Archive for May, 2011
Islamophobe Dennis Prager Lectures Powers: The Left Is Naïve About Evil
In his neverending effort to portray President Obama as too pro-Muslim (and all that connotes), Sean Hannity combined in one segment last night Obama’s recommendation that Israel and Palestine return to 1967 borders with his own supposedly prescient predictions of radical Islam taking over Egypt – a suggestion that Israel might meet the same fate thanks to Obama. Hannity was joined in that effort by Islamophobe Dennis Prager. Prager, you may recall, was censured by the United States Holocaust Memorial Council’s Executive Committee – a remarkable event considering that he was on the Council – for saying that Rep. Keith Ellison would undermine American civilization and make us more vulnerable to terrorism when he was sworn into Congress with a Koran. Never mind that more than four years later, our civilization is still intact and there has not been an uptick in terrorist attacks. That didn’t stop Prager from lecturing Kirsten Powers, the other guest, that, “Leftist and naïve are synonymous… The left is naïve. It is naïve about evil.”
Powers, who has inlaws in Egypt, started off by agreeing with Hannity that there’s a lot of radicalism in Egypt. She added that the Muslim Brotherhood is the most organized political party and is in the best standing to win in the upcoming elections, that there have been a lot of attacks on Coptic Christians, and that there’s a lot of chaos right now.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on Egypt but I will point out that an imminent takeover by radical Islamicists does not appear to be certain. For example, in an article about the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, The Guardian agrees the organization is “poised to prosper” but it also reports, “None of this looks like becoming the Islamist takeover feared by secularists. But it seems clear the role of Islam in Egyptian public life is going to be bigger.”
Rather than explore what’s actually happening in Egypt, Hannity’s next question made it clear that his real interest in the subject was using it to attack President Obama. Hannity said to Prager,
Dennis, this is somewhat troubling to me and maybe it sounds like I’m putting myself down here (actually, Hannity was patting himself on the back). If it was so clear as day and so simple for me to see this, how is it that our president, our State Department, our national security people, how did they get something so obvious? The polls show that 75% of Egyptians think that apostates should get the death penalty and they didn’t foresee this happening? How could they miss this?
As Hannity spoke, B-roll footage showed an angry mob of, presumably, Egyptians. But who knows? The implicit message from Hannity – later explicitly stated by Prager – was that all Middle East Muslims are alike and just itching to impose sharia law at any opportunity.
Prager said, “The reason is left-wing naiveté. Leftist and naïve are synonymous.” As he sneered about Tom Friedman writing about the “Arab Spring,” Prager boasted, “People like you and me and even Kirsten for that matter, who I understand doesn’t come from the right-wing side – nevertheless, people like us understand the Egyptian people don’t buy the same Jeffersonian, American values, Judeo-Christian values – any of the values that we have – the vast majority of Egyptians do not believe that there should be peace with Israel, believe that sharia should play a prominent role in Egypt’s life. But for the left, all they knew was our dictator was being removed and that’s a good thing.”
You might say that the right said the same thing about Saddam Hussein – except that we actually invaded to make his removal happen. Eight years later, we’re still there, still paying the cost in blood and treasure, despite then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld assuring us that the whole operation would probably not take even six months. Or then-Vice President Cheney predicting weeks, not months. Cheney also predicted we’d be “greeted as liberators.”
Of course, that didn’t factor into either Prager or Hannity’s comments. But if they thought they had a Pat Caddell or a Doug Schoen in Powers, they must have been sorely disappointed. She interrupted Hannity’s diatribe about Egyptian mob attacks on reporters Anderson Cooper and Lara Logan before he inevitably used that to somehow tar Obama. She said, “The overall population in Cairo is actually fairly moderate, even the Muslims are fairly moderate. The problem is, is that because of the repressive government…”
Hannity interrupted her. “No, they’re not.”
Powers not only has personal knowledge of the situation in Egypt but she also served in the Clinton administration as the Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Public Affairs. She’s got real credibility. Hannity, on the other hand, has no credentials in international affairs.
Powers persisted. “Compared to Saudi Arabia or other places in the region, they are much more (moderate)… They don’t want to live under sharia law. They do not want to live under the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Hannity claimed that a Pew poll showed that most Egyptians want a Muslim government.
“That’s different,” Powers pointed out. She said that the population takes Islamic religion very seriously and wants the government to be founded in it but “that’s very different than sharia law.”
Naturally, Prager (who I’ll admit also has some international cred) disagreed. But he did so by slyly changing the subject away from Egypt to Islam in the Middle East as a whole. “It’s not different from sharia law. Of course, there are a handful of Muslims for whom that is true. But for the vast majority of Arab Muslims – and we’re talking about Islam within the Middle East right now – sharia is what a serious Muslim is about.”
