Radicalized Islam

“Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the
Constitution”1
INTRODUCTION
On September 11, 2001 the United States experienced the worst attack on American soil,
since World War II. Once it was discovered that the attacks were acts of terror and Al-Qaida was
behind them, the Government quickly moved for policies and regulations such as the patriot act,
that would prevent such attacks from ever happening again.2 Although these regulations were
created to prevent terrorism, it soon became clear that they were targeting American Muslims3.
After the attacks, many Muslims began to face harassment of all kinds. From verbal harassment
to hate crimes to being singled out by TSA, Muslims all across the nation were targeted because
of their religion.4 A fear of terrorism, coupled with a religion not understood by many,
Americans began to link Islam with terrorison, thus creating more discrimination against
American Muslims.5 Although most of the fear and discrimination occurred within society, a
substantial amount of fear and targeting occurred within the Unite States Prison Systems. A fear
of the spread of radicalized beliefs became a major issue within Prisons all across the country
shortly after 9/11 when the beliefs of a Prison chaplain began to surface.6
1 Turner v. Shafley, 107 U.S 2254, 2259 (S. Ct. 1987)
2
Jason Villemez, 9/11 to now: Ways we have changed, PBS(September 14, 2011 at 4:55 PM EST)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/911-to-now-ways-we-have-changed/)
3
Villemez, supra note 2
4
Villemez, supra note 2
5
Id.
6
PaulM. Barrett,How a Muslim Chaplain Spread Extremism to an Inmate Flock, Wall Street Journal
(February 5, 2003, 12:01 AM ET), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1044395093714681453Isis:
Homegrown terror.

Warith Deen Umar, was a prison chaplain who worked for over twenty years with the
Islamic program within New York’s Prison system.7 For twenty years Umar not only ministered
to thousands of inmates, but trained and recruited dozens of chaplains to aid in the Islamic
program.8 After September 11, Umar shared his views on the attacks and the men behind them
and stated that the hijackers, should be honored as martyrs and that the United States risked
terrorism because it oppressed Muslims.9 He went on to state that, “Even Muslims who say they
are against terrorism secretly admire and applaud the hijackers.”10 These statements coupled with
the fear of terrorism led quickly to a new issue that faced the nation: fighting radicalized Islam
within prison facilities. Throughout the country Prisons began implementing policies they
believed would prevent radical Islam, while also protecting the safety of inmates and prison
officials. The policies and regulations implemented were created for the purpose of preventing
the spread of radical Islam, however they only caused more difficulties for those practicing a
religion that has long been discrimnated against.
Prison environments coupled with the fear of terrorism created after 9/11, have led
many prison officials to create policies that would prevent this growth of radical Islam or
"Prison Islam." Many policies, such as those that pertain to Chaplains and the
requirements they must meet, were designed to prevent the ideals of radical Islam from
reaching prisoners. Although many policies have been struck down by the courts as being
unconstitutional and a violation of Prisoners First Amendment right, I believe that the
policies regarding Chaplains do not violate RLUIPA and do not infringe upon the
7
Barret, supra note 6
8
9
10
supra

prisoners free exercise rights based on the arguments set forth in this note. In this note I
am also taking the position that PrisonIslam is not as prevalent as many officials hold it
to be and that Islam can actually be beneficial to those searching for hope while in Prison.
EXPLAIN WHAT YOU WILL TALK ABOUT
I HISTORY AND RELEVANT LAW
During the 1960’s Muslims, in many prisons, did not have access to Islamic services.11 In
many instances, Islam was not a recognized religion within institutions until a decision was
handed down by the Supreme Court in Fulwood v. Clemmer.12 William T.X. Fulwood, a
member of the Nation of Islam, was imprisoned in the Lorton Reformatory when he, along with
several other inmates, complained that they had suffered religious discrimination.13 On several
occasions, Fulwood, had requested the permission of prison officials to hold Islamic services, but
was denied for a number of reasons.14 The Department of Corrections stated that Fulwood and
others were denied these requests because the Muslim groups within the prisons, promoted racial
hatred and therefore could lead to major security issues. 15 Before the Supreme Court, Fulwood
claimed that his religious beliefs were infringed upon and that he was being punished solely
because of his religious beliefs.16 The Court held that allowing some religious groups to hold
religious services, while denying that right to another of the other faith was a violation of orders
11 Marie Dallam, Fulwood v. Clemmer, Encyclopedia of Muslim-American History (November 28, 2015)
http://www.fofweb.com/History/MainPrintPage.asp?iPin=EMAH0105&DataType=AmericanHistory&Wi
nType=Free
12
Dallam, supra note 11
13
Dallam, supra note 11
14
Fulwood v. Clemmer, 206 F. Supp. 370 (D.C Cir. 1962)
15
Marie Dallam, Fulwood v. Clemmer, Encyclopedia of Muslim-American History (November 28, 2015)
http://www.fofweb.com/History/MainPrintPage.asp?iPin=EMAH0105&DataType=AmericanHistory&Wi
nType=Free
16
Fulwood, 206 F. Supp at 370

