Australian Imams Publish Guidance For Muslim Witnesses In Judicial Proceedings

The Australian National Imams Council announced yesterday the release of a document titled Explanatory Note on the Judicial Process and Participation of Muslims (full text).  Prepared in cooperation with the Judicial Council of New South Wales, the document is designed to:

a) give practical guidance and explanation to members of the Australian Muslim community of the etiquette and behaviours expected of persons engaging in the judicial processes so that they may act consistently with these without compromising their religious beliefs; and,

b) provide information to judicial officers on Islamic concepts and practices as they relate to matters which may be raised in connection with Muslims participating in the court processes.

Among other things, the document says that there are no religious prohibitions on a Muslim standing up for the Magistrate or judge as a sign of respect.  It also announces:

It is not contrary to Sharia law for a woman to uncover her face when she is giving testimony in court, whether she is a witness in a case or is there to witness a deal, and it is not contrary to Sharia law for the Magistrate or Judge (male or female) to look at her in order to know or identify who she is, make assessments as to credibility where this is an issue and protect the rights of all concerned.

The document also outlines the appropriate way to swear in a Muslim witness. Daily Telegraph, reporting on the document, outlines some of the situations in Australian courts that led to the need for these clarifications.

Jewish Museum CFO Claims Religious Discrimination

The New York Post reported last week that the former chief financial officer of New York's Museum of Jewish Heritage has filed suit alleging that he was forced out of his position because he is Muslim.  According to the Post:

Mohad Athar says he was subjected to racial slurs and false performance reviews after a new chief executive officer, Michael Glickman, was hired in 2016.

European Court: Muslim Witness Should Be Allowed To Wear Skullcap While Testifying

In Hamidović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, (ECHR, Dec. 5, 2017), the European Court of Human Rights held that the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina infringed the religious freedom rights protected by Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it held a Muslim man in contempt for refusing on religious grounds to remove a head covering while testifying in a criminal trial.  As summarized in the Court's press release on the case:

In 2012 Mr Hamidović, a witness in a criminal trial, was expelled from the courtroom, convicted of contempt of court and fined for refusing to remove his skullcap. 

The Court found that there had been nothing to indicate that Mr Hamidović had been disrespectful during the trial. Punishing him with contempt of court on the sole ground that he had refused to remove his skullcap, a religious symbol, had not therefore been necessary in a democratic society and had breached his fundamental right to manifest his religion.

The Court pointed out in particular that Mr Hamidović’s case had to be distinguished from cases concerning the wearing of religious symbols and clothing at the workplace, notably by public officials. Public officials, unlike private citizens such as Mr Hamidović, could be put under a duty of discretion, neutrality and impartiality, including a duty not to wear religious symbols and clothing while exercising official authority.

Two judges filed concurring opinions and one judge dissented.

Ontario Court Holds Mahr Is Part of Family Property In Divorce

In Bakhshi v. Hosseinzadeh,(Ont. Ct. App., Nov. 2, 2017), the Ontario Court of appeal held that the Mahr in an Islamic marriage contract is to be counted as part of net family property.  The Family Law Act in the Canadian province of Ontario calls for equal division of family-owned property in a divorce.  Here the marriage contract called for the husband to pay the wife 230 gold coins (found by the court to be worth $79,580).  The Court of Appeals held that the wife is entitled to receive the Mahr payment from her husband, but that (absent a provision to the contrary in the marriage contract) this amount is then to be included as family-owned property in the equalization calculation. Law Times reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Quebec's New Anti-Niqab Law

As announced by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a suit was filed in a Quebec Superior Court yesterday challenging the constitutionality of Sec. 10 of Quebec's recently enacted Religious Neutrality Law (see prior posting).  The law provides that public sector employees in carrying out their functions may not cover their faces, and that private citizens must have their faces uncovered when receiving public services.  The complaint (full text) in National Council of Canadian Muslims v. Attorney General of Quebec, (Que. Super., filed 11/7/2017) contends that Sec. 10 of the violates freedom of religion and equality protections of the Quebec and Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms.  It asserts that the Act's requirement particularly impacts Muslim women.

