SHARIAsource

The Plaintiff, Muslim prisoner Davis Totten, brought this civil rights claim against employees of Ryan Correctional Facilities alleging religious discrimination. The Plaintiff claimed that the Respondents violated his First Amendment right to religious freedom because they 1) threatened the Plaintiff with disciplinary action if he attended the Friday (jumuʿa) prayer service, the Islamic study class (taʿlīm) or any Islamic seminar while on a work or school assignment; 2) tried to control how Muslims appoint their spiritual leader for the Friday prayer services; and 3) failed to make preparations for the Eid al-Aḍḥā prayer service, among other alleged offenses. The Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment, on the claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Respondents’ motion be granted in part and denied in part. On the first issue, the Magistrate Judge determined that the Respondents were entitled to qualified immunity, because the Plaintiff did not meet his burden of convincing the Court that it was clearly established law that an official’s failure to allow prisoners to attend the Friday prayer service, the Islamic study class, or any Islamic seminar violate the First Amendment right to practice religion. The Magistrate Judge found the Respondents entitled to summary judgment on the second issue, because the Magistrate Judge found that the plaintiff did not indicate that any prison officials actually appointed an inadequate spiritual leader who interfered with his right to practice his religion. On the third issue, the Magistrate Judge determined that the Respondents were not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds on this claim, because the Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his ability to attend the Eid al-Aḍḥā prayer service—which is mandated by his religion and is a “sincerely held” practice—had been infringed upon, and was not related to a legitimate penological interest.

Plaintiff Kareem Hassan Milhouse, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (“USP-Lewisburg”), filed aBivens-styled complaint against several Federal Bureau of Prisons and USP-Lewisburg officials. The Plaintiff asserted that he had been denied access to the courts on three occasions and denied the practice of his religious requirements in violations of his right to free exercise, on the bases that: (1) there was no Islamic chaplain for Muslim inmates nor services for Special Management Unit inmates to attend services physically, nor were services provided through the radio as were other institutional programs, and (2) there was no Islamic celebration after the Ramadan fast, nor special meal of the types given for holidays of other faiths, and no Muslim chaplain with whom to discuss articles of faith. [He believed both of these types of services to be requirements stipulated by Islamic ritual law.] The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. The District Court granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Court found that the alleged conduct did not fall within the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), which applies to free exercise of religion claims under the First Amendment raised by prisoners, because the Plaintiff did not establish that a “substantial burden” had been placed on his ability to exercise his religion. The Court further determined that the Plaintiff had alternative means of worship available to him and that the Defendants’ conduct of providing the meal to non-Muslim inmates did not inhibit or curtail his ability to express adherence to his Islamic faith and beliefs. Because the Plaintiff failed to meet the substantial burden test with respect to both of these freedom of religion claims, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

This statute prohibits human trafficking activities, as well as activities related to human trafficking, and sets in place severe monetary penalties and prison sentences for offenders.

In this passage from his literary collection, Kūfī recounts an anecdote in which a translator comes to the rescue of a prison warden about to be executed. In the anecdote, the Muslim commander Muḥammad b. Qāsim has traveled to Daybul to save a few Muslim prisoners who had been captured by robbers. Upon breaking into the temple and rescuing the prisoners, Ibn Qāsim commands that the prison warden, Qubla, be brought before him and executed. However, Qubla pleads with Ibn Qāsim to spare his life on account of the kindness he has shown toward the prisoners. Ibn Qāsim verifies Qubla’s claim by employing a translator to inquire with the prisoners about their treatment. The translator conveys the prisoners’ affirmation of Qubla’s kind treatment of them. Ibn Qāsim consequently decides to spare Qubla’s life. In his chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Mahmood Kooria uses this anecdote to show the critical role of translatorsin ensuring that justice was served and to illustrate the trust that that the Muslims of South Asia placed in the capacity of Islamic rulers to mediate between local and foreign languages in the seventh/thirteenth century. Notably, the text appeared after the second or third attack waged by Muslim rulers on the South Asian regions in which they subsequently established dominance.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of sources and other material used in and related to the book.

The parties were married on 18 April 2006 and had one daughter aged 5. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had become quarrelsome as of 2008, after the defendant had been sentenced to one year in prison. While in prison the plaintiff had been unable to provide the defendant with any financial or emotional support, and once released from prison, he had become agressive towards the plaintiff, frequently becoming intoxicated and physically beating her. The plaintiff submitted that whenever the parties would quarrel the defendant would verbally divorce her. Feeling the parties' marriage was irreparable, the plaintiff requested the court grant her an irrevocable divorce (talak satu ba'in sughra).