to make facilities available without regard to race or religion.17 The Court also held that the
Muslim faith was a religion within the constitutional provisions as to the freedom of religion,
therefore setting the platform of Constitutional protections for Muslims within prison facilities.18
A year after the Fulwood decision was handed down, the Supreme Court was once again
asked to decide on another free exercise case; a case which would set the standard of review in
all religious based cases. In Sherbert v. Verner the Court held that a strict standard of review
would be used in cases of free excercise19 In Sherbert the petitioner was denied unemployment
compensation, because she could not work on Saturdays because of her religious beliefs.20 The
Court held that this was a violation of her right to free exercise of religion, because it had put
pressure on her to decide between employment or her religion.21 Through Sherbert, the Court
held that the Government was now required to demonstrate a compelling interest and use the
least restrictive means to justify even an incidental or indirect burden.22
Although this was the new standard for religious exercise cases, it was not applied across
the board. In Turner v. Safley, petitioners, who were inmates in the Missouri Prison System,
brought an action against the facility because it had restricted marriages between inmates and
between inmates and civilians23 The court, using a rational basis standard, gave great deference
to prison administrators and stated several important factors used to ascertain the resonablness of
17 Id. at 374
18
Id. at 373
19
Sherbert v. Verner,83 U.S. 1790 (S. Ct. 1963)
20
Id.
21
John W. Popeo, Combating Radical Islam in Prisons Within the Legal Dictates of the Free Exercise
Clause, 32 New Eng. J. on Crim. And Civ. Confinement 135, 142 (2006)
22
Popeo, supra note 21
23
Turner v. Safley, 107 U.S 2254 (S. Ct. 1987)

prison officials actions.24The factors included a valid rational connection between the prison
regulation and the legitimate governmental interest, whether or not there was another way for
inmates to exercise their religion, the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right
on guards and other inmates, and the absece of ready alternatives is evidence of the
reasonableness of a prison regulation.25 According to the Court, Prison officials were in a better
position to decide what was best for the facilities in regards to security and as long as inmates
had other ways of excercison their religion, the Court was not going to strike down the policies.26
In the same year the Turner decision was handed down, a case involving Muslim inmates
was also brought before the Supreme Court. In O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, Muslim inmates
brought an action against New Jersey Prison officials arguing that they prevented the inmates
from attending Jumu’ah, a Muslim congregational service held on Fridays, because it interfered
with work schedules.27 The Court, as it did in Turner, applied a rationality standard of review
and gave deference to prison authorities28 The Court held that heightened scrutiny would not be
used when regulations effectively prohibit rather than simply limit particular exercise of
consititutional rights. 29 The Court went on to hold that the presence or absence of alternative
accomodations of inmates rights is a properly considered factor in reasonableness analysis rather
than basis for heightened scrutiny.30 Since inmates had access to other forms of religious
ceremonies, the Court was able to justify the prison policies that prevented the inmates from
24
25
Turner, 107 U.S at 2262
26
Popeo, supra note 24, at 143
27
O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 107 U.S. 2400, 2401 (S. Ct. 1987)
28
Id. at 2401
29
O’Lone, 107 U.S. at 2404
30
Id.

