The Court rejected CAIR’s (Council on American Islamic Relations) Constitutional challenge to a professor’s critical teaching about Islamic terrorism.
For background on this story see:
ARIZONA: Designated terrorist group CAIR sues college professor for teaching the truth about Islam
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch sums up the court decision better than most:
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.
FromSabra 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….
JAMES says
GOOD JOB…WELL DONE…KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK….
Smooth Lee says
Good news. Up your Muslim(e) asses, CAIR.
Linda Rivera says
Thank God the court ruled with justice and ethics.
“According to Damask, “there are literally hundreds of posts like this. There have been death threats, at least one call for a school shooting, and at least one call to burn down the school.”
This is what it means to a Christian nation when nations’ leaders massively import Muslims into their nation. At any time, anywhere, an innocent person who speaks truth about Islam can be targeted for DEATH by the Muslim community.
The HOLY ONE, the God of TRUTH commanded in the Bible, in the Ten Commandments: YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS
The good, decent, patriotic American OBEYED Almighty God and spoke the truth.
Terrifying death threats were made by Muslims against the truthful professor and his family — threatening non Muslims with death and killing them is Sharia.
America and other nations have placed their own people in EXTREME DANGER by massively importing Muslims.
ALL Western leaders have a moral responsibility to deal with this terrifying reality immediately.
Please God, Surround the professor and his family with Your Warrior, Guardian, Holy Angels all the days of their lives. Thank You God, Amen.
Linda Rivera says
Americans must fight for their freedom and safety won at such great cost by our military heroes.
It’s most urgent that Americans are stopped from being FORCED Against Their Will to FINANCE MUSLIM TERRORIST organizations.
Instead of GIFTED to Muslim terrorists, this hard earned money should be going to African Christians who are being kidnapped, raped, sex slaved and savagely slaughtered every day by Muslim terrorist organizations.
The entire global Muslim community are LAUGHING at Americans.
Trump MUST WIN RE-ELECTION!!!!!!
But Trump: PLEASE STOP BETRAYING the people who voted for you.
We should all be in the streets protesting.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/u-s-funding-of-islamist-charity-groups-triples-under-trump/
U.S. Funding of Islamist “Charity” Groups Triples Under Trump
OldCrow says
Excellent new but as Mr Spence describes it’s a form of Punishment by Prosecution. An excellent example is what has happened to General Flynn battling a corrupt judiciary.
livingengine says
Good to see Professor Damask stand his ground. It doesn’t turn out well when anybody runs from CAIR. – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hieI5sGQztM
Steve S says
Freedom of expression, freedom to analyze, freedom to criticize, freedom to examine, lampoon, ridicule are the backbone of all modern civilization, and is the backbone of freedom itself. If ideas become sacred and cannot be examined then there is no freedom. Liberty must be safeguarded by protecting freedom of expression in all of its forms.
The only types of expressions that are not allowed are expressions that cause panic, such as falsely yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater, fraudulent speech which leads persons to spend money, time, resources on fraudulent services, products, etc., speech that incites criminal activity or conspiracy to commit criminal activity, such as planning a robbery, or starting a riot which kills or injures people, certain types of pornography which causes injury to people, such as child pornography, snuff porn, and sex acts which are dangerous or harmful to persons participating in them, and bullying, menacing, and threatening speech that promises bodily harm or injury. But outside of these limitations everything else is allowed.
Even hate speech is allowed within these limits. The speech may be offensive, but not criminal. (Many people can’t tell the difference.) For example, you are allowed to say that you don’t like a certain group of people, such as Jews or blacks. You can even argue that they are inferior, evil, or stupid or whatever. You start to cross the line, however, when you advocate killing of Jews or blacks or whatever people you despise, and try to incite people to do violence and criminal acts to Jews, blacks or others. Or if you go up to a person and threaten to kill that person.
And others have a right to disagree and present a rebuttal to such arguments. The best remedy for a bad argument or idea is a better argument or idea, not censorship.
And to my point earlier, there are many people that think that all offensive speech should be banned. But they don’t understand the point of free speech. Virtually every idea, no matter how innocuous it may seem, is offensive to somebody. No matter what the idea is, or the expression, somebody will be pissed off and not like the idea. You could talk about cuddly teddy bears, which theoretically nobody should be offended by, but somebody, somewhere will find and take offence.
That means, of course, that if no offensive speech is allowed, then we will not be allowed to say anything, because virtually everything causes offence to somebody.
Andrew says
The truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth.
Az gal says
YAY ARIZONA! If I lived in the Phoenix area, I would take that class.