There is an ongoing controversy over Shahid Shafi, vice chairman of the Tarrant County Republican Party, about which Hugh Fitzgerald has written here and here over the last few days. And now, Jim Geraghty sums up what Shafi’s defenders have maintained all along: that opposition to Shafi is all about anti-Muslim bigotry, from beginning to end.
But it isn’t. Comments interspersed below.
“There’s No Coherent Argument Against Texas GOP Official Shahid Shafi,” by Jim Geraghty, National Review, December 19, 2018:
If there’s a serious argument for why surgeon and Southlake, Texas councilman Shahid Shafi should not be vice chairman of the Tarrant County Republican party, his critics should offer it.
In reality, they have, but Geraghty, like so many others, seems to have overlooked that fact. So many are saying that this controversy is all about bigotry, in fact, that it’s useful to recall the substantive points that have been made about Shafi, and never addressed. You can find many here. Some highlights:
1. In 2012, after being a Republican delegate to state conventions since 2010, he “contributed $1750 to a Democrat ‘Voter Values Fund.’” Any Republican official who contributed to the Democrats would be questioned about this, but in Shafi’s case, to do so is “bigotry.”
2. “He attended an Islamic ‘high holy night’ Iftar Dinner hosted by Democrat Mike Rawlings in 2015 in Dallas” with operatives from the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Politicians of both parties frequently pander to CAIR and ISNA, both of which enjoy mainstream status despite their demonstrable links to Hamas. “Everyone else does it” is a weak defense. Why can’t Shafi be questioned about this? CAIR has also come out in support of Shafi, and Shafi has not renounced their support. Trump had to disavow David Duke; why doesn’t Shafi have to renounce CAIR? Why can’t he be subject to the same standards that every other politician has to meet?
3. “He has yet to give, beyond a weak, ‘Israel has a right to exist,’ any true support for many of the planks in the RPT Platform.” Even the Palestinian Authority once affirmed that Israel had a right to exist, although it later rescinded this, and it never acknowledged that Israel had a right to exist as a Jewish state. This is not just a quibble, and Shafi’s critics are right to think his statement doesn’t go far enough. Recognizing Israel, but not as a Jewish state, leaves the door open for it to be overwhelmed by “Palestinians” exercising the “Right of Return,” turning it into a “Palestinian” state. Mahmoud Abbas has said that no Jews would be allowed to live in a “Palestinian” state, as has Sheikh Hammam Saeed, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan. Fatah has also called upon Jews to leave the area. If the Tarrant County Republican Party wants to come out in support of the Jewish state, why can’t it ask of one of its officials what his views are about this issue?
As it is now, the argument boils down to the belief that a Muslim should not be in a Republican party position. As one of his most vocal critics put it in a Facebook post, “Shafi IS a practicing Muslim, so yes, he IS a ‘proponent of Shari’a law.’”…
The argument doesn’t boil down to this belief. The Facebook post in question was not presented as a comprehensive case against Shafi. It was merely a response to statements in a Newsweek hit piece. Meanwhile, why can’t Shafi be asked about what his views are regarding Sharia, which in its classic formulations denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of women, and more? Is there any circumstance in which Geraghty or Shafi’s other defenders would not want a Muslim in a Republican Party position? We should avoid genuine bigotry, which is not the same thing as everything that is branded as such, but should we not also avoid virtue-signaling and Islamopandering that leads to placing people in positions they shouldn’t be in simply because we are so avid to show we’re not bigoted and “Islamophobic” that any Muslim will do? Mohamed Noor is a good example of the dangers of that Islamopandering.
In the worldview of Shafi’s critics, everyone who likes and supports him staying in this role is a gullible sucker, including notable softies and squishes such as Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Senator Ted Cruz, Texas House Speaker Joe Straus, Travis County Republican party Chairman Matt Mackowiak, the state Republican party, and the gang at The Federalist.
Have any of those people addressed the three numbered points above? They have not.
Appearing on CNN, Shafi said that he’s “always been welcomed with open arms” by Republicans. When anchor Jim Sciutto asked, “Do you think the president’s sometimes critical, sometimes bigoted, some have said, language about Muslims, rhetoric about Muslims — do you think that has given license to people like you’ve encountered here, who are expressing this bigotry about your faith?” Shafi did not blame the president. Instead, he succinctly encapsulated what was at stake here, and why his broad spectrum of supporters are standing by him:
“Look, I believe in freedom of speech.
Here again regarding Sharia: Sharia forbids criticism of Islam. Shafi says he is a practicing Muslim. How does he reconcile that prohibition with his affirmation of the freedom of speech? Why is this yet another one of those questions that only supposed “bigots” dare to ask?
