Joe Biden nominated the first Muslim-American in history as a candidate for federal district court judge. Zahid Quraishi was among a “diverse slate of 11 judicial nominees put forward by Biden.”
Last month, Quraishi went before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of the selection process, and was asked by Committee Chair, Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat: “What do you know about Sharia law?”
Quraishi answered that he knows “nothing about Sharia.” Nothing? Virtually everyone knows something about the Sharia. In his position, Quraishi is likely to know a lot, and was probably fibbing, and not in an intelligent way, either. It isn’t possible that a man of his standing, who “has served as a military prosecutor and Army captain in Iraq, as an assistant U.S. Attorney who has tried cases of public corruption, organized crime and financial fraud, and as a white-collar criminal defense lawyer”, would know “NOTHING” about Sharia.
One thing for certain: Sharia is incompatible with American law, and in fact, incompatible with every free society. A statement to this effect from this potential federal judge should have been automatic and non-controversial.
There are those who will jump to his defense with the question: why single out his Muslimness? Because Islam presents Sharia as divine law, so a question about Quraishi’s views of it is fair, particularly given his potential position of such great influence.
So what might it have been that Quraishi was trying to avoid? Giving him the benefit of the doubt, many may conclude that he was trying to avoid controversy, and to steer the issue of his nomination away from his identity as a Muslim back to a focus on other issues. But if this was the case, he missed a golden opportunity to simply state the truth of how much he really knows about the Sharia and enunciate the truth that it is incompatible with numerous American laws. Such an answer would have surely caused him headaches among segments of the Muslim community (which is a matter of concern in itself), so instead, he pleaded ignorance of Sharia. Reaction was swift, as is clear from the article below.
Trying to please everybody ended up backfiring on Quraishi, who has now opened a can of worms and cast a spotlight on his own character, motives, and loyalties, as well as on his ability to think quickly.
Last year, Emilia Justyna Powell, associate professor of political science and concurrent associate professor of law at Notre Dame, researched how the two systems — democratic laws and the Sharia — work together in practice. Powell hailed Islamic law and issued a call for international law judges to consider “referring to parts of Sharia.” Quraishi, of course, may know nothing of Justyna Powell, but surely he should know that such studies have been a niche focus of interest in some realms of academia for some time, and more generally in the legal domain as well.
With his blatant tactic of evasion, Quraishi has shown himself to be an unwise judge, with a possible agenda, and one who lacks foresight as well.
Despite concerns that have erupted on every side, it is the absurd “Islamophobia” accusations against Durbin for asking the question that will likely get more attention than Quraishi’s unwillingness to be transparent.
To allay the concerns of those who are levying accusations about “Islamophobia” against Durbin, to even out the playing field, the Senate Judiciary Committee could pose the same question to every potential federal judge: “What do you know about Sharia law?” And every answer should be fully public.
“Zahid Quraishi could be first Muslim federal judge, but questions remain,” North Jersey, May 10, 2021:
New Jersey’s Zahid Quraishi has served as a military prosecutor and Army captain in Iraq, as an assistant U.S. Attorney who has tried cases of public corruption, organized crime and financial fraud, and as a white-collar criminal defense lawyer.
But when Quraishi, who grew up in Union County, appeared last month before the Senate Judiciary Committee – which is considering his nomination as a federal district court judge – one of the few questions he faced had nothing to do with his noteworthy resume.
“What do you know about Sharia law?” asked the committee chair, Sen. Dick Durbin.
Muslim Americans were dismayed that even a war veteran and magistrate judge could not escape Islamophobic suspicions that routinely befall those seeking or serving public office. The question about Sharia, or Islamic law, is one they say is laden with bias and the false assumption that being Muslim somehow is at odds with being American.
But it wasn’t only the Sharia question that rankled many Muslim Americans. Quraishi’s answer – that he knows nothing about Sharia – also drew rebukes and a call from one prominent attorney and Islamic law expert for organizations to rescind their support of him. By distancing himself from Sharia, they fear he may be reinforcing negative perceptions about the faith and who constitutes a “good Muslim.”
