Showing posts with label islamophobic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label islamophobic. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
silent but deadly
The title is meant as a tongue in cheek reference to the Florida legislature's odd entry in the apparent national race to pass anti-sharia legislation. Florida's anti-Sharia bill is unusual in that it actually makes no reference to the Sharia or Islam or Islamic concepts at all. Instead Florida's SB 1294 is about the "application of foreign law". And the bill's language goes on to explain that:
And then the bill goes on to say that rulings, arbitration decisions, contractual obligations etc. based on foreign law can't be enforced:
The last part of the bill explains that it applies only to "natural persons" and "does not apply to a corporation, partnership, or other form of business association".
To be honest, I'm not absolutely certain how I feel about the bill since I don't have the legal training to determine exactly how it would be applied.
The bill seems limited to cases which have an international component, and if "sharia" is interpreted as "the legal system of this or that Muslim country" then I'm tempted to say "fine, I don't get my interpretations of the sharia from Iran / Saudi Arabia /Afghanistan etc. anyway." What I'm still unclear on is whether SB 1294 would also void out contracts and decisions involving U.S. citizen which are not based on foreign law per se (e.g. the laws of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc.) but are based on religious rulings (e.g. The Fiqh Council of North America, ones local imam, etc.)
Since the bill doesn't mention Islam at all, it will be interesting to see how it will be applied to Jewish arbitration bodies or cases where American law butts up against Israeli law and the laws of other non-Muslim countries (which is likely to be an issue in Florida generally, and Miami in particular).
A few Christians would be surprised to learn that the Bible itself also seems to have little faith in secular legal systems:
And as a result, there are also Christian arbitration organizations which operate parallel to the US court system.
What I find most ironic is that it seems many of these anti-sharia efforts are backed by the Religious (Christian) Right while the same Religious Right are perfectly willing to impose their own opinions on abortion, homosexuality, US foreign policy (especially towards Israel) and social justice on the rest of the US population, even those who don't share their convictions. It raises the possibility that the anti-sharia movement might end up secularizing American society in ways that the Islamophobes would find constraining as well.
Past posts:
"lord i've really been real stressed/ down and out / losing ground..."
oklahoma and the sharia
Miami Herald: Republican lawmakers are taking aim at Islamic Sharia law, but they don’t specifically want to talk about it
Huffington Post: Florida State Lawmakers Push Bill That Would Ban Sharia Law
the term “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.
And then the bill goes on to say that rulings, arbitration decisions, contractual obligations etc. based on foreign law can't be enforced:
if the law, legal code, or system chosen includes or incorporates any substantive or procedural law, as applied to the dispute at issue, which would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the State Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
The last part of the bill explains that it applies only to "natural persons" and "does not apply to a corporation, partnership, or other form of business association".
To be honest, I'm not absolutely certain how I feel about the bill since I don't have the legal training to determine exactly how it would be applied.
The bill seems limited to cases which have an international component, and if "sharia" is interpreted as "the legal system of this or that Muslim country" then I'm tempted to say "fine, I don't get my interpretations of the sharia from Iran / Saudi Arabia /Afghanistan etc. anyway." What I'm still unclear on is whether SB 1294 would also void out contracts and decisions involving U.S. citizen which are not based on foreign law per se (e.g. the laws of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc.) but are based on religious rulings (e.g. The Fiqh Council of North America, ones local imam, etc.)
Since the bill doesn't mention Islam at all, it will be interesting to see how it will be applied to Jewish arbitration bodies or cases where American law butts up against Israeli law and the laws of other non-Muslim countries (which is likely to be an issue in Florida generally, and Miami in particular).
A few Christians would be surprised to learn that the Bible itself also seems to have little faith in secular legal systems:
When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life! If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?
(1 Corinthians 6:1-6)
And as a result, there are also Christian arbitration organizations which operate parallel to the US court system.
What I find most ironic is that it seems many of these anti-sharia efforts are backed by the Religious (Christian) Right while the same Religious Right are perfectly willing to impose their own opinions on abortion, homosexuality, US foreign policy (especially towards Israel) and social justice on the rest of the US population, even those who don't share their convictions. It raises the possibility that the anti-sharia movement might end up secularizing American society in ways that the Islamophobes would find constraining as well.
Past posts:
"lord i've really been real stressed/ down and out / losing ground..."
oklahoma and the sharia
Miami Herald: Republican lawmakers are taking aim at Islamic Sharia law, but they don’t specifically want to talk about it
Huffington Post: Florida State Lawmakers Push Bill That Would Ban Sharia Law
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
"lord i've really been real stressed/ down and out / losing ground..."