attending Jumu’ah. Applying the decision in Turner, the Court upheld the regulations, finding
that they did not violate the inmates free exercise rights under the First Amendment because they
were related to a legitimate penological objective.31
By 1990 the Supreme Court had reinterpreted the Sherbert strict scrutiny standard in free
exercise cases in Employment Divison, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith.32
In Smith the Court held that a law that is facially neutral and of general applicability does not
need to be justified by a compelling Governmental interest.33 Unsatisfied with this standard,
Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which once again held the
Government to the Sherbert Strict Scrutiny standard in religious exercise cases.34 Although strict
scrutiny was revived through this act in free excercises cases, it was not applied to cases
involving inmates in prison facilities until City of Boerne v. Flores was argued before the
Supreme Court.35 In Flores, petitioners brought an action against the city because a local zoning
authority denied a permit for a Catholic Church through an ordinance of Historic preservation.36
In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, Congress imposed the strict scrutiny standard of review
on state and local laws burdening religious liberty through zoning laws and prison policies
through the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).37
31
32
Popeo, supra note 31, at 144
33
Popeo, supra note 31
34
42 U.S.C.A §2000bb-1 (West. Supp. 2015)
35
City Of Boerne v. Flores, 117 U.S. 2157 (S. Ct. 1997)
36
Id.
37
42 U.S.C.A §2000cc-1 (West. Supp. 2015)

Once RLUIPA was enacted, many cases began filtering through the court systems, as
prisoners, especially Muslims, began using the act to bring claims against prison officials for
infringing upon their free exercise rights. One such action was the Supreme Court case of Holt v.
Hobbs, in which the petitioner brought an action under RLUIPA against a prison policy
regulating the length of prisoner beards.38 In order to establish a claim under RLUIPA, the
plaintiff has the initial burden of showing that, one, he seeks to engag in an exercise of religion,
and two, that the challeneged practice substantially birdens that exercise of religion39 However
in order to satisfy the first elelment of the plaintiffs burden, they must show that their request
under RLUIPA is genuinely based on a religious belief.40
Once the plaintiff has satisfied their burden, it shifts to the Goernment, who must show
that there was a compelling reason behind the restriction and that it was the least restrictive
means of achieving that compelling interest41 According to the Court, the least restrictive means
standard is demanding and it requires the Government to show that it lacks other means of
achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by
the objecting party.42 However, even though RLUIPA has set a higher burden for the
Govenrment to meet, it has been held that security is of “particular security” and that the Courts
are to apply due deference to the expertise of prison administrators.43
38 Holt v. Hobbs, 135 U.S. 853 (S. Ct. 2014)
39
Kroger v. Bryan, 523 f.3d 789 (7th
Cir. 2008) see also, Jihad v. Fabian, 680 f. Supp. 2d 1021 (D. Minn.
2010) (Substantial burden exists if the prison policy significantly contrains religious conduct.)
40
Hobbs, 135 U.S. 853 (S. Ct. 1997) see, e.g Ajala v. West, No. 13-cv-546-bbc WL 2062090 (W.D Wis.
May 4, 2015)
41
Holt v. Hobbs, 135 U.S. 853, 863-64 (S. Ct. 2014) (citing Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 134 U.S. 2751,
2780 (S. Ct. 2014))
42
Id. at 864 (citing Hobby Lobby, 134 U.S. at 2780) see generally,e.g Ajala v. West,No. 13-cv-546-bbc
WL 2062090 (W.D Wis. May 4, 2015) (In determining whether a prison policy is the least restrictive
means…the Court must give due deference to the expertise and experience of prison and jail officials)
43
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 125 U.S. 2113 (S. Ct. 2005) see also, Kroger v. Bryan,523 f.3d 789 (7th
Cir 2008)

In Holt, the petitioner was able to prove his burden by showing that he had a sincere
religious belief and that the prisons policy of prohibiting inmates from growing a beard past a
half inch, substantially burdened his religious excercise44 The Government argued that the
petitioner was allowed other means of religious excercises, but the court held that substantial
burden under RLUIPA asks whether the Government has substantially burdened religious
exercise, not whether the claimant was able to engage in other forms of religious exercise.45 The
Government also contended that the compelling interest was prison safety and security and that
the prohibition was the least restrictive means to achieve the interest, because inmates could hide
contraband within their beards.46 Disagreeing with the Governmnt, the Court held that RLUIPA
contemplates a more focused inquiry and requires the Government to demonstrate that the
compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law to the claimant.47
The Court in Hobbs, held that the prison policy of prohibiting inmates to grow beards
beyond a half inch was a violation of the petitioners religious exercise, because it was not the
least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest.48 The Prison allowed for
prisoners with dermatological issues to grow a beard beyond the required length and in order to
check for contraband the prison officials would comb through the inmates beards.49 The Court,
through this fact, held that the policy was clearly a way to burden Muslims and that the least
restrictive means would not be to prohibit beards longer than a half inch, but to comb through
prisoners beards, as they did for those with medical issues.50
44 Hobbs, 135 U.S. at 861
45
Id. at 862 contra, O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 107 U.S. 2400 (S. Ct. 1987)
46
Id. at 863
47
Id. (citing Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 134 U.S. 2751, 2780 (S. Ct. 2014))
48
Id.
49
Id. at 865
50
Id. at 864-66

