Hamtramck City Council Now Majority Muslim

[Lowell]

I caught notice of this landmark event on WDET this morning. Following Tuesday's election 4 of the 6 council members are of the Muslim faith. It was also noted that the population of Hamtramck has tipped to majority Muslim.

I don't find this surprising. In fact it is just another chapter in Hamtramck's storied history of receiving and assimilating immigrant populations.

The move to Muslim majority has been fed by Bosnians from the Balkan wars of the 90's, the movement of Bengalis from Brooklyn, and an influx of Yemeni's.

The result is a Hamtramck as vibrant and colorful as ever.

Time for the band The Polish Muslims to revive?

[Hypestyles]

Hopefully this won’t be spun in certain social circles as “Sharia law comes to the Heartland” or something along those lines. There was already that nutty feature recently on Fox/The O'Reilly Factor.

[Danny]

Welcome to Hamtramckstan!

[detroitsgwenivere]

I attended a few neighborhood meetings while doing some work in Hamtramck a few years back. Racially mixed crowds with elderly and children. People got along fine, and most of the Muslim folks present were of the Americanized sort [[or still working on it). They were discussing neighborhood patrols, economic development, and youth programs.

I want to believe that it will remain this way. Regardless of a few immigrants who continue to view politics through the lens of the countries they left behind.

I did meet a small group during the last election, however, that openly discussed making it illegal to sell alcohol within the city limits. They are of the same ilk that are talking about showing the Polish what time it is now that the Muslims hold the majority.

Lets keep an eye on these folks, and not paint everyone with a broad a brush.

[Honky Tonk]

I did meet a small group during the last election, however, that openly discussed making it illegal to sell alcohol within the city limits. They are of the same ilk that are talking about showing the Polish what time it is now that the Muslims hold the majority.

And so it begins.

[Dan Wesson]

And so it begins.

Resistance is Futile...

[Pam]

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/h...uncil/36260616

"My concern is to give the people, everybody, equal opportunity and be fair for everybody," said Musa.

"We are going to represent everybody. We are going to serve everybody, Christians, Jewish, Muslims, everybody," said Almasmari.

[Danny]

Hamtramck can than the GM Hamtramck Assembly plant built in 1980 for saving that small town, the luring of eastern Europeans, Middle Easterners and East Indians. The plant doomed Poletown and wipe out Detroit's lower east side, but it saved small town from becoming like Highland Park. Without the plant, Hamtramck will absolutely die. There is however surrounding industry at the Detroit-Hamtramck border, but they're too old and can't retool to modern industry levels. So most of them closed and or being into lofts and bazaars.

[gazhekwe]

It is interesting how banning alcohol sales is seen by some as Sharia law. There are whole counties in Kentucky and Texas [[to name just two that I have actually traveled through) which are dry. No booze. In Marshall, Texas, you can only order beer and wine in a restaurant if you join a private club for an extra ten dollars. Yet if you accused any of these fine people of enacting Sharia Law, you would likely be shown the door in a very unfriendly way.

[SDCC]

It is interesting how banning alcohol sales is seen by some as Sharia law. There are whole counties in Kentucky and Texas [[to name just two that I have actually traveled through) which are dry. No booze. In Marshall, Texas, you can only order beer and wine in a restaurant if you join a private club for an extra ten dollars. Yet if you accused any of these fine people of enacting Sharia Law, you would likely be shown the door in a very unfriendly way.

Jack Daniels [[Tennessee) home county of Moore is a dry county, so no Tennessee Tea is available for sipping in stores or restaurants within the county.

“While federal prohibition ended in 1933 with the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, state prohibition laws remain in effect. All Tennessee counties are dry by default, though any county can become "wet" by passing a county-wide "local option" referendum. Moore County has yet to pass such a referendum”.

Wikipedia

[coracle]

It is interesting how banning alcohol sales is seen by some as Sharia law. There are whole counties in Kentucky and Texas [[to name just two that I have actually traveled through) which are dry. No booze. In Marshall, Texas, you can only order beer and wine in a restaurant if you join a private club for an extra ten dollars. Yet if you accused any of these fine people of enacting Sharia Law, you would likely be shown the door in a very unfriendly way.