For those who still haven't heard, a bill has been introduced in the Tennessee legislature, sponsored by Republican Sen. Bill Ketron of Murfreesboro, which would basically make it a felony to practice Islam in Tennessee. The bill was written by lawyer David Yerushalmi, a white supremacist Jew who also hates Muslims and Black people. A link to the bill is provided below. Read it yourself if you have time.
Here are some of the highlights:
A couple of things: Since Christian Arabs also use the term "Allah" for God, I wonder if one could argue that Arab churches are also "sharia organizations"? Also, depending on how you read "abrogation" this seems to include even peaceful attempts to amend (abrogate) the constitutions of Tennessee or the US. Also, since a constitution isn't a physical object in the first place, what does it actually mean to cause its "destruction"? And since the US Constitution is a basic text for detailing the structure of government bodies and agents, is it something which individuals can violate? I mean, I have a sense of what it may mean for the President, or Congress or the Supreme Court to violate the Constitution, but I'm honestly not sure what it means for Joe or Zayd down the street to do so. In any case, in spite of the difficulties with the above definition, I can almost understand a bill which singled out "bad Muslims" from "good Muslims" but the definition in the bill actually continues:
In other words, the overwhelming majority of mainstream, traditional Muslims (both Sunni and Shia) are going to be lumped together with any Muslims who are trying to destroy "the national existence of the United States" without any specific evidence of violent or criminal behavior.
The bill then goes on to criminalize "sharia organizations" (basically, any two Muslims) and makes it a felony to give such "groups" material support.
It would be hard for me to overstate just how stupid and ill-conceived I think this bill is. I would say that the bill is retarded if it weren't so insulting to retarded people.
- The bill is clearly a violation of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" don't they understand?
- Even if it wasn't such a literal violation of the bill of rights, trying to criminalize religious activity is anti-democratic.
- Even if non-Muslims are scared of having the shariah imposed on them without their consent, again, that pesky First Amendment already prevents that from happening making an anti-shariah bill unnecessary.
-The alleged reason for the anti-sharia bill is to protect US citizens from "homegrown" terrorism. But as the folks at Loonwatch have most ably pointed out, all terrorists are Muslims... except for the 94% that aren't. If we are really serious about protecting the homeland, then we need to look at the causes of violence regardless of what flag it may fly under. (I hope that the IRA supporting Rep. King is listening.)
-A question: I wonder how many of these anti-sharia fear-mongers are Christians who are willing to use the government to impose their view on abortion, homosexuality, or US Middle Eastern policy on citizens who don't share their view. Just curious.
- Even if there was some honest (but ill-conceived) concern that Muslims would magically take over the country and adulterers would suddenly be stoned (with rocks) on the White House lawn or women would suddenly lose the right to drive to work (or drive... or work), there are more constructive ways to handle those issues without demonizing Muslims and conflicting with the First Amendment. By all means, strengthen laws against spousal abuse or other forms of domestic violence across the board. Pass the ERA. Strengthen the rights of criminals against cruel and unusual punishment. If you think "they" are the enemy the "defeat" them by being the best "you" that you know how to be.
Text of SB 1028
Summary of B 1028 from State Congressional Website
Loonwatch: Bill Would Make it Illegal to Be Muslim in Tennessee
The American Muslim: David Yerushalmi and (in)SANE
Huffington Post: Tennessee Considers Bill That Makes Following Shariah A Felony
Here are some of the highlights:
This bill defines "sharia" as the set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts which are said to emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet Mohammed and which include directly or indirectly the encouragement of any person to support the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the United States or Tennessee Constitutions, or the destruction of the national existence of the United States or the sovereignty of this state, and which includes among other methods to achieve these ends, the likely use of imminent violence.
A couple of things: Since Christian Arabs also use the term "Allah" for God, I wonder if one could argue that Arab churches are also "sharia organizations"? Also, depending on how you read "abrogation" this seems to include even peaceful attempts to amend (abrogate) the constitutions of Tennessee or the US. Also, since a constitution isn't a physical object in the first place, what does it actually mean to cause its "destruction"? And since the US Constitution is a basic text for detailing the structure of government bodies and agents, is it something which individuals can violate? I mean, I have a sense of what it may mean for the President, or Congress or the Supreme Court to violate the Constitution, but I'm honestly not sure what it means for Joe or Zayd down the street to do so. In any case, in spite of the difficulties with the above definition, I can almost understand a bill which singled out "bad Muslims" from "good Muslims" but the definition in the bill actually continues:
Under this bill, any rule, precept, instruction, or edict arising directly from the extant rulings of any of the authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence of Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Ja'afariya, or Salafi, as those terms are used by sharia adherents, is prima facie sharia without any further evidentiary showing.