Since its been enacted, RLUIPA, has been used in many cases by prisoners, to challenge
prison policies they believed infringed upon the free exercise of their religion. Although many
regulations and policies have been challenged, for the purposes of this note, policies specifically
pertaining to Chaplains and inmate led services will be analyzed. According to the Department
of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons specifically relating to all religious services provided in
prisons, prisoners are allowed to recite prayers in their language, however services and sermons
must be given in the English language.51 The Warden may also, periodically, review religious
practices to determine whether they remain within the scope of what is best for the correctional
facility.52And in regard to the supervision of inmates, religious programs led by inmates must
require constant staff supervison.53
In addition to regulations pertaining to religious services, Chaplains ministering to
inmates within the prison system, must also meet certain requirements. In order to become a
Chaplain an individual must be younger than 37 and a citizen of the United States.54In addition
to citizenship requirements, they must have earned a bachelors degree and have two years of full
time pastoral experience in a ministry setting.55 They must also provide three references, sign a
candidate certification and authorization form certifying that they will minister to inamates of
other faiths and recive an endorsement from a national religious organization.56 Aspiring
Chaplains must also go through extensive security screenings that include a review of their
51 28 C.F.R. §548.10 (WestLawNext through Dec. 10, 2015) (FederalBureau of Prisons statement on
Religious beliefs and Practices)
52
supra, note 50
53
supra, note 50
54
U.S. Dept. of Justice. Office of the Inspector General: Review of the Bureau of Prisons’ Selection of
Muslim Services Providers, OIG.gov, https://oig.justice.gov/special/0404/ (last visited December 20,
2015)
55
supra, note 53
56
supra, note 53 (this is difficult because there is no national Islamic Organization like there would be for
the Catholic Church.)

criminal history, drug test and investigations by the U.S investigative services.57 Although
Chaplainis are required to provide documents of their religious role in their religious
communities, the Bureau of Prisons does not look into candidates past sermons or performances
and they do not question Chaplains on their beliefs.
In recent years there have been various cases that have entered the court system by
inmates, challenging some of the regulations pertaining to Chaplains and religions within the
prison system. In Jihad v. Fabian, the petitioner claimed that the prison officials failure to
provide a Muslim Chaplain was a violation of RLUIPA.58 He claimed that this failure let to
inadequate Islamic servides and it was a violation of this first Amendment right.59 The Court
held that the lack of a Muslim chaplain did not rise to the level of substantial burden on Muslim
prisoners ability to practice his religion.60 The court also held that refusal to allow Muslims to
pray outside their cells, was the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling Governmental
interest.61 Although this case does not have binding effect, it reveals the litigation challenging
these policies.
II SECONDARY SOURCES
During the past decade, there has been a growing fear of terrorism within society. This
fear coupled with a fear of homegrown terror has led many to believe that Radicalized Islam, or
“prison Islam” is prevelant in the prison system and should be supervised carefully.62 Reported
57
supra, note 53
58
Jihad, 680 f. Supp.2d at 1021
59
Id.
60
Id. at 1026
61
Id.
62
Facts and Fictions about Islam in Prison: Assessing Prisoner Radicalization in Post 9/11 America,
Institute For Social Policy and Understanding (Jan. 2013)
http://www.ispu.org/pdfs/ISPU_Report_Prison_SpearIt_WEB.pdf

