Why Islamic History Offers New Reasons to Support Democracy in Egypt?

Source
Heather Ferguson and Ty McCormick

Islamic democracy is a contradiction in terms — at least that is the implicit message coming from the Obama administration.

In Egypt, where an opposition movement led by Mohamed ElBaradei — a Nobel laureate and the former head of the International Atomic Agency — has presented the U.S. with the perfect opportunity to press for political reform, President Obama has so far respectfully declined. Rather than act on the “commitment” professed in his Cairo speech “to governments that reflect the will of the people,” Obama has elected to say nothing and quietly redirect democracy promotion funds toward strictly economic projects.

Sadly, this policy reflects a sincere belief on the part of the Obama administration that Islamists cannot be democrats. If free and fair elections are held — so the thinking goes — potentially anti-western Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood might come into power, and once there, decide to do away with voting once and for all. As Obama put it in the aforementioned speech, “[T]here are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.”

This type of pathological thinking endures, in our estimation, because of two common analytical pitfalls: the tendency to treat terms like “Islamist,” “Islamic democracy,” and “democracy” as monoliths, and the even more troubling impulse to view Islam itself as a rigid and authoritarian faith.

In truth, Islamists — democratic and otherwise — are a diverse bunch. They differ on whether or not democratic principles are inherent within Islam, on whether Islam should extend beyond the private sphere, and on an encyclopedic list of other practical details.

Democracy, too, is a tough term to pin down for it has taken radically different forms in different parts of the world. Moreover, democracy is like wine in that it matures with time. Indeed, it is hard to argue that the U.S. was fully democratic until after the Civil War, or even until after the enfranchisement of women in 1919. Thus, the changeable and multifarious quality of these two creeds — democracy and Islam — is better explored as a historical process rather than a fixed ideal. Declaring the incompatibility of Islam and democracy at the outset, in other words, ignores the elasticity of process, and the potential for synthesis therein.

More than just potentially compatible, we believe that Islam’s historical record provides plenty of reasons to think that a viable exchange between Islamic and democratic principles will take place in the future. Indeed, Islam has proved so flexible and so receptive to new ideas in its 1400 years of existence that the marriage of Islam and democracy would actually be something rather ordinary.

At its inception, the Prophet Muhammed entertained differences of opinion and catered to a diverse group of followers. He even devised the Constitution of Medina to harmonize the active cooperation and participation of three potentially antagonistic social groups. These were Muhammed’s original supporters who accompanied him on his flight from Mecca, early converts from within Medina’s environs, and the several Jewish tribes who dominated the city’s economic life. While equality was seldom a medieval goal, this was a rare example of an attempt to define political co-existence and remain open to multiple practices. (Unfortunately, like many vanguard efforts, it ultimately failed. What endured throughout imperial Islam, however, was a legal recognition of minority rights drawn along confessional lines.)

As the empire expanded and evolved at an unprecedented rate, it lost none of its early flexibility. By the 10th and 11th centuries, Islamic centers of learning from Baghdad to Marrakesh to Seville were translating and expanding upon Greek philosophical treatises, fueling debates about the role of reason in faith, philosophy in religion. At the same time, the infusion of Hellenistic thought into Islamic society coincided with and complimented a quickening of efforts in the scientific and mathematical realms that would later enable the global shifts inspired by the Italian Renaissance. Islam, therefore, did not remain impervious to outside influence. Rather, it received and integrated new ideas into the complex socio-political fabric it came to define.

Moving forward to the present, pop culture provides a more blithe but no less arresting example of Islam’s tractable nature. “American Idol” knock-offs have taken the Muslim world by storm, but not without first undergoing distinct cultural metamorphoses. If you kick back for the season premier of the hit Malaysian television show, “Imam Muda,” you can watch as ten young Muslim scholars vie for the title of “Young Imam” before judges not unlike Paula Abdul and Simon Cowell. In this way, a presumably sacrosanct position has become the ground for popular participation.

Constitutionalism, classical Greek philosophy, and elements of American pop culture, therefore, have all found their way into Islam’s rich tradition of intellectual synthesis. So why, then, should we be skeptical about its interaction with yet another global dynamic: democracy as a form of government?

Rather than manipulating political change in places like Egypt and alienating proponents of democracy for fear of encouraging Islamism, we think the U.S. should seize the opportunity presented by ElBaradei, attempt to engage positively with his diverse group of followers, and trust in the rich history of flexibility within Islam. The current policy not only undermines our credibility in the region, but risks infecting Islamic democrats with the same pessimistic attitude that has clouded U.S. foreign policy of late.

Terry Jones, Dove World Outreach Center Pastor, Defends Quran Burning On ‘Hardball’ (VIDEO)

Ikhwanophobia Comment
There is no doubt that these bigotry which appeared in the video won’t lead to any Positive reactions. Muslim world are very emotional and sensitive towards their hallows. This kind of burning ideas won’t lead to anything but more provocation for Muslims through the six continents.

Terry Jones, pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center, appeared on “Hardball” Thursday (Aug. 26) to defend his church’s decision to burn copies of the Quran on Sept. 11.

“We have declared September the 11th ‘International Burn a Quran Day’ because we want to send a very clear message,” Jones said.

“It is indeed a radical message but a very clear, radical message to Muslims, to Sharia law, that that is not welcome in America.”

The “International Burn a Quran Day” is just the latest in a series of anti-Islamic protests that the Dove World Outreach Center holds each year to commemorate the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

“Hardball” host Chris Matthews, who called Jones’ plans to burn the Islamic holy book “a terrible idea” and warned that it “could cause trouble and even death” when televised in Muslim countries, asked, “What do you think the reaction will be as this goes on international television? What will be the consequence?”

“We believe that this message will be received as it is intended, as a warning,” Jones said.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Who Is Behind The Islamic School Being Planned For West Edmonton?

Ikhwanophobia Comment
These are the rumors. Read the truths HERE
Edmonton Muslims fight rumours

——————–

The Article
Many citizens living in the Lessard district of West Edmonton have expressed their concerns regarding the opening of an Islamic school in their community by the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), the local branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna. Itsmotto is: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our constitution. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope”.

Shortly after some citizens expressed concerns in the West End News about the background of the promoters of this K-9 school, CTV and the Edmonton Sun reported that the Edmonton chapter of the MAC threatened the local paper with a civil suit. Instead of trying to defuse the concerns of the citizens by explaining how their goals and objectives were compatible with individual freedom, the MAC’s leaders in Edmonton are trying to silence their critics.

Point de Bascule (Tipping Point) has been set up to expose the subtle ways used by Islamists to promote their agenda. The text that follows focuses on identifying the objectives pursued by the Muslim Brotherhood and it provides many links towards various statements made by its leaders in the past. Another text will follow in the coming days that will deal more specifically with the tactic of legal warfare frequently used by the Islamists to prevent any discussion about their agenda.

The concerns expressed by the citizens of Lessard are not only justified, they should be taken into consideration by the authorities. Up to now, the government has been silent on the issue. The citizens have no other choice but to challenge the Islamists willing to abuse the legal system in order to shut down responsible inquiry.

Issam Saleh

Issam Saleh, the chairman of the Muslim Association of Canada’s Edmonton chapter, told the Edmonton Sun [August 19, 2010] that “a tiny handful of people exhibiting Islamophobia are spreading distortions and outright falsehoods about the organization”. “Our lawyers are compiling a case and we’re considering legal action,” added Saleh.

Saleh holds different positions, including one as an advisor to the City of Edmonton:

City of Edmonton, Community Services Advisory Board – Click [HERE]
Edmonton Islamic Academy, Board of Trustees – Click [HERE]
From teacher to construction entrepreneur – Click [HERE]
Daybreak Painting & Decorating Ltd – Click [HERE]

In his interview with the Edmonton Sun, Issam Saleh admitted that the MAC follows the teachings of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. In this, he conforms to the pledge found on the MAC’s website:

“MAC adopts and strives to implement Islam, as embodied in the Qur’an, and the teachings of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and as understood in its contemporary context by the late Imam, Hassan Albanna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. MAC regards this ideology as the best representation of Islam as delivered by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). “

MAC’s website – Click [HERE]
MAC’s website (Edmonton chapter) – Click [HERE]
MAC’s description of its own ideology – Click [HERE]

What kind of positions has Issam Saleh taken in his five-year stint as an advisor for the City of Edmonton? How does someone implement Hassan al-Banna’s principles while being on the Advisory Board of a major city? Edmonton residents must take a look at this issue.

Hassan al-Banna (1906 – 1949)

A summary of al-Banna’s ideology can be found in a 50 point manifesto that he submitted to several Arab leaders in 1947. The manifesto has been added to al-Banna’s book Towards the Light. The Muslim Brotherhood republished the manifesto in 2007. It is available on its Ikhwanweb.com website. Ikhwan is the Arabic word for brothers and it is commonly used for identifying the Muslim Brotherhood [Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun].

The manifesto promotes among others the abolition of political parties and the establishment of a single party system which is pure totalitarianism. It also favours the modification of the laws so that they conform to shariah and the multiplication of associations dedicated to promoting the spirit of jihad amongst the youth. Faced with the Egyptian authorities’ refusal to implement al-Banna’s program in 1948, his organisation launched many acts of terror in Egypt and even assassinated the Prime Minister (New York Times December 29, 1948).

In his essay On Jihad included in the book Five Tracts, al-Banna explains that “it’s an obligation for us [Muslims] to fight against them [the infidels] after inviting them [to join Islam], even if they do not fight against us”. [Five Tracts, Translated by Charles Wendell, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1978, p. 147]

To inspire his troops, Hassan al-Banna recalled in his essay To What Do We Invite Humanity? that in history many leaders experienced modest beginnings before finally achieving “success and fortune”. He mentioned several Muslim warlords who inspired him. Only one of his sources of inspiration was non-Muslim. It was Adolf Hitler.

Beside the terrorist organization Hamas that acknowledges its relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood in the second article of its charter [HERE], the Muslim Association of Canada is more than likely the only other branch of the Brotherhood openly stating its connection with Hassan al-Banna’s organization and ideology. The observation is made by the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report, a website that monitors the activities of the Brotherhood throughout the world.

Youssef al-Qaradawi (1926 – )

Today, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, frequently reminds us through statements made in the Arab media that the Islamist organization is still a fierce enemy of individual freedoms.

In recent years, al-Qaradawi promoted the killing of apostates from Islam [islamonline.net] and the killing of homosexuals [video 5:27], he introduced Hitler as a messenger of Allah who came to punish the Jews [video], he urged Muslims to conquer the West , he favoured female genital mutilations and so forth.

