Eid al Fitr Begins Today; White House Issues Greetings

Today is the beginning of Eid al Fitr, marking the end of Ramadan. (Background from Huffington Post). The New York Times reports that today's start of the Eid was confirmed last night by the area's Roohat-e-Hilal Committee, or Moon-Sighting Committee. Yesterday President Obama issued a statement (full text) wishing "Muslims in the United States and around the world a blessed and joyous celebration."

In Kenya, Catholic Bishops Accused of Evicting Restaurant Because It Is Run By Muslims

Standard Digital reported yesterday on a lawsuit filed in Narobi, Kenya against the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops.  The suit alleges that last December plaintiff, the Alyusra Restaurant, signed a 6-year lease on space in a building owned by the bishops' organization, but that the restaurant owner Baakai Maalim was violently ejected and the premises padlocked when the bishops learned that the restaurant was being run by Somali Muslims. Plaintiff's petition contends that the ejection constitutes "a brazen violation of the Constitution by the Catholic bishops who should be at the forefront of preaching religious tolerance...."

French Court Suspends Municipal By-Law Banning Religious Symbols At Beach

In France, last Saturday a Versailles Administrative Court suspended, pending a final ruling on the merits, a by-law adopted by the town of Wissous that banned wearing of religious symbols on the town's beach. AFP reports that the prior week, Wissous Mayor Richard Trinquier, invoking the by-law, had turned away two mothers wearing hijabs (Muslim headscarves) who had brought their children to the beach. This led to an emergency court action being brought by the French government and an organization that combats Islamophobia, in which they argued that the by-law infringes the fundamental freedom of religious belief.  The mayor had claimed that the by-law protects France's commitment to secularism.

EEOC Sues Over Nursing Home's Ban On Hijab

The EEOC announced Monday that it filed suit last month against an Alabama nursing home for refusing to accommodate a Muslim employee's request to wear her hijab. Tracy Martin, hired as a certified nursing assistant by Shadecrest Healthcare Center filed an EEOC complaint after she was told to remove her head covering. Several weeks after the nursing home received notice of the complaint, Martin was summarily fired.

China Orders Muslims In Northwest Not To Observe Ramadan Fast

AP reports that schools, government agencies and Communist Party organizations in China's northwestern Xinjiang region have ordered students and civil servants in the region to avoid observing the traditional Ramadan fast that began Saturday night. The move comes in the midst of tightened security in the heavily Muslim region after attacks in May and June led to over 50 deaths.  China blames the unrest on Muslim extremists with foreign terrorist ties, and fears that religious activities could become a rallying point for anti-government activity. Apparently earlier this week authorities in some towns held celebrations of the founding of the Communist Party and served food to find out whether Muslim attendees were fasting.

More Legal Problems For Christian Sudanese Woman

In Sudan, the case of Mariam Yahya Ibrahim-- whose father was Muslim, but who was raised by her mother as a Christian-- is becoming legally more complex. As previously reported, Ibrahim was initially sentenced to death for apostasy for embracing Christianity, but an appeals court last week overturned the sentence and released her from custody. (See prior posting.) However, as reported by Reuters, when Ibrahim, along with her Christian husband and her two children, attempted to fly out of the country, she was again briefly detained by police who charged her with using falsified travel documents.  Sudanese authorities objected to her travel documents that were issued by the embassy of South Sudan. After being released by police last Thursday, she and her family took up temporary residence in the U.S. embassy in Khartoum. Now a lawsuit has been filed against her in the Khartoum Religious Court, brought by her father's family, seeking to establish she is a Muslim.  If successful, that would presumably invalidate her marriage to her Christian husband (who is South Sudanese and holds American citizenship), and would impede her plans to leave Sudan.

