All Entries Tagged With: "ISNA"

Islamophobia: Paranoia infects North America

By Haroon Siddiqui | Source

One legacy of the decade since 9/11 has been the growing fear of Muslims and Islam.

Many Europeans dread “Eurabia,” the ostensibly imminent Arab/Muslim takeover of the continent, even though its Muslim population is less than 3 per cent. Among those convinced of the coming apocalypse was Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik. Other believers express themselves peacefully but no less fervently.

Americans have come to share this European paranoia.

Many dread “New Yorkistan” and the takeover of America by Muslims, who constitute only 0.8 per cent of the population.

Nearly half of the 50 states have taken legislative steps to stop sharia, Muslim personal law.

Nearly a fifth of Americans believe that Barack Obama is Muslim or Arab or both. He fretted so much over this that during the 2008 election his organizers ejected two hijabi women from camera range. At a Republican rally, a woman called out to John McCain that Obama was an Arab; the Republican candidate responded: “No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man and citizen.”

Last year, Obama and Mayor Michael Bloomberg tamped down the hysteria over “Ground Zero mosque” but they could not persuade aFlorida pastor from commanding national attention for weeks before burning a copy of the Qur’an.

This year Peter King, chair of the security committee of the House of Representatives, held hearings into “the homegrown radicalization” of American Muslims. He believes that “80-85 per cent” of America’s 1,900 mosques are “controlled by Islamic fundamentalists. This is an enemy living amongst us.” In fact, a study this year by Duke University found that American Muslims have been the biggest source of tips to the FBI in disrupting terror plots. Attorney General Eric Holder lauded the Muslim community for it.

In Oklahoma, Republicans are accusing Democrats of plotting an Islamic state on the Plains. Elsewhere, school texts are being challenged as being pro-Islamic, meaning, they are neutral and do not condemn Islam.

Among the 23 anti-sharia states, the Tennessee Assembly said sharia promotes “the destruction of the national existence of the United States.”

Newt Gingrich believes, or at least says he does, that “sharia is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.” Sarah Palin says sharia is going to be “the downfall of America.” Michele Bachman says sharia means Muslim “totalitarian control” over America.

This is “is disturbingly reminiscent of the accusation in 19th-century Europe that Jewish religious law was seditious,” writes Eliyahu Stern, professor of Judaic studies at Yale.

It turns out that the sharia panic is not a grassroots movement but rather an orchestrated campaign by one man backed by anti-Islamic think tanks and private funders.

David Yerushalmi, a Brooklyn lawyer, works in collaboration with anti-Muslim groups to stoke the anti-sharia hysteria and distribute model legislation for states to adopt.

The Anti-Defamation League, a leading American Jewish agency, has lambasted Yerushalmi for his “anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black bigotry.”

He’s among five individuals named recently by the Washington-based Center for American Progress in its report Fear Inc.: Exposing the Islamophobic Network in America.

It names him along with Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy; Daniel Pipes of Middle East Forum; Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Stop Islamization of America; and Steve Emerson of Investigative Project on Terrorism. Their propaganda is parroted by Rep. King and other Republicans as part of their wedge politics. It is also repeated ad nauseum by such media outlets as Fox-TV.

The report also lists seven foundations that since 9/11 have dispersed $42.6 million to individuals and groups that work with the Tea Party’s state chapters: Brigitte Gabriel’s ACT! for America; Pamela Geller’s (and Spencer’s) Stop Islamization of America; etc.

Some of them were behind the “Ground Zero mosque” protests, and are part of the agitation against the building of mosques and Islamic centres, 35 of which have been held up or delayed across the U.S.

The American Civil Liberties Union said:

“While mosque opponents frequently claim their objections are based on practical considerations such as traffic, parking and noise levels, those asserted concerns are often pretexts masking anti-Muslim sentiment. Government officials in some areas have yielded to this religious bigotry.”

As in most things , Canada is somewhere in between Europe and the U.S. in dealing with its 850,000 Muslims, both in the battle against terrorism and in the public discourse about Islam.

There was the bungled case of Maher Arar, tortured in Syria with Canadian complicity. There was the 2003 case of 23 Indian and Pakistani students accused of plotting terror acts, though not one was ever charged. There are the lingering cases of three Canadian Arabs who, too, got tortured in the Middle East with Canadian complicity. There’s the ongoing legal battle of five Arab-Canadians over security certificates that permit indefinite detention of non-Canadians.

On the other side of the ledger, there was the successful prosecution of 11 of the “Toronto 18” charged with terrorism, and that of an Ottawa man for his involvement in a British bomb plot.

Canada has not imported European aversion to Muslim immigration, yet. But our debate on multiculturalism has also become a smokescreen for attacking Muslims and Islam.

“Almost every reason for toleration’s apparent fall into disrepute concerns Islam,” notes Prof. Charles Taylor of McGill University, one of the inventors of our constitutional multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism was blamed during the noisy 2005-06 debate over sharia in Ontario, and also during Quebec’s 2008-09 debate on reasonable accommodation that preceded the anti-niqab legislation to deny all public services, including health services, to those wearing it.

Mind you, Quebec has long resisted the term multiculturalism and preferred inter-culturalism, with its implied primacy of not only the French language but also French culture. This year, the Parti Quebecois baldly asserted that “multiculturalism is not a Quebec value,” even though it is the law of the land (Section 27 of the Charter and the Multiculturalism Act).

Of the five high-profile Canadian cases of hijabis barred from soccer, judo and taekwondo tournaments, three were in Quebec. And in 2007, a Quebec corrections officer was fired for wearing a hijab. Opposition to the hijab is highest in Quebec, according to an Environics poll.

Across Canada, mosques in Hamilton, Montreal and the Vancouver area have been firebombed and vandalized since 2010.

European and American Islamophobes do have fans in Canada.

Geert Wilders, the anti-Muslim MP from the Netherlands, was here last year on a three-city tour, to much fanfare in the right-wing media. Among those applauding him was the virulently anti-Muslim group Canadian Hindu Advocacy. It is in the forefront of the protest against Friday prayers at Valley Park Middle School.

Another pro-Wilders group is the Jewish Defence League of Canada, which has an alliance with Britain’s anti-Muslim and racist English Defence League.

Among the anti-Islamic writers quoted by Breivik in his 1,500-page anti-Muslim manifesto were two Canadians — Mark Steyn and Salim Mansur.

Steyn, author and columnist, was the subject of a 2006-07 controversy when Maclean’s magazine ran his 4,800-word rant that Muslims pose a demographic, cultural and security threat to the West. When a group of Canadian Muslims complained to the human rights commission, they were vilified by Steyn supporters as well as free speech advocates in a way not seen before against any anti-hate complainants.

Mansur, a professor at University of Western Ontario and a columnist for the Toronto Sun, is a frequent critic of fellow Muslims and Islam. He is a member of the academic council of Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, and much used by Islamophobes in the U.S. and Canada.

hsddiqui@thestar.ca

Tennessee introduces radical bill to ban Sharia

By IFN Staff | Source

Tennessee has become the latest state to join in the wave of anti-sharia crusade. Late last month, legislators in Tennessee introduced a radical bill that would make “material support” for Islamic law punishable by 15 years in prison. The proposal indicates a dramatic new step in the conservative campaign against Muslim-Americans. If passed, activities like praying at the mosque or not having alcohol at an event could be classified as felonies.