When the Islamist militants behind the Edmonton Islamic school project declare that they will “adopt and strive to implement Islam, … as understood in its contemporary context by Hassan al-Banna”, they are announcing that they will devote their efforts to teach and make these principles triumph.

In his book Auspices of the Ultimate Victory, Youssef al-Qaradawi states that the penetration of the Islamist ideology in the West can be explained by the groundwork brought about by the Muslim Brotherhood and by the contributions in petrodollars made by Gulf state billionaires. Al-Qaradawi also expressed his gratitude to Saudi Arabia for distributing for free all around the world “many millions of copies of the Qur’an … in model English and French translations”.

The Hilali-Khan translation of the Koran

The English translation of the Koran being distributed by Saudi Arabia is referred to as the Hilali-Khan translation [Online copy – click HERE]. It is, by far, the most popular in English speaking countries. The translation approved by the MAC’s mentor is generally being used in the English schools set up by the Muslim Brotherhood.

One excerpt from this English translation will suffice to illustrate what is being taught in MAC’s schools.

After the verse 2:190 that discusses jihad, the translators have added a footnote to prevent any misunderstanding regarding the meaning of the word. Click [HERE]:

“Jihad (holy fighting) in Allah’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior […] and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfill this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.”

Jamal Badawi

On a 2007 MAC webpage, North American Muslim Brotherhood leader and Canadian national, Jamal Badawi, is listed as a director of the organization. GMBDR reports that Dr. Badawi is a leader in many of the most important organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American Islamic Relations (Canada), the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), and the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR).

Before being chosen to be part of the MAC leadership, Badawi had justified Muslim suicide bombings as a legitimate tactic of jihad on a 2006 IslamOnline Internet forum. He had also issued in 2004 a fatwa for IslamOnline that was outlining six conditions in which a wife may properly be beaten ” (if she) persists in bad habits”.

During the two trials of the Holy Land Foundation that led to the conviction in 2008 of several members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network for financing terrorist activities in the Middle East from the United States, the prosecution presented as evidence an internal memorandum of the organization. The original Arabic version of the memorandum and its English translation have been archived by The Investigative Project on Terrorism. Jamal Badawi is identified on page 12 of the English translation as a member of the leadership structure of the Brotherhood in North America.

This internal document also clearly mentions on page 7 the goal pursued by the MAC and all the other organizations affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood in North America:

“The Ikhwan [the Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is kind of a grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. […] It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes.”

The original memorandum in Arabic and its English translation are available [HERE]. The highlights of the memorandum are available [HERE].

Ekrima Sabri

Over the years, the Muslim Association of Canada has endorsed many radical Islamists whose views are completely incompatible with the mission that a school should pursue with the children under its responsibility. One of these radicals is Ekrima Sabri (aka Ikrimah Sabri).

IslamOnline.net (in 2002) and Steve Merley of the NEFA Foundation (in 2009) identified Sabri as the khatib (imam, prayer leader) of the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and as the mufti of the city. Merley added that Sabri is a member of the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) that also includes U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leader Taha Al-Alawani, as well as other members associated with the Brotherhood.

In 2009, IRFAN-Canada invited Sabri to give a lecture at the Centre Culturel Laurentien, one of the MAC’s facilities in Montreal.

The poster written in Arabic and produced for the occasion is archived on Point de Bascule. Click [HERE].

IRFAN-Canada is a branch of the American IRFAN (Islamic Relief Fund for the Afflicted and the Needy) also known as the Jerusalem Fund. The Jerusalem Fund was one of many Muslim Brotherhood affiliates that were designated as non indicted co-conspirators in the two trials that were discussed previously. The list of the co-conspirators is available by clicking [HERE].

As for IRFAN-Canada, it was disqualified in April 2010 from issuing donation receipts for income tax purposes after the Canada Revenue Agency had stated that it did not have its books in order and had failed to provide required documents.

Many subtitled videos featuring Ekrima Sabri are available online. Viewing some of them could be helpful to better understand the principles of the MAC who welcomed him in Canada.

Two weeks before the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Sabri implored Allah to destroy Great Britain and the United States on Voice of Palestine Radio. Click [HERE].

In October 2000, the Al-Ahram Al-Arabi periodical from Egypt asked a few questions to Ekrima Sabri on various topics, including suicide bombings. The organization MEMRI has supplied an English translation available [HERE].

Here is the transcription of two Q&As:

Question: “What do you feel when you pray [for the souls of the martyrs]?”

Sabri: “I feel the martyr is lucky because the angels usher him to his wedding in heaven. I feel the earth moves under the occupiers’ feet.”

Question: “Is it different when the martyr is a child?”

Sabri: “Yes, it is. It’s hard to express it in words. There is no doubt that a child [martyr] suggests that the new generation will carry on the mission with determination. The younger the martyr, the greater and the more I respect him.”

When Sabri alludes to a wedding in heaven, he is referring to various verses of the Koran [44:54 52:20] that promise many young virgins (houris) as a reward to those who died while waging jihad.

When an organization like the MAC wants to open a school and sponsors fanatics who dream of sending children to their death, when an organization pledges to follow the teachings of Hassan al-Banna who was openly advocating for the “promot(ion of) the spirit of jihad amongst the youth”, it is the duty of responsible citizens to further their investigation and to do everything they can to stop this cancer from spreading in their vicinity.

How Arabs view the anti-mosque movement

Source

Posted By Marc Lynch

Two recent arguments about the impact of the rising anti-Islam trend in the U.S. — from the Stupid!Storm around the Manhattan mosque to the lunacy of “national burn a Quran day” — on the Arab world strike me as not quite right. Last week, Bill Kristol cited the translation of a column by Saudi TV station al-Arabiya director Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed downplaying the relevance of the mosque as evidence that the argument should be over. Meanwhile, several recent articles claim that the mosque had become the #1 topic of discussion on jihadist forums. Both are wrong, in different ways. Most Arab columnists agree with the argument that the anti-mosque movement will badly harm Arab and Muslim views of the United States, contra Rashed, but there isn’t as much active discussion of it in the forums as you’d expect. That isn’t a reason to relax, though. The impact is likely to be felt not so much on extremists, whose views about America are rather fixed, but on the vast middle ground, the Arab and Muslim mainstream which both the Bush and Obama administrations have recognized as crucial both for defeating al-Qaeda and for achieving broad American national interests. And that mainstream, not the extremists themselves, is where our attention needs to be focused.

A closer look at Arab mainstream media and jihadist forum debates shows what I mean. A scan of the major op-ed pages quickly reveals that Rashed is very much a minority voice in the unfolding Arab debate. Rashed’s column caught the attention of anti-mosque activists such as Kristol, because it suited their needs. But if Kristol really wants Americans to take their cues from Arab columnists, here’s a more representative sample of commentary over the last few days:

* Jamil al-Nimri, a Jordanian liberal writing for al-Ghad, who writes that the backlash against the mosque has unleashed a wave of bigotry and hate, at the expense of the intended message of an enlightened and tolerant Islam.
* Mohammed al-Hammadi, an Emirati writer for al-Ittihad, who describes the mosque as a moment for America to choose whether it truly believes in freedom.
* Abd al-Haq Azouzi, a Moroccan writing for al-Ittihad, who reverses the familiar question to ask “why do they hate us?,” and warns that those cynically manufacturing the issue for political benefit are unleashing an uncontrollable wave of hatred.
* Abdullah al-Shayji, a Kuwaiti writing for al-Ittihad, who sees the mosque battle as a fundamental test of the place of Muslims in America and fears rising Islamophobia.
* Ragheda Dergham, writing in al-Hayat, warns that the campaign against the mosque threatens Islamic moderation.
* Manar al-Shourbji, in Egypt’s al-Masry al-Youm, reflects that the campaign against the mosque demonstrates that the good intentions of the mosque’s founders were not enough in the face of rising anti-Islam extremism in America.

And this is just from the last few days. The most positive spin on the mosque crisis is actually that it’s all politics. A number of columnists argue that it is just Republicans cynically using the Islam issue to hurt Obama and help their re-election campaign. But even those columnists generally go on to worry that such forces, once unleashed, are hard to control. Fortunately, the courageous remarks of figures such as Michael Bloomberg have also received prominent coverage — something which gives moderate figures something to grasp onto when arguing against the extremists. And that’s what they need, both for their own sake and for ours.

Meanwhile, the mosque has barely registered on the major jihadist forums which I frequent — yesterday, on the leading al-Shamoukh forum, it was not mentioned in the headline of a single one of the first ten pages of posts (more than 500 in all). There have been a few threads, as Evan Kohlmann has claimed, but it’s a fairly minor theme within the forum debates (“Burn a Quran Day” has actually had more traction than the NY mosque thus far, actually). Certainly no triumphalism about how they’ll soon have a monument to victory, as you hear so often out there on the American lunatic fringe. I have no doubt that al-Qaeda and like-minded extremists will eventually use the anti-mosque movement in their propaganda, since it so perfectly fits their narrative of a West at war with Islam — the very narrative which both the Bush administration and the Obama administration worked so hard to combat over the last few years. I suspect that the participants in the forums aren’t talking about it much is that it simply confirms what they already believe about America. They’ll use it, but don’t see much to argue about.

That’s the opposite of the Arab mainstream, which is vigorously arguing about what it means for the future of America’s relationship with Muslims — both in America and in the world. Where the anti-mosque movement and escalating anti-Islam rhetoric is really resonating is with the Arab mainstream — that vast middle ground which had hoped that the election of Barack Obama would mark a real change from the Bush administration but have grown increasingly disappointed. The mosque issue has been covered heavily on Arab satellite TV stations such as al-Jazeera, and the images of angry Americans chanting slogans and waving signs against Islam have resonated much like the images of angry Arabs burning American flags and denouncing U.S. policy did with American viewers after 9/11. The recent public opinion surveys showing widespread hostility towards Islam among Americans have also gotten a lot of attention.

It all contributes to the ongoing deterioriation of their residual hope in Obama’s ability to bring about meaningful change. It’s confirming the worst fears of too many mainstream Arabs and Muslims, and thus providing fodder for the extremists who hope to exploit that atmosphere. It’s become a cliche to say so, but it’s true: by fueling the narrative of a clash of civilizations and an inevitable war between Islam and the West, this unfortunate trend is empowering extremists on all sides and weakening moderates. That’s exactly the dynamic which I warned about here and in my recent Foreign Affairs article, and it’s one which counter-terrorism professionals and public diplomacy specialists alike understand needs to be broken before it’s too late.