Hannity segued to Obama’s Middle East speech and the visit from Benjamin Netanyahu. “The president talks about pre-67 borders. And I’m glad he got a lecture from (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu today because he needed one.” That’s right, the same Hannity who jumped to defend Mel Gibson, who has yet to apologize for hosting anti-Semite Andy Martin, and who welcomed anti-Semitic Hal Turner to his radio show – that Hannity is a big friend of Israel.
Prager agreed with Hannity and said, “I don’t think anybody saw it as disrespectful of the president of the United States.”
“I’ll bet he did,” Hannity said gleefully
Powers piped up. “I did.”
Prager went back to his original thesis. “The left is naïve. It is naïve about evil. It was naïve about evil under communism, it is naïve about evil whether it is in the figurehead of an Islamist. It is naïve about these things. If only Israel were to go to ’67 borders, then Palestinians would recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist. That will not happen.”
When it was her turn again, Powers said, “Netanyahu actually was disrespectful to (Obama) and I think it’s a problem. I don’t know why you’re enjoying him being disrespectful to the president.” She also got in a few words about naivete. “There’s a lot of naivete in the United States that actually can be referred to as ignorance about the Middle East.” She brought up Iraq as an example and added, “So to try to smear all people on the left as not understanding anything I think is inaccurate and there are a lot of people on the right also who are criticizing Obama for the fact that he wasn’t …getting behind the so-called Arab spring.”
For good measure, she confronted Hannity about the right-wing freak out and distortion of Obama’s comments about the 1967 borders which, she correctly noted, was a “starting point.”
In fact, while Prager smeared the left as “naive,” he and Hannity were promoting a simplistic, agenda-driven view of Egypt, Muslims, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Middle East that could not be bothered with the kinds of details or nuance that Powers was offering. It was the same kind of thinking that got us into Iraq.
American Muslims Still Live in a Climate of Hate
by Asraa Mustufa | Source
News of Osama bin Laden’s death has not come without more incidents of backlash towards American Muslims. These individual episodes reflect not only the Islamophobia rampant in this country, but also the government policies that have fostered a culture of hate and suspicion towards law-abiding Muslims.
A mosque in Maine was vandalized with the messages “Osama today, Islam tomorrow” and “Go Home.” In Houston, a schoolteacher was disciplined for racially profiling a Muslim ninth-grader by asking if she was grieving her uncle’s death on Monday. Also this week, Mohamed Kotbi, an Arab waiter who is suing his employer, the Waldorf-Astoria hotel, for religious and racial discrimination following the 9/11 attacks, has reported more taunts from co-workers following bin Laden’s death.
While feds assured Muslims and Arab-Americans in Dearborn, Michigan this week that they would not be profiled in the aftermath of the al-Qaeda leader’s death, for some, it’s hard to imagine a Department of Homeland Security that doesn’t discriminate against Muslims absent a major overhaul of the system. As Seth Freed Wessler reported on Wednesday for Colorlines, racial and religious profiling has been a central feature of the national security apparatus erected after 9/11. Immigration and law enforcement policies have been targeted against citizen and immigrant Muslims or those from Muslim-populated countries in a way that treats them indiscriminately as security threats. While the DHS recently dropped their controversial NSEERS or “Special Registration” program, profiling remains official policy at US borders, airports, in the immigration system, and by local police.
The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations recently filed complaints with the DHS and DOJ citing dozens of reports from constituents who were detained at the Canadian border without predication of crimes or charges and asked questions about their worship habits, including how often and where they pray. DHS is launching an investigation into the claims.
Local police are also trained and instructed to view Islamic religious activity with suspicion. The NYPD published a report on homegrown terrorism in 2007, which listed giving up drinking or gambling, wearing Islamic clothing, growing a beard, and becoming involved in social activism and community issues as indications of a person’s growing “radicalization.”
NYU Law School’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice and the Asian American Legal Defense Fund (AALDEF) released a report this week entitled “Under the Radar.” Among the issues addressed, the study details how lower evidentiary standards and lack of due process rights and transparency are used to subject Muslims to unsubstantiated terrorism allegations, prolonged detention, or deportation in cases involving ordinary or minor immigration violations.
“The overall effect of these practices is that religious, cultural, and political affiliations and lawful activities of Muslims are being construed as dangerous terrorism-related factors to justify detention, deportation, and denial of immigration benefits,” the report reads.