I believe in freedom of expression and I think diversity of opinion within any group is good for the group, is good for the party. But what we cannot do and what we don’t do is discriminate against a specific person based on their religion, caste, creed, color, ethnicity, or country of origin. Our party has very specific rules that prohibit religious discrimination. Our country has specific rules and our Constitution prohibits it. So when this controversy arose because of a small number of people at the fringes of our party … it’s really been very — they’re doing a disservice to our party. That’s not what the Republican Party is about. That is not what I have encountered. Some of my biggest supporters within the party are pastors and military veterans. And the reason they always tell me, especially the military veterans, that they are supporting me in my role, is because number one, they put their life on the line to protect the Constitution. And our Constitution defends religious freedom, and they cannot see that being violated in our own country. And the second reason is, quite frankly, that these are veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. They have served overseas with hundreds of thousands of Muslim soldiers and civilians in those countries, who have helped America and who have helped our soldiers perform their duties.”
Who in their right mind would want to get rid of this guy?
Anyone who sees that the issues here are not about religious discrimination. They’re about whether this guy is really a Republican and whether he supports Republican Party principles. But this has been, as Geraghty’s piece demonstrates, obscured by the charges of “bigotry” and “Islamophobia” that ensue whenever anyone dares say anything remotely negative about an individual Muslim or Islam itself. Shafi’s defenders are calling the concerns about him “Islamophobia” at a time when the defense against jihad is a consuming issue for the U.S. military and foreign policy analysts around the world. The fear of being charged with “Islamophobia” appears to trump everything, even legitimate concerns about jihad terror and Sharia oppression. Would Shafi’s defenders be willing to explain under what circumstances, if any, concerns about a Muslim politician would not be “Islamophobia” or “bigotry”? If a Muslim candidate arose who really did support CAIR, oppose Israel, and give money to Democrats, should Republicans support him simply so as not to be seen as “anti-Muslim”?
mortimer says
Shahid Shafi has one foot in a Bronze-Age Death Cult and the other foot in the modern world. Which will he choose when a war comes along with a Muslim terrorist group such as ISIS? That is the most important question.
Muslims who are in the process of leaving Islam want to play this game of adhering to both sides: to the Islam they are gradually abandoning and the modernity they are gradually embracing.
Terry Gain says
Keep them out unless they renounce and denounce the irrational death cult which poses as a religion.
Frederick King says
He is a mole for Islam above and beyond all else. Why did he donate to a Democratic organization ? It seems because they have connections with CAIR and such. He is donating to advance he muslim cause. I do not trust this guy. I’m no bigot, but he’s covering too many bases.
William says
All Bronze Age religions are death cults. Most of them are just so open and normalized that we don’t even bat an eye. Islam is just a more recent Christianity and Judaism which merges the two together. Christianity is a cult of celebrating the human sacrifice of Jesus Christ. God so loved the world that he gave his only son. What kind of Bronze Age barbarism is that?
End PC says
Always remind Muslims and Muslim apologist who complain they are victims of bigotry that Islam is the motherload of bigotry. Just read its Qur’an”s unabrogated verses.
Terry Gain says
If there’s a serious argument for why surgeon and Southlake, Texas councilman Shahid Shafi should not be vice chairman of the Tarrant County Republican party, his critics should offer it.
……..
He’s a Muslim. Muslims believe in Sharia law which is not just a totalitarian and barbaric misogynistic legal system but a system opposed to equality of citizenship. islam and its discriminatory legal system have no place in any democracy.
Muslim countries are civil rights cesspools because of Sharia Law. Keep it out or America too will be unable to successfully resolve disputes. Jim Geraghty meet Asia Bibi.
Frederick King says
I agree. Islam is too supremacist, bigoted, and anti human, women’s’ rights. Islam must reform, officially before it is allowed to migrate to any western country. This will be difficult. Every reformist imam that speaks up is shunned and cursed at the least, is found dead at the other end.
lebel says
“Anyone who sees that the issues here are not about religious discrimination. They’re about whether this guy is really a Republican and whether he supports Republican Party principles”
You are being incredibly disingenuous here including with your own readers. Shahid is a Muslim (and a practicing one at that) and this is at the heart of the issue for your followers, for Hugh Fitzgerald (you know the guy you pay to write article including about Shahid) and for you of course.
The question is, why would anyone who know the evil truth about Islam stay in the religion unless he agreed with the evil? that’s what you are talking about and for once it would be nice if you acknowledged it.