Edmonton Muslims fight rumours

Source

EDMONTON – A letter to the editor in a west-end newspaper suggesting a local Muslim association has ties to extremists could be the final straw in an increasingly shrill campaign against a proposed Islamic school in Lessard.

The chairman of the Muslim Association of Canada’s Edmonton chapter says the organization is considering suing a tiny handful of “people exhibiting Islamophobia” who are spreading distortions and outright falsehoods about the organization.

“Very much so,” said Issam Faleh. “Our lawyers are compiling a case and we’re considering legal action.”

He said last month an opponent of MAC’s plan told the media that the group might be funding terrorism.

MAC plans to turn a vacant, run-down strip mall in the tony west end neighbourhood into a mosque, community centre and Islamic primary school.

Faleh says that while most of the neighbours have welcomed them — especially the four churches and two synagogues in the area — a small group is “promoting misconceptions” to turn public support against them.

In this month’s issue of the West End News, a letter to the editor signed only by “concerned residents of Lessard/Gariepy Community” warns of “MAC’s affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“The Muslim Brotherhood is a political group, who calls for an Islamic political and social system and opposes western political and cultural influences,” the letter says. “Given the above, we would like to know what the new centre will be preaching.”

Safwat Girgis, vice president of the Lessard Community League and one of the people behind the letter, said he and his group were initially opposed to MAC’s plan because they feared it would bring too much traffic to the area and cause parking problems.

But when they discovered its “ties” to the Muslim Brotherhood, “it added a different dimension.”

The brotherhood “has a bit more of a radical view of Islam,” he said, “and that’s something to be concerned about.”

But Faleh calls that a complete distortion.

MAC’s national website says it traces its roots to “the Islamic revival of the early 20th century, culminating in the movement of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

What that means, he said, is that they follow the spiritual teachings of Imam Hassan al-Banna, who taught his followers such virtues as understanding, perseverance, personal sacrifice, and service to the whole community.

In some parts of the Islamic world, the brotherhood became politicized, but that’s not the case here in Canada.

“We get no funds from overseas, and we don’t send any funds out of the country,” Faleh said. “We want to be part of the social fabric of Canadian society. We want to integrate.”

One of MAC’s biggest programs is the Educational Muslim Achievement Awards Night, where students are honoured for their success. This year 280 local Muslim students from elementary school to university were given trophies and scholarships.

“This is what we’re trying to do in the community, things like promoting education,” said Faleh.

MAC has applied to the city to rezone part of its building for a school. He said they plan to begin with a preschool and slowly work up to Grade 3.

The organization eventually wants to have a K-9 school somewhere in the west end, but not at that location, he said.

“They’re using scare tactics, (suggesting links to) terrorism and things like that,” he said. “On the basis of goodwill and building the community, we haven’t responded in a legal way to this, but they’re pushing it to the point that we have no choice but to respond by taking legal action.”

andrew.hanon@sunmedia.ca

www.twitter.com/andrewhanon

Who is Feisal Abdul Rauf — the man behind the ‘Ground Zero mosque’?

Source

Almost as controversial as the proposed Park51 Islamic community center two blocks north of Ground Zero is the man behind the project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Opponents of the “Ground Zero mosque” are building a case that Rauf is a “cynically brilliant” Islamic extremist in sheep’s clothing, while supporters call him and fellow Park51 organizers “the kind of Muslim leaders right-wing commentators fantasize about: modernists and moderates who openly condemn the death cult of al Qaeda and its adherents.” Who is the real Rauf? (Listen to some of Imam Rauf’s controversial comments)

What’s his background?
Born in Kuwait in 1948, Rauf has lived in New York since 1965, and has a physics degree from Columbia. He’s been imam of Masjid al-Farah, a Sufi mosque in New York City’s TriBeCa neighborhood, since 1983. Rauf has written three books on Islam and how it fits into Western society. He’s married to his second wife, Daisy Khan.

Was he raised Sufi?
No. His father, Muhammad Abdul Rauf, was a more conservative Sunni Muslim who, with the support of Egypt, taught and studied at universities and mosques outside the Middle East. The elder Rauf moved his family around to England, Malaysia, and then the U.S. The exposure to different religions and Islamic traditions led Feisal to shift to the more moderate and mystical Sufi Islam.

What was Rauf best known for before the Park51 controversy?
Since the 1990s he has been heavily involved in interfaith dialogue with Christian and Jewish leaders, and has founded two nonprofits focused on building bridges between American Muslims, U.S. society, and the Muslim world: The American Society for Muslim Advancement (1997) and the Cordoba Initiative (2003). After 9/11, Rauf did sensitivity training for the FBI and has gone on four U.S.-sponsored speaking tours to the Mideast since 2007 to discuss how Islam meshes with American religious pluralism.

What’s the case for him being a “stealth” extremist?
Critics say his peace-and-brotherhood talk covers up support for Palestinian suicide bombers, Iran’s repressive Islamic government, radical Muslim clerics, and the imposition of Sharia law in the West. To support these charges, his detractors cite Rauf’s refusal to call Hamas a terrorist group and his equating of certain U.S. actions with Islamic terrorism. The Cordoba Initiative and its Park51 project aren’t about dialogue, critics say, but rather about proselytizing and spreading Islam.

Is the case persuasive?
Though a few of Rauf’s speeches contain some jarring notes (see quotes below), those who have known him for a long time are surprised by the allegations. “To stereotype him as an extremist is just nuts,” says the Very Rev. James P. Morton, longtime dean of the Church of St. John the Divine.

What does the Muslim world think of him?
His views “place him as pro-American within the Muslim world,” says Anne Barnard in The New York Times. His outreach to Christians and Jews, liberal views on female equality, criticism of several Muslim countries as less true to core Islamic teachings than the U.S., and stated support for Israel have made him suspect in some Islamic circles.

What are some of his controversial quotes?
“We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims.” (Speech in Australia, 2005)

“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened [on 9/11], but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened… We have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” (CBS 60 Minutes, Sept. 30, 2001)

“The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.” (Quoted in Sydney Morning Herald, 2004)

“The Prophet Muhammad has been known as the first feminist… Gender equality is an intrinsic part of Islamic belief.” (Huffington Post, 2009)

Taxi driver: fear and loathing in New York

Jillian York

After all of the anti-Muslim rhetoric surrounding the debate about Park51, it didn’t come as a surprise to many that someone took it to the next level. As Michael Tomasky reported on his blog, a New York City cab driver, Ahmed Sharif, was stabbed yesterday after the perpetrator asked “Are you Muslim?”
 
Initial reports on Michael Enright, the young man who has been charged with attempted murder as a hate crime, among other things, show him as an untroubled young man who was working as a volunteer with an interfaith project and who had travelled to Afghanistan to film a documentary on US soldiers. His neighbours and colleagues have gone to the media to tell them Enright is “a nice boy”. Multiple reports have referred to him as “baby-faced”.

Two more incidents on the same day, though less violent, point to a rapidly escalating trend. In Queens on Wednesday night, a drunken man entered a mosque and urinated on the prayer rugs while yelling “terrorists!” On the same night, in Fresno, California, a mosque was vandalised: a window broken and a sign posted that read “No temple for the god of terrorism”.
 
Is anyone surprised? For weeks, the rightwing media, politicians and citizens have been speaking out against the building of a Muslim community center in what has been, for a long time, a neighbourhood populated by Muslims. And though not all opposition to Park51 is bigotry, or even necessarily invalid, much of it is. Calling Park51 the “9/11 Monster Mosque”, as Pamela Geller has done, is irresponsible.

Calling it the “Ground Zero Mosque” intentionally to stir the emotions of those for whom the scars of 9/11 are still raw is hurtful and untruthful. And don’t get me started on the protests in New York, of which photographs show men and women with Confederate flags and signs that read “Sharia” in dripping blood-red ink. There is a new red scare, and this time it’s aimed at Muslims.
 
Despite all of the rhetoric, much of which borders on hate speech, almost no one in power, with the notable exception of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has spoken out against it. Bloomberg, for his part, has been vocal since the beginning, and following yesterday’s attack, has invited injured cab driver Ahmed Sharif to a meeting (Sharif has accepted). For that, I commend him.
 
But where are the rest of our politicians and leaders to stand up for the Muslim American community? Where is our leadership? 

Last summer, when Dr Henry Louis Gates was arrested by Cambridge police for attempting to “break in” to his own home, President Obama stated that police had “acted stupidly”; and subsequently invited Gates and the arresting officer to the White House for a “beer summit”.
 
Yet, the president, who has spoken publicly only to say that Muslims have a right to religious freedom (a point on which he then backtracked somewhat), shows no signs of standing up for the American Muslim community. Just as the arrest of Henry Louis Gates at his own home was (or was, at least, perceived as) an act of racism, there should be no doubt that President Obama understands that this is an issue of bigotry, of intolerance. Why, then, has he not spoken up for Muslims?
 
The fact of the matter is, Michael Enright may have committed this crime without the abetting national theme of a “Muslim scare”. But the circumstantial facts suggest otherwise, so we need to stop the anti-Muslim rhetoric dead in its tracks. And for that, we need our leadership to stand up.

Source

Rejecting the politics of fear

Source

Q: President Obama weighed in on the issue of the mosque at Ground Zero prompting grumbles that the gesture was unnecessary and politically damaging. Meanwhile the imam at the center of the controversy — Feisal Abdul Rauf — has been largely invisible, lecturing for the State Department in Bahrain and, according to his wife, unavailable until next month. What do leaders need to know about perfecting the timing of weighing in on a crisis?

The attack on plans to build a Muslim community center is another attempt to frighten Americans. Lacking any creative policies for a nation recovering from an economic crisis, leaders who oppose the Obama administration have adopted a policy of fear to gain power. There were the supposed “death panels” as part of the attack on health-care legislation. There are the dire warnings that the president is a socialist and/or a secret Muslim. Whether it is about illegal immigrants, terrorism or the deficit, the message is “be afraid”.

The controversy about a community center with prayer space near Ground Zero is a fake issue, an excuse to ratchet up fear. There is already a mosque nearby. And Faisal Abdul Rauf is a humanistic Muslim who preaches that the best of the Muslim tradition is consistent with America’s values of liberty and justice for all. We should recognize that all religions have their extremists who preach hatred and leaders who preach brotherhood.