Despite the defendant's absence from court, the court acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of ongoing conflict, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

In this text,Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā al-Balādhurīprovides an earlier account of the anecdote recorded in Kūfī’sFatḥnāma-i Sind aboutIbn Qāsim’s military expedition toDaybul to save Muslim prisoners. A translator figures prominently in the story, intervening to spare the life of the prison warden by translating accounts from the Muslim prisoners attesting to his kindness toward them. In his chapter in Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, Mahmood Kooria cites this text as an additional source on the anecdote showcasing the important role of translators.

This source is part of the Online Companion to the book Justice and Leadership in Early Islamic Courts, ed. Intisar A. Rabb and Abigail Krasner Balbale(ILSP/HUP 2017)—a collection of sources and other material used in and related to the book.

Plaintiff Jerry Lemons, a Muslim prisoner confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, brought this complaint against the Respondents, prison officials at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, for a violation of his freedom to exercise his religion when the Respondents did not provide a special menu for an Islamic holy day in December 2008. The judge determined that the fact that a single meal service was disrupted or missed did not create a substantial burden on the Plaintiff’s ability to practice religion, and recommended that the Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim be dismissed.

This regional regulation places a blanket prohibition on prostitution, and all ancillary activities that facilitate the soliciting thereof (art 2). It states, in its preambular statement, that prostitution is contrary to religious norms and moral values. Contravention of art 2 can result in a maximum prison sentence of six months and/or a monetary penalty of IDR 50 million (art 5(1)).

This regional regulation prohibits prostitution and sexual promiscuity for money, goods or services in the regency of Way Kanan. It prohibits all persons and legal entities from carrying out prostitution, and from facilitating it through ancillary means. Its preamble states that prostitution is contrary to religious values, morality, and communal traditional customs. The regulation also places on all persons with knowledge of such practices to report them to authorised personnel. Contravention of this regulation can result in a prison sentence of, at most, six months, or a fine of as much as IDR 3 million. For recidivists (persons who have contravened the regulation again within one year), their punishment will be one-third additionally severe if the sentence is a prison term, or one-half additionally severe if the punishment handed down is a fine.

This Supreme Court decision upheld Decision: 69/PID.B/2012/PN.Spg of the Sampang State Court to imprison Tajul Muluk, a member of the Shi'a Muslim community in Madura. Tajul's four year prison sentence was upheld for allegedly teaching his students 'unorthodox' religious teachings, including questioning the authenticity of the Qur'an in its current form. Tajul and multiple witnesses disputed and denied the allegations.

This regional regulation makes provision for the prevention of behaviour that contradicts and contravenes moral and religious norms (art 2). Specifically, the regulation is concerned with alcohol (minuman keras), and prostitution (pelacuran) and sexual relations out of wedlock (perzinaan) (arts 4-6). Contravention of the provisions therein can result in a prison sentence of, at most, six months, or a fine of up to IDR 50 million (art 17).

This regional regulation identifies as, and prohibits, the following social ills:

1. intoxicants;
2. prostitution and indecency;
3. pornoaction;
4. live music; and
5. thuggery.

It states that such conduct contravenes religious norms, customs and traditions, politeness and morality, and can incur a fine of between IDR 15 million and IDR 50 million, or a three month prison sentence.

This regional regulation states, in its preambular section, that sexual promiscuity constitutes an activity that contradicts religious teachings, legislative instruments, customs and tradition, and morality norms. Accordingly, it prohibits every person and entity from conducting sexually promiscuous activities for whatever reason (art 2). Contravention of this regulation can result in a maximum prison sentence of six months or a maximum fine of IDR 5 million (art 5).

This regional regulation states, in its preambular section, that prostitution constitutes conduct that is contrary to religious norms and morality, which has a negative impact on the foundations of society. This regulation, accordingly, prohibits the facilitation or act of prostitution in any place (arts 2-3). Contravention of the regulation can result in a maximum prison sentence of six months, or a fine of as much as IDR 10 million (art 8(1)).

This regional regulation places a prohibition on gambling in the municipality of Bogor. In its preambular statement, states that Bogor municipality upholds religious values and public life norms. Moreover, that gambling is a crime that contravenes law, religion, and morality, and has the potential to disturb social peace and can give rise to social problems. Contravention of this regulation can result in a maximum prison sentence of six months, or a maximum monetary penalty of IDR 50 million (art 13).