Some Muslim and South Asian advocacy groups and legal organizations have publicly supported Quraishi’s nomination. But other Muslim leaders have been hesitant, saying they want an explanation of his role as a U.S. Army legal adviser for detention operations in Iraq and his work for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Quraishi declined an interview request…..
GFYS says
Trojan horse
BlackSabbath says
Trojan donkey
revereridesagain says
Trojan @$$.
Robert Laity says
Sharia law is REPUGNANT to the US Constitution. “ANY law that is repugnant to the US Constitution is void”-Marbury v. Madison, USSCt. (1803).
Honest Ali says
Being a Muslim is completely at odds with being an American.
One can be most other religions, and loyal the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But a Muslim, or a Communist for that matter, will never be an American, because their ideologies are sworn to destroy out Constitution and Bill of Right and establish Tyranny.
Unless he renounces and denounces Islam, he is an enemy agent.
mortimer says
He won’t ‘denounce’ Islam. That is foolishness. But this man is guilty of TAQIYYA if he states that he knows ‘nothing’ about Sharia. That is not credible.
The question that should have been asked is whether he will favor Sharia law over American law in a dispute involving Muslims, such as wife-beating or polygamy or FGM or family inheritance.
He should have to choose sides. They didn’t force him to choose sides.
I believe that any Muslim judge will be forced by his community to favor Sharia … if he knows what’s good for him.
revereridesagain says
Yes — framing the question that way left the door wide open for evasion. Which is what Durbin got. Being a Dumbocrat, however, I doubt he sought an honest answer.
gravenimage says
His bringing it up at all is more than anyone else did. Credit where it is due.
maria says
He is a dangerous enemy, who should be deported immediately
Beneath the Veil of Consciousness says
Unless it’s a blitzkrieg offensive, most non Muslim Americans will fail to see the slow coiling of the sharia constrictor snake as it chokes off our freedoms. It is now self-evident in our dead and dying once free press. This and other vital organs of society that rely on the constitution to ensure the vital blood of freedom for ourselves and our institutions are continually threatened by this tyrannical set of “laws” that seeks to straight jacket free people and supplant the freedoms guaranteed in our constitution with the hideous ideaology of Islam
mortimer says
BVC, you are a barbaric and I denounce your Hitlerian ideology. What you are saying is evil. We live in a society of man-made laws designed to protect the rights of all. Your fascist ideology is not ‘freedom’, but slavery.
RichardL says
mortimer, what did BVC say that makes him “Hitlerian”?
John says
Probably a fake Mortimer wrote that. Ok
Infidel says
No John, the real Mortimer is as unhinged as many Leftists and jihadists
somehistory says
There is nothing in the statement that is anything like hitler. hitler was like a coiled snake…and people didn’t realize it until it was too late to stop him.
mozlums are the same way….little by little they want to keep the rest of us form having the Freedoms guaranteed by God…and stated in the Constitution…while pretending that they just want to be accepted as Americans too…and not the snakes they really are.
All anyone needs to do is look at the other countries where they have large numbers and have made themselves untouchable….it’s on the way here, too.
Just look at the influence of c.a.i.r. and what they force businesses, churches, gov reps to do for them. They have made large inroads.
Anyone who refuses to admit it, is in a poor position to call others out for recognizing the Truth.
Keith O says
Mortimer, Go and take your medications and control the part of your brain that isn’t firing on all four.
There was NOTHING in that statement that any normal person would view anything you wrote as being of a “fascist ideology”.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, Beneath the Veil of Consciousness is noting that unless it is violent Jihad that few people notice it–they certainly don’t notice stealth Jihad and “lawfare”. How is this “Hitlerian”?
James Lincoln says
mortimer,
Please reread the post by Beneath the Veil of Consciousness. The analogy to a “blitzkrieg offensive” is accurate – and actually happened in the United States with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Making that analogy is not barbaric, evil, or fascist – it is factual…
gravenimage says
+1
somehistory says
Beneath the Veil of Consciousnes
What you wrote is true. It’s much like the frog in the pot of water…won’t notice the heat until it’s boiled in it.