The crisis that cries out for leadership is not about the mosque in Manhattan. It is about confronting the fear that can paralyze this country or turn fear of the future into impotent anger. We need leaders who affirm the American tradition of religious freedom and celebrate the policies this government has taken to save our auto industry, regulate financial services, stimulate the economy and provide health-care to millions of Americans.

Michael Maccoby is an anthropologist and psychoanalyst globally recognized as an expert on leadership. He is the author of The Leaders We Need, And What Makes Us Follow.

Hate Crimes on the Rise as Republican Rhetoric Reaches Epic Heights

The Southern Poverty Law Center is reporting that the number of hate crimes against Latinos has been rising for the last several years as right wing rhetoric has been getting more and more extreme and violent.

Anti-Latino crimes increased in each of the four years from 2003 through 2007, before dropping back slightly in 2008, according to FBI national hate crime statistics (2009 figures have not yet been compiled). In recent months, politicians and others have made statements that demonize Latinos and likely contribute to the atmosphere of violence. Two of the most outrageous recent examples: Texas Republican Congressmen Louie Gohmert and Debbie Riddle both claimed that pregnant terrorists plan to sneak into America to give birth to future terrorists who will automatically become U.S. citizens and eventually “help destroy our way of life,” as Gohmert put it. Both representatives claimed that former FBI officials divulged the terrorist baby threat to them. CNN asked Tom Fuentes, who served as the FBI’s assistant director in the office of international operations from 2004 to 2008 about the claims by Gohmert and Riddle. “There was never a credible report — or any report, for that matter …  to indicate that there was such a plan for these terror babies to be born,” he said.

SPLC refers to several anti-Latino hate crime attacks, including dozens of attacks on Staten Island, and the murder of a third generation native-born American.

In June, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Phoenix said that the murder of a Mexican-American man a month earlier was a hate crime. Gary Thomas Kelley is charged with second-degree murder in the killing of Juan Varela. He also is charged with menacing Varela’s brother with a gun. “Hurry up and go back to Mexico or you’re gonna die,” Kelley shouted at Varela before shooting him in the neck, police said. The dead man was a third-generation, native-born American.

In other words, this racist asshole killed an American citizen because he wasn’t white. Of course, this isn’t the only kind of hate crime that we’re hearing a lot about lately. There’s this week’s story of Michael Enright, who tried to murder a New York City cab driver because he said “yes” when Enright asked if he was a Muslim.

His diary equated Muslims with “killers, ungrateful for the help they were being offered, filthy murderers without a conscience.” A top Muslim American organization said the event shows the dangers of extreme anti-Islamic rhetoric.

An account by cab driver Ahmed H. Sharif said that Enright was asking him questions about how long he had been in the U.S., if he was Muslim and if he was fasting during Ramadan. Enright was silent for a few minutes before he starting cursing and screaming before the stabbing, according to a statement.

Enrigh yelled “Assalamu Alaikum”and “consider this a checkpoint” before attacking Sharif, police said. The taxi driver was scheduled to meet with Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Thursday.

Mosques all over the country are being targeted with vandalism and protests. Many of these are incidences of hate crimes, and things only seem to be getting worse as the Glenn Beck crew keeps talking.

The other signs left at the Madera mosque read: “Wake up America, the Enemy is here. ANB” and “American Nationalist Brotherhood.”

ThinkProgress has previously noted that there has been a spate of hate crimes against mosques in America. For instance, a mosque in South Arlington, Texas, was vandalized earlier this month. “The vandals also cut a pipe, allegedly thinking that it was a natural gas line.” Also, the Al-Farooq Islamic Center in Nashville, Tennessee was vandalized with anti-Muslim graffiti. And in a Jacksonville mosque this year, a pipe bomb was set off and a “tissue stuffed inside with white powder” was sent in the mail to one of the community’s local religious leaders.

Right wing Republicans don’t just hate brown people though – they also hate gay people. The city of Covington, KY has seen a recent increase in attacks toward LGBT members of the community.

One particularly violent attack that has become a catalyst for greater awareness occurred at 1:00 a.m. on Aug. 15, when a group of men and women, both gay and straight, were attacked by four people, including a man with Swastika tattoos and Aryan Nation symbols all over his body.

…

Burke has a history of hate crimes, pleading guilty in 2003 to beating a man, who claimed that Burke and the other attackers were “yelling out racial slurs and telling me that they should kill me.” They were also using baseball bats reading, “Imperial Klans of America.”

There is a body count that is directly related to right wing Republican hate rhetoric and there needs to be some accountability before anyone else dies. Attacking and trying to intimidate and scare people because you don’t like the color of their skin or who they happen to love is hateful – and I’m just going to call it what it is – bigotry. If your goal is to terrorize those who aren’t just like you, then you are a terrorist.

Source

Pamela, Robert .. Congrats!!

Two hate crimes against Muslims were reported within less than 24 hours.
Obviously, this worrying hatred and racism were growing after the campaign run by Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller against Islam and Muslims in the United States.
Pamela Geller, who wrote earlier:

“This is not a religious issue. This is a national security issue. And an issue of national dignity and respect for those who were murdered at that site in the name of Islam.”

Geller and her companions are directly responsible for hate crimes and racism which is expected to increase in the coming period.
it’s not exaggeration if we said that these bigotry actions may lead to a civil war in the United States of America. the last thing we need is another fool to stab some American in neck in the name of patriotism.

“If you had any doubt who Obama stood with on 9/11, there can be no doubt in our minds now.

Right after the 9/11 attacks, Obama blamed America, just like the Islamic supremacist Ground Zero mega-mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

Then-state Sen. Obama said: “We should also examine the foreign policies of the U.S. to make sure that we occupy the moral high ground in these conflicts. In particular, we have to examine some of the root causes of this terrorist activity.” ”

. It’s time to tell the ugly truth about the enemy in the White House and his whores in the media.

Pamela Geller is not only against Muslims, she is also against the American administration, which mean that it may be a matter of time for some extremist idiots to commit a foolish action against the president Obama or one of supporters who stood behind the right of Muslims to build their own cultural center near Ground Zero.

Pamela Geller is not working on her own, there are a lot of bigots who run another campaign against Islam in the United States. Robert Spencer, who runs (with Pam Geller too) SIOA campaign, was one of those who worked for the last months on pushing American people to racism which led to violence against Muslims.

The violence wasn’t hidden when SIOA co-founder, John Joseph Jay, wrote:

if we are to excise the ruling class, it will be with violence. they used violence to attain their privilege, they use it nakedly to attain their privilege, they use it nakedly in the form of the s.i.e.u. and black panther thugs in elective politics to maintain it, they contemplate relocation camps to preserve it, and they will violently resist and suppress any and all efforts to be removed from their privilege.
buy guns. buy ammo. be jealous of your liberties. and, understand, you are going to have to kill folks, your uncles, your sons and daughters, to preserve those liberties.

American extremists who read, heard and saw these campaigns needed nothing but a Muslim neighbor, cab driver or shop girl to revise all the misleading information which was told by Spencer and his companion and put them in action!
Minorities in American are still American! and they cannot be “enemized”!
It’s the turn for the moderate American to act against the bigotry and racism, And remember: ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

Source

Student Arraigned in Anti-Muslim Stabbing of Cabdriver

By KAREN ZRAICK AND ANDY NEWMAN

Pool photo by Steven Hirsch Michael Enright, right, with his lawyer, Jason Martin, at his arraignment on hate-crime charges Wednesday.

Update, 5:24 p.m. | The man charged with the anti-Muslim slashing and stabbing of a cabdriver was arraigned Wednesday afternoon in Manhattan Criminal Court on charges of second-degree attempted murder as a hate crime, first-degree assault as a hate crime and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon.

An emergency medical technician said that had the cut been any deeper or longer, the driver would have died, prosecutors said.

Judge ShawnDya L. Simpson ordered the man, Michael Enright, 21, held without bail.

James Zaleta, an assistant district attorney, said in court that Mr. Enright hailed a taxi near 24th Street and Second Avenue on Tuesday evening. Mr. Enright asked the taxi driver, who was from Bangladesh, whether he was Muslim, Mr. Zaleta said.

After the driver said he was, Mr. Enright responded with the Arabic greeting, “Assalamu alaikum,” according to the criminal court complaint.

Then Mr. Enright said, “Consider this a checkpoint,” before pulling out a Leatherman utility knife and slashing the taxi driver’s throat, Mr. Zaleta said. The driver turned and Mr. Enright slashed him in his face and forearms, Mr. Zaleta said.

The driver locked all four doors and drove to 42nd Street, Mr. Zaleta said, but Mr. Enright somehow got out of the car on the way. The driver flagged down a police officer standing on a corner and the officer apprehended Mr. Enright, Mr. Zaleta said.

New York Taxi Workers Alliance, via Associated Press Ahmed H. Sharif, the cabdriver stabbed by a passenger, at Bellevue Hospital Center.

Mr. Enright sliced the driver’s “neck open halfway across his throat,” Mr. Zaleta said.

The knife was not recovered, but a Leatherman pouch was found in the back seat of the taxi, Mr. Zaleta said.

“This is a highly vicious attack on an innocent person based on his religion,” Mr. Zaleta said.

If convicted of the top charge, Mr. Enright faces up to 25 years in prison.

Jason A. Martin, Mr. Enright’s lawyer, said his client lived with his parents and was an honor student at the School of Visual Arts, where he is a senior.

Mr. Enright is a volunteer with Intersections International, a nonprofit that works to promote cross-cultural understanding and has spoken out in favor of the proposed Islamic cultural center near ground zero. Mr. Enright, who shuffled into court with a collared T-shirt, cargo shorts and shackles around his ankles, has also worked with veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, Mr. Martin said.

“He’s terrified,” Mr. Martin said of his client. “He’s shocked at the allegations. He’s just trying to cope with it right now.”

Joan Illuzzi-Orbon, the chief of a new hate crimes unit created by Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney, was overseeing the investigation into the case.

Mr. Enright’s father, who was in court for the arraignment, declined to comment.

---

Update, 5:03 p.m. | The man charged with the anti-Muslim slashing and stabbing of a cabdriver Tuesday is a volunteer with a nonprofit organization that works to promote cross-cultural understanding and is working on a film about Marines’ experiences in Afghanistan.

The man, Michael Enright, 21, volunteers for Intersections International, a group “dedicated to justice, reconciliation and peace across lines of faith, culture, ideology, race, class, national borders and other boundaries that divide humanity.” Mr. Enright works with the group’s “veteran-civilian dialogue program.”

