This is a victory for common sense and the freedom of speech, and a setback to Hamas-linked CAIR and others who are trying to intimidate the West into accepting Sharia blasphemy laws, but it is not a huge defeat for them, either. After all, as a campaign of intimidation, it has already served a great deal of its purpose. It has blackened the reputation of Nicholas Damask and of Scottsdale Community College, and made college and university administrators nervous that teaching that is critical of Islam, even accurate teaching about jihad violence and Sharia oppression, will get them embroiled in costly and time-consuming court battles. Better to leave the subject alone, or praise Islam fulsomely. Mission accomplished.
“Court Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Critical Teaching About Islamic Terrorism,” by Eugene Volokh, The Volokh Conspiracy, August 18, 2020:
I think this is generally quite right, and indeed an important victory for academic freedom; professors, including those at public colleges, have to be able to speak freely about religious belief systems (whether Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or anything else), no less than other belief systems.
From Sabra v. Maricopa County Comm. College Dist., decided this morning by Judge Susan M. Brnovich (D. Ariz.):
Arising out of an Islamic Terrorism module in an online World Politics course taught by Dr. Nicholas Damask, this case tests the limits of the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses. Mohamed Sabra enrolled in this spring semester course at Scottsdale Community College (“SCC”) in 2020. Its syllabus describes it as one that will provide an “[i]ntroduction to the principles and issues relating to the study of international relations. Evaluation of the political, economic, national, and transnational rationale for international interactions.”
The course is organized into six modules, each containing multiple components to explore various topics concerning world politics. The Islamic Terrorism module challenged by Mr. Sabra and the Council on American-Islamic Relations of Arizona … had three components: a PowerPoint presentation, excerpts from Future Jihad, and a quiz. The PowerPoint presentation explored world politics through three sub-topics: (1) “Defining Terrorism”; (2) “Islamic Terrorism: Definition”; and (3) “Islamic Terrorism: Analysis.” The second component required students to read excerpts from Future Jihad, a book published by Walid Phares, and the quiz evaluated students on their comprehension of course material with twenty-five multiple choice questions.
Plaintiffs take issue with Dr. Damask’s instruction throughout these various Islamic Terrorism module components, alleging that his teachings violate the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause …. Plaintiffs allege his instruction unconstitutionally “conclude[es] that Islam ‘mandates’ terrorism and the killing of Non-Muslims, and that this is the only interpretation of religious texts, but without any disclaimer to inform students that this is one-perspective and that Islam itself does not condone terrorism.” They further allege that Dr. Damask “is not teaching that only some extremists espouse these beliefs, but rather that literally, Islam itself teaches the mandates of terrorism.”
And “[t]he only objectively reasonable construction of [Dr.] Damask’s actions,” Plaintiffs allege, “is that his primary message is the disapproval of Islam.” As it specifically concerns the quiz, Plaintiffs allege “[it] forced [Mr.] Sabra to agree to [Dr. Damask’s] radical interpretation of Islam.” And when Mr. Sabra refused to answer questions in accordance with what he learned in the course, his answers were marked wrong, and his course grade was negatively impacted….
The court rejected Sabra’s Establishment Clause challenge (applying the “endorsement” test set forth by Ninth Circuit precedent, though the Supreme Court seems to have retreated from that test in American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n):
“The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'” This includes not only government approval of religion, but its disapproval of or hostility toward religion [citing Ninth Circuit cases].
Courts are directed to apply the “Lemon test” in cases challenging government conduct under the Establishment Clause. Government action regarding religion only satisfies the Establishment Clause if it (1) has a secular purpose; (2) does not have the principle or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion; and (3) does not foster excessive entanglement with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)….
Mike says
Cry us a river
this is not the end of this I’ll beat
t. says
This is one drop of gold in a sea of mercury.
underbed cat says
Excellent example. Once you examine the various sources documents of Islam, sharia law, Quranic verses, the book written about the concepts of war in Islam…..you realize and grasp the success of their deception to slip into countries as a religion appearing as a presecuted “peaceful religion” that has a peculiar way problem, it isn’t as described. It is directed to act peaceful, for a temporary time, can be generational, at which it determines sporadically a few persuasive violent attacks are to be denied, or described as radicals and the entire generation prior engaging in organizing embedded with proper credentials to do some unaware dawah, into schools, hospitals, national security advisors, governments, politics, media, to consistently achieve acceptance to incorporate or thru mass voting after many high birth rates, get everyone in office before subjecting or replacing our laws. It’s just a few radicals, well protected with charity money, foreign petro dollars. When you see they have already declared war on all western countries, such as the United States. they calculate it is too late for reversal than things go bad…..so a reality check is needed, however they have achieved hate speech laws, which claims that any criticism is illegal….how clever. But it is illegal to subvert the Constitiution and it should be redefined. The courts have to have this information or we will be taken by deception.,IN my opinion.
