don’t respond to ignorance by embracing a world view that suggests you must choose between your faith and your patriotism.  Don’t believe that you have to choose between your best impulses and somehow embrace a world view that pits us against each other -- or, even worse, glorifies violence.  Understand your power to bring about change.  Stay engaged in your community.  Help move our country forward -- your country forward.  (Applause.) 

Several hours ahead of the President's appearance in Baltimore, White House advisor Rumana Ahmed released an e-mail emphasizing the importance to her of the President's visit to the mosque.

Suit Challenges High School History Unit On Islam

The parents of a high schooler filed suit in a Maryland federal district court this week alleging that a two-week unit on Islam in the La Plata High School 11th grade World History class unconstitutionally promoted Islam over Christianity and Judaism.  The complaint (full text) in Wood v. Charles County Public Schools, (D MD, filed 1/27/2016), contends that plaintiffs' daughter was removed from class and given failing grades on assignments when she refused to complete work sheets on Islam that would have caused her to deny and insult her Christian beliefs. The suit contends that this violated the 1st and 14th Amendments, federal civil rights laws and state constitutional provisions.  Thomas More Law Center issued a press release on the case.

Court Dismisses Defamation Suit Because Accusations Require Religious Determination

Yesterday's New Jersey Law Journal reports on a Jan. 6 decision by a Bergen County trial court dismissing a defamation action brought by Raghd Alashaal Faisal Alhusaini who lives in Saudi Arabia against her half-sister, Malak Alshaal Faisal Alhusaini.  Plaintiff claimed her sister defamed her in social media postings by accusing her of having had sexual relations with multiple men under a marriage arrangement known in Sunni Islamic law as "Misyar,"  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to decide whether accusing someone of engaging in Misyar is defamatory because that is a non-secular issue. Plaintiff also objected to a statement that her father had "disowned" her.  The court held that this is merely a non-actionable statement of opinion.

Turkey's Religious Affairs Directorate Ends Online Fatwas After Embarrassing Posting

Turkey's Religious Affairs Directorate announced on Friday that it is closing down its online fatwa service after public outrage over a online fatwa discussing whether a man having lustful feelings for his daughter would religiously invalidate his marriage with the girl's mother. According to Today's Zaman, a Directorate spokesman says: "Such a fatwa has never been issued by our High Council on Religious Affairs."  The fatwa was removed from the Directorate's website.  An investigation into the incident has begun, but explanations so far are confusing, suggesting that the posting of the fatwa may have been a purposeful attempt to embarrass the Religious Affairs Directorate, perhaps by followers of the Gülen movement within the state bureaucracy.

Gambia's President Declares It an Islamic State

On Friday, the President of the West African nation of Gambia proclaimed the largely Muslim country to be an Islamic state.  According to Al Jazeera, Gambia's President Yahya Jammeh said that his country "cannot afford to continue the colonial legacy." However Jammeh pledged to protect the rights of Gambia's Christian community-- about 8% of its population, and said there will be no mandates as to dress.  Opposition politicians say that the Constitution provides that Gambia is a secular state. Some commentators suggest that Jammeh's move is an attempt to create closer relations with the Arab world after losing Western support because of the country's dismal human rights record and rampant corruption.

Muslim Student Sues Missouri Prof Over Alleged Bigoted Comments

Yesterday's Missourian reports on a lawsuit filed Nov. 30 against University of Missouri biology professor Michael Garcia by Fatma El-Walid, an observant Muslim student who was in one of Garcia's classes.  The suit, seeking $25,000 in damages, claims that the professor directed offensive and bigoted comments at the student during office hours, resulting in trauma that impacted her grades and the loss of a scholarship. According to the report:

The lawsuit alleges that ... Garcia asked El-Walid if her parents had waterboarded her "as a child in preparation for the future," wanted to know if her faith made her hate gay people and Jews, suggested she should pose as a suicide bomber and made sexually suggestive remarks, among other comments.

Garcia's lawyer says his client denies the charges.

Focus On the U.S. Muslim Community In the Wake of the San Bernardino Shootings

Last night, just days after the San Bernardino killings, President Obama addressed the nation on issues of terrorism and keeping the country safe. (Full text of Oval Office speech). A portion of his remarks addressed the relationship of all Americans with the American Muslim community:

We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world — including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.

That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.

But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes — and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.

The Muslim community is rethinking its responses to violence committed by Islamic radicals.  An AP article yesterday reports:

[S]ome in the Muslim community say a new game plan is needed. A younger generation is especially impatient with the condemnations of Islamic extremism from Muslim groups after every attack. They argue that the statements merely reinforce false notions that Muslims are collectively responsible for the violence

And a group of American Muslims last week launched the Muslim Reform Movement with a Declaration (full text) that rejects interpretations of Islam that call for violence, social injustice or politicized Islam.

Meanwhile, a Reuters poll released yesterday finds that 51% of Americans view Muslims living in the United States the same as any other community, while 14.6% are generally fearful of Muslims living in the U.S. However 34.7% say they are fearful of "a few groups and individuals" in the Muslim community.  Some 69% of Republicans surveyed and 48% of Democrats favor closing mosques suspected of having extremist ties.

Malaysia's Federal Court Upholds State Ban On Producing Book Contrary To Islamic Law

As reported by Bernama and Malaysian Insider, Malaysia's Federal Court yesterday upheld against freedom of expression and other challenges Section 16 of the Selangor Syariah Law which criminalizes producing, disseminating or possessing for sale any book or document that is contrary to Islamic law.  ZI Publications and its director Mohd Ezra Mohd Zaid were charged by Selangore state authorities with violating Section 16 by publishing a book titled "Allah, Love and Liberty" written by a Canadian author and Muslim reformer Irshad Manji. ZI and Zaid challenged the validity of the state law in the Federal Court.  But Justice Raus, writing for a 5-judge panel, said that the constitutional protections for freedom of expression must be read together with provisions declaring Islam as the country's religion and giving states the power to control or restrict propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.

CAIR Calls For Carson To Withdraw From Presidential Race Because of His Comments About Muslims

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, yesterday CAIR-- the Council on American-Islamic Relations-- called for Dr. Ben Carson to withdraw from the contest for the Republican Presidential nomination, saying that Carson "is unfit to lead and because his views are inconsistent with the United States Constitution."  The call comes after Carson, who identifies as a Seventh Day Adventist, said on Sunday's Meet the Press that a Muslim should not be made President and that Islam is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. (See prior posting.)  In an interview with The Hill on Sunday, Carson expanded on  his views:

I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country.  Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.

According to The Hill:

Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenants of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”

...  However, on several occasions Carson mentioned "Taqiyya," a practice in the Shia Islam denomination in which a Muslim can mislead nonbelievers about the nature of their faith to avoid religious persecution. “Taqiyya is a component of Shia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals,” Carson said.

CAIR says it will send each candidate in the primaries a copy of the Koran, and will send a copy to any American who requests it and pays the cost of shipping.

Crane Collapse Kills 107 At Mecca's Grand Mosque As Hajj Approaches

According to CNN, yesterday in Mecca, ten days before the beginning of the Hajj, a powerful storm caused a construction crane to collapse through the roof of the Grand Mosque, killing 107 and injuring 238 others. The Mosque surrounds the Kaaba, the holiest site in Islam.  The Mosque is being expanded to better handle the large number of visitors that make the Hajj pilgrimage each year.