Drastic as it may seem, this move is in no way new. In November, voters in Oklahoma approved a state constitutional amendment designed to ban Sharia in the state. The amendment was gravely misguided in that the fact that there was no effort to impose Shariah law in Oklahoma in the first place and that even if there was, the First Amendment would prevent it did not render the amendment unnecessary to Oklahoma voters. 70 percent of them backed the wacky measure, the “Save our State Amendment,” at the polls. However, U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange’s Nov. 29 ruled to put a temporary stop on the amendment. Other states should have taken note of this strong move by a federal court, and dropped the sharia hysteria. Reports point to the movement beginning even earlier, with a man named David Yerushalmi, an Arizona-based attorney who many see as a white supremacist who has previously called for a “war against Islam” and tried to criminalize adherence to the Muslim faith. He drafted a sample bill at the request of the American Public Policy Alliance, a right-wing organization established with the goal of protecting American citizens from “the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially Islamic Shariah Law.”

Unfortunately, the crusade moved full speed ahead. While a number of states including Wyoming, Georgia, South Carolina and Missouri, have filed legislation seeking to keep Sharia out of the courts, Tennessee is going much further by attempting to outlaw it entirely. Senate Bill 1028, introduced by State Sen. Bill Ketron, gives the state Attorney General authority to designate “Sharia organizations,” defined as “two (2) or more persons conspiring to support, or acting in concert in support of, sharia or in furtherance of the imposition of sharia within any state or territory of the United States.” Anyone who provides material support or resources to a designated Sharia organization could be charged with a felony and face up to 15 years in jail. The bill goes much further, defining traditional Islamic law as counter to constitutional principles, and authorizing the state’s attorney general to freeze the assets of organizations that have been determined to be promoting or supporting Sharia. CAIR and the ACLU called for lawmakers to defeat the bill. “Essentially the bill is trying to separate the ‘good Muslims’ from the ‘bad Muslims,'” said CAIR staff attorney Gadeir Abbas in an interview with Mother Jones. “Out of all the bills that have been introduced, this is by far the most extreme.”
The bill – drawn up by conservatives with ties to opponents of a planned Islamic center two blocks from New York City’s ground zero and efforts to expand a mosque 30 miles southeast of Nashville – would face constitutional hurdles if enacted.

Nevertheless, it represents the boldest legislative attempt yet to limit how Muslims worship.

Muslim groups fear the measure would outlaw central tenets of Islam, such as praying five times a day toward Mecca, abstaining from alcohol or fasting for Ramadan.

“This is an anti-Muslim bill that makes it illegal to be a Muslim in the state of Tennessee,” said Remziya Suleyman, policy coordinator for the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Bill Ketron of Murfreesboro, said the proposal exempts the peaceful practice of Islam but seeks to condemn those “who take Shariah law to the other extreme.” He said it would give state and local law enforcement officials “a powerful counterterrorism tool.”

Ketron, who has successfully pushed through bills tightening restrictions on illegal immigrants, said he expects the Shariah measure will become law.

For now, supporters of the measure are working to bolster it against any constitutional challenges, which may be an impossible task, said First Amendment Center scholar Charles Haynes, who called it a “really distorted understanding of Shariah law.”

“It’s unconstitutional to even suggest that such legislation should be passed,” he said. “Trying to separate out different parts of Islamic law for condemnation is nonsensical. Shariah law, like all religious law, is interpreted in a great many different ways.”

Shariah is a set of core principles that most Muslims recognize as well as a series of rulings from religious scholars. It covers many areas of life and different sects have different versions of the code they follow.

At least 13 states have bills pending that would bar judges from considering Shariah in legal decisions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, but none of those proposals is as strict as what Tennessee is weighing.

Ketron said he and House Speaker Pro Tempore Judd Matheny, R-Tullahoma, were given the bill by the Tennessee Eagle Forum, who got the bill drafted by Yerushalmi.

Yerushalmi also runs the Society of Americans for National Existence, an organization that claims following Shariah is treasonous.

Yerushalmi has written for years in conservative media about what he calls the danger of Shariah and its central role in Islam. He has represented Pamela Geller, who leads the group Stop Islamization of America and is one of the most vocal critics of a planned Islamic center two blocks from New York City’s ground zero.

Yerushalmi also represented Stop The Madrassa, a group that opposed a public school in Brooklyn established to teach Arabic language, culture and history. He is one of the contributors to the report “Shariah: The Threat To America” by the Center for Security Policy, a think tank led by Frank Gaffney, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. Last year Gaffney testified at a court hearing on the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. The hearing was intended only to determine if local officials violated the state’s open meetings law in approving the site plan, but the mosque’s foes used the opportunity to argue it was part of a plot to expand Shariah law in the U.S.

Sarah Thompson, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Society of North America

“The way that it’s worded makes the assumption that any practice of Islam is a practice of terrorism,” said Sarah Thompson, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Society of North America. “And that’s a dangerous line to walk. It excludes the millions of Muslims that are practicing peaceably from the ability to do so.”

(The Associated Press contributed to this report)

Mmm, mmm, Islamophobia?

Source

THE INCREASINGLY paranoid antics of racist right-wingers claiming Muslims are getting ready to take over America and institute sharia law are, sadly, not uncommon this election season.

But now they’ve hit a new low: attacking companies that make or sell Halal products, the term for food products that conform to Muslim dietary laws, including guidelines for slaughtering and prohibiting pork. (Halal dietary laws share many features with Kosher dietary laws.)

Right-wing Islamophobes are now up in arms over the fact that Campbell’s Canada–the soup company–has a line of Halal-certified vegetarian soups.

Pamela Geller–a leader in the fight against the Islamic community center slated for near Ground Zero, and an open admirer of Dutch fascist Geert Wilders and right-wing street thugs such as the English Defense League–is now calling for a boycott of the company.

According to Talking Points Memo’s Rachel Slajda, the bigots apparently think sharia law is coming to get us via the supermarket:

“M-m-good for the Islamists. Not so yummy for the rest of us,” reads the blog of Scaramouche, which broke the news Tuesday, some eight months after Campbell’s launched the line.

Robert Spencer, who writes Jihadwatch.org and has been saying for years that ISNA is tied to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood,* quickly echoed the alarm.

“So why is Campbell’s Soup rushing to do its bidding?” Spencer wrote on Tuesday. “‘M-M-Muslim Brotherhood Good?'”…

The Tea Party Nation is on board, too, tweeting today,” Campbell’s now making Muslim approved soups. Mmmmm Mmmmm not good. No more campbells for me.”

A Facebook group created just Tuesday called “Boycott Campbell Soup” already has almost 2,000 members. Members who leave messages like [sic]: “This is yet another example of just how dangerous creeping shariah is to Western Civilization, Democracy and all freedom loving peoples. There are stages to the islamization of non-islamic countries…This is just another way that terrorism and it’s sponsors are insinuating themselves into our culture, Terrorists are NOT freedom fighters they are murderous thugs and I will not pay money for soup or any other product that supports, aids or abetts their tactics. Hope someone puts a list out of all of Campbell’s affiliates.”

The blog Creeping Sharia notes that Kellogg UK has Halal-certified cereals and asks, “Are their U.S. products secretly Halal?”

America’s Anti-Islam Hysteria

By Reza Aslan | Source

We all knew Nevada’s Republican Senatorial candidate Sharron Angle was a bit loony. After all, this is the woman who said that rape and incest victims who become pregnant should be forced to have their babies so as to turn their “lemon situation into lemonade.”

But when Angle suggested last week that certain American cities like Dearborn, Michigan and Frankford, Texas, have been taken over by a “militant terrorist situation” wherein Muslims have instituted Sharia law upon its residents, many people were left scratching their heads at what she could possibly have meant.
It’s not just that Dearborn is—last anyone checked—still under the purview of the United States Constitution, or that there is no place in America called Frankford, Texas (I’m not kidding, look it up). It’s the rather bizarre notion that there may be a city in this country where the Constitution does not apply. “It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States,” Angle said about the real Dearborn and the imaginary Frankford.