People are so caught up in other stuff, they don’t see the snake ready to squeeze their lives to an end.
gravenimage says
Yes–noting that something is Fascist is not itself Hitlerian.
End PC says
Infiltration into our federal judiciary by Islamists is of course a major goal of our Islamic enemies. Must never let it happen.
“If a Muslim swears an oath and includes the phrase Inshah’ Allah (if Allah wills) as part of that oath, then the oath is not binding.”
For more see Kirby, Stephen. Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.
Henry Schalk says
He blew it, should’ve Allah approvingly lied to the Infidels, with a sly wink, or fork tongue in Arabic to the believers, a la Arafat.
mccode says
Quraishi is a taqiya artist.
mortimer says
He is. He wants the job and will lie to get it.
Del says
“who constitutes a “good Muslim.”? King Tut constitutes a good Muslim. King Tut is dead.
Infidel says
There was no islam during the era of King Tut. That was when Egypt was Egypt, not some Arab ?hole
gravenimage says
King Tut was not Muslim.
don vito says
So true, especially the dead part.
pfwag says
There is no such thing as a “good” Muslim (e.g. a “good” Nazi?) and this one knows a lot about taqiya.
James Lincoln says
pfwag says,
“There is no such thing as a “good” Muslim”
According to islam, a *good* muslim is a *devout* muslim.
And a *devout* muslim is *bad* for society…
gravenimage says
Spot on.
born saturday says
i dont supose he is the only satan worshiping judge in the world…..ther you go one more… this time openly worshiping satan and the question is whether he knows about sharia or whether he is a muslim satan worshiper????
RichardL says
I would like to know whether he is a practicing Muslim. If he just has a Muslim name and is sold by the Dims as a Muslim, I would like to see his credentials as a judge…
Rarely says
His answer may be interpreted as simply not knowing, in a legal sense, the details of sharia law although he might, and almost certainly does, have at least a general idea. In all fairness the question was totally unexpected and probably threw him back on his heals.
In any event he is certainly well aware of which laws he is being appointed to uphold and enforce. There is no reason to believe that he will not do so. Remember too that there are appellant courts and any deviation, as many here expect to occur, can certainly be corrected.
James Lincoln says
Rarely,
The average Jihad Watch reader could answer the question – in a general way – about the basics of Sharia law.
If Zahid Quraishi, a muslim attorney, could not think on his feet fast enough to answer that simple question, he’s got no business becoming a federal judge.
Keith O says
+1
Charlie in NY says
Sorry to disagree, though I understand your point, but it is Senator Durbin’s question that makes no sense. A district court judge is constrained by case law and precedent. Sharia law is no more relevant (or available) as precedent than canon law or halachic determinations.
Perhaps this was a set up to ask about whether he might look to Sharia law for legal guidance. Still, it’s quite a stretch considering the types of cases that generally come before a federal judge.
What might be a relevant line of inquiry would be specific questions, such as would you treat a woman’s testimony as equal to a man’s. Or would you favor the testimony if a Muslim over that of a non-Muslim. But those questions will never be asked, nor in my judgment should they.
A better line of questioning might have been First Amendment related, and how free speech intersects with charges of “islamophobia”. Or perhaps, when presented with an antisemitic crime, would he acquit the defendant for acting under a Islamic principles.
Really, though, if he’s at a level to be nominated to be a federal judge, his peers already know him well … and he should have a track record open for inspection.
The only question I have is what on earth was Sen. Durbin thinking.
Infidel says
Nice argument, except that for muslims, that imaginary line b/w political and religious does not exist. In Christianity, you may well have ‘Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s’. In islam, that separation doesn’t exist, so asking a muslim judge about shariah was a pretty valid question.
gravenimage says
Charlie, there have already been non-Muslim judges both here and in the rest of the west who have used elements of Shari’ah law–such as judges who have excused Muslims engaged in wife beating or Sharia patrols. Your idea that it is impossible for Shari’ah law to get a foothold here and hence start forming its own precedents is *quite* mistaken.