In other words, the overwhelming majority of mainstream, traditional Muslims (both Sunni and Shia) are going to be lumped together with any Muslims who are trying to destroy "the national existence of the United States" without any specific evidence of violent or criminal behavior.
The bill then goes on to criminalize "sharia organizations" (basically, any two Muslims) and makes it a felony to give such "groups" material support.
It would be hard for me to overstate just how stupid and ill-conceived I think this bill is. I would say that the bill is retarded if it weren't so insulting to retarded people.
- The bill is clearly a violation of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" don't they understand?
- Even if it wasn't such a literal violation of the bill of rights, trying to criminalize religious activity is anti-democratic.
- Even if non-Muslims are scared of having the shariah imposed on them without their consent, again, that pesky First Amendment already prevents that from happening making an anti-shariah bill unnecessary.
-The alleged reason for the anti-sharia bill is to protect US citizens from "homegrown" terrorism. But as the folks at Loonwatch have most ably pointed out, all terrorists are Muslims... except for the 94% that aren't. If we are really serious about protecting the homeland, then we need to look at the causes of violence regardless of what flag it may fly under. (I hope that the IRA supporting Rep. King is listening.)
-A question: I wonder how many of these anti-sharia fear-mongers are Christians who are willing to use the government to impose their view on abortion, homosexuality, or US Middle Eastern policy on citizens who don't share their view. Just curious.
- Even if there was some honest (but ill-conceived) concern that Muslims would magically take over the country and adulterers would suddenly be stoned (with rocks) on the White House lawn or women would suddenly lose the right to drive to work (or drive... or work), there are more constructive ways to handle those issues without demonizing Muslims and conflicting with the First Amendment. By all means, strengthen laws against spousal abuse or other forms of domestic violence across the board. Pass the ERA. Strengthen the rights of criminals against cruel and unusual punishment. If you think "they" are the enemy the "defeat" them by being the best "you" that you know how to be.
Text of SB 1028
Summary of B 1028 from State Congressional Website
Loonwatch: Bill Would Make it Illegal to Be Muslim in Tennessee
The American Muslim: David Yerushalmi and (in)SANE
Huffington Post: Tennessee Considers Bill That Makes Following Shariah A Felony
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
islam, catholics and st. francis
Just today I got a nice note from one of my Catholic aunts in the mail. It was an article from her Church bulletin: Franciscans Lift Voices Against Tide of Anti-Muslim Rhetoric. The piece makes a number of interesting points. The article parallels the prejudice faced by American Muslims now with the difficulties faced by Catholics in an earlier period.
Pastor Jones' teaching that "Islam is of the Devil" is contrasted with the orthodox Catholic teaching out of Lumen Gentium which after describing the role of the Church and the children of Israel says:
The Islamophobia around the Ground Zero mosque is contrasted with Dignitatis Humanae's statement that:
The piece also referred to an interesting anecdote about St. Francis' meeting with the Sultan, al-Malik al-Kamil during the Crusades. "Francis was not able to win the Sultan over to the Gospel of Christ, but returned to Europe impressed by the faith he had experienced among the followers of Islam, convinced that he had met other worshipers of God like himself."
It turns out that the details of the meeting between St. Francis and the Sultan are contested so the story tends to be an inkblot for how the storyteller feels about Muslim-Christian relations. Some accounts talk about St. Francis' mission to convert the infidel Saracen while others (like the statement above) emphasize the mutual respect across religious communities. In fact I would argue that Catholic doctrine generally is somewhat of an "inkblot" in the sense that one could probably identify a number of exclusive statements to counter-balance the above inclusive teachings. Nevertheless, it is nice to know that in contemporary times some voices in the Church are making the former choice instead of the latter.
Pastor Jones' teaching that "Islam is of the Devil" is contrasted with the orthodox Catholic teaching out of Lumen Gentium which after describing the role of the Church and the children of Israel says:
the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
The Islamophobia around the Ground Zero mosque is contrasted with Dignitatis Humanae's statement that:
religious groups . . . must be allowed to honor the Supreme God in public worship ... and promote institutions in which members may work together to organize their own lives. ... Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered by legislation or administrative action by the civil authority ... in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of the property they need.
The piece also referred to an interesting anecdote about St. Francis' meeting with the Sultan, al-Malik al-Kamil during the Crusades. "Francis was not able to win the Sultan over to the Gospel of Christ, but returned to Europe impressed by the faith he had experienced among the followers of Islam, convinced that he had met other worshipers of God like himself."