Angle is right. There is something fundamentally wrong with this idea—it’s not true. There is no city or municipality in this country where Islamic law has taken hold. And yet, Angle is not the only one sounding the alarm over an imminent Muslim takeover of America. Indeed, now that the screeching over the building of the Islamic Community Center in Lower Manhattan seems to have died down, a new battle cry is arising from the radical anti-Muslim fringe: American Muslims, they say, are trying to replace the Constitution with Sharia!

Now I admit that we Muslims are a pretty powerful bunch. But in all the secret Muslim gatherings I have attended to discuss our plans for destroying democracy and taking over the White House (we meet every Friday night directly atop Ground Zero), we have come to the conclusion that we will need to raise our numbers from the 1% of the US population we currently represent, to at least 2% before we can begin stoning people at random.

Angle is right. There is something fundamentally wrong with this idea—it’s not true.
Still, it’s good to know there are God-fearing Americans like Oklahoma State Senator Rex Duncan who are taking steps to prevent such an outcome. Citing a need to protect the American constitution from the “looming threat” of Muslims, Duncan has introduced an amendment outlawing Sharia from Oklahoma’s court system. Duncan admits that his measure, which Oklahomans will vote on this fall, may be a bit premature. After all, there are only about 30,000 Muslims in the entire state. But he’s not taking any chances. “I see [Sharia] in the future somewhere in America,” Duncan said. “It’s not an imminent threat in Oklahoma yet, but it’s a storm on the horizon in other states” (By other states I believe Duncan is referring to Frankford, Texas).

Mike Blake, Reuters / Landov

The loudest and most hysterical voice among the Muslims-are-taking-over-America chorus belongs to the pseudo-scholar and professional noise-maker Robert Spencer who, along with Pamela Geller—most famous for her theory that Obama is Malcom X’s bastard Muslim love-child—formed the organization behind the anti-mosque protests that have erupted all over the country. Spencer is convinced that Sharia has begun to take over the American legal system. His proof? The new Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan.

In an interview with the conservative website The Daily Caller, Spencer claimed that Kagan “would knowingly and wittingly abet the advance of Sharia,” in her tenure as Supreme Court justice because, as a liberal, she shares with Muslims “a hatred of the West and Western civilization.” Now, Spencer also believes that the decision by Campbell Soup to create a line of halal soups to accompany its kosher line is another sign of the Muslim takeover of America (“why is Campbell’s Soup rushing to do [Muslims’] bidding?” Spencer wrote in his blog. “M-M-Muslim Brotherhood Good?”), so he is obviously a nut who should not be taken seriously on any subject.

But then how to explain Newt Gingrich? Fresh off his most recent media blitz, during which he compared Islam to Nazism and associated American Muslims with al-Qaeda terrorists, Gingrich has enthusiastically taken up the anti-Muslim cause. He recently released a film titled “America at Risk,” which details the Muslim threat to America (“This is the end of times,” the film warns. “This is the final struggle”). Now he is calling for a federal law banning Sharia in the U.S..

“We should have a federal law that says Sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States,” Gingrich told an audience at the Values Voter Summit in D.C. last month. He wants the law to stipulate that, “no judge will remain in office [who] tried to use Sharia law.”

Considering that no judge in the United States has cited Sharia in any legal case, and that no Muslim organization has called for its imposition in America, this is a bit like passing a federal law banning Americans from riding unicorns. Yet it does bear mentioning that there are already a number of religious courts all over this country through which a particular religious community can adjudicate matters of family law for themselves. They are called Halacha (Jewish law) courts and they allow observant Jews to conduct business and personal transactions in accordance with the principles of the Torah as long as Halacha does not violate the civil law. Why shouldn’t Muslims in the US have the same opportunity as America’s Jews when it comes to issues of marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

As Marc Stern, associate counsel for the American Jewish Committee, put it in an interview with NPR: “Just as the Catholic Church… didn’t take over [Constitutional] law when large numbers of Catholics came to the United States, and Jewish law doesn’t govern Jewish citizens [of the U.S.], Shariah law is not going to govern, except voluntarily, the rights and responsibilities of Muslim citizens in the United States.”

But these are just facts and, as such, have no bearing on the nonsense pouring out of the mouths of the Sharron Angles and Robert Spencers of the world. So while they continue with this newest round of their fear Islam campaign, I, for one, am going to move to Frankford Texas where I can finally marry four wives.

Reza Aslan is author of the international bestseller No god but God and Beyond Fundamentalism. His new book Tablet and Pen: Literary Landscapes from the Modern Middle East comes out in Nov. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

Get a head start with the Morning Scoop email. It’s your Cheat Sheet with must reads from across the Web. Get it.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

Jihad and Soup: Islam-baiting in America

Source: The Economist

by Lexington

AS IF the whipped-up hysteria against the proposed mosque in lower Manhattan was not bad enough, there is now a ludicrous and hateful campaign to boycott Campbell’s for having the temerity to issue a halal line of soups. The grounds the boycotters give are that the body certifying the soups as halal has been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. This morning’s New York Times has a depressing profile of one of the people stirring the pot of bigotry, but what is worse to my mind is the collusion of supposedly mainstream politicians such as Newt Gingrich in this ugly wave of anti-Muslim hysteria. As for the tea-party movement, with its supposed veneration for the values entrenched in the constitution, what to make of this reported tweet from the Tea Party Nation?

Campbell’s now making Muslim approved soups. Mmmmm Mmmmm not good. No more campbells for me.

Shaming, and infantile. This must be a hard time to be a Muslim in America.

From Salon: Campbell’s Soup surrenders to Islamic juggernaut

Via Rachel Slajda at TPM: The anti-Islam wing of the conservative movement is setting its sights on Campbell’s Canada’s now year-old decision to release a line of Halal-certified soups and broths.

Pamela Geller, the blogger who is largely responsible for whipping up the “ground zero mosque” story (which also went unnoticed for nearly a year before it became a national controversy), has a post up on Campbell’s titled, “M-M-M-M-M-Muslim Brotherhood Good?” She calls for a boycott of the company, and there is now a Facebook boycott group with over 2,000 members.

Halal foods, of course, are merely those that hew to basic Islamic dietary laws such as a ban on pork products.

Geller and her cohort have seized on the fact that the Campbell’s Halal line is certified by the Islamic Society of North America, a large and mainstream Muslim umbrella group. It clearly denounces terrorism and has widespread support among non-Muslim religious and political leaders. But according to Geller, ISNA is “Hamas-linked.” So if you buy Campbell’s soup, you, too, are now Hamas-linked, and may be charged with material support for terrorism.

Also, we’ve reached out to Campbell’s for comment on this, and we’ll update this post if we hear back.

The five most anti-Muslim ads of the year (so far)

By Justin Elliott | Source
From Iowa to Ohio to Florida to New York, 2010 has become the year of the Muslim-baiting campaign ad

There’s still about a month until Election Day, but it’s already safe to declare 2010 the year of the Muslim-baiting campaign ad.

Yes, there was the occasional flare-up in 2008, typically targeting Barack Obama. But since then, the associate-your-opponent-with-Muslims tactic has metastasized.

How did it happen? This is the first election cycle under a president whom many falsely believe to be Muslim. And lurking resentments and suspicions were stirred up even more by the “ground zero mosque” hysteria that began in May and raged all summer long. The topic became impossible to resist for conservative campaign strategists.

Here’s a rundown of the five most notable such ads of the year — so far:

This September spot from North Carolina GOP congressional hopeful Renee Ellmers gained instant notoriety for its casual conflation of “the Muslims,” “the terrorists” and the organizers of Park51, the planned Islamic community center near ground zero.

Ohio Republican state treasurer candidate Josh Mandel this month released an ad ostensibly targeting the ethical record of his opponent, a black Democrat named Kevin Boyce. But the spot gratuitously refers to a lobbyist linked to Boyce by his full name, “Mohammed Noure Alo,” even though the lobbyist goes by “Noure Alo.” And the ad also falsely suggests that Boyce, who is Christian, attends a mosque.