CogitoErgoSum says
My question is does he believe that the Koran is the eternal word of Allah and that Allah should be obeyed in every way. If he says yes his nomination should be rejected because it means he will not fight to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States but rather will fight to change the Constitution so that all U.S. citizens are required to submit to Islam. If he answers no and yet insists that he is a Muslim then he is a liar.
Rarely says
LOL. The poor guy just can’t win. I wonder what questions you’d ask a Catholic up for the job.
Hey!! I’ve got an idea…let’s reinstitute the Inquisition. IT will get those muslims to admit what and who they really are. You can be chief inquisitor.
James Lincoln says
Rarely says,
“The poor guy just can’t win.”
That is true, but it’s his own fault for choosing to be a muslim – a follower of a fascist religious/political ideology whose goal is to impose sharia law throughout the world…
don vito says
High five, JL, out of the park
CogitoErgoSum says
So he’s a loser if he answers the question? Yes, I suppose he is. As for the Catholics, I don’t know of any verses in the Bible where Christ instructs his followers to fight all unbelievers until everyone has submiited to being baptized as a Christian (or pays tribute to Christians in order not to be baptized). So I would not ask such a question of a Catholic at a judicial confirmation hearing. No, instead I will ask it of you. Would you like to answer?
GreekEmpress says
As I recall, Dianne Feinstein gave Amy Coney Barrett a pretty rough go—
“The Dogma lives loudly within you—“
If you’re a pro-life Catholic, you’re an anathema.
If you’re Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi, however that’s ok.
CogitoErgoSum says
Greek Empress, yes, it is likely that in the future the questions a Catholic judicial nominee will be asked is do you support a woman’s right to an abortion, do you support gay marriage in your church and do you support the right of a child to choose its own gender and to undergo medical treatment to change or remove any sexual organ a child thinks does not fit its chosen sex. Answering no to any of those questions will be reason for being labeled a bigot and then banned from any type of employment in the U.S. government.
gravenimage says
Rarely, do you *really* want to see Shari’ah law imposed here? Are you going to laugh about that?
Rarely says
There is no reason to believe this appointment will, in any way, be a step in that direction.
gravenimage says
Rarely, any Muslim who takes his faith seriously has to work to impose Shari’ah law, which is considered to be devinely inspired. So you are saying that we have to assume that he does not take his religion seriously. Quite an “ask”…
Tom says
The questions to be asked is what did his military service involve, was it in the rear as as a military lawyer, or on the front lines fighting Muslim insurgents and possibly killing them, and if he was fighting and killing Muslims were they Sunni or Shia, and which branch of Islam does he revere as a Muslim, and is he devout.
Knowing the answer to these questions will give an insight into where his loyalties lay.
Rarely says
Only the application of a very wide paint brush to all muslims would justify assuming this man is anything other than a loyal American. Has he done or said anything to put that in doubt?
The word “prejudice” can be broken down to its components – “pre-” and “judge”. It means “prejudging”.
CogitoErgoSum says
Does what the Koran says have any bearing on the man’s religion?
CogitoErgoSum says
And does a man’s religion have any bearing on the way he conducts his life and the decisions he makes in life?
James Lincoln says
Rarely,
A muslim is a follower of a fascist religious/political ideology whose goal is to impose sharia law throughout the world.
So a *devout* muslim would favor sharia law over the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, that person would *not* be a loyal American.
If a muslim does *not* favor sharia law over the U.S. Constitution, that particular muslim would *not* be a devout muslim- and could be considered to be an apostate.
gravenimage says
Exactly–this is like Rarely taking umbrage at our questioning whether a member of the Nazi Party might be a good judge.
Infidel says
If in the UK, the use of the term ‘Asian’ as a euphamism for ‘muslim’ is aggravating enough, so is the use of the term ‘South Asian’ above, as though Indian advocacy groups would conduct a campaign like the one above. Yeah, there are Indian-American Leftists (such as Preet Bharara or Pramilla Jayapal or Neera Tanden), but for them, it’s Leftism über alles: the ‘Indian’ aspect of them is irrelevant.