It isn't interesting. Your equivalency with Marshall Texas is irrelevant and is the type of dangerous bogus argument that allows undesirable rules gradually to gain acceptance. BANNING alcohol in a majority muslim city is directly associated with sharia and should itself be BANNED. We don't want any part of sharia in our country. If they want to live under sharia law let them go and live in a sharia country not bring it here. Watch Europe and see it go down the tubes.

[Richard]

Jack Daniels [[Tennessee) home county of Moore is a dry county, so no Tennessee Tea is available for sipping in stores or restaurants within the county.

“While federal prohibition ended in 1933 with the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, state prohibition laws remain in effect. All Tennessee counties are dry by default, though any county can become "wet" by passing a county-wide "local option" referendum. Moore County has yet to pass such a referendum”.

Wikipedia

But yet you can buy some of the best shine in the country so who's end game does a dry county serve.

In the early 80s Orlando was a no liquor sales on Sunday city,but yet it was less then a 10 minute drive to the county border and plenty of stores willing to sell,all they were really accomplishing was to throttle their own bars and restaurants and losing that revenue.

Maybe it works with a small town out in the middle of nowhere but if somebody wants a cold beer or a sip they are going to find it.

Mormon dominated cities follow Mormon rules if it applies to you or not.

[Bham1982]

It was also noted that the population of Hamtramck has tipped to majority Muslim.

Given that the U.S. Census doesn't record religion, I would like to know how anyone would know a city's exact religious breakdown.

Hamtramck, unfortunately, is no longer Kowalski-land. The Poles have all left, and poor immigrants have filled some of the void in the northern reaches of town. The southern reaches of town have creeping abandonment, though still better than adjacent areas of Detroit.

They should probably move the Polish Day parade to Shelby Twp or Macomb Twp. That's the real Little Polonia these days.

[Bham1982]

It is interesting how banning alcohol sales is seen by some as Sharia law. There are whole counties in Kentucky and Texas [[to name just two that I have actually traveled through) which are dry. No booze. In Marshall, Texas, you can only order beer and wine in a restaurant if you join a private club for an extra ten dollars. Yet if you accused any of these fine people of enacting Sharia Law, you would likely be shown the door in a very unfriendly way.

There's a huge difference between not changing a century-old law, and actively enacting a new law that bans the same behavior.

There are still parts of the U.S. with zoning laws and covenants outlawing nonwhites. They would never hold up in court but they exist. That's very different than some community trying to pass a law in 2015 banning certain races from buying homes. In much of the country, certain commonly practiced "marital" acts are still forbidden but if you tried to do that now it would be batshit crazy.

Also, almost all the dry counties in the U.S are rural backwaters who don't want to police bars and the like. It would be very odd to have an urban city "dry", especially one with many bars, and in the middle of a major metropolitan area.

[canuck]

It is interesting how banning alcohol sales is seen by some as Sharia law. There are whole counties in Kentucky and Texas [[to name just two that I have actually traveled through) which are dry. No booze. In Marshall, Texas, you can only order beer and wine in a restaurant if you join a private club for an extra ten dollars. Yet if you accused any of these fine people of enacting Sharia Law, you would likely be shown the door in a very unfriendly way.

Interesting, I didn't know that. In Canada, I think only Native communities have enacted laws to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the population. In Montreal, restrictions are on a municipal level where posh cities like Westmount and Outremont [[now an after merger borough) ban bars from operating. Restaurants are not restricted and liquor stores keep going. I think that on an individual basis, if a Muslim shop owner like the one around the corner here decides to be truly kosher, his decision is OK. If a city were to ban alcohol altogether, it would smack of holy imposition. I doubt that Hamtramckers are going to swallow that soon.

[Wesley Mouch]

I would hope the US has educated its new citizens in our traditions. We can be multi-cultural and also be respectful of the legacy left us by dead white males wherein we do not allow tyranny of the majority. We are ruled not just by what's popular today, but also by our constitution. Why? Because DWMs realized that popular votes on everything is a bad idea. The not-at-all one-man/one-vote Senate exists for a reason. So does the Electoral College. And so to does our legal system where gay marriage or the right to not support the killing of unborn children through mandated health insurance isn't decided by the voters, but by judges. Democracy isn't just mob rule.

We have cities 'nullifying' federal laws on topics such as immigration by declaring themselves sanctuary cities. Why should Hamtramck not declare itself to be a 'Sharia Law' city? Because we respect minority opinions. And we expect newcomers to join us in respect for our traditions.