as the fasted growing religion behind bars, approximately eighty percent of those seeking a faith
in Prison convert to Islam.63 Prison is an environment in which hoplessness thrives and many
inmates hit rock bottom with no one to turn to. 64 The deprivation of liberty, goods, services,
sexual realtionshiips and security inspire many hopeless inmates to search for the meaning of a
croorectional environment, which is why many decide to convert. However conversion is quite
distinguishable from radicalization because converts who have started a serious quest for peace
are less susceptible to violent ideologies.65 Many social scientists believe that there is no
relationhip between prisoner conversions to Islam and terrorism because there is little evidence
that prisons are, “factories for terrorism,” and among those that do hold radical views the
overwhelming majority never become involved in religious based violence or terrorism.66 They
also dispute this ideal that conversion and terrorism are related because Muslim Prisoners are at
the heart of prisoner rights movements and are using the legal system to make a difference
instead of violence.67
In a report by the Inspector General it was stated that Muslims, because they lack
supervision, had sufficient opportunities to minister extremist views to prisoners.68 In order to
prevent this situation from occurring, policies such as requiring extensive background and drug
tests for aspiring chaplains, were immediately put into place to prevent religious service
providers from advocating violence.69 Prison officials have appointed chaplains, volunteer and
63 supra, note 62
64
supra, note 62
65
Spearit, Religion as Rehabilitation? Relections on Islam in the Correctional Setting, 34 Whittier Law
Review 29, 38
66
supra
67
supra
68
John W. Popeo, Combating Radical Islam Within The Legal Dictates of the Free Exercise Clause, 32
New Eng. J. on Crim. And Civ. Confinesment 135, 141
69
supra, note 68 at 148-9

contractors, believing that it will reduce the spread of prison Islam. 70 However the challenge
facing officials, is that Islam is unlike other religions because it has several multifarious, but
legitimate sects.71 They must also deal with the disproportionate increase in the number of
prisoners of non-Christian faiths, coupled with the rapid change of prison regulations.72 With so
many established religions in society today, prison officials must deal with religious diversity on
a broader spectrum.73
As a result of the new policies put in place, after 9/11 there was a scarcity of Muslim
Chaplains in prsison and many of the services were being led by inmates.74 This lack of Muslim
Chaplains, has severely harmed the system, because it has put a gap in leadership and many
believe that this had added to the spread of prison islam, because inmates are the ones spreading
violent ideologies.75 Many believe that these circumstances lead to radical agendas, because
prisoner imams live with the inmates twenty four hours a day, compared to a weekly or monthy
visit from outside imams.76 With more inmates leading religious services and these services not
being supervised, as they should be, there has been space for more extreme versions of Islam. 77
Lack of Chaplaincy and inmate led services coupled with this tradition that inmates hold deep
70
supra, note 68 at 140
71
Popeo, supra,note 68 at 147
72
supra
73
supra
74
Facts and Fictions about Islam in Prison: Assessing Prisoner Radicalization in Post 9/11 America,
75
Popeo, supra,note 68 at 138
76 SpearIt, Muslim Radicalization in Prison: Responding with Sound Penal Policy Or The Sound of
The Alarm? 49 Gonz. L. Rev. 37, 60 (2013-2014
77 supra, note 76

animus from their experiences with the criminal justice system, provides a conclusion that prison
Islam could be spread easily within the prison system.78
Although there have been reports of inmates, such as Richard Reid79, who were know to
be radicalized in prison, it has been established through invesitgations and interviews with
friends and family that these inmates adopted their extremist views well after they were released
from prison.80 Reasearch has shown that the number of cases in which a recent inmate was
involved in a terrorist attack is extremely small. 81The Islamic religion has been known to
provide prisoners peace and normativity while incarceratied82 Islam has helped many inmates
lead more productive lifestyles, especially for those trying to escape the gang lifestyle because it
provides them an opportunity to “take a right instead of a wrong” and drop their baggage of hate
and malice.83 As a strictly disciplined religion, Islam teaches inmates abstinence from drugs,
alcohol and cigarettes cigarettes.84 It provides stablility and structure in an inmates life through
communal prayer and Quranic recitation.85 Inmates are able to change their self image and
maintain a positive identity that help them look past “being a criminal.”86
78 supra, note 76
79
Popeo, supra, note 68 at 138 (Reid was convicted of attempting to blow up an American Airines flight
using explosives in his shoe)
80
supra, note 72
81 SpearIt, supra, note 76
82
supra, note 72
83
supra, note 72
84
supra
85
supra
86
supra