University's Anti-Harassment Policy Upheld Over Prof's Free Speech Claims

In Board of Trustees of Purdue University v. Eisenstein, (IN App., Oct. 30, 2017), and Indiana Court of Appeals held that a trial court should have dismissed a lawsuit brought by an associate professor at Purdue University Calumet against the university, its board of trustees and several of its faculty members.  Associate Professor Maurice Eisenstein was accused by several students and faculty of making anti-Muslim and anti-Black statements in his Introduction to Judaism class and in Facebook postings.  A number of students and faculty, as well as the Muslim Student Association, filed harassment complaints against Eisenstein.  Subsequently Eisenstein made derogatory comments to two of the faculty who had complained, and they filed additional charges of retaliation.  The university ultimately upheld only the retaliation claims.  Eisenstein then sued claiming, among other things, that the university's retaliation policy is unconstitutionally vague and that his free speech rights were infringed. He also alleged breach of contract and other claims. In a 42-page opinion, the court rejected Eisenstein's claims on a number of grounds.  Inside Higher Ed reports on the decision.

Muslim Woman's Suit Over Search By Male Officer Is Dismissed

In Montgomery v. Town of Colonie, (ND NY, Oct. 30, 2017), a New York federal district court granted qualified immunity to a male police officer who conducted a pat-down search of a Muslim woman when she was arrested.  Dismissing this portion of plaintiff's claim for damages, the court said in part:

Montgomery does not cite a single authority holding that a police officer violates the First Amendment by performing a cross-gender pat-frisk of an observant Muslim.

The court however allowed plaintiff to move ahead with her Fourth Amendment and false imprisonment claims.

New California Law Bars State Role In Any Future "Muslim Registry"

On Sunday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 31, the California Religious Freedom Act (full text).  As reported by Law Newz, the bill prevents any participation by local or state agencies in any federal "Muslim Registry" that might be developed.  As summarized in part by the Legislative Counsel's office:

The bill would prohibit a state or local agency or a public employee ... from providing or disclosing to the federal government personal information regarding a person’s religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation ... when the information is sought for compiling a database of individuals based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, national origin, or ethnicity for law enforcement or immigration purposes. The bill would also prohibit a state agency from using agency resources to assist with any government program compiling such a database ... [and] would prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies ... from collecting personal information on the religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation of any individual, except as part of a targeted investigation ... or where necessary to provide religious accommodations.

Court Rejects Challenges To Policies Protecting Muslim Women Booking Photos

In Schlussel v. City of Dearborn Heights, (ED MI, Oct. 11, 2017), a Michigan federal district court rejected various challenges by a journalist to a partial denial of her state Freedom of Information Act request for booking photos and videos that were taken of a Muslim woman with her hijab removed.  The city denied the request under the state FOIA's privacy exception.  In the meantime the city had modified its booking procedures-- in response to litigation-- to allow women to continue to wear their hijabs or burkas in booking photos.

The court rejected claims by plaintiff, who was female and Jewish, that her equal protection rights were violated because the photos and videos in question had been released to a Muslim male who was the Muslim woman's lawyer.  The court also rejected a claim that the city's new booking policy violates the Establishment Clause because it applies only to Muslim women.

Illinois Creates Muslim American Advisory Council

Last week, Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner signed the Illinois Muslim American Advisory Council Act (full text).  The law creates a 21-member Council whose purpose is to advise the Governor and state legislature

on policy issues impacting Muslim Americans and immigrants; to advance the role and civic participation of Muslim Americans in this State; to enhance trade and cooperation between Muslim-majority countries and this State; and to build relationships with and disseminate information to, in cooperation with State agencies, boards, and commissions, Muslim American and immigrant communities across this State.

French Court Says School Must Offer Muslim Children An Alternative To Pork At Lunch

According to The Guardian yesterday, in France a trial court judge has told local officials that they must re-institute a policy of offering an alternative to pork meals for school lunches. A court in Dijon told officials in Chalon-sur-Saône that a refusal to offer an alternative for Muslim children is not "in keeping with the spirit of the international convention on the rights of children" nor "in the interests of the children." The the mayor of Chalon-sur-Saône, a member of the right wing Les Républicains party, argued that by requiring all children to eat together, the city was upholding the French Republic’s principle of laïcité  (secularism). The city plans an appeal.