“Kill the Ground Zero Mosque,” a spot released over the summer by the National Republican Trust PAC, features pictures of mosques and Muslim militants alongside lurid imagery from Sept. 11, including a person falling from the World Trade Center. It also refers to “the audacity of jihad,” another clear reference to Obama (who is pictured in the ad), and conflates the organizers of Park51 with the 9/11 terrorists. The ad was turned down by two networks in New York, and may in fact have been deliberately designed to be rejected and gin up publicity. It worked; the spot now has about 400,000 views on YouTube.
The shadowy American Future Fund released this ad back in August attacking Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, for his “support” of Park51. In fact, Braley’s position was merely that it was a local zoning issue for Manhattan, not for a congressman from eastern Iowa. The gist of the ad is that the “ground zero mosque” is the latest front in the centuries-long battle between Muslims and the West.

 Dan Fanelli, a former Navy pilot who lost in the GOP primary to take on Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., put out a stunning trio of pro-racial-profiling ads featuring a Middle Eastern-looking man playing a “terrorist.” In one scene, the actor is literally wearing a towel on his head and has a faux-bomb strapped to his body.

Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at jelliott@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More Justin Elliott

Emerson’s Paranoiac Approach Toward the Muslim Brotherhood

By Omar Mazin | Ikhwanophobia

Steven Emerson, One of the prominent members of the Islamophobic dirty dozen, The founder and executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), wrote a new phobic article to show the world how dangerous is the Muslim Brotherhood (!!).
Emerson, and as usual, alleged that the Muslim Brotherhood has produced Osama Bin Laden to the world, who is created originally by the CIA during the Afghan-Soviet war.

The Brotherhood’s affiliates include the terrorist organization Hamas. Its alumni include 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abdullah Azzam, Osama bin Laden’s terrorist mentor. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaida’s second in command, is said to have been heavily influenced by the ideology of the Brotherhood’s Egyptian chapter.

In this quote, Steve Emerson alleges that “it’s said” that Ayman Al Zawahri” had been heavily influenced by the MB’s ideology.

In the coming quote, Emerson is imagining the relations between MB and Islamic Centers and Organizations working in the US:

Some of the most prominent Muslim organizations in the United States have close, longstanding relationships with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. And the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was linked in court papers to a Brotherhood-organized Hamas support effort.

Now, Emerson, with a very innocent article, he linked directly between the American Islamic organizations such as CAIR and ISNA, to the Muslim Brotherhood, which created Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist Group!

Now we should announce these critical facts !!

1- Muslim Brotherhood is not a violent organization, and MB doesn’t have any anti-western agenda!

3- Muslim Brotherhood has no organizational relations with any of the American Islamic organizations working in the United States, and the Moderate form of Islam is the only thing common between the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic organizations active in the US.

Emerson, by these allegations, doesn’t want Obama’s administration to take any aggressive actions against MB, But actually he is pushing the American Administration to suppress the Islamic activities in the United States, which is serving millions of Americans on the American soil.

This who so called ‘expert’ is trying his best to fight the Muslim minority in the US, and this won’t lead to the good of the United States in the near future.

It’s the duty of the moderate Americans to stop these waves of hatred and racism, to return America to its glorious principles, to Justice, to Equality and to Tolerance.

Rashad Hussain Under Fire from Right-wing Bails on OIC

Source

Rashad Hussain was appointed by President Barack Hussein Obama to be the United States’ second Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). After he was appointed he became the subject of much scrutiny and anti-Muslim rhetoric from right-wing Islamophobes. He was called every name in the book.

Now the American Islamic College (AIC) and the OIC is jointly organizing a conference from September 28-30 on the topic of “Islam and Muslims in America” to be held at the AIC. Rashad Hussein was one of the headline speakers for the conference and his presence was essentially a sure thing considering that his JOB is to be the special envoy to the OIC. The Islamophobe-sphere went buck wild when they heard that Hussain would be a speaker and responded with their usual hate smears calling it a “supremacist gathering,” a “Muslim Brotherhood event,” throwing in all the usual buzz words and the kitchen sink like “Hamas,” “Shariah,” “Khilafah,” yada yada.

In light of these attacks Rashad Hussain canceled his scheduled speech at the conference last minute citing a “scheduling conflict” according to the emcee (hat tip: Joel).

Are you serious? So at the last minute the Special Envoy to the OIC has a “scheduling conflict”? What possible “scheduling conflict” would keep the special envoy to the OIC from attending a major OIC conference right here in the United States, in fact in his hometown? Did he have another scheduled event at the OIP (Organization of Intimidated Pushovers)?

Where is this guy’s priorities? And why is he kow-towing to the Right-wing hate machine? Why is he submitting to the intimidation and smear tactics that have so successfully exposed the glaring weakness of the Obama administration? Are the higher ups telling him to sit this conference out because it will be bad for PR? Do they and he not realize that this essentially empowers the goons on the far-right that no one in the Muslim community gives the light of day or takes seriously?

This episode reveals a very troubling problem, Rashad Hussain seems to be nothing more than window dressing used by the noodle-kneed Obama administration to create the image that Obama is trying to reach out to the Muslim world.

This intimidation and acquiescence to hate and fear mongering has to stop and if the Obama administration is truly serious about reaching out to the Muslim world he has to go beyond symbolic action and translate that symbolism and usage of pretty words into tangible and concrete results. Pulling the plug at the last minute means you aren’t serious and only furthers the perception that all the talk is just for show.

Fla. minister cancels burning of Qurans on 9/11

(The Associated Press)

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — A Christian minister in Florida is canceling plans to burn Qurans on Sept. 11, heeding an international outcry that drew criticism from President Barack Obama and religious and political leaders across the Muslim world.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama sternly admonished a Florida pastor Thursday and appealed to him to call off plans to torch the Quran, saying Saturday’s planned protest on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks was a dangerous “stunt” that could imperil U.S. troops abroad and incite suicide bombers on American soil.

American Muslim leaders urged members to remain calm if the pastor doesn’t back down from a threat that already has inflamed passions around the globe. Interpol, the international police organization, issued an alert to its 188 member-countries warning of a “strong likelihood” of violent attacks if the burn goes forward.

FBI agents met with the Rev. Terry Jones at his Dove Outreach Center, an independent church in Gainesville with about 50 members. At issue are his plans to stage an “International Burn-a-Koran Day” on the ninth anniversary of the terror attacks.

Jones planned a public response to the president’s request and the FBI visit later Thursday, said church spokesman Wayne Sapp.

Obama, speaking both to an audience of millions and to Jones in particular, said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” that: “I hope he listens to those better angels and understands that this is a destructive act that he’s engaging in.”

Jones told USA Today he hadn’t been contacted by the White House, State Department or Pentagon, but that if such a call came, “That would cause us to definitely think it over.”

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said there were discussions about whether to contact Jones directly. But he added that it would have been hard for the pastor to miss the clear pronouncements from Obama and his military leaders that burning Islam’s holy book would endanger American lives.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morell said reaching out directly to Jones was “not an easy decision” because it could provoke other people, “who all they want is a call from so-and-so.”

Obama made a point of framing his remarks “as commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

“I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan,” Obama said. He said the Quran-burning would be a “recruitment bonanza for al-Qaida. … This could increase the recruitment of individuals who’d be willing to blow themselves up in American cities, or European cities.”

In Afghanistan, hundreds of angry Afghans burned an American flag and chanted “Death to the Christians” to protest the planned Quran burning.

American Muslim leaders, for their part, urged Muslims not to retaliate for the burning, if it happens, or for any other Sept. 11 provocations, no matter how hurt they may feel. They said that reacting with anger or violence would only reinforce the stereotypes behind a recent spike in anti-Muslim incidents.