III Analysis
Many Prison regulations have been enacted in order to prevent the spread of homegrown
terror in the form of “prison Islam” within the Prison System.87 Policies that have required an
increase in supervision over inmate led religious services and extensive requirements for
Chaplains, are some of the few regulations, recently adopted by the Bureau of Prisons.88
However with the increasing number of religions within society today, including the many facets
of Islam, coupled with the rapid change in prison policies and practices an issue arisies which
questions the constitutionality of these policies in regard to the First Amenmdnet and RLUIPA.
Although there has been some litigation regarding some of the policies enacted by facilities, they
have yet risen to the level to file for a writ of certerorari, or have yet to enter the court system.
Lack of a religious Chaplain, specifically Muslim Chaplains, is an issue that has appeared
in some litigation, but has not become binding law as of yet.89 As stated within this note, in
regard to Jihad v. Fabian, the court held that the lack of a Muslim Chaplain did not rise to the
level of substantial burden on Muslim Prisoners ability to practice his religion.90 It could be
strongly argued that no access to a religious chaplain, in any religion, could be a substantial
burden on an individuals free exercise, because religious leaders are the center point in
congressional services. Prisoners, especially are burdened by this lack of religious leadership
because they are confined to one facility and have little control over the matter, so as a result,
they are often left without a chaplain to lead their religious services. Unfortunatly this lack of
87 Popeo, supra note at 148
88 U.S. Dept. of Justice. Office of the Inspector General: Review of the Bureau of Prisons’ Selection of
2015)
89 Jihad v. Fabian, 680 f.Supp.2d 1021 (D. Minn. 2010)
90 Id. at 1026

religious leaders is not a result of a prohibition by prison officials, but a snowball effect that was
created after the regulations regarding the appointment of chaplains was enacted.91
Increased regulations in the appointment of Chaplains and the requirements they must
abide by, can easily be traced to this lack of Chaplains in the Prison system today and the issue
becomes whether or not these regulations violate a Prisoners free exercise of their religion under
RLUIPA. Extensive back ground checks, drug tests and educational requirments, are just some
of the many conditions, aspiring chaplains must meet in order to work in the Prison system.92
These regulations were created in order to prevent radicalized ideologies from entering the
prison system and influencing the population of inmates. As held in Cutter v. Wilkinson, the
courts, in applying RLUIPA, must give due deference to the experience and expertise of jail
administrators.93 Prison enviroments are of a particular expertise, because of the amount
discipline needed to maintain a stable and safe environment for all those who enter them. Prison
officiasl are in the best position to decide what is best for the facility, therefore, there is a strong
belief that, in regards to regulations of aspiring Chaplains, the Court would give due deference to
Officials and uphold the policies.94
In regard to the lack of Chaplains within the prison system, the Court will most likely
find no substantial burden placed on prisoners, as a result, because facilities are not prohibiting
Chaplains from entering the prisons, there is just a lack in general. Although it could be argued
that this lack is the result of prison policies regulating chaplains, the Court in aaplying RLUIPA
in prison settings will most likely strike down the argument because due deference will be given
91 supra, note 88
92 supra, note 88
93 Cutter v. Wilkinson, 125 U.S. 2113 (S. Ct. 2005)
94 Id.

to prison officials and facilities have not prohibited Chaplains or congregational services from
being held.95
As a result of the shortage of religious leaders in prison facilities, many Prisons have
allowed for religious services to be led by inmates, but with constant supervision.96 It could be
strongly argued that this requirement for constant supervision, could substantially burden a
prisoners free exercise of his religion under RLUIPA and as held in Holt v. Hobbs.97 If a case
were to be brought through the court system, it could be strongly concluded that the plaintiffs
argument would be struck down for a number of reasons. The Court would most likely not be
able to identifiy a substantial burden because the congregational services were not prohibited
within the facility and prisoners still had access to them.98 Even if there was an identified
substantial burden, the Court would still uphold the policy because safety and prevention of
raicalized ideologies is a compelling governmental interest and in order to achieve that interest,
constant supervision of inmate led religious services is the least restrictive means.99 Like in Holt
v. Hobbs, in which the Court struck down the policy because it was not the least restrictive
means to achieving a governmental interest, the Court would most likely uphold the policy in
95 Id.
96 .S. Dept. of Justice. Office of the Inspector General: Review of the Bureau of Prisons’ Selection of
2015)
97 Hobbs, 135 U.S. at 861
98 42 U.S.C.A §2000cc-1 (West. Supp. 2015), see also, Hobbs, 135 U.S. at 861 (The Plaintiff has
the burden of showing that a substantial burden was placed on their free exercise.)
99 42 U.S.C.A §2000cc-1 (West. Supp. 2015), see also, Hobbs, 135 U.S. at 861 (The
Government must show a compelling Governmental interest and that they used the least
restrictive means to achieve that Governmental interest)