Also, these questions are traps in and of themselves because of taqqiya which orders Muslims to lie. This guy is being set up, he is already a jihadist planning to infiltrate America to implement Shariah. There is nothing that he could say or do that would satisfy you other than rejecting Islam publically, calling the prophet an evil pedophile and supporting everything Israel has ever done or plans to do. He would then be monitored periodically for any signs of taqqiya.
This is what your ideology is creating.
Terry Gain says
Islam is a totalitarian, supremacist, violent, political ideology of conquest. It has no place in any democracy.
lebel says
Right, that is what I am saying. This is why these questions make no sense since no answer would be acceptable outside of publically leaving Islam.
KWJ says
Well, I guess actions will speak louder than words, and his background, of course, like any politician. Troublesome is both he and non-Muslim politicians not denouncing CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood which overseas invites and promotes violence, and is clearly against the Constitution.
We see with Keith Ellison that he is not for free speech and he supports the Muslim Brotherhood but Democrats are OK with that, after all, they signed that resolution which sounds like Canada’s.
Like that other Muslim Republican from CA whose list of donors are not in the best interests of America, we can see that too just as with Hillary, Trump, etc.
I agree, though, that “Israel has a right to exist” is too general and ambiguous. I could conquer Israel tomorrow and still call it Israel but it wouldn’t be a Jewish state with laws to preserve Jews…they would live there with equal rights…and not one thing would be destroyed.
mgoldberg says
No… not true. If he opined that he was ambivalent say, about sharia since some is contrary to the constitution of the US which he does support, but he’s culturally a muslim, that would indeed go far into having to listen to his own discussions about his beliefs. That is one example, but it is an example of him discussing. What your denying is the fact tha he’ll say noting negative about the Qu’ran, or Mohammed, because that would be verbotin by Islam. Now… if he was to simply opine that it is in his mind perfectly acceptable for non muslims to disbelieve in Islam, the Qu’ran and or mohammed et al, and they have every right to be safe not merely in our nation but in the world, then…….
thebigW says
lebel is right, there’s no need for questions, the mere fact he’s a Muslim should disqualify him. unfortunately, the West and the Counter-Jihad are light years away from this realization.
CogitoErgoSum says
Lebel, that is a good question. Why would anyone who knows the truth about the evil of Islam stay in the religion unless he agreed with the evil? Could one possible reason be the fear that other Muslims may carry out the death penalty for apostasy?
What ideology creates that kind of an idea in a person’s mind?
lebel says
There you go, that is exactly where all these questions will lead.
Once again, to make it crystal clear, with less ambiguity, it is better to turn to Hugh Fitzgerald:
““No, in one sense we learn nothing, except that now it is harder for the denialists, those who keep thinking we can rely on the “good Muslims” to be our true-blue friends and “help us” against the “violent extremists” when, of course, it is all those who believe in Islam who must be treated as our enemies, for it is they who are raised up in the belief that between Muslims and Infidels a state of permanent war must exist, that Dar al-Islam must push back and eventually swallow up Dar al-Harb, and that Infidels are always to be regarded with mistrust and hostility amounting often to hatred, for that is what Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira teach “
That’s it, that’s the problem with Mr. Shahid and that’s the reason why no matter he says, he is the enemy because he’s a Muslim.
CogitoErgoSum says
But wouldn’t the Muslims see him as an enemy if he stopped being a Muslim? That’s what Muhammad said. Anyone who leaves his religion (Islam), kill him. At least the people who are born Christian or Jew can pay the Jizya and continue to live as a dhimmis, but a Muslim who doesn’t want to be a Muslim has even less of a choice. If a Muslim decides he no longer wants to be a Muslim, he knows he puts himself under a death sentence if he renounces Islam. That’s pretty strong incentive to stay a Muslim.
I have not declared war on anyone because of his religion, but the religion of Islam has declared war upon me …. and I don’t want to pay any Jizya and I don’t want the people who come after me to do so either.
That’s the way things are and the reason for that can be traced directly to Muhammad and the Quran and the people who continue to do what the Quran and submission to it demands them to do —- fight, fight, fight, kill, kill, kill … those who do not submit. Islam means submission for everybody — one way or another.
Kay says
Nice example of not listening to facts, Lebel, and simply creating your own extreme argument which you claim is someone else’s.
Why would a Republican be making donations to Democrats?