Although many are hopeful that the demise of the face of terrorism might usher a turning point in how American Muslims are viewed and treated, the death of Osama bin Laden does not change the fact that profiling of Muslims is not only sanctioned, but employed by various facets of government. Such policies help create a climate in which people feel safe acting and speaking out of hate and suspicion towards Muslims.
CONFRONTING ISLAMOPHOBIA: MAJOR SEATTLE CONFERENCE PROMOTES RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE
Tomorrow begins a major Seattle conference, Confronting Islamophobia: I am My Brother’s Keeper, to be held at St. Mark’s Cathedral and sponsored by a host of Christian, Muslim and Jewish groups. The keynote speaker is Imam Faisal Rauf, founder of Cordoba House and the former religious leader of the Park51 mosque.
On Saturday afternoon, I will speak at a panel on Islamophobia as Attack on Core American Values: Religious Freedom and Free Speech. I hope you can join us.
St. Mark’s Cathedral ~ 1245 10th Ave. E ~ Seattle, WA
How does one assure that “never again” can be a strategy as well as a goal? To consider this question a coalition of Jewish, Christian and Muslim groups is hosting a conference on Islam and Islamophobia.
When the poison of prejudice infects a society, it is as much at risk as the victims of intolerance. Disdain for, and fear of Muslims exists among rich and poor, liberal and conservative. Islamophobia has increased in virulence and reminds many of the rise of antisemitism in Germany in the 1930s.
The conference will include outstanding speakers, workshops, and an interfaith prayer service, ending with dinner at one of several mosques. The keynote speaker, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf from New York, will open the conference on Friday evening May 6th. Saturday will include speakers, workshops and lunch, ending with an interfaith service including the Muslim evening prayer and a re-commitment to international human rights. The service will be led by Imam Fazal Hassen, Bishop Greg Rickel and Rabbi Jim Mirel.
The evening will end with supper hosted by several local mosques including AbuBakr,Tukwila, Umar al Farooq Montlake, Terrace, MAPS, Redmond, ZIANAB Center Lynwood and others.
With the time shared, we hope to learn more about Islam, identify prejudice and bias, and consider strategies for confronting Islamophobia in our own community. Prejudice is personal, national, and international. It shapes, and is shaped by our media. This event will provide strategies and forums for continuing to confront Islamophobia.
Keynote Speakers:
What’s Right with Islam IS What’s Right with America –
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is an American Sufi imam, author, and activist whose goal is to improve relations between the Muslim world and the West. Since 1983, he has been Imam of Masjid al-Farah, a mosque in New York City. In 2010, Imam Abdul received national attention for his plans to build The Cordoba Center/Park51, an Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan, two blocks away from Ground Zero, and has been in demand as a speaker globally. He is the author of What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America and What’s right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West.
Getting to the Heart of Islam –
Jamal Rahman is a Muslim Sufi minister originally from Bangladesh. He is co-founder and co-minister at Interfaith Community Church in Seattle, WA, co-host of Interfaith Talk Radio, and adjunct faculty at Seattle University. Sheik Jamal teaches classes, workshops, and retreats locally, nationally, and internationally. He is the author of The Fragrance of Faith: The Enlightened Heart of Islam
Islam and the West: The Burden of the Past and the Challenge of the Future ~
Yvonne Haddad is Professor of the History of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at George Washington University. Her fields of expertise include twentieth-century Islam, intellectual, social and political history in the Arab world, and Islam in North America and the West. Currently, Professor Haddad is conducting research on Muslims in the West and on Islamic Revolutionary Movements. She is the author and editor of a number of books, including Muslim Christian Encounters and Islam, Gender, and Social Change.
Workshops include:
The New Fault Line in Encounter Between Muslims and the West –
Yvonne Haddad, Georgetown University
The Common Word – The Qur’an and the Bible –
Andy Larsen, Evangelical Covenant Church, Renton
Myths about Islam –
panel moderated by Arsalan Burkari executive director of the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR)
Meeting The Other: the Heart of Interfaith –
Sheik Jamal Rahman, author, minister
Islamophobia as Attack on Core American Values:
Religious Freedom and Free Speech –
Richard Silverstein, jounrnalist and author of blog, Tikun Olam
Building Bridges Around Civil Liberties Across Faith Traditions –
Arsalan Burkari and Marilyn Mayers, Eastside Unitarian Peace Ministry Team
Islamophobia in US Middle East Policy –
Kathleen Christison, CIA Middle East desk analyst, author of “Perceptions of Palestine”.