[EastsideAl]

Isn't Oak Park still dry? East Lansing was dry into the '70s. Hell, all of Oakland County was dry for years after prohibition was repealed. Why do you think the Last Chance Bar, on the Detroit side of the 8 Mile-Woodward intersection, had that name?

I'm against prohibition altogether, and I doubt it will really come to pass in Hamtramck, but I have to say that I find it curious that alcohol prohibition laws passed to "protect" Christian values are apparently "traditional" and OK with some people, while alcohol prohibition laws that "protect" Muslim values are a horrifying un-American imposition of "Sharia law". Even when the community in question is majority Muslim and such a law [[which is permitted by the 21st Amendment and Michigan law) would presumably be passed through the normal American democratic process.

[canuck]

I would hope the US has educated its new citizens in our traditions. We can be multi-cultural and also be respectful of the legacy left us by dead white males wherein we do not allow tyranny of the majority. We are ruled not just by what's popular today, but also by our constitution. Why? Because DWMs realized that popular votes on everything is a bad idea. The not-at-all one-man/one-vote Senate exists for a reason. So does the Electoral College. And so to does our legal system where gay marriage or the right to not support the killing of unborn children through mandated health insurance isn't decided by the voters, but by judges. Democracy isn't just mob rule.

We have cities 'nullifying' federal laws on topics such as immigration by declaring themselves sanctuary cities. Why should Hamtramck not declare itself to be a 'Sharia Law' city? Because we respect minority opinions. And we expect newcomers to join us in respect for our traditions.

One of the later controversies in Harper's administration was about disallowing a Muslim woman from pledging alllegiance in a citizenship ceremony while wearing a full face covering. The idea of multicultural accomodation was disputed in Quebec a couple of years ago in a commission that shone light on both bigotry and nonsensical accomodations in society for minority rights. Quebec was bashed for its anti-other stance by the Toronto press while the rest of Canada was deemed above such pettiness in matters of discrimination. Quebec wanted to follow France'S suit in curbing the wearing the veil in the public realm. France passed a law a number of years ago forbidding schoolgirls from entering school with veils, niqab, hijab, etc...
The Quebec strategy was geared to adults in the public realm exclusively government workers dealing with the public. It was a dumb bill and didn't pass.
The premise of the law was that nobody could waer outward displays of faith when dealing with the public in government. Of course it was a disguised attempt to remove muslims from public function.

The good that came out of this messy situation was that it allowed a discussion on matters of religion and discrimination in the workplace, and about women's rights to display their allegiances. Again, women pay a higher price because they are more outwardly beholdened to their religious or customary beliefs in Islam.

Then, Harper's debacle shone a light on the really creepy problem of accomodating medieval subjects to pledge allegiance to Canada's most gracious Queen with fullface cover and not have to reveal their identity except to a female agent before a ceremony. I am surrounded by veiled women in my neighborhood and city. I never had a problem dealing with any one of them. I do think that this false ideal of modesty is silly, but I hate to tell anyone they can't wear a hijab, or a tattoo. I do however find the niqab and other integral covers unconscionable, and I do find it insulting to the women who have gained autonomy from male dominance in this culture. I do believe that through positive friction, or interaction; fundamentalists and other muslim women will choose to rid themselves of these chains. I only know I won't be telling them what to do.

[EastsideAl]

I would hope the US has educated its new citizens in our traditions. We can be multi-cultural and also be respectful of the legacy left us by dead white males wherein we do not allow tyranny of the majority. We are ruled not just by what's popular today, but also by our constitution. Why? Because DWMs realized that popular votes on everything is a bad idea. The not-at-all one-man/one-vote Senate exists for a reason. So does the Electoral College. And so to does our legal system where gay marriage or the right to not support the killing of unborn children through mandated health insurance isn't decided by the voters, but by judges. Democracy isn't just mob rule.

We have cities 'nullifying' federal laws on topics such as immigration by declaring themselves sanctuary cities. Why should Hamtramck not declare itself to be a 'Sharia Law' city? Because we respect minority opinions. And we expect newcomers to join us in respect for our traditions.

State control of liquor laws is expressly permitted under the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, and Michigan law allows local municipalities to determine whether or not they will permit alcohol sales within their borders, and the manner in which alcohol can and cannot be sold and consumed.

