Newsletter #58 – Remziya Suleyman: politics over principles

 

The more rocks turned over, the more that is revealed about Remziya Suleyman, Director of the American Center for Outreach (ACO), the lobbying arm of the Tennessee American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC).

One thing Tennesseans (conservatives especially), need to understand if they don’t already, is that Suleyman and those with whom she seeks alliances, are willing to set aside principles, religious or otherwise, to achieve political objectives.

Untitled1

Having fashioned herself into the Islamic Joan of Arc, Ms. Suleyman is a contradiction in terms.  She adheres to the alleged Islamic prescription of modesty by covering her head with a hijab but claims to know nothing about something called “sharia”.  She lectures to college students, inviting questions about “Islam and its practices”, yet says she knew nothing about the Islamic law that governs it until she called some Tennessee imams.

“I know, every day, as a Muslim, as a woman, and as an immigrant, people will look at me differently. When I go out wearing my hijab I know there will be stares and comments.”

Actually, very few people care about Ms. Suleyman’s hijab, which she says she began wearing in 2008, coincidentally right before she began lobbying Tennessee legislators.  A 2007 op-ed  written by leaders of the Muslim Canadian Congress asserts that the “hijab has nothing to do with morality” but has become a tool for both political and religious operatives.

Ms. Suleyman clings to an immigrant identity despite having grown up in Nashville since before she started elementary school.  She prefers to retain an outsider’s persona and identifies herself as a Muslim feminist governed by Islamic law that gives her more rights than Muslim men – a claim contradicted by all the writings of the very doctrine and the practices that govern these relationships.  The Bulletin of the Oppression of Women would be a good place for Ms. Suleyman to start to learn about the real status of women under Islam and to understand that it is the freedom of living as a woman in the United States that enables her to claim the veil of feminism.  Newsletter #51 provides one example of a woman’s rights under a country’s sharia-based discriminatory family code.

Suleyman’s Tennessee allies abuse the interfaith umbrella

Just two days ago, the director of the Workers Interfaith Network (WIN), Methodist minister Rev. Rebekah Jordan Gienapp abruptly stepped down from that position. The new interim director of the WIN is also a TIRRC (TN Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition) board member.  WIN’s offices are located at the same address as the Memphis AFL-CIO Labor Council.

Organized labor, the Methodist church and Tennessee’s Muslim Brotherhood Islamists all under the interfaith umbrella.  Now Mohammed Elibiary’s comment made during the ISPU panel which included Ms. Suleyman, makes perfect sense.  He said, we “aggregate and then collectively bargain.”  It’s the same labor union model used by TIRRC except that they are propped up with public funding and government support.

The wounded martyr – a useful political narrative

“Suleyman says that when she needs to recharge her batteries, ‘I look at my nieces. I don’t want them to go through what I’ve gone through.’ She doesn’t think her nieces will. ‘I think we’ll look back on the racist rhetoric and these actions [by legislators] and say, ‘I can’t believe this happened.’”

Racist rhetoric – almost sounds convincing except for the lack of evidence.  In fact, it is just the opposite but to admit otherwise would not fit Ms. Suleyman’s narrative of the moment.  As the facts have continued to prove her slogans and political positions unsupportable, she has had to shift her narrative.  The AP says Islamaphobia is out, so Ms. Suleyman’s newly divined emphasis on the interfaith model is in.

She claims to fight for the religious rights of Muslims in Tennessee and along with that equality and justice for everyone.  Except of course for those that disagree with her.

She also claims to fight for human rights.  But as an observant Muslim she is referring to the  sharia-centric Cairo Declaration of Human Rights [1](CDHR) and not the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which the U.S. signed onto.

She is disingenuous about her doctrine, distorts the truth about events in Tennessee, and willfully abandons her religious principles in favor of political objectives. How can the public or legislators trust her to tell the truth?


[1] In 1990 the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) countries replaced the UDHR with the Cairo Declaration.  The OIC represents the 56 Islamic countries that have a permanent delegation to the United Nations and constitute the largest single voting bloc.  The OIC and the Muslim Brotherhood are the two leading proponents of global sharia law. Consistent with this end goal any and all rights recognized in the Cairo Declaration are governed by sharia law.  Since 1999 in keeping with the Cairo Declaration the OIC has pushed relentlessly for a sharia-compliant global blasphemy law.

 

 

Advertisements