It turns out that the details of the meeting between St. Francis and the Sultan are contested so the story tends to be an inkblot for how the storyteller feels about Muslim-Christian relations. Some accounts talk about St. Francis' mission to convert the infidel Saracen while others (like the statement above) emphasize the mutual respect across religious communities. In fact I would argue that Catholic doctrine generally is somewhat of an "inkblot" in the sense that one could probably identify a number of exclusive statements to counter-balance the above inclusive teachings. Nevertheless, it is nice to know that in contemporary times some voices in the Church are making the former choice instead of the latter.
Monday, September 13, 2010
coalition of african american muslims
The following is from the recently-formed Coalition of African American Muslims. (h/t to Seeker's Guidance) It seemed like a generally positive gathering with a lot of good things being said. It will be interesting to see what this group produces in the long run. I'm especially curious about the Nation of Islam and what implications there will be for relations between African-American Sunni Muslims and the followers of Farrakhan.
Mission Statement
The controversy over the Park 51 Project (Islamic Center in Lower Manhattan) is indicative of a general rise in racist bigotry towards people of color in this country. While the issue has its particular and unique distinctions, it cannot be separated from the rising violence against African Americans and Latinos, or the increasingly inflammatory rhetoric and exclusionary politics driving the national debate on immigration.
As African-American Muslims, we feel our unique perspective has been missing from an emerging national discussion. We wish to join that discussion by first of all affirming that among our forbears are Muslims who have lived peacefully and productively in this country since its inception. They, and others among our people have sacrificed too much, both in enduring the horrors and brutalities of chattel slavery, and during the long march to freedom, civil and human rights for us to silently accept a return to Jim Crow exclusionary practices and policies that relegate either ourselves or our co-religionists from other ethnic backgrounds to second-class citizenry.
We commend all of those Jews, Christians and members of other faith and ethnic communities who have raised their voices in defense of the constitutional rights of all Americans. We also laud the work that other Muslim organizations have done in response to the current situation. We add our voice to theirs and will work for a country that reflects the diversity of its people and extends full and equal rights to all.
CAAM Will:
* Work to expose the underlying foreign and domestic agenda being served by the ongoing demonization of Muslims;
* Be a voice for those who have been intimidated into silence;
* Establish networks between organizations representing those elements of the population, regardless of race or religion who are suffering as a result of the politics of fear and exclusion.
Coalition Members
Abdul Jalil Muhammad
Imam Abdul Malik
Amir Muhammad
Asma Hanif
Hodari Ali Imam
Johari Abdul Malik
Attorney Kareema
Al-Amin Imam Khalid Griggs
Minister Louis Farrakhan
Imam Nadim Ali
Nisa Islam Muhammad
Imam Siraj Wahhaj
Imam Talib Deen
Imam Umar Ibn Khattab
Imam Yahya Cason
Imam Zaid Shakir
Imam Zaid Shakir
Mahdi Bray
Asma Hanif
Imam Abdul Malik
Imam Siraj Wahaj
Minister Louis Farrakhan
Farrakhan Part 2
Farrakhan Part 3
Mission Statement
The controversy over the Park 51 Project (Islamic Center in Lower Manhattan) is indicative of a general rise in racist bigotry towards people of color in this country. While the issue has its particular and unique distinctions, it cannot be separated from the rising violence against African Americans and Latinos, or the increasingly inflammatory rhetoric and exclusionary politics driving the national debate on immigration.
As African-American Muslims, we feel our unique perspective has been missing from an emerging national discussion. We wish to join that discussion by first of all affirming that among our forbears are Muslims who have lived peacefully and productively in this country since its inception. They, and others among our people have sacrificed too much, both in enduring the horrors and brutalities of chattel slavery, and during the long march to freedom, civil and human rights for us to silently accept a return to Jim Crow exclusionary practices and policies that relegate either ourselves or our co-religionists from other ethnic backgrounds to second-class citizenry.
We commend all of those Jews, Christians and members of other faith and ethnic communities who have raised their voices in defense of the constitutional rights of all Americans. We also laud the work that other Muslim organizations have done in response to the current situation. We add our voice to theirs and will work for a country that reflects the diversity of its people and extends full and equal rights to all.
CAAM Will:
* Work to expose the underlying foreign and domestic agenda being served by the ongoing demonization of Muslims;
* Be a voice for those who have been intimidated into silence;
* Establish networks between organizations representing those elements of the population, regardless of race or religion who are suffering as a result of the politics of fear and exclusion.