European Court Upholds France's Ban Wearing Burqa In Public

The European Court of Human Rights today, in a Grand Chamber judgment, upheld France's ban on Muslim women wearing the full-face veil in public.  In S.A.S. v. France, (ECHR, July 1, 2014), the court by a vote of 15-2 held that France's law prohibiting the concealment of one’s face in public places (and thus barring the burqa and niqab) does not violate either Art. 8 (respect for private and family life) or Art. 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court unanimously held that the law does not violate Art. 14 (discrimination). The Court concluded that the ban can be justified as a means of guaranteeing the conditions of "living together." The Court said in part:

[W]hile it is true that the scope of the ban is broad, because all places accessible to the public are concerned (except for places of worship), the Law of 11 October 2010 does not affect the freedom to wear in public any garment or item of clothing – with or without a religious connotation – which does not have the effect of concealing the face. The Court is aware of the fact that the impugned ban mainly affects Muslim women who wish to wear the full-face veil. It nevertheless finds it to be of some significance that the ban is not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it conceals the face.....

... [T]he respondent State is seeking to protect a principle of interaction between individuals, which in its view is essential for the expression not only of pluralism, but also of tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society .... In such circumstances, the Court has a duty to exercise a degree of restraint in its review of Convention compliance, since such review will lead it to assess a balance that has been struck by means of a democratic process within the society in question.

The Court also issued a press release summarizing the decision. CNN reports on the decision. [Thanks to Paul de Mello for the lead.]

White House Sends Greetings As Ramadan Begins

Ramadan begins tonight. The White House released a statement (full text) from the President extending greetings from the American people to Muslims communities in the U.S. and around the world. The statement reads in part:

... Ramadan is also an occasion when Muslims around the world reaffirm their commitment to helping the less fortunate....  Here in the United States, we are grateful to the many Muslim American organizations, individuals, and businesses that are devoted to creating opportunity for all by working to reduce income inequality and poverty, not only through their charitable efforts, but also through their initiatives to empower students, workers and families with the education, skills and health care they deserve.

President Obama went on to announce that again this year the White House will host an iftar dinner during Ramadan.

Malaysia's Top Court Denies Leave To Appeal Ban On Catholic Paper's Use of "Allah"

AstroAwani , MSN News  and AlJazeera all report on today's decision by Malaysia's highest court to refuse leave to appeal in a widely followed religious freedom case.  By a vote of 4-3, Malaysia's Federal Court denied an application by the Catholic Church for leave to appeal a Court of Appeals decision that barred the Catholic newspaper, The Herald, from using the term "Allah" in its Malay language edition to refer to God. (See prior posting.)  "Allah" has been widely used by Christians in Sabah and Sarawak to refer to God. However the government argues that its use in non-Muslim literature may confuse Muslims and lead them to convert.

NYT Details Plight of Christian Convert In Afghanistan

The New York Times yesterday reported at length on the plight in Afghanistan of a Muslim convert to Christianity (identified only as "Josef") who is in hiding as his brother-in-law and uncles are seeking to find him and kill him for apostasy. More generally, according to the report:

In official eyes here, there are no Afghan Christians. The few Afghans who practice the faith do so in private for fear of persecution, attending one of a handful of underground churches that are believed to be operating in the country. Expatriates use chapels on embassy grounds, but those are effectively inaccessible to Afghans.

Only a few Afghan converts have surfaced in the past decade, and the government has typically dealt with them swiftly and silently: They are asked to recant, and if they refuse, they are expelled, usually to India, where an Afghan church flourishes in New Delhi....

That leaves Josef almost nowhere to turn for protection. The police would be no help. Converts report being beaten and sexually abused while in custody.

Canadian Muslim Group Sues Prime Minister's Office For Defamation

The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) announced on Monday that it has commenced a defamation lawsuit against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and  Jason MacDonald, the Prime Minister’s Communications Director. After NCCM sent a letter to the Prime Minister's office in January objecting to the inclusion of a particular rabbi on the Prime Minister's visit to Israel, a spokesman for the Prime Minister said that NCCM is "an organization with documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas." On Jan. 28, NCCM initiated a libel notice  against the Prime Minister's Office. Since there has been no retraction, NCCM filed suit. OnIslam reports on the lawsuit.

