www.amperspective.com Online Magazine
Executive Editor: Abdus Sattar Ghazali
Chronology of Islam in America (2017)
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali
June 2017 - Page Two
Woodland City Council recognizes the month of Ramadan
June 20: The Council of Woodland City (CA) today recognized the Islamic month of Ramadan which is a month of spiritual consciousness and higher sense of social responsibility for the less fortunate. The proclamation said 1.7 billion Muslims of the world celebrate their holiest month of Ramadan every year. "During this month, Muslim observe fast and abstention from eating, drinking, smoking and intimate relations from dawn to dusk." Fasting is one of the 5 pillars of Islam including Announcement of Faith, 5 daily prayers, Charity for the poor Fasting during the month of Ramadan, and Hajj or pilgrimage to Mecca, the proclamation said. The proclamation was issued in the wake of what has been a nationwide anti-Muslim attitude on the part of some Americans as well as President Donald Trump, Jim Smith Editor of the Woodland Daily Democrat said adding: "Trump has called for stronger vetting of Muslim immigrants as well as a moratorium on new immigrants from Muslim nations, an action that is being fought in court by states like California and others." While issuing the Ramadan Proclamation, Woodland Mayor Angel Barajas recognized the “large contingency of Muslims in Woodland” and commended the “greater partnership” people have with one another. After unanimous approval of the Ramadan Proclamation 2017 Mayor Barajas presented it to the Muslim Community via Khalid Saeed of the Woodland Mosque. Khalid Saeed thanked the Woodland City Council for thoughtful approval and said: "This proclamation is so important because it tells hatemongers and Islamophobes that Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of American society, and in Woodland we will not accept efforts of some of 'otherization' of segments of society. We the Muslims are peace loving citizens of united states , positively contributing to the couumity and the country. We are being victimized on guilt by association for no fault of our own."
Woodland Mosque hosts Interfaith Iftar
The Woodland City proclamation of Ramadan came three days after an Interfaith Iftar dinner hosted by the Woodland Mosque. The traditional Iftar was, among others, was attended by Woodland City Mayor Angel Barajas and other city officials including: Police Chief Luis Solar, Fire Department Chief Rebecca Ramirez, City Manager Paul Navazio, and County Assessor/Tax Collector Jesse Salinas. Mayor Angel Barajas recognized Khalid Saeed for his contribution in promoting a community of peace and respect for all. The Mayoral proclamation said: "Mr. Saeed has been honored for his contributions to peace and justice by the State of California, the Yolo County District Attorney's office as well as other law enforcement agencies." The Mayoral proclamation pointed out that in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, Mr. Saeed joined the American Muslim Foundation as its national president and dared to envision a culture of peace, acceptance, mutual respect and harmony. [AMP REPORT]
Santa Clara, CA, anti-registry & anti-internment resolution passes
June 20: The San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-SFBA), Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus (AAAJ-ALC), Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (SIREN) today applauded the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors' passage of the "Non-Cooperation with Identity-Based Registries and Internment Activities" resolution. This resolution will prevent County staff and resources from assisting in both identity-based registries and internment efforts. The resolution, which passed unanimously, includes provisions that protect individuals from registries and concentration camps by preventing any County personnel from using County resources:"...to create, implement, provide information for, enforce, or provide assistance or support in any manner for any government program that creates or compiles, or requires registration in, a list, database, or registry of individuals on the basis of actual or perceived religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity (including transgender status)." The resolution is modeled after the "Non-Cooperation with Identity-Based Registry" ordinance of the City and County of San Francisco to uphold the rights and liberties of religious and ethnic minorities. [CAIR]
Hate crime charge for arson attack on Texas Mosque
June 22: The Texas office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Texas) today welcomed a hate crime charge brought against a man suspected of setting fire to the Islamic Center of Victoria in Victoria, Texas, in January. Federal officials today charged Marq Perez with a hate crime for damaging religious property, one count of using fire to commit a federal felony and another count for possession of an unregistered destructive device. He could face up to 40 years in prison and up to $750,000 in fines.At the time of his arrest earlier this year, Perez was described as a "right-wing extremist." A prosecutor noted that Perez, who claimed that members of the mosque are "terrorists," may have targeted multiple mosques based on his social media comment: "Can you pinpoint any mosques that a team can get clear to?" [CAIR]
CAIR launches new civil rights app allowing reporting of bias incidents