This order implements the decision from the District Court of Colorado in Smith v. Crockett, a case in which a Muslim inmate sued Colorado state prison officials on allegations that they had violated his federal constitutional and statutory rights to free exercise of religion and to a diet that confirmed to the dictates of his faith. In this case, petitioner Ray Anthony Smith, a Muslim inmate housed in a Colorado state prison, alleged a violation of his federal constitutional right to the free exercise of religion and his federal statutory right to a diet that complies with his faith. Specifically, he alleged that prison officials revoked his right to a ḥalāl diet upon observing him ordering non-ḥalāl food. Petitioner Smith submitted a request for reinstatement of his ḥalāl diet through the internal prison grievance system, which was denied. Smith initiated this federal lawsuit in 2020 alleging violations of free exercise of religion under the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). His complaint alleges that the Colorado Department of Corrections, Dr. Muhammad Munir Chaudry, and The Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America (IFNCA) violated his rights by the wrongful revocation of his religious diet and mislabeling of ḥalāl food products. Upon review, U.S. District Judge William J. Martinez, who adopted the recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang that government officials not receive immunity but that the court dismiss Smith’s other allegations–including monetary damages against the government defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation of ḥalāl food products, and that the IFNCA and Dr. Chaudry be held liable for government actions. This order implements that recommendation and decision adopted by the district court.

In this decision, U.S. District Judge William J. Martinez adopts the recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang in Smith v. Crockett, a case in which a Muslim inmate sued Colorado state prison officials on allegations that they had violated his federal constitutional and statutory rights to free exercise of religion and to a diet that confirmed to the dictates of his faith. In this case, petitioner Ray Anthony Smith, a Muslim inmate housed in a Colorado state prison, alleged a violation of his federal constitutional right to the free exercise of religion and his federal statutory right to a diet that complies with his faith. Specifically, he alleged that prison officials revoked his right to a ḥalāl diet upon observing him ordering non-ḥalāl food. Petitioner Smith submitted a request for reinstatement of his ḥalāl diet through the internal prison grievance system, which was denied. Smith initiated this federal lawsuit in 2020 alleging violations of free exercise of religion under the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). His complaint alleges that the Colorado Department of Corrections, Dr. Muhammad Munir Chaudry, and The Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America (IFNCA) violated his rights by the wrongful revocation of his religious diet and mislabeling of ḥalāl food products. Upon review of the record, Judge Martinez agreed with Judge Wang’s recommendation that the government officials were not entitled to immunity, as petitioner Ray Anthony Smith had made sufficient allegations to make out a prima facie claim. Also following Judge Wang’s recommendations, Judge Martinez dismissed Smith’s other allegations–including monetary damages against the government defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation of ḥalāl food products, and that the IFNCA and Dr. Chaudry be held liable for government actions.

On January 17, 2023, the National Assembly of Pakistan passed a bill expanding the country’s laws on blasphemy. Previously, Pakistan’s blasphemy laws subjected those who insulted the Prophet Muhammad to the death penalty. The amended blasphemy laws carry a minimum ten-year prison sentence for those deemed to have insulted any of the Prophet’s Companions or Family members, and it renders blasphemy a non-bailable offense.

Plaintiff Jim Davis challenged a prison policy that imposed a temporary, total ban on the purchase and receipt of prayer oil as a violation of both his First Amendment and RLUIPA rights. The Respondents, the prison administration and various officers individually named in the complaint, counterclaimed that a ban on prayer oils furthered a legitimate government interest, as prayer oils posed a fire, health, and safety hazard. The Plaintiff alleged in a second claim against the Respondents that they retaliated against him for filing a grievance regarding this prison policy by restricting the purchase of religious items to the quarterly packages he could receive while incarcerated. The Respondents filed a motion to dismiss. The District Court determined that the Plaintiff stated a cognizable First Amendment and RLUIPA violation with respect to the prayer oil ban, because the Plaintiff sufficiently showed that the prayer oils were not flammable and therefore did not pose a risk. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss with regard to the second claim because the District Court determined that restricting religious items to the quarterly packages did not sufficiently burden his practice of religion, as he was not denied all access to prayer oil and was still allowed to order oil in quarterly packages.

In this case, petitioner Ray Anthony Smith, a Muslim inmate housed in a Colorado state prison, alleged a violation of his federal constitutional right to the free exercise of religion and his federal statutory right to a diet that complies with his faith. Specifically, he alleged that prison officials revoked his right to aḥalāl diet upon observing him ordering non-ḥalāl food. Petitioner Smith submitted a request for reinstatement of hisḥalāl diet through the internal prison grievance system, which was denied. Smith initiated this federal lawsuit in 2020 alleging violations of free exercise of religion under the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). His complaint alleges that the Colorado Department of Corrections, Dr. Muhammad Munir Chaudry, and The Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America (IFNCA) violated his rights by the wrongful revocation of his religious diet and mislabeling of ḥalāl food products. Upon reviewing the record, in Smith v. Crockett, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang determined that the petitioner alleged actions that sufficed to make out a basic claim and recommended that government officials should not receive immunity. The Judge recommended, however, dismissal of Smith’s other allegations–including monetary damages against the government defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation of ḥalāl food products, and that the IFNCA and Dr. Chaudry be held liable for government actions.