When I read the headline, I thought that it was some hapless GOP senator who asked the question. Congratulations to Dick Durbin, infamous for all his Abu Ghraib bellyaching, for asking this question of the nominee. If Amy Coney Barrett or Brett Kavanaugh could be asked personal religious questions, so can Qureishi
GreekEmpress says
+1
That was the most surprising thing to me—that Durbin was the one that asked the question.
somehistory says
Agreed.
somehistory says
Kind of like asking a guy who proclaims, “Everything I say is a lie” Is that a true statement?
mozlums lie to protect, and to spread islam. If it is his desire to be a judge so he can do those things, then he is not going to help the senators find out his true motives.
He may not be devout…but he can’t allow the mozlums to know that. He may be devout to the point of scheming to rule in the way of mozlums in mozlum majority nations, but he can’t let the senators know that.
Infidel says
Somehistory
Reminds me of a riddle I once read as a kid, where you have a tourist on an island w/ 2 tribes. One of the tribes is sworn to be truthful no matter what, and the other is sworn to lie, no matter what. The tourist wants to find his way to a landmark, and meets somebody who could be from either of the tribes. He wants to know whether the road to his right is the correct one to the landmark. What is the question he should ask the tribesman so that the native is forced to give him the correct answer?
somehistory says
I remember the riddle, but not the answer.
Infidel says
He is allowed only ONE question. Here it is: “If I were to ask you whether this direction is the direction to the landmark, would you say yes?”
For the truthful tribesman, it wouldn’t be an issue. For the liar though, a direct question of whether it was the direction or not would have invited a lie, but the way this question was put, if the liar told him that he’d be lying about the direction, that would actually be true, and a violation of his oath. So a double-negative would force him to disclose whether it’s the correct direction or not
gravenimage says
Controversy erupts as Senator asks first Muslim nominee for federal judgeship about Sharia
……………………
Kudos to Dick Durban for asking this question.
And yes–Zahid Quraishi was almost certainly lying when he says he knows nothign about it. Ham-fisted Taqiyya.
Note that other Muslims are enraged–because they *want* to see Shari’ah law imposed.
Salam Al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said:
“It is used as a religious litmus test against us, and it’s unconstitutional,” he said. “It’s as if we have to prove we’re not that Muslim.”
How is trying to ensure that Muslims won’t try to impiose the unconstitutional horrors of Shari’ah law unconstitutional?
Dan Silvan says
Naturally, Quraishi is lying. It is allowed in the koran to lie to non-muslims. Deception is encouraged during times of war, and islam is at war with the West, and seemingly the entire world. For Quraishi to claim he knows nothing about sharia is a blatant lie. That alone should disqualify him from further consideration, and perhaps be enough for formal charges for lying and impact his standing as a judge. If he ever attended a mosque, then he knows about sharia. I have never attended a mosque in my life and I know the basics of sharia law.
OLD GUY says
A person who follows sharia law should not and can not be allowed to hold public office in America. That person will not follow the civil laws of our country, but will impose their sharia/islamic beliefs in its place. The more we the American people allow these islamic followers onto our country and political system the greater danger we face to our freedom.
ROBERT CARRILLO says
And, the answer is???
Great question..
And the Saudi’s finally admit that THEY are GOVERNED by the Constitution in the Koran.. ..GOVERNED!
Thus, it is not a religion at all, the manufactured moniker ‘of peace’ not withstanding.. It is a 1,400 year old plus, barbaric political movement and wrecking machine. And it has been, and always will be all about subjugation, absolute control, absolute conquest, and most definitely, absolute submission to IT, or else..
‘Trojan Horse’ is right..
I live – at least for a short while longer, in Minnesota.. After almost 50 years here, I do not recognize this place.. Not even close..
Can you say, Ilhan Omar, MN attorney General Keith (aka’s: ‘X’ – ‘Hakim’ – ‘Mohamad’) Ellison, and CAIR-MN’s Jaylani Hussein (Council on Anti-American Insulting Regime)?
OUR nation is under assault! OUR State of Minnesota is done for..