Thomas Jefferson’s Iftar

From the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State:

In 1805, Thomas Jefferson hosted what some consider the first iftar at the White House.

“Ramadan,” said President Obama at a White House iftar dinner in 2010, “is a reminder that Islam has always been a part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.”

The dinner to which the president referred took place on December 9, 1805, and Jefferson’s guest was Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, an envoy from the bey (chieftain) of Tunis who spent six months in Washington. The context of Mellimelli’s visit to the United States was a tense dispute over piracy on American merchant vessels by the Barbary states and the capture of Tunisian vessels trying to run an American blockade of Tripoli.

Mellimelli arrived during Ramadan, and Jefferson, when he invited the envoy to the president’s house, changed the meal time from the usual hour of 3:30 p.m. to “precisely at sunset” in deference to the man’s religious obligation.

Jefferson’s knowledge of Islam likely came from his legal studies of natural law. In 1765, Jefferson purchased a two-volume English translation of the Quran for his personal library, a collection that became, in 1815, the basis of the modern Library of Congress.

(This is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/iipdigital-en/index.html)

Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/inbrief/2011/07/20110729153019kram0.3508199.html#ixzz1U5GI39PI

Catholic News Service: Interfaith relations seen as both better, worse, since terror attacks

From Catholic News Service:

Corey Saylor, a Muslim layman who is spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, concurred.

"Most people were introduced to the Islamic faith on Sept. 11 when planes began to fly into buildings," he said. "Media coverage has highlighted a warped version of Islam," he added. "The good guys doing the work aren't getting the coverage."

The American Muslim community, according to Saylor, is "totally indebted to people in the Christian, Jewish and other interfaith dialogues for people who have been very vocal in standing up for American principles. I don't know how long it will take us to repay that debt."

Islam, U.S. Courts and state sponsored discrimination

(During the Islamic Society of North America's recent convention I was part of a panel discussing various legislative attempts to pass laws that would single out the Islamic faith for treatment different than other faiths in our country. An attendee sent the below questions were to me afterward. Muneer Awad of CAIR-Oklahoma contribute to both answers.)

Question # 1: How can the Islamic sharia be effective in any American court. (For example: is there any judge who gives a decision basing on the Islamic sharia.)

Answer #1: The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. Individuals may enter into agreements based on their faith. Such practices are reasonably common. However, any such agreement must comply with U.S. law. So if I choose to finance my house with a sharia-compliant company, the resulting contract must be within the boundaries of standing law.

Here are some examples of how Islamic principles can come into play in a US court:

Agreements and Contracts
Judges may be asked to enforce the terms of an agreement, or the terms of an arbitration decision, that was based on Islam/Sharia. Consider the numerous documents Muslims agree to that are based on our faith:

• Enforce the terms of a will
• Enforce the terms of a divorce or marriage contract
• Enforce the terms of Islamic financing agreement
• Enforce terms of an arbitration agreement that compels mosque employees to take grievances with regards to mosque governance to a local Islamic shura council before taking legal action.

The Constitution does not necessarily cover such issues, but like all agreements, can never violate the constitution.

Victims of Discrimination  

In a discrimination case, a Muslim must introduce evidence of his or her religiously held beliefs. If Islamic principles are banned in certain courts, then

• How can I introduce evidence to a judge about the nature of hijab?
• How can I introduce evidence to allow a judge to balance between my beard and my work?
• How can I introduce evidence to allow a judge to consider my need for halal food in the cafeteria?

Question #2: How will these new bills affect the Muslims?

 Answer #2: Depends on the form the final law takes, each state is considering their own version. Essentially, though, such laws could result in state-enforced discrimination against Muslims.

Let me examine two:

Oklahoma’s amendment to its state constitution would ban courts from considering sharia or international law. This means if your marriage contract contains a Mahr, the court could not act on it during a legal dispute such as divorce. If your will is based on Islamic principles such as instructions for being buried facing Mecca, the court could not consider it. Similarly, since a sharia-compliant loan is based on Islamic principles, a judge would be compelled to rule it inadmissible in court proceedings.

The Tennessee bill said, “’Sharia’ means the set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts whichare said to emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet Mohammed…” and “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…”

It then said two or more people practicing sharia would be in violation of the law. Since the above definition encompasses all of Islam the bill would have made it illegal to practice Islam in the state of Tennessee. Fortunately, the bill did not pass.

See here for some more information.

CAIR’s executive director in Oklahoma, who filed the lawsuit that has so far successfully challenged the anti-Muslim amendment to that state’s constitution, adds this to my answer to the second question:

I would include the fact that Islam, and Islam alone is the target. If we acknowledge, as many legal experts have already, that these amendments are unnecessary then we must acknowledge that the only goal is to target American Muslims. These amendments will permanently label Muslims as a threat to the state.

If we listen to any of the rallies behind these amendments, or the words of supporters and authors of these amendments, then we understand that these amendments are rooted in Anti-Muslim bigotry, and will serve the purpose of supporting Anti-Muslim bigotry. 

Bar Faith Minorities from Running for President?

