Professor sued over Islamic terrorism course continues to train, won’t back down

A professor who was sued — and received — over his instructing about Islamic terrorism says he’ll proceed to train the lesson and received’t back down to cancel tradition.

A Muslim pupil together with the Council on American-Islamic Relations of Arizona sued professor Nicholas Damask for a lesson he taught — and a quiz he gave — pertaining to Islamic terrorism as a part of a world politics class in 2020, claiming within the lawsuit the instructing ran afoul of the scholar’s non secular rights.

The ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, although, lately shut down the lawsuit, reasoning the professor had certified immunity, a safety that shields authorities employees from civil legal responsibility.

“This is kind of a win for our civilization. Enough judges have said freedom of speech and academic freedom is important — that’s more important than submitting to someone being offended,” Mr. Damask advised The Washington Times.

“Civilization one, cancel culture zero,” he added.

During the years-long ordeal, Mr. Damask and his household confronted threats after the scholar’s complaints went viral on social media.

He stated that he and his household received’t be intimidated — even when the scholar and CAIR resolve to attraction.

“The alternative is to run and hide and to give in to the intimidation, which is kind of what this is — in part, at least — to get professors or even teachers to just shut up and not talk about this,” he stated. “For me and my family, at least,that’s not viable. You can’t run and hide. You have to stand up to this.”

“I’m going to continue to teach about Islamic terrorism as long as someone like Salman Rushdie are being stabbed to death,” Mr. Damask added, referring to the 75-year-old writer who drew demise threats from Irans’s chief over his novel “The Satanic Verses.”  

The posturing comes after the ninth Circuit dominated Mr. Damask’s classes and quiz about jihad and Islamic terrorism didn’t pressure a Muslim pupil, Mohamad Sabra, to violate his religion.

Mr. Sabra alleged that the lesson and a a number of alternative quiz violated his non secular rights by having him affirm one thing that’s opposite to his religion. A decrease courtroom dominated towards him.

A 3-judge panel dominated 2-1 that the faculty didn’t have a observe or coverage that ran afoul of the Free Exercise or Establishment Clause and that Mr. Damask was protected by certified immunity.

SEE ALSO: Federal courtroom rejects Muslim pupil’s lawsuit over controversial quiz about Islamic terrorism

“Although Plaintiffs allege that Damask has taught his World Politics class for 24 years, they do not allege that the course in other years contained the same content that offended Sabra, or that Damask’s views or teaching methods are so persistent and widespread as to constitute part of the College District’s ‘standard operating procedure,’” the appeals courtroom dominated.

Mr. Sabra stated the lesson was “biased” and “distorted” Islam.

One of the a number of alternative questions with which he took difficulty was “Where is terrorism encouraged in Islamic doctrine and law?” The appropriate answer was “the Medina verses,” however Mr. Sabra chosen “terrorism is not encouraged in Islamic doctrine and law.”

Another question: “Terrorism is ____ in Islam.” Mr. Sabra answered “always forbidden,” however the appropriate answer was “justified within the context of jihad.”

The three-judge panel stated the quiz wasn’t sufficient to violate his non secular rights.

“We have never held that actions like the ones challenged in this case constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause or Free Exercise clause. Nor is this the exceptional case where the alleged constitutional violation is so obvious as to obviate the need for a case on point,” wrote Judge Richard Clifton, a Bush appointee.

CAIR didn’t remark about whether or not it’s planning to attraction the panel’s determination.

Back to top button