New Murfreesboro Lawsuit Challenges Muslim Cemetery

In Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where opponents of an Islamic Center engaged in several years of high-profile litigation beginning in 2010 (see prior posting), a new lawsuit has been filed challenging county approval of a Muslim cemetery on a portion of the Islamic Center's property.  By a 3-2 vote, the Rutherford County Board of Zoning Appeals in January approved the cemetery which will not use caskets or burial vaults.  According to the Murfreesboro Daily News-Journal, plaintiffs are attempting to require additional hearings, studies and permits before the cemetery can be approved. The case is being heard next week by the same trial court judge who ruled-- in a decision that was reversed by higher courts-- that inadequate public notice had been given before the mosque construction was approved.

Umbrella Group of U.S. Muslim Organizations Formed

Religion News Service reported last week on the formation of a new umbrella group-- the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations. Comprised of ten existing Muslim organizations, the new advocacy group will first move to conduct a census of U.S. Muslims to determine their highest priority issues. Its ultimate goal is to protect civil rights, advocate on issues of concern and have a greater impact on American politics by increasing Muslim participation in the 2016 elections.

Malaysia Bans Comic Book That Refers To Super Hero As "Allah"

Time reports that in Malaysia last week, the Home Ministry banned distribution of the Malay language issue of Ultraman the Ultra Power comic book for its use of "Allah" in describing its super hero.  The offending sentence has been translated as: "He is considered, and respected as, ‘Allah’ or the Elder to all Ultra heroes." The Home Ministry says that the comic book contains elements that can undermine public security and societal morals, and warned that the language threatens to confuse Muslim children and damage their faith.  Some in Malaysia have taken to social media to deride the government's response. According to CNA, anyone distributing the banned comic book could face a sentence of three years in prison. This latest order adds to the long-running controversy over the use of "Allah" by non-Muslims-- particularly the use by Malay speaking Catholics to refer to God. (See prior posting.)

Muslim County Worker Wins $1.2 Million In Employment Discrimination Suit

The Detroit Free Press reports that after a two-week employment discrimination trial, a federal court jury in Michigan on Thursday awarded nearly $1.2 million to Ypsilanti (MI) resident Ali Aboubaker, a Muslim.  Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen originally from Tunisia who holds four advanced degrees, claims that his firing from his maintenance engineer job with Washtenaw County was based on ethnic, religious and racial discrimination.  Aboubaker, who worked for the county for 17 years, says he was constantly subjected to racial and ethnic taunts-- especially focusing on his long beard-- and management did nothing about it. His suit also challenged a promotion he did not receive.

Court Dismisses Challenge To NYPD's Surveillance of Muslims

In Hassan v. City of New York, (D NJ, Feb. 20, 2014), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed a constitutional challenge to the New York City Police Department's surveillance of the Muslim community in New Jersey following 9/11. Plaintiffs claimed that the surveillance was motivated solely by animus against Muslims. The court concluded first that plaintiffs lack standing because they did not allege a sufficient injury from the surveillance. The alleged injury to reputations and to the religious functioning of various organizations was caused by the AP's unauthorized release of documents about the program, not by the NYPD's surveillance.  The court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to show intentional discrimination:

Plaintiffs in this case have not alleged facts from which it can be plausibly inferred that they were targeted solely because of their religion. The more likely explanation for the surveillance was a desire to locate budding terrorist conspiracies. The most obvious reason for so concluding is that surveillance of the Muslim community began just after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The Center for Constitutional Rights issued a press release reacting to the decision. AP reports on the decision.

India's Supreme Court Says Country's Adoption Law Applies To Muslims

In Hashmi v. Union of India, (Sup. Ct. India, Feb. 19, 2014), a 3-judge panel of the Supreme Court of India held that the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (background), allows a parent of any religion to adopt an eligible child. The Court described the Juvenile Justice Act as a "small step" toward a uniform Civil Code envisioned by Art. 44 of the Indian Constitution. The Court rejected the argument of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board that Child Welfare Committees should follow the principles of Islamic law before declaring a Muslim child available for adoption. Islamic law recognizes the Kafala system under which a child in need remains a descendant of its biological parents even though it is placed under the care of others. Because of these differing views on adoption, however, the court refused to declare adoption a fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution. Calcutta's The Telegraph reports on the decision.

French Court Fines Muslim Woman For Wearing Niqab In Public

In France yesterday, a court in Versailles dismissed a constitutional challenge to France's 2010 law prohibiting women from wearing the niqab or burqa in public.  According to Voice of America,  the court fined Muslim convert Cassandra Belin 150 euros and imposed a 1-month suspended sentence for wearing the niqab in public and for insulting police who ticketed her for doing so. In a different case, a challenge to France's anti-niqab law is pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

Urging Religious Resolution of Altercation Violated Ban or Attempting To Dissuade Witness From Testifying

In People v. Wahidi, (CA App., Dec. 30, 2013), a California state appeals court upheld the conviction of defendant Abdullah Wahidi  for violating California Penal Code Sec. 136.1(a)(2) which prohibits any person from "[k]nowingly and maliciously attempt[ing] to prevent or dissuade any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry...."  Wahidi had been in an altercation with Farahan Khan and three of Khan's friends. He was charged with assault, vandalism and battery. The day before his preliminary hearing, Wahidi approached Khan following prayer services at Khan’s mosque to urge him, instead of testifying at the preliminary hearing, to settle the matter informally using the Muslim custom of resolving disputes through discussions between affected families. Wahidi said to Khan:

[W]e’re both Muslims. That if we could just settle this outside the court in a more Muslim manner family to family, have our families meet and settle this out of court and not take this to court.

On the basis of that conversation, he was also charged with attempting to dissuade a witness from testifying. The court held that this conversation meets the "knowing and malicious" standard of the statute. California Penal Code Sec. 136 defines "maliciously" very broadly to include interfering in any manner with the orderly administration of justice, and in general was intended only to exclude attempts by family members to protect a witness or victim by urging them to not become involved. The Los Angeles Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports on the decision.

Court Will Approve Settlement In Class Action By Michigan Muslim Inmates

According to the Wall Street Journal, at a hearing yesterday a Michigan federal court judge indicated he would approve a proposed settlement (full text) in a long-running class-action lawsuit by Muslim prisoners.  Under the settlement in Dowdy-El v. Caruso, (ED MI), the state will provide Muslim inmates meals that comply with halal standards.  The settlement does not require the meals to include meat, and the state says it plans to furnish vegan meals to meet its obligations.  The settlement also provides a procedure for inmates who were disciplined because of conflicts between religious services and work, school or administrative detail assignments to have the record of disciplinary actions expunged.

Supreme Court In Unusual Move Gives Interim Relief On Grooming Rules To Muslim Prisoner

In an unusual order (full text) yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued an injunction barring the Arkansas Department of Corrections from enforcing its grooming policy against Muslim inmate Gregory Holt "to the extent that it prohibits applicant from growing a one-half-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs."  The order entered in the case of Holt v. Hobbs, (Docket No. 13-6827) will terminate either when the Court denies Holt's petition for certiorari, or, if it grants the petition, when the Court enters its judgment. AP reports that Holt is serving a life sentence for domestic violence and burglary after he cut his girlfriend's throat and stabbed her. Holt, who also goes by his religious name of Abdul Maalik Muhammad, is appearing pro se.  He filed his handwritten application for an injunction while his cert. petition is pending with Justice Samuel Alito (who is assigned to receive such motions in 8th Circuit cases). Alito in turn referred the application to the entire court which issued yesterday's order. Here is the 8th Circuit's opinion upholding the prison system's grooming policy. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]