India's Supreme Court Invalidates Triple Talaq Divorces For Muslims

India's Supreme Court today, by a vote of 3-2, invalidated the Sunni Muslim practice of divorce by triple talaq.  In Bano v. Union of India, (India S.Ct., Aug. 22, 2017), in 3 opinions spanning 395 pages, three justices agreed (in 2 separate opinions) that triple talaq is invalid.  Two other justices concluded that the practice is not unconstitutional, but urged the government to legislate on the matter within 6 months and would have enjoined use of the divorce procedure during that period.

Justice Nariman's opinion, joined by Justice Lalit concluded:

it is clear that this form of Talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it. This form of Talaq must, therefore, be held to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14 [Right to Equality] of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, therefore, the 1937 Act [Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act], insofar as it seeks to recognize and enforce Triple Talaq ... must be struck down as being void to the extent that it recognizes and enforces Triple Talaq.

Justice Joseph concluded that "triple talaq is against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran and consequently, it violates Shariat."  He continued:

The whole purpose of the 1937 Act was to declare Shariat as the rule of decision and to discontinue anti-Shariat practices with respect to subjects enumerated in Section 2 which include talaq. Therefore, in any case, after the introduction of the 1937 Act, no practice against the tenets of Quran is permissible.... What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, in that sense, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well.

Chief Justice Khehar, Joined by Justice Nazeer, concluded that triple talaq is protected by Article 25 of the Constitution that protects freedom of religion, saying in part:

It is not for a court to determine whether religious practices were prudent or progressive or regressive. Religion and ‘personal law’, must be perceived, as it is accepted, by the followers of the faith. And not, how another would like it to be (-including self-proclaimed rationalists, of the same faith). Article 25 obliges all Constitutional Courts to protect ‘personal laws’ and not to find fault therewith. Interference in matters of ‘personal law’ is clearly beyond judicial examination....

However, he qualified this by calling on the government to modify the situation by legislation, saying:

[we] are satisfied, that this is a case which presents a situation where this Court should exercise its discretion to issue appropriate directions under Article 142 of the Constitution. We therefore hereby direct, the Union of India to consider appropriate legislation, particularly with reference to ‘talaq-e-biddat’. We hope and expect, that the contemplated legislation will also take into consideration advances in Muslim ‘personal law’ – ‘Shariat’, as have been corrected by legislation the world over, even by theocratic Islamic States....

Till such time as legislation in the matter is considered, we are satisfied in injuncting Muslim husbands, from pronouncing ‘talaq-e-biddat' as a means for severing their matrimonial relationship. The instant injunction, shall in the first instance, be operative for a period of six months.

The Quint reports on the decision.

EEOC Files Two Religious Discrimination Suits

Last week, the EEOC filed two religious discrimination cases.  In Michigan, it filed suit against a Tim Horton's franchise for refusing to accommodate an employee who for religious reasons wanted to wear a skirt instead of the pants that are a standard part of the company's uniform. According to the EEOC, the Romulus, Michigan Tim Horton's refused to accept the explanation in a letter from the employee's  Pentecostal Apostolic minister, and fired the employee.

In Maryland, the EEOC filed suit against a security services firm because of its treatment of Muslim security guard Kelvin Davis.  According to an EEOC press release, when Davis complained to management about a racial slur directed at him by his supervisor, the company retaliated against him, among other ways, by revoking the prior accommodation it had granted to allow Davis to wear a beard. Ultimately intolerable working conditions led Davis to resign.

Christian Refugees To U.S. Outnumber Muslim Refugees So Far In 2017

A Pew Research Center analysis released last week shows that during the first months of the Trump Administration, Christian refugees admitted to the United States outnumber Muslim refugees. This is a change from last year.  During fiscal 2016, of refugees admitted, 46% were Muslim and 44% were Christian. But from Jan. 21 until June 30 of this year, 50% are Christian (9,598), 38% are Muslim (7,250), 11% are other religions and 1% have no religious affiliation.  The difference is in part accounted for by shifts in the countries of origin of admitted refugees.  During the first months of the Trump Administration, the largest number of refugees (3,235) came from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Utah Imam On No-Fly List Allowed To Return After Suit Filed