On Sept. 11, 2001, Muslim extremists commandeered three airliners and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A fourth airliner crashed in Pennsylvania, apparently after passengers overpowered the men who had taken over the plane. In all, nearly 3,000 people were killed.

“The best way to respond to Quran burnings is Quran readings, recitations, teaching, learning, sharing, living the best of the principles found therein,” said Zaheer Ali, a New York Muslim leader and doctoral student at Columbia University.

The president of Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, has sent a letter to Obama asking him to prevent the fire.

But Obama, admitting to some frustration, said the law offers little recourse against the pastor’s plan.

“My understanding is that he can be cited for public burning,” Obama said. “But that’s the extent of the laws that we have available to us.”

“We still have to make sure that we’re following the laws. And that’s part of what I love about this country.”

Beyond safety concerns, Gibbs said, the threatened Quran-burning has the potential to set back Obama’s efforts to improve relations with the Muslim world.

Almost lost in all the focus on the potential Quran burning, Obama issued best wishes to Muslims worldwide Thursday on their celebration of Eid-al-Fitr, which marks the end of the holy month of fasting and prayer known as Ramadan.

Associated Press writers Rachel Zoll in New York, Antonio Gonzales, Mitch Stacy, Curt Anderson and Kelli Kennedy in Florida, and Kimberly Dozier and Robert Reid in Kabul contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

MB: Burning Quran will increase anti-Americanism in the Muslim world

Ikhwanweb

In a recent statement, media spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood Dr. Essam l-Erian described the scheduled “Quran burning” as a “barbaric act, reminiscent of the Inquisition” .

Al-Erian, a member of the group’s executive bureau, warned that the event planned by the Dove World Outreach Centre, a small church in Gainesville, Florida, would definitely fan Muslim hatred of the United States. The MB, which enjoys much popularity despite being targeted by Egypt’s regime holds a fifth of the seats in parliament where they ran as independents in the 2005 elections.

Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, condemned the event stressing that the plans which are scheduled to take place on September 11 in commemoration of the attacks nine years earlier are nothing short of a disgrace.

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

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.

Politico: GOP takes harsher stance toward Islam

Source
By BEN SMITH & MAGGIE HABERMAN

The harsh Republican response to President Barack Obama’s defense of a mosque near ground zero marks a dramatic shift in the party’s posture toward Islam — from a once active courtship of Muslim voters to a very public tolerance after Sept. 11 to an openly aired sense of mistrust.

Republican leaders have largely abandoned former President George W. Bush’s post-Sept. 11 rhetorical embrace of American Muslims and his insistence — always controversial inside the party — that Islam is a religion of peace. This weekend, former Bush aides were among the very few Republicans siding with Obama, as many of the party’s leaders have moved toward more vocal denunciations of Islam’s role in violence abroad and suspicion of its place at home.

The shift plays to a hostility toward Islam among many Republican voters, and it fits with traditional Republican attacks on Democratic weakness on security policy.

“Bush went against the grain of his own constituency,” said Allen Roth, a political aide to conservative billionaire Ron Lauder and, independently, a key organizer of the fight against the mosque. “This is part of an underlying set of security issues that could play a significant role in the elections this November.”

Obama’s remarks provide a clear, national focus for the simmering question of Islam in American life, and Republicans showed every sign Saturday of beginning to capitalize on it, with Republican candidates in New York and Florida seeking to inject the issue into local races as Democrats largely held their silence.

That stance in the GOP — both in terms of political strategy and policy views — appears to be carrying the day. Most of the potential Republican presidential hopefuls, led by Sarah Palin, came out sharply against the mosque.

And while most of its opponents note that they aren’t opposing Islam, just this project, Republican attempts to build bridges with Muslims are few and far between — although some say that’s because early post-Sept. 11 efforts were met with deep resistance. Republicans have stopped winning the Muslim votes they once split with Democrats, and largely stopped seeking them.

The spectrum ranges from silence on the issue to politicians and groups, like Keep America Safe, led by Liz Cheney and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, gearing up to engage the battle over the mosque and the basket of other issues involving the Obama administration’s relationship with Muslims at home and abroad.

“The president supports a mosque at ground zero led by a man who blamed America for 9/11, his top intelligence official preaches the true meaning of jihad, and his attorney general can’t even say the words ‘radical Islam,'” said Michael Goldfarb, an adviser to Keep America Safe. “You start to worry they don’t understand who the enemy is, and so Republicans might understandably feel like they have to spell it out for them.”

Obama, meanwhile, only fed Republicans’ eagerness to engage the issue with remarks Saturday morning that appeared to narrow his broader embrace of Islam in America to a defense of the legal right to build a mosque, though his office later issued a third statement saying he hadn’t backed off his original remarks.

Muslim leaders say, regretfully, that they also see a dramatic change.

Republicans have “shifted completely away from the Bush administration line on relations with Islam and they’ve obviously made the political calculation that bashing Islam and Muslims is a winning issue for them,” said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who blamed the “tea party movement [for] liberating the inner bigot in people.”

The shift has various causes. One is simply the freedom of opposition. “The stronger imperative for Bush’s stance was geopolitical,” said former Bush speechwriter David Frum, referring to the Bush administration’s reliance on Islamic allies for the prosecution of conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now Republicans are liberated to say what many think, and what many of their supporters want to hear.

But the attacks on what is now nationally known as the “Ground Zero mosque” — it is a few blocks north of the site — also stand in for a broader turn in the cultural politics of the right, in which some of the social issues that served as the emotional core of candidates’ appeals have lost their power. A recent CNN poll showing that 68 percent of Americans oppose the construction of the mosque also found that about half think there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. No political genius is required to decide which issue to run on.

The debate over the mosque’s locale had been brewing in the crucible of the New York tabloids for parts of the spring, then died down. Then came an attempted car bombing in New York’s Times Square, by a confessed suspect who’d said he planned mass deaths as vengeance for Muslims in the two wars being waged by the United States in the Mideast, which recalled for many residents the constant sense of edginess and fear the Sept. 11 attacks inspired.

New York’s beleaguered Republicans, seeing an opening, have seized and driven the mosque issue, and Roth and other mainstream figures have worked to insulate it from more radical anti-Islamic voices, like blogger Pamela Geller, who might marginalize the cause.
Leading New York Republicans acknowledge a shift from the Bush years, but say Muslim leaders, not Republicans, are to blame.

“George Bush made every attempt to reach out,” said Rep. Pete King, a leading critic of the mosque project. “The Muslim community did not reciprocate, did not respond. After Sept. 11, some of them became entrenched and really didn’t know how to cope.

“Somehow the leadership in the community does not impel them forward to be more part of the community. That’s my reading of it,” said King, who also noted that sensitivities involving the site are far deeper, and more real, than many are willing to recognize beyond the boundaries of New York.

Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles Burlingame was the pilot of the jetliner that crashed into the Pentagon and who serves on the board of Keep America Safe, agreed that there is an emotional component but rejected the notion that the mosque issue is a “feelings” concept instead of part of a larger debate about different cultures and how the U.S. should engage with Muslim culture within the country.

“I do ascribe to the ‘clash of civilizations’ theory now,” said Burlingame, who has been among the main voices questioning the funding behind the proposed mosque, and the intents of Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind it. She said, as she did after Obama’s speech, that many Muslims have practiced peacefully in the U.S. before and after the attacks, but that Rauf has made statements supporting radical elements of Islam, and that the location was chosen to be provocative.

She criticized those, mostly led by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who are defending the project under freedom of religion, saying, “That’s a Western concept.”

“This is a different model,” she said, arguing that in the United States people “for generations had been raised on this concept of separation of church and state, and that you don’t trash someone because of their religion … but that’s not what we’re dealing with here.”

