There is an ongoing controversy over Shahid Shafi, vice chairman of the Tarrant County Republican Party, about which Hugh Fitzgerald has written here and here over the last few days. And now, Jim Geraghty sums up what Shafi’s defenders have maintained all along: that opposition to Shafi is all about anti-Muslim bigotry, from beginning to end.

But it isn’t. Comments interspersed below.

“There’s No Coherent Argument Against Texas GOP Official Shahid Shafi,” by Jim Geraghty, National Review, December 19, 2018:

If there’s a serious argument for why surgeon and Southlake, Texas councilman Shahid Shafi should not be vice chairman of the Tarrant County Republican party, his critics should offer it.

In reality, they have, but Geraghty, like so many others, seems to have overlooked that fact. So many are saying that this controversy is all about bigotry, in fact, that it’s useful to recall the substantive points that have been made about Shafi, and never addressed. You can find many here. Some highlights:

1. In 2012, after being a Republican delegate to state conventions since 2010, he “contributed $1750 to a Democrat ‘Voter Values Fund.’” Any Republican official who contributed to the Democrats would be questioned about this, but in Shafi’s case, to do so is “bigotry.”

2. “He attended an Islamic ‘high holy night’ Iftar Dinner hosted by Democrat Mike Rawlings in 2015 in Dallas” with operatives from the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Politicians of both parties frequently pander to CAIR and ISNA, both of which enjoy mainstream status despite their demonstrable links to Hamas. “Everyone else does it” is a weak defense. Why can’t Shafi be questioned about this? CAIR has also come out in support of Shafi, and Shafi has not renounced their support. Trump had to disavow David Duke; why doesn’t Shafi have to renounce CAIR? Why can’t he be subject to the same standards that every other politician has to meet?

3. “He has yet to give, beyond a weak, ‘Israel has a right to exist,’ any true support for many of the planks in the RPT Platform.” Even the Palestinian Authority once affirmed that Israel had a right to exist, although it later rescinded this, and it never acknowledged that Israel had a right to exist as a Jewish state. This is not just a quibble, and Shafi’s critics are right to think his statement doesn’t go far enough. Recognizing Israel, but not as a Jewish state, leaves the door open for it to be overwhelmed by “Palestinians” exercising the “Right of Return,” turning it into a “Palestinian” state. Mahmoud Abbas has said that no Jews would be allowed to live in a “Palestinian” state, as has Sheikh Hammam Saeed, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan. Fatah has also called upon Jews to leave the area. If the Tarrant County Republican Party wants to come out in support of the Jewish state, why can’t it ask of one of its officials what his views are about this issue?

As it is now, the argument boils down to the belief that a Muslim should not be in a Republican party position. As one of his most vocal critics put it in a Facebook post, “Shafi IS a practicing Muslim, so yes, he IS a ‘proponent of Shari’a law.’”…

The argument doesn’t boil down to this belief. The Facebook post in question was not presented as a comprehensive case against Shafi. It was merely a response to statements in a Newsweek hit piece. Meanwhile, why can’t Shafi be asked about what his views are regarding Sharia, which in its classic formulations denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of women, and more? Is there any circumstance in which Geraghty or Shafi’s other defenders would not want a Muslim in a Republican Party position? We should avoid genuine bigotry, which is not the same thing as everything that is branded as such, but should we not also avoid virtue-signaling and Islamopandering that leads to placing people in positions they shouldn’t be in simply because we are so avid to show we’re not bigoted and “Islamophobic” that any Muslim will do? Mohamed Noor is a good example of the dangers of that Islamopandering.

In the worldview of Shafi’s critics, everyone who likes and supports him staying in this role is a gullible sucker, including notable softies and squishes such as Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Senator Ted Cruz, Texas House Speaker Joe Straus, Travis County Republican party Chairman Matt Mackowiak, the state Republican party, and the gang at The Federalist.

Have any of those people addressed the three numbered points above? They have not.

Appearing on CNN, Shafi said that he’s “always been welcomed with open arms” by Republicans. When anchor Jim Sciutto asked, “Do you think the president’s sometimes critical, sometimes bigoted, some have said, language about Muslims, rhetoric about Muslims — do you think that has given license to people like you’ve encountered here, who are expressing this bigotry about your faith?” Shafi did not blame the president. Instead, he succinctly encapsulated what was at stake here, and why his broad spectrum of supporters are standing by him: “Look, I believe in freedom of speech.

Here again regarding Sharia: Sharia forbids criticism of Islam. Shafi says he is a practicing Muslim. How does he reconcile that prohibition with his affirmation of the freedom of speech? Why is this yet another one of those questions that only supposed “bigots” dare to ask?

I believe in freedom of expression and I think diversity of opinion within any group is good for the group, is good for the party. But what we cannot do and what we don’t do is discriminate against a specific person based on their religion, caste, creed, color, ethnicity, or country of origin. Our party has very specific rules that prohibit religious discrimination. Our country has specific rules and our Constitution prohibits it. So when this controversy arose because of a small number of people at the fringes of our party … it’s really been very — they’re doing a disservice to our party. That’s not what the Republican Party is about. That is not what I have encountered. Some of my biggest supporters within the party are pastors and military veterans. And the reason they always tell me, especially the military veterans, that they are supporting me in my role, is because number one, they put their life on the line to protect the Constitution. And our Constitution defends religious freedom, and they cannot see that being violated in our own country. And the second reason is, quite frankly, that these are veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. They have served overseas with hundreds of thousands of Muslim soldiers and civilians in those countries, who have helped America and who have helped our soldiers perform their duties.” Who in their right mind would want to get rid of this guy?

Anyone who sees that the issues here are not about religious discrimination. They’re about whether this guy is really a Republican and whether he supports Republican Party principles. But this has been, as Geraghty’s piece demonstrates, obscured by the charges of “bigotry” and “Islamophobia” that ensue whenever anyone dares say anything remotely negative about an individual Muslim or Islam itself. Shafi’s defenders are calling the concerns about him “Islamophobia” at a time when the defense against jihad is a consuming issue for the U.S. military and foreign policy analysts around the world. The fear of being charged with “Islamophobia” appears to trump everything, even legitimate concerns about jihad terror and Sharia oppression. Would Shafi’s defenders be willing to explain under what circumstances, if any, concerns about a Muslim politician would not be “Islamophobia” or “bigotry”? If a Muslim candidate arose who really did support CAIR, oppose Israel, and give money to Democrats, should Republicans support him simply so as not to be seen as “anti-Muslim”?