Papers by Hakeem Muhammad
The storytelling prevalent in drill rap, a hip-hop musical genre that emerged in Chicago’s impove... more The storytelling prevalent in drill rap, a hip-hop musical genre that emerged in Chicago’s impoverished Black communities on the South Side reinforces the basic premise of critical race theory: structural racism continues to produce bleak opportunities for Black social, political, and economic advancement. Drill Rap, taken from the Chicago colloquial term to ‘Drill’, means to carry out a shooting against a rival gang. Drill Rap is used by rival African-American gangs such as the Black Disciples, Black Stones, and Gangster Disciples to issue lethal threats at one another and boast of their weapon arsenal. Video imagery of drill artists often contains young Black men brandishing automatic weapons with lyrics that contain messages of rebelliousness, lawlessness and disrespect for authority. It is common to see drill artists diss deceased members of rival gangs, use military style weapons brandished casually in videos and for drill artists to be gunned down shortly after the release of diss songs. What distinguishes drill rap from the many other forms of fratricidal gang wars in the streets is that drill rap is inherently militaristic.
This paper suggests that the 21st century systemic structural racism has resulted in the prevalence of the underground drug economy and gang violence in black Chicago which undergirds the phenomenon of drill rap. Drill rap in its essence embodies the frustration of urban poor Black men. Drill artists so often discuss through their lyrics their fear that they may not make it past 21; they may end up with a lengthy prison sentence, and the fact that they see no way out of a miserable life of violence. The paper will explore the ways in which drill rap articulates the frustrations of the urban black poor in Chicago and shatter illusions of a post-racial America in which structural racism no longer serves as a barrier to black, social, and political advancement.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The penological environment of correctional facilities often makes observance of certain Islamic... more The penological environment of correctional facilities often makes observance of certain Islamic obligations untenable. What should a Muslim prisoner do if, during Ramadan, the correctional facility does not allow inmates to eat meals at suhoor time nor break their fast during the Maghreb? Is the Islamic obligation of Hajj incumbent upon an incarcerated Muslim serving a life sentence? Works such as Islamic Rulings For Incarcerated Muslims were developed to assist incarcerated Muslims in understanding the intricacies of Fiqh and its adaptability within a correctional facility. However, there is another challenge, how do incarcerated Muslims engage the legal system to compel correctional facilities to better secure more religious rights, and to ensure a holistic practice of Islam under the conditions of confinement.
As early as 1964, without an attorney, Thomas Cooper sued the Illinois State Penitentiary under 42 U. S. C. § 1982, alleging that his rights were violated when he was denied access to a Holy Qu’ran when other inmates could receive the Bible. In this landmark case, the U.S Supreme Court held that prisoners could assert unconstitutional treatment claims at the hands of state correctional officials under 42 USC Section 1983.
Before this landmark case, judges mostly refused to recognize an entitlement of prisoners to file lawsuits for constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights was considered to be inapplicable to prisoners as prisoners were castigated and deemed “slaves of the state undergoing punishment for heinous crimes committed against the laws of the land.” In Cooper vs. Warden, the U.S Supreme Court proclamation allowed prisoners to file lawsuits and sent a message that prisoners have constitutional rights and can sue to ensure that such rights are protected. Since this landmark case, Muslim inmates have brought forth numerous legal claims against correctional facilities alleging violations of religious freedom.
Muslim prisoner’s rights litigation in contemporary times has engaged in numerous lawsuits against the policy of correctional facilities to subject them to strip searches. The Muslim prisoners argue correctional facility’s practice of forced strip searches by female correctional officers breach Islam’s emphasis on modesty under Islamic law. Such cases include Lewis v. Soto, 2019 U.S. 1, 5 (C.D CAL. 2019); Holland v. City of New York, 197 F. 3d 529. 535-536. (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Collins v. Scott, 961 F. Supp. 1009, 1997 (E.D. Tex. 1997); Rivera v. Smith, 63 N.Y.2d 501 504, 505,(N.Y App. DIV 1984). Below, we shall assess how courts responded to the particular claims of the Muslim litigants, the legal challenges and hurdles they faced, and at the end, propose strategy aimed at obtaining their objectives.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Hakeem Muhammad
This paper suggests that the 21st century systemic structural racism has resulted in the prevalence of the underground drug economy and gang violence in black Chicago which undergirds the phenomenon of drill rap. Drill rap in its essence embodies the frustration of urban poor Black men. Drill artists so often discuss through their lyrics their fear that they may not make it past 21; they may end up with a lengthy prison sentence, and the fact that they see no way out of a miserable life of violence. The paper will explore the ways in which drill rap articulates the frustrations of the urban black poor in Chicago and shatter illusions of a post-racial America in which structural racism no longer serves as a barrier to black, social, and political advancement.