Intersections International released a statement this month supporting the construction of an Islamic cultural center [pdf] a few blocks from ground zero.

Intersections International, run by the Collegiate Churches of New York, said in a statement:

The news that one of our volunteers (if confirmed) was involved in a hate-crime runs counter to everything Intersections stands for.

3 Reasons the “Ground Zero Mosque” Debate Makes No Sense

Source

I don’t usually write about politics. It’s important, but something I want no part of – kind of like a raw sewage treatment facility. But frankly, I haven’t been this upset in a long time. And it’s due to the logic-hating, herd-mentality rhetoric that some have been flinging in opposition to the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque.” For the uninitiated, there are plans to construct an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan. And, of course, lower Manhattan is where the World Trade Center stood before terrorists destroyed it, thereby murdering 3,000 Americans. I was working in New York City at the time. As was my father. As was my pregnant wife. I remember the day well. And the days that followed. I think most of all, I remember standing on the Staten Island Ferry, coming home with 200 other silent, reverent New Yorkers of every age, race, and religion, as we watched our city still smoldering a full week later. And it is with this backdrop that I can say to every politician spouting off and opposing the construction of this Islamic community center: “Shut up. Go away. You hate America.”

I’m talking about people like professional political tumor, Newt Gingrich, and future worst President ever, Sarah Palin, who have both slammed supporters of the Islamic community center with rhetoric so flawed, I’m afraid even linking to it might impair your computer’s higher functioning circuits. But it’s not just them. Due to the wave of misinformation being spread, apparently 68% of Americans also oppose the mosque.

How did this happen? Well, basically a complacent or a complicit media helped perpetuate three ideas that are either outright lies or intellectually dishonest arguments designed to bring out the very worst in all of us. And as you continue to hear them–and you will–take out this column which you will have already printed and laminated, and recite thusly:

The proposed structure is not on the hallowed ground of the former World Trade Center. It’s at an abandoned and private building blocks away that used to be the Burlington Coat Factory. That means that if every one of the “g’s” that Sarah Palin drops when she’s talkin’ folksy were 10 by10 feet large, you could still stack over 120 of them from Ground Zero to this community center. Easy.

That sort of makes all the difference, doesn’t it? I know, when I first heard they were building a mosque at Ground Zero, I literally said, “What the fuck.” Like out loud and everything. I didn’t even pull a “WTF” despite years of writing for the Internet. That’s because for the last nine years, we New Yorkers have listened to countless proposals and plans and ideas of how to best rebuild the area while honoring the memories of those who died. And suddenly it seemed we were being told, “Yep, it’s all decided. Mosque. We want a mosque here. Just feels right.”

So yeah, of course, no one was on board. That just made no sense. What happened to that proposed waterfall and wall of names? Nothing happened. Because no one was ever building a mosque on that site. It’s just a lie that was told to you by people who wanted you to be afraid, upset, and hurt. People who wanted to manipulate your tender emotions to inspire contempt for the government. It’s about as intellectually dishonest as manipulating debate footage to make it appear that “Drill, baby, drill” is Sarah Palin’s stance on partial birth abortions. It’s just wrong.

And to those who say that any location in lower Manhattan is too close for a Muslim structure, let me remind you that right now, in the shadow of what would be the former World Trade Center, there’s a Halal Meat Hot Truck with a multi-denominational line that wraps around my building every day at lunch time. And I’m positive that’s owned by a Muslim. And I’ve even suffered at his hands. (Spoiler alert: avoid the goat rhoti). Should he move a few more blocks away too? Of course, not. That would just be silly, right? Is it different? Why? Because mosques are religious and the 911 terrorists perverted Islam into something violent and hateful? Guess what? Those knights did the same thing to Christianity for the 300 years of the Crusades, and no one’s saying that churches shouldn’t be built anywhere in … Europe.

A mosque by definition is a purely religious structure. This is a large proposed community center, open to the public and set to house, among other things, a basketball court. Yes there will be a prayer space inside it as well, but you don’t call St. Mary’s Hospital a church because it happens to have a chapel inside it, do you? Well, maybe you do. You read about politics on the Internet from a guy who claims not to write about politics, so maybe you’re functionally illiterate. But the point is, you shouldn’t.

But “Islamic Community Center open to the public” doesn’t have the same ability to scare people the way “mosque” does. I mean, you hear “mosque” you think mosquito, you think STING! You hear “mosque” you think “mask,” you think DECEPTION! You hear “community center” you think “OK. One more place I’ll never go.” So, yeah, clearly the decision was made by those who hate you to call this the “Ground Zero Mosque” even though it’s not at Ground Zero and not technically a mosque. Why are we still discussing this? Why haven’t you already asked Sarah Palin if she’s the devil on her Twitter account? Oh, that’s right. Because the devil is supposed to be good at lying.

But the real reason I’m writing is not just because of people like Sarah Palin, but because of shameful, spineless panderers like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Here’s a statement from each of them designed to give the appearance of being tolerant while adhering to good old-fashioned common sense values:

From Sarah Palin’s Twitter Feed:

“We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they?”

And from Harry Reid’s spokesperson:

While respecting that Muslims have a First Amendment right to religious freedom, Reid “thinks this mosque should be built some place else,” his spokesman Jim Manley said Monday.

Let me make something clear. In order to make these statements you must hate two things: logic and America. There is NO way to say that an individual has a protected right to do something and simultaneously criticize your government for not suppressing the execution of that right. There is no way for President Obama or any other president to put a stumbling block in the way of the free exercise of religion without violating the sanctity of that freedom. Should I say it more simply? OK.

You can’t legally stop people from obeying the law.

The Burlington Coat factory is private property. Those who want to build on it are private citizens. They are violating no law in wanting to build a community center. Under what authority do you propose we stop them? There is no “unless you’re a Muslim within X yards of a national tragedy exception” to the free exercise of religion. Do the Gingrichs and Palins and Reids want to start a precedent where you can compel people not to exercise the freedoms guaranteed under our Constitution provided enough people don’t like you?

And what are we saying to Muslims? That if they were good Americans they would willingly give up their rights? I can’t think of anything less American than that? This is America. We do what we want. And all you have to do to have that right is be a citizen here. And if you’re a traitor, well then we will prosecute you for treason and penalize you for taking up arms against the greatest country in the world, but we will NOT start curtailing your freedoms based on mere speculation fueled by lies about what you’re building and where you’re building it.

In the days following 911 it was very popular to say that we couldn’t do anything differently in America or “the terrorists would win.” We can’t stop driving gas guzzling cars. We can’t stop supporting dictators in other parts of the world for financial or political gain. We can’t vote for a Democrat. Most of that was rhetoric. Some of it was probably true. But one thing is definitely true: if we ask our leaders to start dishonoring the freedoms that make this country great, the terrorists surely will have won. And I don’t want to see that. Because unlike those with power and influence who would lie to you, I love America.

Our Testimony, Issued in 1994; In 2010, still true to our word.

This testimony was issued by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1994, and it addresses various issues clearly and without ambiguity. Ikhwanweb decided to post part of this testimony in order to rebut some of the claims that the Muslim Brotherhood has not yet clarified its stance on certain issues like violence, terrorism, and commitment to democracy.

“The World has recently been passing through unprecedented experiences which have been characterized by great changes taking place at a tremendous speed. Ideas, values and institutions have been changing rapidly, during the course of which the balance of power, whether political, economic or military also changed. The Muslims, who form a substantial part of the World population, are not isolated from such changes, and cannot detach themselves from the consequences and pretend to be living on a secluded island of their own, ridding themselves of their responsibilities at such a historical stage with all its associated risks and challenges.

One of the most dangerous Phenomena which we all observe nowadays is the confusion of various concepts and the proliferation of misunderstanding of the Muslims. These phenomena have been increasingly enhanced by the world media whose role in its creation and spread is very significant.

Muslims have been accordingly afflicted by an overwhelming assault which has portrayed them as savage and primitive people devoid of sensitivity, rational capacity and practical experience of the means of development and progress and of denying others the right to life, liberty and freedom of thought. This depiction has caused the World to negatively suspect almost every Muslim “and “Islamic” person, institution, etc.

It is only fair for us to also acknowledge that part of the responsibility for this unjust confusion rests on the shoulders of the Muslims, due to the thoughts and practices of some of us which could be support the suspicions of others and open the door for both legitimate and illegitimate fears. Others attribute to Islam, amidst other things, matters which have no origin in Islam and can not be substantiated by any evidence from Islamic texts, principles or jurisprudence, let alone Islam ’s supreme values and great objectives.

The Muslim Brotherhood, therefore, realize that it is their our (and the people’s due) to declare to the public in the clearest and strongest words our own position towards certain issues of great significance, which are the subject of a cross cultural debate. Thus we issued in 1994 several statements indicating precisely, our outspoken view regarding issues such as Shura (Islamic consultation) political pluralism, women rights and so on.

These statements, to the best of our knowledge, have been welcomed by fair minded persons and scholars who are seeking the truth and who are hoping that people will agree on goodness, Justice and truth. Nevertheless, continuous efforts were made by some in order to arouse suspicion in the minds of the people and to fabricate lies in an attempt to defame the current Islamic resurgence. In reply to those who fight the Islamic trend and are keen to remove it from view, we the Muslim Brotherhood, are obliged to declare once again our position in relation to the major issues which preoccupy our nation and the nations around us.

*Muslim Brotherhood Stance on Violence and Terrorism

In the past years, the Muslim Brotherhood have repeatedly stated that they are involved in political life and have committed themselves to legal means and non-violent methods. Their only weapons are honest and truthful words and the selfless dedication to social work. In so doing we are confident that the nation’s conscience and the peoples’ awareness are the rightful judges of all intellectual and political trends which compete honestly with one another, within the limits of the constitution and the law.

Thus, as the Muslim Brotherhood, we reiterate our rejection of any form violence and coercion as well as all forms of coups which destroy the unity of any nation, because such plots may allow their organizers to supersede the political social realities; but would never allow the masses the opportunity to exercise their free will. Furthermore, these methods would create a great crack in the wall of political stability and form an unacceptable assault true legitimacy in the society.

Indeed, the present atmosphere of suppression, instability and anxiety has forced many of the young men of this nation to commit acts of terrorism which have intimidated innocent citizens and threatened the country’s security as well as its economic and political future. The Muslim Brotherhood dissociate themselves totally, without any hesitation, from all kinds and forms of violence and we denounce terrorism of any form and from any source. In addition we consider those who shed the blood of others or aid such bloodshed, as being wrongdoers and partners in sin. Hence, we request all Muslims to abandon such actions, and return to the right way because a Muslim one who refrains from abusing others both Physically and verbally.