Coalition Members
Abdul Jalil Muhammad
Imam Abdul Malik
Amir Muhammad
Asma Hanif
Hodari Ali Imam
Johari Abdul Malik
Attorney Kareema
Al-Amin Imam Khalid Griggs
Minister Louis Farrakhan
Imam Nadim Ali
Nisa Islam Muhammad
Imam Siraj Wahhaj
Imam Talib Deen
Imam Umar Ibn Khattab
Imam Yahya Cason
Imam Zaid Shakir
Imam Zaid Shakir
Mahdi Bray
Asma Hanif
Imam Abdul Malik
Imam Siraj Wahaj
Minister Louis Farrakhan
Farrakhan Part 2
Farrakhan Part 3
Sunday, September 12, 2010
are blacks less islamophobic?
The Root: Is There Less Anti-Islamic Sentiment Among Blacks?
Recent data about how black and white Americans view the New York City mosque controversy suggest that this is true, but opinions vary as to why.
Recent data about how black and white Americans view the New York City mosque controversy suggest that this is true, but opinions vary as to why.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
"refudiating" islamophobia: park 51 / cordoba house / the (not-really-at)-ground zero mosque
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Municipal Land-Use Hearing Update | ||||
| ||||
Obviously by now, much ink has already been spilled over the whole controversy about the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. But perhaps someone out there might benefit from a round-up of some of the articles and a summary of some talking points.
1. First, it isn't at Ground Zero. The proposed location is several blocks away in what used to be a Burlington Coat factory. You can't see it from Ground Zero and Ground Zero can't be seen from the proposed location.
2. It isn't a mosque. It is a cultural center. The plans include a swimming pool, a basketball court, an auditorium, a performing arts center, a fitness center, a bookstore, a food court and even a culinary school, along with space to pray.
3. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf isn't a radical. He is an mainstream Muslim with an extensive amount of experience in interfaith activities and has written several books on the compatibility of Islam and the West in a pluralistic democratic context.
4. If Ground Zero is to be considered "hallowed ground" what's up with the two strip clubs within three blocks of the site?
5. If this is really about respect for 9/11 victims what about the national opposition to all the other mosques in the US?
6. There already is mosque in the area which operates without causing a problem.
7. That part of the city has had historical Muslim-American presence even before the Towers went up.
One of the first Arab-American enclaves in New York City was located on Washington St. in lower Manhattan - the very area in which the World Trade Center was later built. Founded by Arabic-speaking Christians and Muslims from Ottoman Syria in the 1880s, it was called Little Syria.
[...]
The African Burial Ground, discovered in 1991, is six blocks away from the proposed Muslim community center. Scholars continue to debate the religious identity of the hundreds buried there, but the fact that some of the dead wore shrouds and were interred with strings of blue beads, frequently used as Islamic talismans, suggests Muslim were among the enslaved people who helped build Manhattan into a bustling city.
8. I'm sure that some of the outrage is heartfelt and sincere. But a large portion of it is artificial and stoked by Pamela Geller. The local NYC Community Board voted overwhelmingly to support the project.
Details on the Above:
HuffPost: "Ground Zero" Mosque: AP Fact Check
HuffPost: Park 51: The Ground Zero Mosque Is Not a Mosque
Daily Beast: My Meetings With the Man Behind the Mosque
NYT: For Imam in Muslim Center Furor, a Hard Balancing Act
NYT: Vote Endorses Muslim Center Near Ground Zero
NY Daily Post: Islam has long history downtown: Why the 'Ground Zero mosque' belongs in lower Manhattan
WSJ: For Strippers Near Ground Zero, It’s Business as Usual Amid Mosque Uproar
HuffPost: Just How Far Is the "Ground Zero Mosque" From Ground Zero?
HuffPost: Quietly, Another Mosque Operates In Shadow Of Ground Zero
HuffPost: Pamela Geller, 'Queen Of Muslim Bashers,' At Center Of N.Y. 'Mosque' Debate
More General Thoughts:
Daily Beast: The Mosque Litmus Test
HuffPost: Ground Zero Mosque: American Intolerance on Full Display for Muslim World
Juan Cole: Palin on the Ground Zero Mosque vs. the Founding Fathers
Wikipedia: Park 51
Wikipedia: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
Park 51 Website
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
unfit for publication: obama nation vaccination
You may have heard of Jerome Corsi's Obama Nation which represent's his attempt to "Swiftboat" the Democratic presidential candidate. If so you might also be interested in checking out the pdf of Unfit for Publication which is a point-by-point rebuttal of many of the dishonest claims in Corsi's work. Corsi himself seems to be a pretty foul kind of bigot who compares Islam to a virus and makes a number of negative comments about "rag heads" and Catholics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)