As early as 1964, without an attorney, Thomas Cooper sued the Illinois State Penitentiary under 42 U. S. C. § 1982, alleging that his rights were violated when he was denied access to a Holy Qu’ran when other inmates could receive the Bible. In this landmark case, the U.S Supreme Court held that prisoners could assert unconstitutional treatment claims at the hands of state correctional officials under 42 USC Section 1983.
Before this landmark case, judges mostly refused to recognize an entitlement of prisoners to file lawsuits for constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights was considered to be inapplicable to prisoners as prisoners were castigated and deemed “slaves of the state undergoing punishment for heinous crimes committed against the laws of the land.” In Cooper vs. Warden, the U.S Supreme Court proclamation allowed prisoners to file lawsuits and sent a message that prisoners have constitutional rights and can sue to ensure that such rights are protected. Since this landmark case, Muslim inmates have brought forth numerous legal claims against correctional facilities alleging violations of religious freedom.
Muslim prisoner’s rights litigation in contemporary times has engaged in numerous lawsuits against the policy of correctional facilities to subject them to strip searches. The Muslim prisoners argue correctional facility’s practice of forced strip searches by female correctional officers breach Islam’s emphasis on modesty under Islamic law. Such cases include Lewis v. Soto, 2019 U.S. 1, 5 (C.D CAL. 2019); Holland v. City of New York, 197 F. 3d 529. 535-536. (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Collins v. Scott, 961 F. Supp. 1009, 1997 (E.D. Tex. 1997); Rivera v. Smith, 63 N.Y.2d 501 504, 505,(N.Y App. DIV 1984). Below, we shall assess how courts responded to the particular claims of the Muslim litigants, the legal challenges and hurdles they faced, and at the end, propose strategy aimed at obtaining their objectives.
This paper suggests that the 21st century systemic structural racism has resulted in the prevalence of the underground drug economy and gang violence in black Chicago which undergirds the phenomenon of drill rap. Drill rap in its essence embodies the frustration of urban poor Black men. Drill artists so often discuss through their lyrics their fear that they may not make it past 21; they may end up with a lengthy prison sentence, and the fact that they see no way out of a miserable life of violence. The paper will explore the ways in which drill rap articulates the frustrations of the urban black poor in Chicago and shatter illusions of a post-racial America in which structural racism no longer serves as a barrier to black, social, and political advancement.
As early as 1964, without an attorney, Thomas Cooper sued the Illinois State Penitentiary under 42 U. S. C. § 1982, alleging that his rights were violated when he was denied access to a Holy Qu’ran when other inmates could receive the Bible. In this landmark case, the U.S Supreme Court held that prisoners could assert unconstitutional treatment claims at the hands of state correctional officials under 42 USC Section 1983.
Before this landmark case, judges mostly refused to recognize an entitlement of prisoners to file lawsuits for constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights was considered to be inapplicable to prisoners as prisoners were castigated and deemed “slaves of the state undergoing punishment for heinous crimes committed against the laws of the land.” In Cooper vs. Warden, the U.S Supreme Court proclamation allowed prisoners to file lawsuits and sent a message that prisoners have constitutional rights and can sue to ensure that such rights are protected. Since this landmark case, Muslim inmates have brought forth numerous legal claims against correctional facilities alleging violations of religious freedom.
Muslim prisoner’s rights litigation in contemporary times has engaged in numerous lawsuits against the policy of correctional facilities to subject them to strip searches. The Muslim prisoners argue correctional facility’s practice of forced strip searches by female correctional officers breach Islam’s emphasis on modesty under Islamic law. Such cases include Lewis v. Soto, 2019 U.S. 1, 5 (C.D CAL. 2019); Holland v. City of New York, 197 F. 3d 529. 535-536. (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Collins v. Scott, 961 F. Supp. 1009, 1997 (E.D. Tex. 1997); Rivera v. Smith, 63 N.Y.2d 501 504, 505,(N.Y App. DIV 1984). Below, we shall assess how courts responded to the particular claims of the Muslim litigants, the legal challenges and hurdles they faced, and at the end, propose strategy aimed at obtaining their objectives.