We invite all those who are involved in acts of violence to remember the advice of our Messenger (PBUH) in the farewell pilgrimage speech when he commanded us to protect the sanctity of blood, and property of every Muslim.

The Muslim Brotherhood ’s continuous policy has been one of urging the government not to counter violence with violence, to abide instead by the rules of law and jurisdiction, to examine the different aspects of the problem and not to be confined to the confrontation policies.

Some people deliberately and unfairly accuse the Muslim Brotherhood of taking part in acts of violence and of involvement in terrorism. They feel that the above policy is paving the way for violence to grow. Instead they expect the Muslim Brotherhood whole-heartedly support the Government’s actions. These accusations cannot be taken seriously in the light of the clear long term record of the Muslim Brotherhood ’s positive contribution to political life including our participation in general elections and representative bodies. When we were forced to stay away on certain occasions, we have always remained committed to the laws and constitution and fought back using our only weapon, which is truthfulness and honesty:

“and they are never afraid of reproaches of such as find fault.

(Al-Maa’idah:54)

In conclusion, the whole affair is not a matter of policies or strategies, but it is a matter dee- understanding of religion- and Aqeedah (faith) to which the Muslim Brotherhood are committed till day of judgement:

“The Day whereon neither wealth nor sons will avail, but only he (will prosper) that who meets Allah with a sound heart.

(Ash-Shu’araa:88)

*Muslim Brotherhood and Human Rights

We the Muslim Brotherhood, would like to proclaim to everyone including ourselves, that we are at the forefront of those who respect human rights and work for it. We call for providing all safeguards for these rights, securing them for every human being and facilitating the practice of all, liberties within the frame work of ethical Values and legal limits. We believe that human freedom is humanity ’s starting point for every good cause, for progress and creativity. The violation of human freedom and rights under any banner, even Islam, is a degradation of man and a demotion from the high position in which god has placed him, and it prevents man from utilizing his initiative and powers to prosper and develop.

At the same time, we register here in front of the world conscience, that the present tragic acts of injustice are afflicting those Muslims who have never hurt any one. It is not made by Muslims .

It is the duty of all wise men to protest loudly, calling for the universality of human rights and universality of the enjoyment of human freedom and human rights on an equal footing. Such equality is the true way to international and social peace and towards a new world order which would be able to correct any injustice and stop all acts of aggression.

*Muslim Brotherhood and Political Pluralism

The Muslim Brotherhood believe in the plurality of political parties in the Muslim society, and that there is no need for the authorities to place restrictions on the formulation and activities of the political parties and groups. Each faction should be free to declare what it advocates and to set out its path. The law would be applied through an independent judiciary away from the hands of the government or any organization and this judiciary should be qualified intellectually, scientifically, legally and culturally. In this there is enough to guarantee a sound society against the adoption of a measure that departs from the principles that are considered the basic pillars of society.

We, the Muslim Brotherhood, believe that the acceptance of the plurality of parties in the Muslim society in the manner we have outlined implies acceptance of the rotation of power among the political parties and groups through periodic election.

Background

Describing the believers, Allah Almighty said:

“Those who answer the Call of their Lord, and offer their prayers perfecetly, and who conduct their affairs by mutual consultation and who spend out of what we have bestowed on them.

(Ash-Shura: 42)

This verse includes an Islamic injunction that the affairs of Muslims are to be conducted according to mutual consultation. This means that the Muslims should consult each other concerning their public and private matters to make sure that justice is achieved, the commandments Allah are observed and to make sure that their own (the Muslims’) interests are served. Furthermore, mutual consultation will prevent any one individual or group from monopo-lising the affairs of the people by acting a matter of grave concern t the Muslim people without their consent.

This indicates that it is the nation which is the real source of authority or power. It elects as rulers those in whose faith, honesty, experience, knowledge, talents, and afficiency it trusts.

There has never been a period that the Muslims out of their own free choice have chosen any system other than the Islamic system. Muslims though have shown great resistance to other conditions of rules by continuously demanding a return to the rule of Allah and the law of Islam. Much noble blood has been shed in striving to uphold the word of Allah and the law of Islam. It is only tyranny and oppression that maintain this situation. The Muslim Brotherhood was born out of a great determination to struggle for the return to the law of Allah so that all the matters of a Muslim’s life can be governed by Islamic Sharee’ah. Therefore, it categorically asserts that the nation is the real source of power and authority as mentioned above, and that people have the right to appoint those they wish depending upon the candidate’s honesty, sound religion, Knowledge and efficiency in managing the state’s affairs.

While we hold that the Qur’an and the Prophet’s (PBUH) tradition are the supreme constitution of the rule of Muslims, we see that the nation must have a written constitution that it lays down and agrees upon. Its tenets should be taken from the texts of the shari`ah and from its goals, objectives, and general rules. This constitution should include rules to govern the relations between the different governmental organizations so that they do not overstep their areas of work. It should also contain sufficient rules and principles to preserve and protect public and private liberties for all people, Muslims and non-Muslims. It should make ruling, a matter of shura (mutual consultation). It should determine the responsibility of the rulers to the people and how they can be taken to account, corrected, and guided in a sound and successful way should they err, or indeed, how they should be replaced should the need arise. This requires the existence of a representative council is elected through free and fair elections with effective legislative and executive powers with its decisions being binding because they are based upon backing of the people.

We also believe that since the head of state is an agent of the people, the term of presidency should be limited and should be renewed only for a fixed period to war off tyranny.

Enjoining the good and forbidding the evil are the main tasks set down by Islamic law. Furthermore, correction and confronting the rulers when in error, as well as opposing their whims no longer an act that can be undertaken by a single individual but instead can only be carried by a collective group of people. Also differences of opinion are bound to occur in matters that are subject of Ijtihad (the interpretation or exertion of mental efforts to reach a view based on Islamic Sharee’ah) and there can be many different, alternative ways for dealing with the organization of areas that are permitted (mubah) in Islam. Because of these differences the methods of reform and administration are therefore bound to vary because variety is an undeniable fact of life. In fact, differences of opinion over many matters occurred in the Prophet’s (PBUH) life but he did not condemn them. What is forbidden under the Sharee’ah, are the disputes that lead to failure and weakness. But differences of opinion are complementary and a variety of perspectives are necessary to reach the truth and the most beneficial decision. Such differences should be accompanied by tolerance, and broad-mindedness as well as an abandonment of fanaticism and narrow-mindedness.

In the light of the above, This is our faithful testimony, and this is our call in all truth and sincerity. We invite every one through wisdom and good advice, to open a new chapter in human and international relations, so that we may be able to eradicate all evils and enjoy justice, liberty and peace;

Praise be to Allah and his Blessings upon the Prophet Mohammed.

“Our lord! Decide between us and our people in truth for You are the best decide.”

Commentary: The real debate is among Muslims

In this post, Peter Skerry is arguing that Muslims should have some sort of inner debate over the critical issues.
The fact is that Muslims throughout decades have made a lot of debates and inner discussions on the highest intellectual levels. Muslims defined their stances toward many issues, such as: Terrorism, Oppression against women, Minorities in the Muslim world, Engaging Muslims in the west and many other issues.
Now, The ball is not in the Muslim’s playground. We don’t count on bigots and racists, Muslim around the world are expecting the American people to show a larger amount of understanding. Muslims in the States suffered from terrorism, Even Muslims in the Middle East suffered from terrorist attacks throughout the last years like what happened in Egypt and Algeria.
It’s the role for reasonable public figures in the United States to clear their stance from Freedom of religions, They have to spread the word within the American People to change their minds, They should incept the message that “Mosques don’t threaten your safety”
On the Other hand, the writer talked about the ties between HLF and Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood confirmed many times that there are no such connections. It was clear that the goal from eliminating HLF is to destroy the Islamic humanitarian activism in the States.
And it’s not understandable, to link between two different issues in that way, HLF was a very narrow cause, related to zero percent of American Muslims. On the contrary to that, Cordoba Initiative is one of the most important issues for the American Muslims in general.

Source

THE MOSQUE near ground zero should be built, but not merely on account of the lofty principles about religous freedom articulated by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. In fact, when it comes to Islam, Americans have good reason to be suspicious of high-minded pronouncements by their leaders. A more compelling argument for building the mosque is to get beyond the current controversy, because it empowers the most opportunistic elements in the Muslim community and fosters an us-versus-them mentality that stalls a much-needed debate among Muslims about their place in American society.
Time and again, our political leaders have demonstrated an unsettling eagerness to put a positive gloss on troubling scenarios involving violent jihadists. After the failed Times Square bombing by self-proclaimed “Muslim soldier’’ Faisal Shahzad in May, Bloomberg declared: “So far, there is no evidence that any of this has anything to do with one of the recognized terrorist organizations.’’ Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano characterized the incident as “a one-off’’ event. Attorney General Eric Holder virtually refused to associate the plot with “radical Islam.’’

Reasonable people have good grounds to be distrustful of Muslim leaders and of the proposed prayer space. US mosques have often been battlegrounds between contending Muslim factions. A typical scenario is for one group to go to the trouble and expense of building a mosque, only to have it taken over by some other group. Although extremists have sometimes prevailed in this way, terrorists and would-be terrorists have typically operated outside mosques — either because they chose to or because they were forced out by fellow Muslims.

To be sure, such expulsions illustrate a reassuring process of self-policing by Muslim Americans, especially since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Yet this coexists with a striking degree of evasion and self-delusion, typified by the claim, frequently made by Muslims, that “religion had nothing to do with 9/11,’’ or the plaintive query “why didn’t anyone ask about the religion of the Unabomber?’’

More disturbing is the lack of candor on the part of many Muslim leaders about their past associations. As federal prosecutors established in the recent Holy Land Foundation trial, many leaders have had ties to Hamas and to the Muslim Brotherhood. To be fair, the implications of such ties may not be as dire as anti-Muslim zealots suggest. The Muslim Brotherhood is, after all, an encompassing movement in the Arab world, with divergent tendencies responsive to the different contexts in which adherents operate.

Nevertheless, such concerns need to be addressed. But far from compelling Muslim leaders to do so, controversies like this one allow them to change the subject. And the accompanying media storms also help such leaders to overcome daunting obstacles to mobilizing their co-religionists. An overlooked irony about the proposed mosque is that as many as 80 percent of Muslims in the United States lack a regular relationship with any mosque. Of these, some probably reject Islam and organized religion altogether. A larger number likely continue to identify with Islam but do not seriously observe its tenets. In addition to the usual reasons why immigrants do not get involved in civic or political affairs, such “unmosqued’’ Muslims are particularly difficult for leaders to communicate with and mobilize.