(Over at CNN, producer Jay Kernis published an interview with Tricia Erickson who asserts, "an indoctrinated Mormon should never be elected as President of the United States of America." Erickson also implies that Muslims should also be barred from running. Kernis kindly added my thoughts to the discussion. My response to Erickson's position is below.)

Tricia Erickson’s arguments sound remarkably like anti-Catholic attacks directed at John Kennedy during the 1960 presidential campaign. Many remember him as among the better president’s to ever serve our nation. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the law of the land, says, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public Trust under the United States.”

Romney and other candidates for public office should win or lose based on the solutions they offer to the issues confronting all Americans.

Thank God followers of minority faiths, such as Muslims like me, have the wisdom of the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution to protect us from people like Tricia Erickson, who seem to think a person’s choice of a faith other than hers should relegate them to second-class citizen status.

CNN: "Corey Saylor: Concern that Islamophobia is trending toward the mainstream in the U.S."

Corey Saylor: Concern that Islamophobia is trending toward the mainstream in the U.S.

ONLY ON THE BLOG: Answering today’s five OFF-SET questions is Corey Saylor, National Legislative Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

On Thursday, June 23, 2011 CAIR and the University of California Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender is releasing the first-of-its-kind annual report on the growth of Islamophobia in the United States during 2009 – 2010. The report is titled, “Same Hate, New Target.” How do CAIR and the Berkeley Center for Race and Gender define “Islamophobia?”

Islamophobia is close-minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims.

It is not appropriate to label all, or even the majority of those, who question Islam and Muslims as Islamophobes. Most are simply misinformed about the Islamic faith.

When I talk about Islamophobes, I am speaking about people whose words or actions indicate that they rigidly view Islam as monolithic, static, authoritarian and primitive compared with the West. Such people view all Muslims as manipulative and devious. It is the kind of classic intolerant attitudes we have seen directed at any number of minorities in the past.

According to those interviewed for the report, on a scale from 1 (best situation for Muslims) to 10 (worst possible situation for Muslims), Islamophobia in America stands at 6.4. What is your interpretation of that standing? How Islamophobic is the United States?

I am concerned that Islamophobia is trending toward the mainstream, but to date our nation’s commitment to pluralistic values has kept that from happening. The revulsion expressed by most Americans in August and early September 2010 over a proposed Quran burning in Florida is evidence of that fact.

Polls consistently show that a sizable number of Americans hold prejudiced views toward Muslims. For instance, in late November 2010, the Public Research Institute found that 45 percent of Americans agree that Islam is at odds with American values.

A TIME magazine poll released in August 2010 found, “Twenty-eight percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Nearly one-third of the country thinks adherents of Islam should be barred from running for President….”

This spring, as numerous states sought to pass legislation that in many cases would have resulted in government sanctioned discrimination against Muslims we came close to mainstream acceptance of Islamophobia.

Fortunately, Muslims and other supporters of the Constitution’s protection of free religious exercise pushed back against these bills and excepting Oklahoma, nothing of significance passed.Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment, passed last fall that targets Muslims is on hold after a Federal judge ruled that it likely violates the Constitution.

The report spotlights individuals, groups and institutions for pushing back against Islamophobic trends. Among others, you name New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Rachel Maddow. What did these people do to deserve recognition?

Generally, they acted in line with the values we all learned in civics classes in school. They refused to smear an entire group based on the actions of a few aberrant individuals. They used their public platforms to remind people, often with humor, that Americans judge people on individual merit, not based on crass stereotypes.

You also name some people who promoted Islamophobia: Pamela Geller and Stop the Islamization of America; Robert Spencer and Jihad watch; Newt Gingrich and others? What did they do?

In the case of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who co-founded the organization Stop the Islamization of America, both the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups in America, have issued their own concerns about the discriminatory nature of their rhetoric and actions.

Generally, those who promoted Islamophobia poisoned our public discourse, appealing to fear and stereotypes. They promoted conspiracy theories such as the idea that Muslims are here to remove the Constitution or that our faith compels us to wage endless war against America. They are the new face of the old hate that targeted other minorities throughout our nation’s past.

Recently, a group of GOP presidential candidates met in New Hampshire in a debate carried by CNN. Did you hear what you consider Islamophobic remarks during the debate?

Herman Cain reiterated his position that he would treat Muslims differently than members of other faiths. Cain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich echoed far-right hysteria about 'sharia' replacing the Constitution.

Since the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land, there is no question of any other body of law replacing it. People who choose to have disputes resolved using the traditions of their faith should have the right to do so as long as such agreements comply with American law.

CAIR was encouraged by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's response to other candidates' fear mongering about Sharia, or Islamic principles, replacing the Constitution. Romney seemed to dismiss that scenario, and reaffirmed that "people of all faiths are welcome in this country."

Given that the United States is approaching the tenth anniversary of 9/11 – and the connection in some minds between terrorism and Islam – what does the study recommend to tackle the growth of anti-Muslim prejudice?

For this report, we focused on making recommendations to American Muslims, as we recognize that the primary burden of pushing back against anti-Muslim attitudes falls on our shoulders.

The core recommendation is get out and interact with your neighbors, get involved in local improvement programs, get involved in local politics. Our research shows that when people get to know Muslims as individuals it breaks the stereotypes.