Propaganda in the Digital Age –
Abigail Stahl, CAIR Outreach
What does it mean to be an American Muslim? –
Jennifer Gist, CAIR Civil Rights Coordinator
Jesus Christ and His Mother Mary: A Muslim View –
Alaa Badr, Islamic educator and activist, Microsoft emerging markets
Islam and the Environment:
A Broad Overview of How Islam Approaches the Fragility of the Earth –
Alaa Badr
Sharia, Canon law, and the Constitution –
Salah Dandon, lawyer and Sharia scholar, Jim Brooks, judge, The Tribunal, Archdiocese of Seattle
Sponsors:
The Diocese of Olympia, The Episcopal Church in Western Washington
Mid East Focus Saint Mark’s Cathedral
Episcopal Bishop’s Committee for Israel/Palestine
Council on American-Islamic Relations, WA
Jewish Voice for Peace
American Muslims of Puget Sound
Sabeel Puget Sound
Palestine Concerns Task Force of the Church Council of Greater Seattle
Middle East Peace Builders
Trinity United Methodist Church of Seattle
Voices of Palestine
Palestine Solidarity Committee, Seattle
and others.
Registrations fees:
Saturday 9:30 – 5:45 $45:00
Friday night 8:00 PM $10:00
Friday and Saturday $55:00 (Including lunch and dinner at a mosque)
Tickets http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/158529
Facebook page http://tinyurl.com/4ufnrqr
email info@confrontingislamophobia.org
Fighting terrorism requires more than just killing Bin Laden
By Khaled Hamza
The killing of Osama Bin Laden might help to put a closure for the thousands of families who lost their loved ones to al Qaeda, and represents a major symbolic victory for governments waging the so called “War on Terror”, however it will not put an end the ideology of terror and violence in the world unless its real reasons are addressed. The elusive definition of terrorism has been further complicated by failure of the US War on “terror” to make a distinction between legitimate military operations against occupation, and terrorism, which further complicated the relations between the West and the Muslim world.
Furthermore, and as a result of the 9/11 attacks, the Western politicians and the media attempted to link Islam to terrorism, consequently Islamophobia has swept through the West, putting the life of many Muslims at danger by hate crimes often condoned by governments’ actions. Moreover, global counterterrorism was directed against non-state actors such as alQaeda, while ignoring the main perpetrator of state terrorism committed by daily Israeli occupation forces against innocent Palestinians in the occupied territories in violation of International Law, UN resolutions, and outside the boundaries of laws of armed conflict.
We hope that the elimination of Bin Laden will help to remove one of the causes of conflict between the Muslim world and the West in general, and the US in particular. The US must end its occupation of Afghanistan, and withdraw its forces from Iraq now that main goal of its campaigns to capture Ben Laden “dead or alive” and dismantle al Qaeda network of terror seemed to have been accomplished.
In order to fight the main causes of further terrorism, the US must also redefine terrorism itself , and distinguish between legitimate armed resistance against occupation and the mere act of targeting civilians for political purposes in directing its future counterterrorism efforts, which will help improve the relations with the Muslim world.
Furthermore, the US must also refrain from its blind and unconditional support to Israel, especially when the later violates international humanitarian law and agreements. The US must also end its meddling in the affairs of countries in the Middle East, which is only aimed at serving the domestic interests of the US and protecting Israel regardless of the interests and rights of millions of oppressed people in the Middle East.
It’s illogical to separate between terrorism and the violence directed at US and its interests in the region, and its foreign policies and its support to Israel and autocratic regimes in the Middle East and its disregard to the interests and rights of other nations in order to achieve peace and prosperity to its own people. To continue such policies, the US is risking its relations with the Muslim world, and keeping the door open for many other Ben Ladens to emerge, and the cycle of violence will never end.
** Khaled Hamza is the Cheif Editor of Ikhwanweb
To reach him: khaledsalam2525@gmail.com
Commentary: Senator Lindsey Graham On the Muslim Brotherhood
Ikhwanophobia
After watching the response of Senator Lindsey Graham on a question tickling the Middle East affairs, where the Senator talked about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and how much he is: ” suspicious of their agenda. ”
What we really need to say that the Senator Graham should listen from the Muslim Brotherhood, He seems to be very ignorant towards the political life in Egypt. In his small comment, Senator Graham addressed the young people of Egypt and said that: ““I don’t believe the young people, who went into the squares throughout Egypt and risked their lives, want to replace the current government with something more oppressive”
For me, I don’t believe the Senator Graham knew about the combination of the young people who went into squares in Egypt, those young people who belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood, the liberal parties, the leftist parties, without being that “suspicious” of the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda.
I’m also so suspicious about Mr Graham’s response if the young people of Egypt, chose the Muslim Brotherhood in the coming elections, how will Mr Graham’s act against that? and will he support Obama’s foreign policy then?