“I think the challenge for us is enlisting the Muslims who have already bought into the American program and not adjusting” to Muslim culture, she added. For Burlingame, the issue is not political — she said she objects to the content as well as the form of efforts by Bloomberg and others to push back because the goal is “to shut you up.”

“We’re talking to the wrong people,” said New York City firefighter Tim Brown, a survivor of the attacks who has worked with Burlingame. He suggested that “radical” Muslims are being recognized in the United States as part of the religious dialogue, as in the case of the mosque. “Whoever made this decision and whoever set us on this path, and I don’t care if it’s the Bush administration or whoever, it’s the wrong path.”

Whatever the cause of the shift, the end of the Bush-era outreach aligns with the views of much of the Republican base. A Pew poll found last year that 55 percent of conservative Republicans believe Islam encourages violence.

The pre-Sept. 11 Republican Party actively courted Muslim voters in key states like Michigan. An energetic effort to lead the socially conservative, relatively affluent community into the GOP was led by power broker Grover Norquist — who didn’t respond to a request to talk about Republicans and Muslims. But it failed, and the present-day Republican Party has more or less given them up for those lost and alienated by American policies in the Middle East and — as Republicans see it — misled by their own leaders into ambiguous public positions.

“The leading members of that community have not settled inside the Republican Party, and so their voice is lesser,” said Frum.

Bush is hardly remembered fondly by Muslim Americans, many of whom blame him for a wave of detentions and deportations immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks and for conflict with Muslims abroad. But a less-remembered element of his legacy is the battle he fought within the Republican Party on Islam’s behalf.

By the day after the attacks, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer recalled, Bush had expressed his intense concern at the possibility of a backlash against American Muslims, and his aides had begun discussing “the need to balance getting America ready for war against the people who carried out the attacks without infringing on Muslims’ right to practice their religion.”

On September 17, 2001, Bush visited Washington’s Islamic Center with a simple message: “Islam is peace.”

Those words didn’t sit well with key segments of the Republican base, including some Christian leaders. In June 2002, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention suggested that the God of Muslims would “turn you into a terrorist that’ll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people.”

Fleischer took public exception to the statement on Bush’s behalf.

“It’s something that the president definitely disagrees with. Islam is a religion of peace, that’s what the president believes,” he said.

Today, Fleischer says he thinks the mosque’s organizers would be more sensible to go elsewhere, but that the GOP risks taking too hard a line on Islam as the 2012 elections approach.

“The real issue is going to be the rhetoric of presidential candidates in ’11 and ’12, and whether they try to strike a balance or whether is it much more vitriolic,” he said. “We are at war with radical Islam; we are not at war with Muslims writ large, and we have to find that right balance.”

Other former Bush aides backed President Obama’s defense of the mosque. Former Bush consultant Mark McKinnon called Obama’s Friday remarks an example of “bold and decisive leadership.”

“An enormously complex and emotional issue — but ultimately the right thing to do. A president is president for every citizen, including every Muslim citizen,” said former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson. “Obama is correct that the way to marginalize radicalism is to respect the best traditions of Islam and protect the religious liberty of Muslim Americans. It is radicals who imagine an American war on Islam. But our conflict is with the radicals alone.”

Among the first conservative groups gunning for the ground zero mosque was the National Republican Trust PAC, whose television ad two broadcast networks refused to air on the grounds that it seemed to tie the organizers of the community center, without evidence, to the planners of the terror attacks.

But it became a hit on YouTube, and combined with the complaints of New York politicians and some conservative bloggers, the project became a national issue.

“Once we brought this issue to the American people, the politicians were falling all over each other to get out in front of it,” said Scott Wheeler, the group’s executive director.

The GOP’s likely presidential candidates drew a spectrum of shades of opposition but not a single one sided with Bloomberg in backing the mosque on the grounds of private property and religious freedom.

“Ground zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts,” wrote Palin on July 18, calling on “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” it.

“There should be no mosque near ground zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia,” wrote former House Speaker Newt Gingrich a day later.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, though he represents a relatively heavily Muslim state, rebuffed pleas from local Muslim leaders to back off his suggestion that the mosque would “degrade and disrespect” the Trade Center site. A spokesman for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney cited both “the wishes of the families of the deceased and the potential for extremists to use the mosque for global recruiting and propaganda” in opposing it.

But it was former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee who seemed to fit the issue most clearly into a recognizable political category of culture war.

“Is it just that we can offend Americans and Christians, but not foreigners and Muslims?” he asked.

Gingrich, Bolton, Breitbart Team Up With Far-Right Muslim-Basher Geert Wilders For 9/11 Rally

Source

The right-wing group Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) has announced that it will be hosting a rally against the proposed Cordoba House Islamic community center on September 11.

The confirmed list of speakers includes former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, Andrew Breitbart, and, notably, the far-right Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. “Islam is not a religion, it’s an ideology,” Wilders told the Guardian in 2009, “the ideology of a retarded culture.”

In the past, Wilders’ extremism has been condemned by conservatives such as Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and even Glenn Beck, who called Wilders “fascist.” It’s a clear sign of how far the Republicans have shifted to the right and embraced Islamophobia as a political tool that movement figures like Gingrich, Bolton, and Breitbart now have no problem sharing a stage with Wilders.

Ikhwanophobia‘s Comment

It’s Clear that the smearcasters are gathered for one goal; intimidation against Islam and Muslims. These actions and conferences are a real provocation against Muslims, The infamous fascist Geert Wilders are one of the most People who is against Islam itself, the issue now is not about Ground Zero Mosque, it’s not also about MAS or CAIR! The issue is turned to be against Islam!
Moderate Americans should react strictly against these Neo-Fascists who want to destroy the reputation of the US as a Free and Democratic State! we always welcome the real debates on all controversial issues, but what will happen on the coming 9/11 is a real disaster for human rights and pluralism in the United States.

Arnold Friedman | ADL’s mosque stand flawed

By Arnold Friedman
Special to The Courier-Journal

Back in 1947, between the time I graduated high school and started college, I worked in the offices of an organization in New York called the Institute for American Democracy.

Today, one might suspect such a name as being a front for some right-wing think tank, but the IAD was far from it. It was an offshoot of the Anti-Defamation League and its role was to foster brotherhood, tolerance, togetherness.

For instance, an Internet search turned up an IAD poster from 1945; it showed workers, perhaps in a steel mill, stoking a furnace, with the heading “Working Side by Side … in War and Peace! Catholics — Protestants — Jews.”

That was my first introduction to the ADL, an organization founded by the Jewish fraternal group B’nai B’rith in 1913 in the wake of the lynching in Atlanta of Leo Frank, a Jew unjustly accused of murdering a little girl.

Over the years, I have been a strong supporter of the ADL and all it stands for. My first boss, at the old Long Island Press in New York, was a member of the organization’s National Board, and we often talked about its good works.

Perhaps what impressed me most was that it didn’t get involved only in Jewish causes, but in human causes. If something was wrong; if there was blatant discrimination, whether it be religious, racial, or something else, the ADL was there to champion the offended.

I cannot think of an issue on which I didn’t agree with the ADL position — until now. The issue now is the proposed Islamic community center and mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero, the site of the World Trade Center terrorist attack of September 11, 2001.

After long internal debate, the ADL came down on the side of the mosque’s opponents. In a statement that seemed to want it both ways, the ADL’s director Abe Foxman said, “We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition … is a manifestation of such bigotry.”

Saying that there are legitimate differences of opinion about the site, he said “the overriding concern should be the sensitivities of the families of the victims” and that another site should be found.