[Cliffy]

State control of liquor laws is expressly permitted under the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, and Michigan law allows local municipalities to determine whether or not they will permit alcohol sales within their borders, and the manner in which alcohol can and cannot be sold and consumed.

But don't you think banning alcohol sales in a city that already has alcohol sales in 2015 is going backwards... Anyway, there is no way Hamtramck will ban liquor sales because just like Dearborn, a lot of these owners are Muslim.

[EastsideAl]

Of course I think it's going backwards. Way, way backwards. And I would be adamantly against it myself. But I'm not a resident of Hamtramck and I also don't think that passing a constitutionally-permitted law via the processes of representative democracy in response to the wishes of local residents is some sort of horrifying threat to the republic.

[gazhekwe]

Bham, as usual you are going along picking at straws. Those dry laws were enacted for the exact same reason, religious zealotry wanting to enforce its beliefs on everyone. The results are exactly the same. Those laws may be able to be challenged, but the population supports them, exactly as would be the case should such a law pass in Hamtramck, for exactly the same reason, religious zealotry trying to enforce its beliefs on everyone. There is no difference.

[canuck]

Bham, as usual you are going along picking at straws. Those dry laws were enacted for the exact same reason, religious zealotry wanting to enforce its beliefs on everyone. The results are exactly the same. Those laws may be able to be challenged, but the population supports them, exactly as would be the case should such a law pass in Hamtramck, for exactly the same reason, religious zealotry trying to enforce its beliefs on everyone. There is no difference.

Yes, and that is why I say, if an individual owner of a grocery superette whatever sells no liquor because of his beliefs, then all the power to him, you can always pick another business to frequent. There is a guy around the corner from where I live that does just that and caters to his muslim customers and whoever else comes in, his store is well stocked, well-kept and he was brought up despising alcohol, so he doesn't sell it; fine.

But a city council or county banning the sale of alcohol is nutty.

Anyways, I always believed those who had the teetotalling bug were probably some of the worst abusers, much like the sexually repressed in politics and preaching. There was a famous Canadian Prime Minister, Thomas D'arcy McGee who ran on a platform that promised to curb alcohol consumption and he himself was a notorious alcoholic.

[Wesley Mouch]

One of the later controversies in Harper's administration was about disallowing a Muslim woman from pledging alllegiance in a citizenship ceremony while wearing a full face covering. ...snip... I do believe that through positive friction, or interaction; fundamentalists and other muslim women will choose to rid themselves of these chains. I only know I won't be telling them what to do.

I think most reasonable people will agree that it should be OK to wear a niqab during a citizenship ceremony, so long as the individual privately identifies themselves. I follow Canadian politics a bit, and think this was simply pandering by Harper.

I believe we should be open and accepting to other cultures -- but that there are limits. Sikh RCMP officers wearing turbans? I don't have a problem. Doesn't seem to interfere with ability to be a police officer. Wearing a face-obscuring item? I see some practical problems.

Judge Paruk [[I think it was) ruled a few year ago that you had to expose your face in his courtroom in Hamtramck -- so that jurors could use your facial expressions to help determine if your testimony should be believed. That also makes sense to me. Thus, I don't think niqub wearing is an absolute right just because its a religious right.

But the biggest issue I have with the niqab is that its use is oppressive to women. Sure, there are women who like it. But overall, don't you think its a bit oppressive to require women to hide their faces? Its also relevant that there are many cases of abusive and controlling men in Middle Eastern communities -- more than the population at large? I think that's true. But maybe not. Regardless, by condoning the niqab in our society, we're allowing a rather oppressive expression of the Muslim religion into our society. We might consider this progressive, but shouldn't we also be standing up for woman's rights? Can women really agree voluntarily when the patriarchy in these societies is so strong and entrenched?

[Hamtragedy]

It isn't interesting. Your equivalency with Marshall Texas is irrelevant and is the type of dangerous bogus argument that allows undesirable rules gradually to gain acceptance. BANNING alcohol in a majority muslim city is directly associated with sharia and should itself be BANNED. We don't want any part of sharia in our country. If they want to live under sharia law let them go and live in a sharia country not bring it here. Watch Europe and see it go down the tubes.

This is some funny $hirt right here.

Stepped foot into Hamtown lately? South of 8 Mile even? Any idea who's selling the booze? Been in any of those bars? Ever met a Muslim? Ever talked to one? Ever met one in a Hamtramck bar? My guess is no no no no no. Enjoy your paranoia.