Previous post
A vile slur and a massive crisis has been averted in Texas, where the Tarrant County GOP rejected an effort to remove a vice-chairman of the party over his religion.
Dr. Shahid Shafi was confirmed by the Tarrant County GOP’s executive committee by a vote of 139-49 after some objected to Dr. Shafi on the grounds of his Muslim faith and nothing else.
Tonight, the torch of liberty burns brighter.
Today, my faith in our party and our country has been reaffirmed.
My…
Posted by Dr. Shafi, Councilman, City of Southlake, TX on Thursday, January 10, 2019
While we can all be grateful that this ugliness has had a satisfactory ending and that Dr. Shafi wants to move forward, how in the hell did this happen in the first place?
A campaign against Shafi began just after he was appointed by (Tarrant County GOP chair Darl) Easton in July. Dorrie O’ Brien, a Tarrant County GOP precinct chair, was one of the first to take issue with Shafi. O’Brien has claimed that Shafi supports Shariah law and is tied to terrorist-affiliated groups, though the doctor has denied the allegations.
The party discussed Shafi and his role in November as momentum to remove him grew, and in a closed-door meeting, added a vote on his future to a January agenda.
GOP precinct chair Dale Atteberry courted controversy by hosting an anti-Muslim speaker to address party members and others last month so they “know the truth” before the vote.
Atteberry resigned as precinct chair after the vote, according to Sam Bryant, a member of the State Republic Executive Committee for Senate District 22.
Well, good, there’s one bigot that the GOP doesn’t need out the door. It seems that there are 48 others to go.
After all the complaints about litmus tests when it comes to judicial nominees, and the rise of alternatives to CAIR like the Muslim Reform Movement, shameless religious bigotry of this kind – a real and ugly Islamophobia – needs to be rooted out and expelled as quickly as possible from the GOP. Good for the Tarrant County GOP for shutting this baseless attack down. Now tell the other 48 members of the executive committee who voted against Dr. Shafi to get lost.
Featured image via Pixabay, Pixabay License (free for commercial use)
GWB says: Shafi supports Shariah law and is tied to terrorist-affiliated groups
OK, he’s denied those claims. But is there any evidence related to the truth of falsity thereof?
And this makes me question the story’s bias:
hosting an anti-Muslim speaker
“Anti-muslim” is very often used about people (like Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch) who are simply see islam (at least in its fundamentalist varieties) for the totalitarian ideology that it is. That phrase isn’t necessarily a signal of leftist bias, but it needs to be followed up with actual evidence.
Digging down through the stories about this, I don’t see a single bit of evidence from anyone that this guy is not sharia-compliant, nor that the anti-muslim speaker is all that horrid.
The stories consistently talk about bigotry and give absolutely NO EVIDENCE of it. Even the folks voting to keep him around are only cited as trying to avoid “embarrassment”, it seems. The only thing they cite for a claim to this man’s positive features is a letter he, himself, published. (I will say that Cruz speaking up for him gives him some credibility.)
The stories about the anti-muslim speaker make hints about how awful he is. Unfortunately much of what they say has been said about people I wouldn’t consider troublesome as it pertains to defending our country from a definite, real threat (fundamentalist islam). They do post a recording of some of his training, but I can’t listen to it at the moment.
I accept that this man might be a perfectly wholesome conservative. However, to report on it based on nothing but assumptions (he’s a Republican!*) is not helpful.
this baseless attack
Sorry, but I see nothing here, nor in the stories you quote** that supports that.
I would actually appreciate being proved wrong here.
(* Even the Republicans have been caught bringing in CAIR folks and other defenders of the caliphate to help with “outreach” or “sensitivity”. Remember Republican =/= conservative. Not even in Texas, unfortunately.)
(** I will admit I did not click on the NY Times link. I refuse to give them any clicks at all.)
GWB says: truth of OR falsity
FIFM
who are simply see
Oy vey….
Amanda Green says: As someone who lives in the general area and has been forced to watch all this going down, the only objection to Shafi was that he was Muslim. If someone objects to him being Muslim and says he can’t represent Republicans because he supports Shariah law, they should prove it. It shouldn’t be on the accused to prove his innocence. Sorry, but we just went through seeing Justice Kavanaugh (and how many other men) being forced to prove he didn’t do something when accused.
One of the basic foundations of this nation is freedom of religion. Unless and until someone shows me evidence a person–and I don’t care what their religion–is breaking the law or, if a politician, is working against the best interests of not only their constituents but the nation as a whole, I will not support any movement to remove them simply because of what that religion is.
Needless to say, there has been a great deal of coverage down here about this story and has been for months. I have seen nothing negative about Shafi in all those stories, and that includes from the liberal and conservative outlets in the state. The only complaint, and it came about after his appointment as vice-chair, was about his religion. I’ve heard no complaints from his Southlake constituents where he sits on the city council (he has been on the council since 2014). Southlake is a conservative community and their politics can be volatile. If there was anything of any real concern about him or his politics, it would have been shouted loud and long in the months leading up to last night’s vote.