Muslim Brotherhood proved through their long history that they don’t have any hidden agendas, and the role of the Mubarak’s regime and the other authoritarian regimes in the Middle East was to intimidate the west and the international public opinion from the Muslim Brotherhood.
My advice to Mr Graham is to listen to the Muslim Brotherhood, not to listen about the Muslim Brotherhood, and to set with them at the same table to discuss the “agendas” of the Muslim Brotherhood. These discussions will -for sure- change Mr Graham’s attitude against the Muslim Brotherhood, or at least, will make him think twice before being so suspicious about the MB agenda.
Role of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt Unclear
Source
By Daniella Peled – The Arab Spring
Religious movement expected be major player in coming elections, but its policies remain ambiguous.
The Muslim Brotherhood, MB, has long been a leading opposition force in Egypt. Following the fall of the Mubarak regime, it is expected to become a major political player, but there remain serious concerns over its possible agenda. Issandr El-Amrani, a leading Cairo-based journalist and blogger, looks at public attitudes towards the movement.
As Egypt prepares for the transition to democracy, is the MB perceived as an emerging political force?
A lot of people are questioning what the political map is going to look like and there is nervousness over the possibility of the success of the MB. They are the only well-organised opposition group and look like they might dominate the coming elections.
There are fears among the elite and among the Coptic Christians too – legitimate fears, because the MB are unclear as to their position on a number of issues. Do they advocate a system of Islamic punishments like they do in Saudi Arabia? How exactly do they envision the role of non-Muslim minorities in public life?
The MB is very dedicated to the issue of Palestine and some people are nervous that Egypt could find itself isolated as a result of this stance. It is not that people love Israel here but the risks associated with the MB stance are severe, for instance, losing United States support and financial aid, which we simply can’t afford.
There are some things, such as opposition to the president being a non-Muslim or a woman, and the provision that the al-Azahr Islamic university play a supervisory role over legislation passed by parliament, to ensure it is Sharia-compliant, that they have shown willingness to change. They clearly don’t want to scare people off.
But there is a great deal of ambiguity, and the MB has been sending contradictory messages.
For instance, since the fall of Mubarak, demonstrations have continued, with people angry over the slow pace of change by the army. The MB pledged support for the ongoing protests. Yet two weeks ago, the MB distanced itself from them, arguing that the army needs to be supported through this period of transition.
And following recent renewed violence during Friday protests in Tahrir Square – in which two people were killed and more than 70 injured – the MB made it clear they did not want to antagonise the army. They are hedging their bets as they work on revising their political programme, which remains controversial.
They do also have to be careful because the law still says that there can’t be a religious political party, and it is still unclear what they can get away with.
As the MB transforms itself into an official political party, are there any internal divisions or tensions emerging?
The MB announced that it will form a Freedom and Justice party and is in the process of arranging the paperwork to make it into a legal entity. They are still arguing over how many seats they will contest – some elements want to go for 30 per cent, while others are more ambitious and say they should compete for 50 per cent.
They do seem confident that they are going to do well, as they are disciplined and well-organised, in contrast to the secular groups. But there are splits within the MB too, and offshoots opposing the current direction of the leadership. One, for instance, is led by Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh and Ibrahim Zafarani, and is gaining the support of more liberal, progressive elements and appealing more to a younger following. It’s still not clear, though, where these offshoots might be heading.
The MB presents itself as always having had a moderate message. They argue that they are not intending to revolutionise society or to include radical new policies – they don’t even necessarily aim to win a majority of seats, and they currently still say they are not going to run a presidential candidate.
Their aim, as they see it, is not to get seats in the cabinet or to form the next government, but to build an Islamic society from the ground up. They want an overall ideological reform of society – first in Egypt, but also spreading to the rest of the Middle-East, resulting in an Islamic model. This obviously scares people, particularly as there are certainly totalitarian aspects to this vision.
While the MB presents itself as a moderate grouping, are there concerns about more extremist elements within the organisation?
No matter how urbane or sophisticated some of the MB leaders may be, there is a worry about the base of the movement. This includes Wahhabi influence, which is a fundamentally undemocratic movement.
Amongst the ranks of the MB are also those with ultra-conservative views which shock many Egyptians even though Egypt is a conservative society. These include things like the full-face veil – something you barely saw in Egypt 20 years ago and is now quite common.
There is widespread acceptance that the MB has the right to form a political party. I know many members of the MB, and they are very respectable people, they have a sincere wish to do something for their country, but I don’t agree with their views.
Daniella Peled is an IWPR editor.