Family of Muslim Man Killed By L.A. Police Wins In 9th Circuit, But Not On Free Exercise Claim

Yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued two opinions-- one published and the other unpublished-- in the case of an autistic 21-year old Muslim man-- Mohammad Usman Chaudhry-- who was shot and killed by Los Angeles police.  The coroner took custody of Chaudhry's body but did not notify his family of his death for 21 days. This prevented the family from burying Chaudhry in accordance with their religious beliefs.  In the published opinion in Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles (I), (9th Cir., May 19, 2014), the 9th Circuit gave a substantial victory to the family, reversing a number of the district court's rulings. Among other things, it reversed the dismissal of claims under state and federal civil rights laws, allowing the family to proceed  on 4th Amendment grounds, and on substantive due process grounds for loss of companionship. It also held that California's bar to pre-death pain and suffering claims does not apply to suits based on 42 USC Sec. 1983, reinstating the jury's $1 million award. It alsoFr held that plaintiffs introduced enough evidence to raise a jury question on whether the coroner's office was negligent in it attempts to locate Chaudhry's family.  In the unpublished opinion in Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles (II), (9th Cir., May 19, 2014), the 9th Circuit rejected the family's free exercise of religion claim, holding that "the Los Angeles Coroner Department’s policies for locating decedents’ families are generally applied and neutral with respect to religion." It also rejected plaintiffs' equal protection claim, finding no evidence of intent to discriminate on the basis of religion or race.

Suit Claims FBI Infringes Muslims' Free Exercise Rights By Using No Fly List To Coerce Them To Become Informants

The Center for Constitutional Rights yesterday announced the filing of a lawsuit against the FBI on behalf of four American Muslim men who were placed on the No-Fly List after they refused to work as FBI informants in their religious communities, or were told they would be removed from the List only if they agreed to work with the FBI.  The complaint (full text) in Tanvir v. Holder, (SD NY, filed 4/22/2014) claims that the FBI's actions violate plaintiffs' procedural due process rights, 1st Amendment free exercise rights and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It alleges in part:

65.  Many American Muslims, like many other Americans, and many followers of other religions, have sincerely held religious and other objections against becoming informants in their own communities, particularly when they are asked to inform on the communities as a whole rather than specific individuals reasonably suspected of wrongdoing. Acting as an informant would require them to lie and would interfere with their ability to associate with other members of their communities on their own terms. For these American Muslims, the exercise of Islamic tenets precludes spying on the private lives of others in their communities.

66. The FBI uses the No Fly List to coerce American Muslims into becoming informants and to retaliate against them when they exercise constitutionally protected rights.

Washington Post reports on the lawsuit.

Anti--SLAPP Motion Granted To Dismiss Suit Growing Out of Ground-Zero Mosque Controversy

Forras v. Rauf, (D DC, April 18, 2014), is a remnant from the widely publicized battle over attempts in 2010 to construct a mosque and community center two blocks from Ground Zero in lower Manhattan.  New York City first responder Vincent Forras sued to prevent building of the mosque, claiming that it would be a nuisance, would inflict emotional distress and amounted to an assault.  In response to the complaint in that suit, Imam Feisal Rauf and the other defendants moved to dismiss, filing a memorandum of law that, among other things, said that Forras equates Islam with terrorism and has become "America's Spokesman of Bigotry." The suit was ultimately dismissed.

Meanwhile, however, Forras filed this lawsuit against Rauf and the other defendants alleging defamation, false light, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress from the statements they made in their memorandum of law seeking dismissal of the original lawsuit. Forras moves to dismiss under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act which provides for rapid dismissal of a lawsuit that is filed to chill speech about public issues.  The court granted the motion, finding that Forras had not shown a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of his claims.  The judicial proceedings privilege would defeat the defamation and false light claims.  Plaintiffs also failed to show that they are likely to succeed on their other claims, including their claim that the statements in the original court proceedings "put a de facto Fatwah on Plaintiffs."

U.S. Embassy Is One Sponsor Of School Program In Czech Republic To Fight Prejudice Against Muslims

AINA reported this week that the U.S. Embassy in Prague is one of a half dozen sponsors of a program titled "Muslims in the Eyes of Czech School Children."  The project, authorized by the Czech Republic's Ministry of Education, is designed to fight stereotypes and prejudices about Muslims by teaching school children about Islamic beliefs and practices. The first phase of the project is aimed at analyzing the accuracy of information about Islam in Czech school textbooks. Later phases involve examination of issues such as veiling of women and media coverage of Islam, artistic projects and thematic lectures. Critics of the program are concerned that it will involve proselytizing.