You do bring up some good questions and things to consider but, in this instance, I find myself on the side of those condemning the attempt to remove him because of his beliefs. If we start down that slope, we may as well admit we are giving the other side free rein to go after anyone because of their religious beliefs and is that something we really want?
GWB says: Unless and until someone shows me evidence a person […] is working against the best interests of […] the nation as a whole
Sharia – in fundamentalist islam – is by definition working against the best interests of the nation, as it advocates the overthrow of all non-islamic governments and their replacement with the caliphate. That’s not me being “islamophobic”, it’s written right into their holy books (the Koran and the Hadith). (Oh, and on denial – yes, I get that proving a negative is impossible; but the articles didn’t give any other evidence than his own protest.)
And, btw, I said *both* sides (in the stories) lacked much evidence. But, since the post was “good riddance to bigotry!” I thought that side was the one that needed to present more evidence. (It’s accusing someone of something, after all.)
Southlake is a conservative community and their politics can be volatile.
Their politics were weird when I lived near there (Colleyville-Grapevine the last 6 years of growing up). But the actual governance (iirc) was pretty heavily Democrat. But it’s also been 35 years.
As to “slippery slopes” – when the pope or Franklin Graham begin advocating the overthrow of the US gov’t and its replacement with a theocracy (a real one, not just a “Christian nation”), then I’ll see that as an issue. As it is, the left has no problem placing a religious test out there right now. They’ve already pushed us down that slope, imo.
I’m very glad for your input, though. It’s more information than the stories gave, and does shift my opinion on things.
Dennis says: People have a constitutional right to freedom of religion and to freedom of speech. It doesn’t guarantee everyone the right to hold leadership positions in the Republican Party. Would you accuse people of bigotry if they voted to deny a leadership position to a committed neo-nazi?
Before you accuse other people of bigotry perhaps you should read the Koran and Hadiths for yourself and learn what Muslims actually believe. All Muslims believe that the Koran is Allah’s direct words and can not be changed. Is it bigotry to object to anti-semites? Anti-semitism is built into the Koran. The Koran also teaches that it is righteous to own sex slaves. Do you want that type of ideology to represent your party?
GWB says: Do be careful with the “all muslims” bit. There are “reform muslims” as Deanna points out, that do NOT practice shariah or believe in the dominance of the caliphate. I was pointing out that I saw nowhere in the articles I read, any defense of Shafi claiming he is a reform muslim (among other lacks).
But, you are correct in saying that the holy books of islam do advocate things antithetical to Western Civilization and to our gov’t. To not believe those things (at least passively) and to be a muslim takes one away from a fundamentalist interpretation.
Dennis says: I don’t use the word “all” loosely since there are usually exceptions to every rule. However, the teaching that the Koran contains the exact words of Allah seems to be universal in Islam. If I’m wrong, perhaps you could give an example or two of “reform Muslims” who openly teach that the Koran in Arabic is not the exact words of Allah and is not absolute truth? If such a group exists can you document where they make that claim?
Muslims may play around with the Hadiths especially between the Sunni and Shia since both groups believe that the hadiths are authoritative but can contain errors. Their attitude towards the Koran is much different. If I were in a strong Muslim country I wouldn’t make the comment that the Koran is anything less than the exact words of
Allah since they would probably consider that statement blasphemy.
GWB says: Well, here’s part of a statement from some folks that Deanna wrote about in her link above (that’s from more than 3 years ago):
an Islamic renewal must defeat the ideology of Islamism, or politicized Islam, which seeks to create Islamic states, as well as an Islamic caliphate.
We reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam.
If they want to reject those things, then I’m ok with them as my neighbors.
Dennis says: I agree that the tiny group of people in the picture would probably be very good neighbors. Unfortunately their numbers are insignificant compared to the billion or so Muslims scattered around the globe. What theological reforms have they proposed? Do they reject the idea that the Koran is Allah’s exact words? Just ignoring the directives of the holy book is not enough unless there is a thorough reform in their hermeneutics.
Asking a Muslim whether he/she supports Sharia law is not really very informative since most traditional Muslims are willing to forgo Sharia law as long as they are a small minority in they country they live in. Muslims are all for civil rights and protection of minorities when they are in the minority. Once they reach about 10% of the population, their attitude changes. They then begin to push for laws favoring Islam over other groups. Once they reach a sufficient number to seize control of the country their former interest in civil rights disappears and they begin to persecute everyone else and to deny religious freedom to others.
People have been trying to reform Islam for a long time with little success. Probably the most successful group today are the Ahmadiyya Muslims who have a modern holy man to soften the evils in Islam, but even they are stuck with the infallible Koran. After the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians, Ataturk tried to reform Turkey and successfully secularized Turkey for a century but now it is rapidly reverting back to an intolerant fundamentalist Islamic Caliphate.
Wanweilin says: Mohammad was a war lord, decapitated people, raided villages, owned slaves, called for assasinations and had sex with a 9 year old girl. If as a Muslim you believe Mohammad is the example to follow you should not be involved in American politics.
10 Comments