A lawsuit was filed on Friday in federal district court in Utah seeking an emergency Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction to require authorities to allow Yussuf Awadir Abdi, imam of a Salt Lake City mosque, to return to the United States from Kenya.  According to the motion and brief in support (full text) in Abdi v. McCabe, (D UT, filed 6/16/2017), Abdi had traveled to Kenya to bring his wife and children to the United States. His wife and his 2 non-U.S. citizen children had recetly been approved for visas. When Abdi attempted to board his plane in Kenya, he learned that he had been placed on the "No Fly List" while in Kenya. Previously he had been on the Selectee List-- which still allowed him to fly after special screening. The suit argues that the No Fly List violates Abdi's constitutionally protected right of movement protected by the Due Process Clause. Fox13 News reports on the lawsuit.

Subsequent to the filing of the lawsuit, American authorities relented and allowed Abdi, who has been an American citizen since 2010-- to return to the United States on a Qatar Airlines flight which arrived Saturday. (Salt Lake Tribune).

British Court Says Disabled Care Home Resident Should Not Observe Muslim Customs

In Re: IH (Observance of Muslim Practice) (England & Wales Ct. Protection, June 12, 2017), a judge in Britain's Court of Protection (which has jurisdiction to make decisions in the best interest of those who lack capacity to do so for themselves) made his own findings about principles of Muslim religious law in denying a father's wishes for his 39-year old son who has a profound learning disability and resides in a care home. Relying on testimony of an expert witness in Islamic law, the court held that the son does not have an obligation to observe the practice of shaving or trimming pubic and underarm hair. The court had previously held that the son does not have an obligation to fast during Ramadan, and the father did not contest this ruling.  The Huddersfield Daily Examiner reports on the decision.

UPS Sued Over Firing of Muslim Employees For Prayer Breaks

In a press release yesterday, CAIR reports:

The Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations ... today announced the filing of a lawsuit in state court against UPS Mail Innovations and Doherty Staffing Solutions for firing multiple [Somali] Muslim employees who wanted to pray during their break times after previously having allowed them to pray.

The plaintiffs stated that there had been no problem with them using their break time to pray until a new UPS operations manager was hired. He then terminated employees who wanted to pray.

Ramadan Begins Tonight--Trump Issues Greetings

The Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this evening.  President Donald Trump today released a statement (full text) wishing all Muslims a joyful Ramadan. He said in part:

During this month of fasting from dawn to dusk, many Muslims in America and around the world will find meaning and inspiration in acts of charity and meditation that strengthen our communities.  At its core, the spirit of Ramadan strengthens awareness of our shared obligation to reject violence, to pursue peace, and to give to those in need who are suffering from poverty or conflict.

This year, the holiday begins as the world mourns the innocent victims of barbaric terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom and Egypt, acts of depravity that are directly contrary to the spirit of Ramadan.  Such acts only steel our resolve to defeat the terrorists and their perverted ideology.

Also, reflecting an increase in anti-Muslim activity around the country, the organization Muslim Advocates issued an arson alert to mosques throughout the United Sates.

Suit Charges Dearborn Pizza Store With Serving Pepperoni As Halal

Detroit Free Press reports on a class action lawsuit filed yesterday in a Michigan state trial court against Little Caesars claiming that the chain's pizza store in Dearborn placed pizza topped with pork-based pepperoni in boxes marked Halal.  The suit which seeks $100 million in damages says that plaintiff Mohamad Bazzi has encountered the problem twice, once in March and once this week. Plaintiff claims breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and fraud.  Bazzi's attorney says the suit was filed rapidly ahead of Ramadan which begins this evening so that other Muslims would not accidentally eat pork from the pizza outlet during the holy days.

Muslim Student Sues Claiming Grade Was Result of Religious Discrimination

NJ Advance Media reported yesterday on a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by a Union County College Muslim student.  Plaintiff Sahna ElBanna claims that her business professor, Toby Grodner, gave her an "F" in a course in which she earned A's on exams that count for 60% of the grade. The professor says ElBanna received F's on multimedia assignments that comprised the remaining 40% of her grade. ElBanna claims that Grodner made derogatory comments about Muslims in class-- using the terms "Muslim" and "terrorist" interchangeably, and questioning her about her religion.