Ross Poldark says
Yep, I hope the college will not cave to their terrorist demands, but why do I fear they ultimately will, since most colleges now in Arizona are liberal.
Russell Sias says
Many already have caved.
mortimer says
This sort of decision should be obvious in a culture built on freedom and critical thinking, such as the US.
Western culture has been built on CRITICAL THOUGHT. Critical thought challenges existing ideas. It is progressive.
Islam is built on AUTHORITARIAN THOUGHT. Islam shields ideas that cannot be reasonably defended.
Islam is retrograde, anti-progressive, backward-looking, suspicious, paranoid, stagnant, frozen in the 7th century.
Michael Copeland says
“No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”
Churchill
Phil Copson says
Supremacist to the point of practising genocide, and intent upon exercising total control over the living, are the two most important points.
revereridesagain says
“Future Jihad”, nice choice. At a time when employees are being forced to sit through race-shaming seminars that categorize individualism, reason, and objectivity as symptoms of “systemic racism” we need all the victories great and small that we can get.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
This is a victory for common sense and the freedom of speech, and a setback to Hamas-linked CAIR and others who are trying to intimidate…
What’s this, a victory? I… I… I don’t know what to say, I’m getting a little verklempt here. This ain’t normal, usually it’s the drumbeat of one loss of another, not just in court but in society. But we got a win here?
Oh, wait a minute, I *do* know what to say:
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.
– Pickthall translation from the hadith
Fight whom? How do you meant fight exactly? And fight for what reason, what purpose, what goal?
rubiconcrest says
The plaintiff was upset because the version of Islam being taught differed from his interpretation. Funny no. If he were to stand on a street corner in Pakistan and preach his version of Islam it would be considered blasphemy.
revereridesagain says
And may he be encouraged to try it out for himself. Learning by example has a way of sticking.
somehistory says
moslims are taught lawlessness. They never really understand the laws of others because they are taught to view lawlessness as law and to argue against anything that is not taught in islam. This fact means that they believe that they have every right to have everything their way…no matter what, when or where.
The “establishment clause” prohibits the Federal government of the of the U.S. from “establishing” a State religion. It has nothing to do with a school, a professor, an author or anyone else saying things, or even advocating for, or against, a religion.
The judge made the correct ruling in this matter….but the moslims won’t see it that way and won’t stop trying to get a different ruling. The moslim student most likely enrolled in order to sue the school, the professor, and anyone else the “lawyers” believe to have standing, money, reputation, etc. they could take away.
moslims consider only islam to be religion and they consider their terrorists as heroes, freedom fighters, soldiers for their fake god, satan the devil, and any mention of “terrorism” applied to islam or moslims, in their view, is wrong.
Denying that their book, filthy and evil, nasty and despicable, book, teaches them to “fight” but that this is not “terrorism” even t though they are commanded to “strike terror” in the hearts of others. Logic would tell them that it is “terrorism” to “strike terror” in others, but as one of their “clerics” stated: “there is no logic in islam.”
Once more, they use “religion” in an attempt to change laws to be in their favor only. At other times, they use “culture” to get their “religion” taught in elementary and secondary schools. satan the devil is “crafty” and “deceitful,” and his children follow his rotten-to-the core example and commands.
If speaking against islam, if telling the Truth about islam, is a violation of the Constitution regarding religion, then speaking in favor of and lying about islam, is also a violation of those same laws.
More judges should have common sense and make similar rulings regarding this vile, hideous, violent, evil and demonic “religion.” And more professor and schools should tell the Truth about islam and the teachings that moslims believe, advocate, fight and commit terror to spread.
GreekEmpress says
Best news I’ve heard today! I hope this encourages other people who are faced with lawsuits by CAIR to fight back and not give up!
Keith O says
+1 given the constant stream of bad news, this is good.
Major battles have been turned by simple small events. Lets hope this is one of those events.
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!
MD Rahman says
all western universities should conduct similar course to learn Islam ( which in not religion rather a fascist imperialistic khoraish doctrine).
gravenimage says
Arizona court rejects Hamas-linked CAIR challenge to college course critical of Islam
………………….
Finally, some good news!
OLD GUY says
Congrats to the Arizona Attorneys that did a good job of supporting the freedom of speech on a college campus and in the general population.
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!