The Story Behind The Niqab Wearing British Defendant

Last September, a good deal of attention was given to rulings by a British judge in the case of a Muslim woman charged with witness intimidation who sought to keep her face fully covered by her niqab at her arraignment and subsequently at her trial. (See prior posting). In a lengthy article yesterday, The Independent reports the back story on defendant Rebecca Dawson. The witness intimidation charges grew out of an encounter between Dawson and a volunteer caretaker at a local mosque who was planning to testify against Dawson's husband in his trial on assault charges.  According to the report:

At the root of the case, so it seemed, lay a dispute between two factions at the Finsbury Park Mosque. One believed that it was acceptable for tourists to be shown around the mosque with their heads uncovered and in Western dress; the other did not. Dawson’s husband was firmly in the latter camp, and when he learned that the caretaker had shown around a group of “improperly” dressed Portuguese visitors, he had gone to the mosque and duffed him up.

When the jury was deadlocked after 10 hours, Dawson agreed to a plea deal.  While awaiting sentence, Dawson went to trial along with her husband on other charges-- disseminating YouTube videos glorifying the terrorist killing of Fusilier Lee Rigby.

Suit Against NYC Transit Authority Over Headwear Rules Survives Motion To Dismiss

In Lewis v. New York City Transit Authority, (ED NY, March 31, 2014), a New York federal district court denied the New York City Transit Authority's motion to dismiss a discrimination suit filed against it by Stephanie Lewis, a Muslim woman who was employed as a bus driver, but was transferred to a bus depot for refusing to remove, cover with a cap, or affix a logo to her khimar.  Ultimately her employment was terminated.  In a 55-page opinion, the court permitted the suit (now being pursued by the administrator of Lewis' estate) to proceed with claims under Title VII, the 1st and 14th Amendments, the New York state constitution, and state and city human rights laws.

11 French Towns Will Ban Schools From Serving Alternatives When Pork Is On The Menu

In local elections in France last week, the right-wing Front National party, led by  Marine Le Pen, won control of eleven local town councils.  According to RFI  and The Local, Le Pen told RTL Radio yesterday that those eleven towns will now ban their school cafeterias from providing Muslim and Jewish students menu alternatives when the school serves pork meals. She said: "We will not accept any religious requirements on school menus.  There is no reason for religion to enter into the public sphere, that's the law."

Muslim Woman Sues Gym For Refusing To Allow Head Covering

The Albuquerque Journal reported yesterday on a religious and racial discrimination lawsuit filed in New Mexico state court by a Muslim woman (who is also African-American) who was not permitted to enter a Planet Fitness gym because she was wearing a head covering. A Planet Fitness attorney says the gym did not know the head covering was for religious purposes and that it violated the gym's dress code that prohibits jeans, work boots, bandanas, skull caps and revealing apparel. Plaintiff Tarainia McDaniel, who holds a two-year membership in the gym, says she was told that while the dress code was sometimes waived, it could not be in her case because her head covering was red. The lawsuit alleges racial and religious discrimination in violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act and the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.

Muslim Couple Claims Discrimination When Forced Off Empire State Building Deck For Praying

Huffington Post and OnIslam report yesterday on a lawsuit filed in federal district court in New York by a Muslim couple who claim that they and their two children were forcibly escorted off the observation deck of the Empire State Building, down the elevator and out of the building, for engaging in Muslim prayer.  They say they chose an area on the observation deck where there was little foot traffic to observe their 11 p.m. prayers last July.  A guard poked the husband and told him that  he was not allowed to pray while at the Observatory. The suit alleges they were targeted because they were Muslim, wearing traditional Muslim attire and engaged in Muslim prayer. It goes on to allege that owners of the building and their security personnel "have an unlawful policy, custom, practice, procedure and/or rule, whether express or implied, of barring patrons from exercising their religious beliefs in the Empire State Building and/or the Observatory."