June 23: The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today launched a new civil rights app, called "Making Democracy Work for Everyone," which gives users the ability to immediately report bias incidents they experience -- an important feature during a period of increased hate incidents targeting American Muslims and other minority groups. The free CAIR app offers advice about an individual's constitutional rights when contacted by law enforcement or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and when facing discrimination in the workplace or at school. It also offers contact information for CAIR's national headquarters in Washington, D.C., and for chapters nationwide. Other features include a donation function, a feed of news articles and alerts of relevance to the American Muslim community and polls on social and political issues of the day. [CAIR]
The Supreme Court partially unblocks Trump's Muslim Travel ban
June 25: The Supreme Court today allowed parts of President Donald Trump's controversial Muslim ban to go into effect and will hear oral arguments on the case this fall. The apex Court ruled that despite rulings in two different federal courts - that the ban should be put on hold while judges decide whether it’s constitutional - the Trump administration should be allowed to enforce the ban starting on Thursday, June 29, 72 hours after the court’s ruling was issued. However, people from the six countries listed in President Trump’s travel ban ― Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Sudan, Yemen ― can travel to the U.S. if they possess a “bona fide” relationship with the U.S. It is believed that the vast majority of people who would be coming to the U.S. from these countries can easily prove that relationship. Neither refugees being resettled in the U.S. nor visa holders will be impacted. President Donald Trump was quick to celebrate the Supreme Court verdict by saying that the court’s unanimous decision was “a clear victory for our national security”. “It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective,” he said in a statement. “As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.
American Civil Liberties Union
Shortly after the court issued its opinion, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said on Twitter it would "head back into court to fight the fundamentally unconstitutional Muslim ban this October". Omar Jadwat, the director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project who had argued the case in court, said in a statement the travel ban "violates the fundamental constitutional principle that government cannot favor or disfavor any one religion". "Courts have repeatedly blocked this indefensible and discriminatory ban. The Supreme Court now has a chance to permanently strike it down," he said. Lara Finkbeiner, from the International Refugee Assistance Project, which also sued the administration over the ban, said she was "incredibly disappointed with the decision". "We are a nation that values acceptance and diversity, and in making this decision and putting this executive order back into effect, the Supreme Court is sending a very clear message and it's putting the executive's discriminatory policy back into effect."
Both sides declared victory on the travel ban
Writing under the title “Both sides declared victory on travel ban” the Mother Jones said in different ways, both sides are right. It went to say: “In one of the most contentious and important battles of the Trump presidency to date, the Supreme Court may have found a way to appease both sides without handing a full victory to either. For Trump, who manages to spin even the most dubious outcomes as big wins, Monday’s order may have given him plenty of fodder—after all, a ban with exceptions is still more of a success than Trump’s gotten from the lower courts, which have universally ruled against him. For the ban’s opponents, the narrowness of the ban that will go into effect could also constitute a win. Finally, the court set up the case such that it may never ultimately issue a final ruling—allowing the ban’s critics to declare a substantive victory over the administration but sparing the president what would likely be an embarrassing loss this fall.”
For Los Angeles Times, the Supreme Court on Monday took a pragmatic approach to resolving the dispute over President Trump’s foreign travel ban with a middle-ground ruling that may defuse the controversy — for now. “The decision allowed much of the ban to take effect, but it also applied significant restrictions that will narrow the order’s impact. In a short, unsigned but unanimous opinion, the justices avoided taking a stance on the larger constitutional questions concerning religious discrimination or presidential authority, the LA Times said adding: “But they also largely rejected the lower court rulings that had blocked Trump’s order as unconstitutional, handing a partial victory to the president and his lawyers after a string of rebukes in federal courts from Hawaii to Maryland. The justices also strongly hinted that they may never need to settle the larger constitutional issues because the case could be moot by the time they hear it in the fall.”
The Supreme Court ruling was unsigned
The ruling was unsigned, with 6 justices — the court’s four liberal justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) joined Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts in partially lifting the hold on the ban, while conservative justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito argued that the Trump administration should be allowed to enforce the ban in all cases. Justices Neil Gorsuch was appointed by President Trump in April this year. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas warned that requiring officials to differentiate between foreigners who have connection to the US and those who do not will prove "unworkable". "Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding - on peril of contempt - whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country". He added that the decision would result in a "flood of litigation" until the court issued its ruling. [AMP Report]
2017: January February March April May June
July August September October November December