I cannot imagine that my boss would have agreed. Consider the 1977 decision of the American Civil Liberties Union to support neo-Nazis’ right to march in Skokie, Illinois, home to thousands of Holocaust survivors — a decision that cost it many members, but a correct decision nonetheless.

No, Mr. Foxman, “sensitivities” are not at issue. Religious freedom is. Indeed, in your statement, you called freedom of religion “must include the right of all Americans — Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths — to build community centers and houses of worship.”

Yes, the ADL’s record on matters of intolerance has been exemplary. It has stood up when others wouldn’t — when mosques were attacked, when a member of Congress used stereotypes to depict Muslims.

But you are not right in this case. And as a Jew, I’m embarrassed

Muslims, too, died at Ground Zero. A Muslim alerted the police to the Christmas Day attempted bombing in Times Square.

Too many of my friends forward e-mails to me with xenophobic and Islamophobic messages, but I’ve known and worked with many Muslims and I know that no group can be all bad.

I’m pleased that respected journalist Fareed Zakariah recently returned a First Amendment award the ADL gave him in 2005 to protest your decision. I’d be more pleased if the ADL were to reconsider its position and admit that it was wrong in this case.

Arnold Friedman is a retired newspaperman who lives in Louisville.

Ikhwanophobia‘s Comment

We believe that Muslims also suffered in Ground Zero, Muslims lost hundreds of souls in 9/11. This means that Muslims, Christians and Jews should stand in the same position against racism, terrorism and bigots who calls for religious discrimination!

Lexington: Build that mosque

The campaign against the proposed Cordoba centre in New York is unjust and dangerous

WHAT makes a Muslim in Britain or America wake up and decide that he is no longer a Briton or American but an Islamic “soldier” fighting a holy war against the infidel? Part of it must be pull: the lure of jihadism. Part is presumably push: a feeling that he no longer belongs to the place where he lives. Either way, the results can be lethal. A chilling feature of the suicide video left by Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the band that killed more than 50 people in London in July, 2005, was the homely Yorkshire accent in which he told his countrymen that “your” government is at war with “my people”.

For a while America seemed less vulnerable than Europe to home-grown jihadism. The Pew Research Centre reported three years ago that most Muslim Americans were “largely assimilated, happy with their lives… and decidedly American in their outlook, values and attitudes.” Since then it has become clear that American Muslims can be converted to terrorism too. Nidal Malik Hassan, born in America and an army major, killed 13 of his comrades in a shooting spree at Fort Hood. Faisal Shahzad, a legal immigrant, tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square. But something about America—the fact that it is a nation of immigrants, perhaps, or its greater religiosity, or the separation of church and state, or the opportunities to rise—still seems to make it an easier place than Europe for Muslims to feel accepted and at home.

It was in part to preserve this feeling that George Bush repeated like a scratched gramophone record that Americans were at war with the terrorists who had attacked them on 9/11, not at war with Islam. Barack Obama has followed suit: the White House national security strategy published in May says that one way to guard against radicalisation at home is to stress that “diversity is part of our strength—not a source of division or insecurity.” This is hardly rocket science. America is plainly safer if its Muslims feel part of “us” and not, like Mohammad Sidique Khan, part of “them”. And that means reminding Americans of the difference—a real one, by the way, not one fabricated for the purposes of political correctness—between Islam, a religion with a billion adherents, and al-Qaeda, a terrorist outfit that claims to speak in Islam’s name but has absolutely no right or mandate to do so.

Why would any responsible American politician want to erase that vital distinction? Good question. Ask Sarah Palin, or Newt Gingrich, or the many others who have lately clambered aboard the offensive campaign to stop Cordoba House, a proposed community centre and mosque, from being built in New York two blocks from the site of the twin towers. Every single argument put forward for blocking this project leans in some way on the misconceived notion that all Muslims, and Islam itself, share the responsibility for, or are tainted by, the atrocities of 9/11.

In a tweet last month from Alaska, Ms Palin called on “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the “ground-zero mosque” because it would “stab” American hearts. But why should it? Cordoba House is not being built by al-Qaeda. To the contrary, it is the brainchild of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a well-meaning American cleric who has spent years trying to promote interfaith understanding, not an apostle of religious war like Osama bin Laden. He is modelling his project on New York’s 92nd Street Y, a Jewish community centre that reaches out to other religions. The site was selected in part precisely so that it might heal some of the wounds opened by the felling of the twin towers and all that followed. True, some relatives of 9/11 victims are hurt by the idea of a mosque going up near the site. But that feeling of hurt makes sense only if they too buy the false idea that Muslims in general were perpetrators of the crime. Besides, what about the feelings, and for that matter the rights, of America’s Muslims—some of whom also perished in the atrocity?

Ms Palin’s argument does at least have one mitigating virtue: it concentrates on the impact the centre might have, without impugning the motives of those who want to build it. The same half-defence can be made of the Anti-Defamation League, a venerable Jewish organisation created to fight anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry. To the dismay of many liberal Jews, the ADL has also urged the centre’s backers to seek another site in order to spare the feelings of families of the 9/11 victims. But at least it concedes that they have every right to build at this site—and that they might (only might, since the ADL hints at vague concerns about their ideology and finances) genuinely have chosen it in order to send a positive message about Islam.

The Saudi non-sequitur

No such plea of mitigation can be entered on behalf of Mr Gingrich. The former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives may or may not have presidential pretensions, but he certainly has intellectual ones. That makes it impossible to excuse the mean spirit and scrambled logic of his assertion that “there should be no mosque near ground zero so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia”. Come again? Why hold the rights of Americans who happen to be Muslim hostage to the policy of a foreign country that happens also to be Muslim? To Mr Gingrich, it seems, an American Muslim is a Muslim first and an American second. Al-Qaeda would doubtless concur.

Mr Gingrich also objects to the centre’s name. Imam Feisal says he chose “Cordoba” in recollection of a time when the rest of Europe had sunk into the Dark Ages but Muslims, Jews and Christians created an oasis of art, culture and science. Mr Gingrich sees only a “deliberate insult”, a reminder of a period when Muslim conquerors ruled Spain. Like Mr bin Laden, Mr Gingrich is apparently still relitigating the victories and defeats of religious wars fought in Europe and the Middle East centuries ago. He should rejoin the modern world, before he does real harm.

Source
Economist.com/blogs/lexington

Jewish organizations schould have nothing to do with Ground Zero Mosque

By Ben Sales

I’m not sure if other people know this, but the community center/mosque that New York City just approved for construction is not a Jewish project. Given the public statements on the center from the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League and J Street–all leading Jewish American organizations–your Jew on the street could assume that this was some sort of interfaith project by the Jewish Community Relations Council, rahter than an Islamic effort. By the same token, this latest bout of public statements was akin to those I’d seen on the flotilla crisis or the recent conversion fiasco in the Knesset.

Despite those public statements, this is not a Jewish issue. I understand that Israel fights Islamic terror. I understand that sympathy with Israel makes America’s Jews more attuned to Islamic activity in the US. What I don’t understand is why that makes some Jewish organizations think they have anything to do with an Islamic cultural center’s construction in downtown Manhattan. Islam is not the “opposite” of Judaism and just because something is Islamic does not mean that it relates in any way to Jews or the Jewish community.

Furthermore, it wasn’t even in the interest of those organizations to join the debate. The ADL lost out big-time–both morally and politically–by opposing the center’s construction, and while the AJC and J Street ended up on the winning side of the debate, this accomplished nothing for their causes.

The ADL is an organization dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism and bigotry, so why did they advocate against building a religious community center? The AJC is a representative body of the Jewish community in Washington, but how did this have anything to do with the Jewish community? J Street is a lobby pushing a pro-peace agenda regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but what did this initiative have to do with that conflict? Yes, the initiative’s leaders are Muslim, just like the Palestinians, but you don’t see J Street commenting on every American domestic Islamic issue, nor on every Jewish one.