Adding to the difficulty is the diversity of Muslims in the United States. Not only are they divided among Sunni, Shia, and Sufi, they are separated by language and ethnic ties to their homelands. There is also a gulf between immigrant Muslims and their African-American brothers and sisters, who are themselves riven into many different sects. Finally, there are differences among traditionalists, fundamentalists, and Islamists.

In light of such fault lines and obstacles, controversies and attacks from non-Muslims afford leaders a singular opportunity to unify and mobilize their people, as Muslims. But the more the frame becomes Muslims versus non-Muslims, the more responsible leaders get pushed aside by the most opportunistic purveyors of victim politics.

This is the real tragedy of disputes like the present one. For the critical debate that must proceed is not between Muslims and non-Muslims, but among Muslims themselves.

To facilitate this process, the rest of us should follow Bloomberg’s imperfect example, support the building of the mosque near ground zero, maintain our vigilance against our true enemies in the Muslim world, and encourage Muslims here to get on with the critical business of coming to terms not only with their rights but also with their responsibilities as citizens.

Peter Skerry teaches political science at Boston College and is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Jon Stewart on Absurd Controversy Ginned Up Over Islamic Center: “WTF Is Wrong With You People???

Source

Jon Stewart continues his battle against racism and bigotry, On his “Daily Show”, Jon Stewart argued again for building the Islamic center in the lower Manhattan.
Stewart, Emmy Award Winner, started his series of shows on Ground Zero mosque after the raising refusing within the biased media in the United States.

On Monday’s Daily Show, Jon weighed in on the brouhaha surrounding the Islamic Community Center planned several blocks away from ground zero.

Enlisting the help of his Senior Religion Correspondent, John Oliver, Stewart raised a number of questions about fundamental freedoms, media inadequacy and what it means to be “American.”

The debate, of course, devolved into shouted expletives between Stewart and his limey counterpart. Jolly good fun all around.

Watch it:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Mosque-Erade
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

What’s so bad about being Muslim?

Shadi Hamid, Director of Research at the Brookings Doha Center & Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, tweeted earlier:

In an old post of mine from 2007, I asked ‘What’s so bad about being Muslim?’ some things, apparently, don’t change http://bit.ly/c2IjZy

Shadi in 2007 wrote under the title: “Smearing Obama“:

Via Andrew Sullivan, I see that Obama has clarified that he is, in fact, Christian:

I just want to be very clear and this is obviously in no way an insult to the Muslim community who I respect deeply but I want people to know who I am. I am a Christian. I am a member of Trinity United Church of Christ. I have been for 15 years. I have never practiced Islam and I think it’s important for people not to buy into these sort of fear tactics that people also often use during political games. People need to know the facts. These are the facts as I presented them and I hope that that at least does not become a reason for people not to want to vote for me.”

I understand that Obama wants to set the record straight. He needs to do that. But I have a question. What’s so bad about being Muslim? Why does calling someone a Muslim constitute a smear? It says a lot about conservatives that many of them wouldn’t be willing to entertain the idea of a Muslim president. Because we’re a fifth column, apparently, and we hate America, and all that. Well, to say that you’re opposed to the idea of a Muslim president is plain-out racism, and we shouldn’t indulge these attitudes or pretend they’re legitimate positions to take. Anyway, that’s a different issue. In any case, it apparently hasn’t occurred to them that someone who has connections to the Muslim world (or whose father was Muslim, god forbid!) might actually do a better job of convincing the world 1.5 billion Muslims – and demonstrating through less antagonistic policies – that America is not diametrically opposed to Islam. But if we won the Uppercase War on Terror – also known as World War IV or, more recently, Cold War II – we’d have nothing left to fight for (or fight against), so never mind.

Ikhwanophobia wants to re-ask the question, What’s bad about being Muslim?

Imam behind controversial New York Islamic center speaks

From Mohammed Jamjoom, CNN

The imam behind the controversial mosque and Islamic center near New York City’s ground zero said Sunday that he hopes the project will develop “an Islamic approach that allows for harmony and understanding among all religions and other ideas.”

The remarks from Abdul Rauf, who has rarely spoken to the media since his proposal for an Islamic center set off a firestorm of controversy this summer, came while the imam is on a State Department-sponsored trip to the Middle East.

Rauf spoke with the newspaper Bahraini Al Wasat before he was scheduled to appear at the U.S. ambassador’s residence in Bahrain, the newspaper’s editor said.

In the interview, to be published Monday, Rauf praised freedoms that Muslims and others enjoy in the United States.

“If we look at the American Declaration of Independence, we see that it speaks of principles that comply with Islam,” Rauf said, according to Bahraini Al Wasat editor-in-chief Mansoor Al-Jamri. “The U.S. Constitution protects our rights and what exists in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution is much better than what is found in many Islamic countries.”

Rauf is on his third trip to discuss Muslim life in America and religious tolerance, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said earlier this month.

“We have a long-term relationship with him,” Crowley said. “His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well known, and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States.”

Crowley said the imam’s trip would take him to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, in addition to Bahrain, an island nation off the coast of Saudi Arabia. His previous trips under the government program were in 2007 to Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar and Morocco, and earlier this year to Egypt.

The trip is one of about 1,200 similar programs of sending experts overseas, Crowley said.

Some lawmakers have urged the State Department to rethink plans to sponsor Rauf on trips abroad.

Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida, and Peter King, R-New York, the ranking members of the House Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security committees, called the State Department’s funding of Rauf’s current trip “unacceptable,” and said American taxpayers should not have to subsidize his tour.

In New York on Sunday, opponents of the planned Islamic community center faced off with demonstrators in favor of the facility.

Hundreds of critics and supporters of the proposed center in New York showed up despite an overcast and drizzly sky to express their views amid the national debate over the facility.

Police estimated that supporters of the center numbered up to 250, and critics numbered about 450 during the demonstration.

A banner on the anti-center side said, “Land of the free. Stop sharia before it stops you,” referring to Islamic law. Another sign read, “No mosque here. Preserve the dignity of our loved ones killed on 9/11.”

Others said Americans need to set an example of tolerance to the rest of the world.

“It would be giving in to bigotry and intolerance to demand that it be moved and I think in the end, it makes us less safe because we need to show the world that we are a tolerant, open society,” supporter Ruth Massie said.

Media: Olbermann: There is no ‘Ground Zero Mosque’

Source

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Stewart: ‘Is Fox News a terrorist command center?’

Jon Stewart, Again, decides to stand against racism and fictions published by FOX News.
Jon Stewart tried in his last show (19/8/2010) to expose the sick techniques and analysis that led to link innocent and moderate American citizens to terrorist organizations outside the United States.

Source
By David Edwards and Daniel Tencer

In a recent Fox News segment, panelist Eric Bolling held up a card claiming to show links between Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the mosque near Ground Zero, and Hamas and Iran.

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart responded by using the same guilt-by-association technique to link Fox News to Islamist terrorism.

Bolling, appearing on Fox & Friends Thursday, said the imam behind the controversial mosque could be “loosely linked” to organizations such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. He held up a card showing the names of the organizations highlighted in yellow to make his point.

Bolling’s claims are a “dangerous game of built by association you could play with almost anybody,” Stewart said on the Daily Show Thursday night. “All you need is a card and a highlighter. It’s nothing.”

And to prove his point, Stewart then brought out a card of his own, this one showing links between Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and News Corp., the Rupert Murdoch-owned parent company of Fox News. Prince Alwaleed owns the largest share of News Corp. outside the Murdoch family, worth an estimated $2.5 billion.

Stewart pointed out that Prince Alwaleed can be tied to the Saudi royal family, which finances the construction of Wahabbist mosques, and which has links to the Carlyle Group. The Carlyle Group has, in turn, been tied to Osama bin Laden. And Stewart also pointed out that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani rejected a $10-million gift from Prince Alwaleed after the 9/11 attacks, because the Saudi prince had said that US foreign policy contributed to the terrorist attack.

“I think that, really, when you look at this card and you do highlight it in yellow, the only thing you can come up with is: Is Fox News a terrorist command center?” Stewart asked.

Stewart then rolled footage of actor-turned-gun-rights-activist Charlton Heston, defending the NRA after the Columbine shooting in 1999. While Heston’s speech was meant to defend Second Amendment rights, Stewart said it could just as easily apply as a defense of First Amendment freedom-of-religion rights.

Tragedy has been and will always be with us. Somewhere right now evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do, to prevent it. Each horrible act can’t become an act for opportunists to cleave the bill of rights that binds us.

America must stop its predicable pattern of reaction. When an isolated terrible event occurs, our phones ring demanding that the NRA explain the inexplicable. Why us? The story needs a villain. That is not our role in American society and we will not be forced to play it. If you disagree, that’s your right. I respect that but we will not relinquish it or be silenced about it or be told, do not come here, you are unwelcome in your own land.

“Well said, sir,” Stewart said of Heston’s remarks.
This video is from Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, broadcast Aug. 19, 2010.

Could Islamic Center issue harm GOP?

In this Post, There is an article showing some of Washington Post Readers’ comments on Ground Zero mosque.
Some of these comments shows how many Americans turns to be more intolerant and aggressive against Islam and Muslims, On the other side, there are many rational voices that supports the religious freedom in the States.
American Muslims should be completely engaged in the American society, This will support the social security in America, And the only way for this to happen is to support moderate Muslims to get over the extremists’ voices in both sides.

Source

The Not-Exactly-at-Ground-Zero mosque issue continues to generate strong responses from our readers and they are debating a story that says some influential Republicans are concerned that today’s talking point harvest could generate long-term political damage for the GOP.

There are, of course, readers on both sides of the question. Some argue that the whole episode flies in the face of this country’s constitutional commitment to religious freedom. Others recall 9/11 and essentially tar all Muslims with the Al-Qaeda brush. A few wonder why this has become the centerpiece of our political conversation with the economy in the tank, the war in Afghanistan, the questions about how much oil is still floating around in the Gulf of Mexico, and other substantive issues.

As Karen Tumulty writes, “Although public opinion is running overwhelmingly against the construction of the Islamic center, Republican strategists said there are dangers in pushing the issue too forcefully.”