The Republican Party has a stance on Israel in its platform. It is not outrageous to expect party members to support the platform.
gravenimage says
How *dare* anyone question Muslim support for the horrors of Shari’ah law? Bad dhimmis…
Mike Ramirez says
The American citizenry has, for decades, been extremely gullible in believing that Islam is just a “religion” like any other. Here is the Truth: Islam is not like any other religion. For example, there is no separation of mosque and state; Islam is an all encompassing Totalitarian, Supremacist ideology that literally controls the daily life of each and every DEVOUT Muslim. Setting apart the “religious” side of Muslims worshipping Allah and revering Muhammad as the perfect man, there is also the legal side, known as Sharia that strictly controls all matters in civil and criminal cases within the Muslim community. Specific legal rulings include imposing the mandatory death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy. This automatically restricts Muslims living in America from being free to denounce, criticize or question those teachings from the Qu’ran and Muhammad that encourage hatred against Jews, Christians, Atheists and all non-Islamic societies. Additionally, the death penalty for Apostasy is automatically imposed upon any Muslim who abandons Islam and converts to another religion. Thus, how can a devout Muslim honestly claim that he/she believes in the First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion? Sadly, Muslims live as second-class citizens in America; unable to exercise the rights afforded to all other American citizens within this great nation of America. Oh, and by the way, Islam does NOT mean “Peace” – Islam means “SUBMISSION.”
Philip Wynne says
Rabbi: “Thank you for coming in today, Mohammed, and applying for the job of groundskeeper here at Beth Shalom Synagogue. We like your resume, but we need to know if your beliefs are in alignment with ours.”
Mohammed: “Sure.”
Rabbi: “Well, we see that you are a Muslim, you attended a madrassa in Yemen during your youth, you attended university in Saudi Arabia, you majored in Koran and minored in Holocaust Studies, then you emigrated to the U.S.A. Our concern is that your personal beliefs might include a hatred towards Jews. Could you tell us your personal stance on the Holocaust?”
Mohammed: “The what?”
Rabbi: “The Holocaust, the Shoa.”
Mohammed: “Never heard of it.”
Rabbi: “Wow, that’s pretty incredible. Over six million innocents were murdered. It was a pretty big deal. Well, generally speaking, are you in favor of genocide against Jews?”
Mohammed: “You know, now that I think about it, I guess I have heard about it, but I don’t promote killing Jews.”
Rabbi: “Well, I didn’t ask you if you promote it, I asked you if you are in favor of it, if you believe in it.”
Mohammed: “You know, there’s no room for that in the Middle East.”
Rabbi: “Well, that’s great, but what about here in the U.S.A. Do you believe there is room for that here or anywhere else outside the Middle East?”
Mohammed: “You know, I don’t really spend time thinking about it. I spend time thinking about my job and my lovely family and my hobbies.”
Rabbi: “Well, that’s great that you don’t promote it and you don’t think about it, but why can’t you answer the simple question about whether or not you actually believe in it and want it to happen some day in the future, Yes or No?”
Mohammed: “Look, our Constitution prohibits a religious test. So even if I did believe in that, you can’t hold that against me because that’s part of my religion.”
Rabbi: “Where did you hear that?”
Mohammed: “Some guy named Easton said that in the Star-Telegram, was quite emphatic about it, so it must be true.”
Rabbi: “Well, actually that applies to a federal government job, this job is neither federal nor government. So I’m sorry, but we just don’t think your beliefs are sufficiently acceptable to us. We are rejecting your application.”
Mohammed: “Look, our country has specific rules and our Constitution prohibits religious discrimination in society in general, not just specifically in our government.”
Rabbi: “Where did you hear that?”
Mohammed: “Some guy named Shafi said that on CNN, so it must be true.”
Rabbi: “Well, actually every American has a constitutional right to freedom of association in their private lives, they can choose with whom they want to associate, either based upon his or her religious beliefs or non-religious beliefs or any other reason, or even no articulable reason at all. We at Beth Shalom choose not to associate with you. Have a nice day.”
Mohammed: “That’s not true, that’s unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, and illegal.”
Rabbi: “Where did you hear that?”
Mohammed: “Some guy named Doyle said that on Facebook, so it must be true. I’m just warning you because at this point you will go to jail if you don’t hire me, according to him.”
Rabbi: “So you’re saying that if we don’t agree to appoint you to this position in our organization, even though your beliefs go against everything we believe in, even though you won’t say whether you believe that somebody should be able to kill me and my congregation some day in the future, then I go to jail?”
Mohammed: “Yes, inshallah.”
Rabbi: “Wouldn’t that be religious discrimination on your part?”
Mohammed: “Yes, but we Muslims are above the law.”
Rabbi: “Where did you hear that?”
Mohammed: “Some guy named Mohammed said that in the Quran, so it must be true.”
Rabbi: “Oh, vey.”
lebel says
You forgot about taqqiya which is an order from god to lie to infidels in order to gain the upper hand. There are no limits to taqqiya obviously so anything goes.