this kind of case, because safety and stability are compelling interests within prison facilitites
and they employed the least restrictive means in order to achieve that interest.100
Prison facilities are, often, unstable enviroments in which anger, and hoplessness run
rampant throughout the population of inmates. After the attacks that took place on 9/11, fear of
terrorism coupled with the statements made by Warith Deen Umar, led the Government on a
quest to prevent the spread of prison Islam and homegrown terror. Susceptible to radical
influences, prisoners, angered with the system and plagued with a feeling of hopelessness, often,
gravitate towrd group or ideals that make them feel empowered and confident. Many
Government Officials including the Inspector General, have made statements reagarding this
matter and have emphasized the urgency of creating policies that would prevent the spread of
radical ideologies.101 However, radical Islam within the Prison system, may not be as prevelant
as the Govenrment believes it is.
The cases of Richard Reid and Jose Padilla , are just two of the handful of cases which
fuel the Governments argument that terrorism is being created in our prison systems.102
However, through these cases, it is very difficult to prove that these prisoners were actually
radicalized in prison. Many reports, specifically from the friends and family of these individuals,
have surfaced stating that the inmates adopted their radical views long after they were released
from prison.103 It is not to say, however, that radicalization does not occur. There are a few cases,
100 Hobbs, 135 U.S at 864
101 John W. Popeo, Combating Radical Islam in Prisons Within the Legal Dictates of the
Free Exercise Clause, 32 New Eng. J. on Crim. And Civ. Confinement 135 (2006)
102 supra, note 101 (Reid was convicted of attempting to blow up an American Airlines plane
using explosives in his shoe and Padilla was arrested for his attempted detonation of a dirty
bomb)
103 supra, note 101

such as the case of Warith Deen Umar, in which radical ideologies had infiltrated the prison
population, but there are only few, indicating that prison Islam may not be as common as
believed.104
Terrorism, unfotunatly, is a subject that is a leading concern in society today. With
terrorist groups such as Isis on the rise and attacks occurring more frequently, like the recent
attacks that occurred in France, many are beginning to blame Islam for the violence that has
occurred. As a result of these events, Muslims across the country have been discriminated
against because of their beliefs, especially Muslim inmates within the Prison facility. Although
many have misinterpreted Islam as being a violent religion, it has actually left positive affects on
many, especially prisoners.105
Islam, by character, is a disciplined religion, which requires members to follow strict
guidelines, special diets and abstinence from alcohol and drugs.106 Prisoners benefit from Islam,
because it helps them maintain the structure they so desperately need. Unfortunatly, those who
have entered the prison system, wil most likely filter through it many times within their lives,
because they lack the discipline needed to function in society. Islam provides inmates a chance to
lead a successful life not only inside but outside of the prison system. Through prayer and
structure, prisoners are able to maintain positive internal attachments.107 They are able to
maintain an identity and stray away from the belief that all they are are criminals. This is
104 Jason Villemez, 9/11 to now: Ways we have changed, PBS(September 14, 2011 at 4:55 PM
EST) http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/911-to-now-ways-we-have-changed/)
105 Facts and Fictions about Islam in Prison: Assessing Prisoner Radicalization in Post 9/11 America,
106 supra
107 supra, note 105

extremely important for inmates, especially when they are released from the facility, becase if
they are able to maintain a more positive self image, they will be more likely to succeed outside
of the prison walls.
Plagued by this hysteria that is homegrown terror, many, including the Government
refuse to look past the actions led by those who have perverted the Koran, to see that Islam is a
positive ideology. Promoting positivity, stability and discipline, Islam is a religion that
emphasizes structure and has proven to be beneficial to many, especially those within the prison
systm who lack the skill deemed necessary to lead successful lives outside of the prison walls.
IV Conclusion

Radicalized Islam

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Radicalized Islam

Similar to Radicalized Islam (17)

Radicalized Islam