We’ll start with pmax, who predicted that “In the end this will be bad for the Republicans. But first, it’s going to be really bad for the Democrats.”

And johne37179 said, “There is no need for Republicans to even mention this issue. Democrats are doing a great job of keeping the issue front and center and driving voters to the right.”

But baldinho wrote, “The headline should/could read ‘Few remaining Republicans with honor attempt to salvage the dignity of their party.’ “

dgra said, “Sooner or later some journalist is going to figure out that the American people are tired of hearing about “voting blocs” and would simply prefer that rare politician that stands for what is right! Or at least what they think is right as opposed to expedient.”

CHICO13 wrote, “Seems to me the right wing has already flipped the bird to the black and latino vote. Now they’re doing the same to the muslim vote. Keep messing with social security wing nuts and you can kiss the senior citizen vote goodbye too.”

Godfather_of_Goals said, “I think there is also the question of Republicans/Conservatives’ stated preference for local control of local affairs. They should be able to recognize that it’s not just “Ground Zero”, it’s a community of Americans who are very much alive, and those are the people who approves the siting of the Islamic Center. I think it would go against bedrock conservative principles to negate their right of local control in favor of state or federal intervention from outside.”

bloggersvilleusa wrote, “Not just “could” backfire; already has. Bigots are beginning to galvanize people and solidify support against the Republicans, people who previously probably wouldn’t have bothered to vote this coming November.”

chgosatrap asked, “Doesn’t smaller government include not getting involved with a private citizen’s real estate deals?”

inono said, “Naw, let the Reeps talk mosques and 20 year plans for terrorist babies born here. These are hugely relevant issues to the millions searching for work and getting pounded by banks with 20% plus interest rates when banks are receiving billions of dollars of taxpayer funded subsidies.”

btrask3 wrote, “What a ridiculous story… Every single terrorist claimed Islamic Jihad as his motive. Many Islamic World Leaders, Imam’a, and Mufti clearly simpathize with the Terrorists. And most important… Muslims have not stood up and condemned the terrorists and identified and condemned terrorist sympathizers in their midst. Until that happens… muslim activists don’t have a leg to stand on.”

[The article quotes conservative activist Grover Norquist as saying, “The support for criticizing a mosque is half a mile wide and an inch deep. And at the end of the process, the only people who will remember it are the people who feel threatened by this — not just Muslims, but Sikhs, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Mormons.” That quote sets up the next two comments.]

morphex said, “The sects that Norquist says feel threatened by the demagogy around the prayer room in the Muslim cultural center a few block from Ground Zero should feel threatened by it. They are small and vulnerable and kind of odd in their beliefs and ritual practices, the very stuff that ignorant people pick on in times of trouble. Moslems today, but tomorrow it could be you.”

And PLM671 wrote, “Grover Norquist’s comment is very perceptive.”

chgosatrap wrote, “I live in one of the most republican areas of Illinois, just 30 miles west of Chicago. There is a mosque here, and nobody seems to be freaked about it. They just keep building million dollar mini-mansions, and life is good.”

PPpatriot said, “The first order of business is to publish a detailed account of who is paying for this affront. Follow the money, it always tells the truth about what is going on. Let’s not forget this is more of a political movement than a religion. The political movement uses the religion as cover… If this is the Muslim religion speaking, their compassion for our feelings will cause them to consider another location; otherwise it’s political and should be stomped out like a used cigarette butt.”

RobertaHigginbotham wrote, “Loving and honoring our Constitution is a hard thing to do.”

We’ll close with parkerjere, who wrote, “wall Street and Washington rip off the taxpayers for over a trillion dollars, and now the politicians have got us arguing with each other over THIS???”

All comments on this article are here.

Robert Scheer: Ground Zero for Tolerance

Source
Are the Republicans terminally stupid or are they just playing the dangerous fool? In either case, the irrational attack on Muslims everywhere by the GOP’s leadership is not only deeply subversive with regard to the American ideal of religious tolerance, but also poses a profound threat to our national security. Nor does it help that some top Democrats like Harry Reid are willing to demean Muslims even as we fight two wars in which victory depends on our ability to convey a respect for their religion.

Just ask Gen. David Petraeus, who is leading the war without end to win the hearts and minds of Muslims in Afghanistan, how helpful it is to the Taliban for American politicians to identify all Muslims with terrorism. Or to the theocratic leaders of Iran who justify their hard line with the insistence that the U.S. is obsessively anti-Muslim.

Demonization of the Muslim religion is what this brouhaha is all about. Talk of the sensitivity of the victims of 9/11, ignoring those who were Muslim, is just camouflage. It is as absurd as it would be to blame all religious Jews for the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, killed by one gunman from a fanatical Jewish fringe group, or to ban the erection of an Orthodox synagogue anywhere near Rabin’s grave. As irrational an act of scapegoating as blaming all ethnic Germans for the acts of Nazis, many of whom claimed to be God-fearing Christians.

Yet that is the logical implication of the comparison that Newt Gingrich made when he likened the proposed erection of a Muslim community center two blocks from the World Trade Center site to putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum. On his website, Newt goes further in identifying all Muslims with terrorism: “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively towards us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.”

Consider the full implication of that call for an international cold war against Islam by the former GOP House speaker. Someone should remind Newt that both Republican and Democratic presidents have regarded Saudi Arabia as an ally in the war against terrorism and toward that end sanctioned the sale of very sophisticated weaponry to the kingdom and the sharing of intelligence with its military. So too with the Muslim-dominated government of Pakistan with which we have been allied for a half-century, not to mention our current Muslim allies in power in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a leader in Congress, Gingrich supported those policies, but now in his zeal to misrepresent President Barack Obama’s perfectly sensible stand that we are not at war with the Muslim world, he abandons not only his record but also any pretense of logic.

But even if one accepts that the Wahhabi version of Islam dominant in Saudi Arabia helps fuel violent spin-offs of the Osama bin Laden variety (although bin Laden would be summarily executed in his native land), what does this have to do with a Sufi Muslim community center proposed for lower Manhattan? As the highly regarded religion writer William Dalrymple pointed out in a New York Times Op-Ed piece, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the leader of the group hoping to build the New York center, is a moderate Sufi, and he and his movement’s espousal of universal brotherhood have been a target of violence. The Taliban was so threatened by the Sufi message of universal love that it attacked a Pakistani shrine to the great 17th century Sufi poet-saint Rahman Baba. “I am a lover, and I deal in love,” Dalrymple writes in citing Baba’s revered Sufi verse, which continues, “Sow flowers,/ so your surroundings become a garden./ Don’t sow thorns; for they will prick your feet./ We are all one body./ Whoever tortures another, wounds himself.”

Just the message most relevant to adorn a building near the site of the World Trade Center, leveled by those who sow thorns. But sadly the thorns of religious bigotry are not a monopoly of any one religion or easily resisted by the demagogic politicians who exploit our ignorance of the other. The premise of our constitutional protection of religious diversity is that ignorance is the enemy of freedom.

Our founders were keenly aware, from the lessons of Europe and the early American colonies, of the dangers posed by false prophets from within their own churches. They knew well from deep personal experience, as is revealed clearly in the writings of Washington and Jefferson, that religious and political liberty was most effectively threatened by the zealotry of one’s own kin.

CBS: Howard Dean: NYC Mosque a “Real Affront”

It’s very weird to for Howard Dean to refuse building a place for worship and say at the same moment:

“That site doesn’t belong to any particular religion, it belongs to all Americans and all faiths,”

Obviously, Muslims did suffer like any other people after 9/11 attacks. So it’s real injustice to say that Christians, Jews and Buddhists are allowed to build their places for worship and Muslims are not!
This is an obvious evidence that even the open-minded leaders are seeing Muslims as a terrorists and also responsible for what happened in 9/11.
We -Muslims- believe that building the mosque will enhance the moderate views of Islam, Imam Faisal and Cordoba initiative will support the moderate interpretations of Islam, this will -automatically- undermine the extremists and their followers.

Source

Former Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont governor Howard Dean, a hero to many liberals, has called efforts to build an Islamic community center two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks “a real affront to people who lost their lives.”
“That site doesn’t belong to any particular religion, it belongs to all Americans and all faiths,” he said.
Dean, speaking on New York’s WABC-AM radio, said he would like to see a compromise on the issue – one that includes moving the Islamic center to another site. He adds, however, that “people should be able to worship as they see fit.”
Dean argues that though the backers of the project are “trying to do something that’s good” and integrate Muslims “into the fabric of the United States,” the issue is “very delicate” and there should be a compromise “so that everybody is accommodated by this.”

Meanwhile, conservative Ted Olson, whose wife died in the terrorist attacks, broke with the majority of conservatives to support the project. He said he believes President Obama “was right about this.”

“I do believe that people of all religions have a right to build edifices or structures, or places of religious worship or study where the community allows them to do it under zoning laws and that sort of thing,” he said on MSNBC. “And that we don’t want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith. And I don’t think it should be a political issue.”

The positions of the two men prompted liberal commentator Keith Olbermann to write on Twitter: “I have respected and appreciated Howard Dean for eight years but he is completely wrong and uninformed about the Park51.”
“& Ted Olson, with whom I have usually disagreed, +whose connection to this is far more personal than nearly everybody else, is 100% correct,” he added.

White Supremacists Totally Oppose Cordoba House

Source

People who have nothing serious to say about an issue often resort to fallacious arguments. One common — and cheap — fallacy is known as “guilt by association.”

The righties are all in a tizzy this morning because of this:

Murdoch’s Post reports that a leader of Hamas is pro-Cordoba House, and the wingnut bloggers rush in to shout it from the rooftops. It’s proof — those supporting the “mosque” are in league with the terrrrrsts!

Two can play that game, however. Here are the first few graphs from Occidental Dissent’s post on the mosque:

The Ground Zero Mosque is without a doubt the most outrageous surrender to political correctness and multiculturalism that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

It is a 13-story monument to Islamic terrorism that will be built as a tribute to 9/11 victims on a national graveyard. The groundbreaking ceremony is scheduled to take place on September 11th. The Ground Zero Mosque will open its doors on the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

The audacity of these people and their calculated symbolism is breathtaking. I’ve never seen a bigger slap across the face of White America.

Occidental Dissent is an openly white supremacist site. Ergo, by the same logic that compels wingnuts to report the non-news that some guy who belongs to Hamas thinks it’s a grand idea, those opposing the Cordoba House are in league with white supremacists.

This is much easier than actually making an argument of some kind.

Update: Paul Woodward points out that the story is, not surprisingly, wrong.