Rabbi: “Well, we see that you are a Muslim, you attended a madrassa in Yemen during your youth, you attended university in Saudi Arabia, you majored in Koran and minored in Holocaust Studies, then you emigrated to the U.S.A. Our concern is that your personal beliefs might include a hatred towards Jews. Could you tell us your personal stance on the Holocaust?”
Mohammed: “I love jewish people and I think the holocaust was horrible. I also love Israel”
Rabbi:”Taqqiya! nice try Muslim”
CogitoErgoSum says
It’s unfortunate that Muhammad (the “prophet”) did not foresee the consequences of condoning the telling of lies if such lies aid in the cause of Islam. It makes non-Muslims not trust anything a Muslim says concerning his beliefs. But … who knew?
lebel says
” If a Muslim decides he no longer wants to be a Muslim, he knows he puts himself under a death sentence if he renounces Islam. That’s pretty strong incentive to stay a Muslim.”
I don’t think that’s the case in America. Plenty of visible ex-Muslims.
But even if he is, this man is practicing Muslim, he doesn’t need to be practicing if he wanted to stay safe. He is therefore a believer.
CogitoErgoSum says
He wants to stay safe by not doing everything the Quran and Muhammad have told him to do. He can’t collect the Jizya or kill other Muslims for apostasy just now because that’s against the law in the U.S. The time and the conditions are not right for doing what Allah wants to be done —- but which must be done sooner or later. His duty to Allah right now is to struggle quietly towards making conditions right for the time when the Muslims are greater in number and can gain the means to change the laws of the land. Yes, he believes as Allah wants us ALL to believe — or, if not to believe, at least to submit —- one way or another, sooner or later.
gravenimage says
lebel pretending that Muslims are not threatening apostates just because some of them have been able to survive is grotesque.
Carl Goldberg, PhD says
This whole notion of “freedom of religion” is misunderstood. Just like with our freedom of speech, there are limits.That freedom is not absolute. Freedom of religion does not permit followers of a religion to violate American law. So, what do we do about a religion, Islam with its Sharia law, which REQUIRES its adherents to violate American law in many ways? Should Moslems be free to violate American law just because their religion requires them to do it? Under the guise of freedom of religion, should we permit freedom to a religion that strives to abolish freedom of religion? On the contrary, in order to preserve our freedom freedom of religion for everyone else, we need to deny full freedom of religion to Moslems. To be clear, there are many parts of Sharia law which do not violate American law, and Moslems have freedom to practice those parts. Unfortunately, Islam requires that they practice all of it including those parts which violate American law.
CogitoErgoSum says
I very much agree. Just as freedom of speech does not include the freedom to yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is not a fire, freedom of religion does not mean that one religion should be allowed to require that others, who are not members of that religion, be forced to follow its rules. Yes, Islam is a religion which has rules that others outside of Islam are supposed to follow and if those others do not follow the rules of Islam, the members of Islam are allowed, even commanded, to perceive such behavior as an act of aggression which requires certain punitive actions in response. Freedom of religion can not survive in such an environment as that. Freedom of religion means the freedom to practice one’s own religion as long as that practice does not impinge upon or take away the freedom of others. Islam is a religion that requires submission from everyone to its rules and by such requirement of universal submission takes away the freedom of others and, I would say, thus disqualifies itself from inclusion under the guarantee of freedom of religion as provided by the Constitution of the United States. When some religions must pay a tax (Jizya) to a superior religion or must submit to the rules of a superior religion in order to be allowed to exist, freedom of religion itself will no longer exist.
Jayell says
‘Sharia forbids the criticism of islam’.
Thst’s the definition of ‘bigotry’. Nasty, totalitarian, arrogant bigotry.
End of story.
TruthWFree says
Islam’s Quran calls for fighting, slaying and subjugating unbelievers. Islam’s Quran is supposed to be the allah god’s word to Muhammad. For this alone Islam should have no place in America. Sharia Law is taken from the Quran and Hadiths and Sira. Islam should be outlawed in America and no Muslim should have any public office unless he renounces his evil Satanic false religion.
terry says
It is about connections and relations. A donkey is a donkey, but a jackass is always a socialist democrat! I.E. RINOs. This whole episode is simply a counter-counter intelligence operation of the leftist gurus who think they have some “heart” that is beating on some so-called higher ground- when in reality these socialist thugs and punks are heartless and cruel! Plain and simple. I place my faith in Christ over and above this world, knowing that in Jesus Christ, as my King of kings, the Kingdom of God will become the Kingdom of Heaven, not just in my soul, but in the restored and new heavens and earth forevermore; this faith does not ask that I overthrow the American Way of Life, free enterprise, the United States Constitution, nor the nations of this world- islam does. Simple and plain.