I know Jews like to debate, and I appreciate that our community stays informed about key local and national issues. That doesn’t mean, however, that every major Jewish organization should be issuing public statements about every hot news issue–even if the key players in that news issue happen to share a religion with the people who live across the fence from Israel. Odds are the Muslim community in the US also has some organizations with official-sounding acronyms; let them do some talking on this one.

Source

Wahabi Imam to burn the Bible in Cairo!

What if some Wahabi Imam in a mosque decided to burn the holy Bible after Friday prayer in Cairo .

Let’s imagine the headlines of the highly ranked newspapers, websites and dozens of bitter Islamophobes on their websites truly they would have a field day.

CNN
Extremist Muslims decide to burn the holy Bible in Egypt

FOX
Muslim Brotherhood set to burn the Bible in the Muslim World!

Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report
Exclusive: Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood call for anti-Christian actions in Egypt .

Family Security Matters
GMBDR: Exclusive: Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Call for anti-Christian actions in Egypt .

Jihad Watch
Hamas Leaders to burn Torah synchronously with Muslim Brotherhood Bible Burn Day

Daniel Pipes
Turkish Islamist teacher beats Christian student carrying Bible!

Pamela Geller
CAIR’s mother group to burn Bible!

Dallas News
Holy Land Foundation supported Bible Burn Day in Palestinian Territories

Steven Emerson
IPT monitored Al Qaeda preparation for Bible Burn Day

Sean Hannity
Ground Zero Imam will participate in Bible Burn Day!

Sarah Palin
Oh Peaceful Muslims! Please refudiate Bible Burn Day!

Religion of Peace
Photo: Islam Orders Muslims to burn Bibles and to Kill Christians

,,,,,,,,,,,

That was hypothetically speaking, now back to reality and what has in fact happened in the US to be precise a church in Florida was planning to burn the Quran, however the appalling truth is that all news bulletin corporations and smearcasters failed to report such incidents abstaining from writing or publishing a word on this subject.

In a tilting of scales, it seems to be normal and acceptable to have a Church burn Quran Day but in the event of a Muslim burning Bible Day imagine the uproar and scandal.

The question is why didn’t the western and most influential mediacomment on this racist and discriminatory incident? The diehard bigots and hypocrite racists who want to burn Quran and smear Islam are the real terrorists.

Although terrorism cannot and will not be justified the burning of the Muslims Holy Quran may lead to such undesirable actions in response to the provocative actions illustrating anti-Islamic tendencies.

The Independent websites, who discussed the Quran burning day, unfortunately are not high profiled or effective news sources. They focused mainly on the lack of exposing of the incident wondering why the more famous agencies abstained from discussion.

Throughout Islam’s long history, Muslims have never been involved in any actions of religious suppression against Jews and Christians. The Ottoman Empire received thousands of Spanish Jews refugees after the defeat of Muslims in Andalusia, And within this history, Muslims didn’t try even once to fight the ideas by sword! they always were trying to oppose ideas by ideas.

Current events in the US with the burning of the holy Quran reveal some Christians’ lack of tolerance to a different religion and culture exposing their true ignorance. Rather than discuss and engage in open dialogue with Muslims they chose to burn the Quran demonstrating pure hatred and animosity

Many questions will be asked, and the true, factual answers will not be in favour of news corporations such as CNN and FOX News. Do they support these bigots? Are the smearcasters supporting the Christian bigots? And the most important question remains … What if they were Muslims how would they react?

Who is behind Relentless, Obsession and The Third Jihad?

The American Muslim
The venom created by the films “Relentless”, and “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War With the West” has been slowly working its way into the hearts and minds of people across the country for a couple of years.  Now the same group that brought us these atrocities is coming out with another film “The Third Jihad”.  These films are only part of what Bob Crane has called a Tsunami of Islamophobia that seems to be rushing in ever higher waves towards the Muslim community in America.  These films are verbal and visual terrorism.

28 million copies of a DVD of the film “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” have been distributed free of cost in newspapers across the country.  The film was first released a few years ago and has been shown around the country.  I wrote about my impressions and concerns when I viewed the film in 2007 and again in early 2008 when “Fitna” another such film was released.  Except for David Horowitz’ use of the film as the centerpiece of his Islamo Fascism Awareness weeks for the last couple of years it has mostly been shown by local community venues and on campuses and sponsored primarily by Republican and Jewish groups.  It is also sold on the internet.

Now, a DVD of this film has been bundled inside more than 70 newspapers and magazines and delivered nationwide to subscribers. Surprisingly even The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The World Jewish Digest accepted this “advertizing” insert.  “There is no greater threat than radical Islam,” said Gregory Ross, spokesman for the Clarion Fund, a New-York based nonprofit organization that is paying newspapers to distribute the DVD. “It needs to be pushed to the forefront of the political discussion.” (Controversial film on Islam delivered nationwide, Yonat Shimron) The newspapers accepted this insert as paid advertizing but it was not labeled as such.  I am certain that many people receiving the DVD think that this is the view of the paper delivering it to their doorstep.

Copies of the DVD were distributed free at the DNC, and at the RNC by the recently formed group watch obsession.org headed by Tom Trento.  Earlier this year, the Florida Attorney General required employees to watch this video.  The Republican Jewish Coalition has also distributed free copies of the film in promotional mailings to U.S. rabbis and other Jewish mailing lists.  The stars of the film have lectured at U.S. Military colleges, and the U.S. Navy uses the film.

I know from personal experience over many years of being involved with interfaith dialogue that the views that this film promotes are not the views of all Jewish people, but I also know that those who have been responsible for making this film and for promoting it widely have been primarily Jewish.  It truly saddens me that members of a community who should know better and who have experienced a holocaust that resulted at least partially from widespread stereotyping and demonization of Jewish people.  I believe that this marginal group within the Jewish community is so blinded by their need to defend the State of Israel at any cost that they do not see the cost of their propoganda to another community.  They are a marginal group, but they are making a lot of noise.  In fact, they are making so much noise that they are drowning out the voices of those in the mainstream Jewish community who have worked so hard with mainstream Muslims and Christians to build bridges of dialogue and work towards peace and justice in this world.

As Robert Salaam has pointed out ”Tragically today, it appears that the very groups who had taken up the shout of “Never Again!”, seem to have edited the shout to, “Well…maybe just this one more time…”

The film “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War With the West” has been written and produced by Jewish people, and most of the local showings of the film around the country the last couple of years have been sponsored by Jewish groups, although recently Christian groups such as CUFI have also become involved in the promotion of this film.  This appears to be part of a concerted effort to marginalize the Muslim community.  An ad published by the American Jewish Committee in the New York Times last year called “Israel’s Neighbors Speak” used many of the same questionable quotes and techniques.  Obsession has become so much a part of the American Jewish community that it was shown at the Berkshire Jewish film festival in 2007.

And, at a 2006 showing of Obsession in Philadelphia, a Jewish Exponent article said:  “In a show of unity in the face of mounting international Arab extremism, as well as anti-Israel sentiment on America’s college campuses, some 800 people turned out for last weekend’s sold-out screening of “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.  Welcoming those to the March 26 event – organized by Aish Philadelphia, the Jewish Community Centers, the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, Hillel of Greater Philadelphia and Akiba Hebrew Academy – Michael Wachs, one of the evening’s sponsors, said that “the true blessing of this event is Jews standing united as one. ‘Obsession’ is a wake-up call.” How does a film supposedly about Radical Islam and terrorism and Jews standing united as one relate?  As part of his introduction of the guest speaker, Gary Erlbaum – co-chair of Federation’s Center for Israel and Overseas – noted that “Judaism allows us to make choices.” “Where do we go from here?” he then asked. “The humanitarian gesture is to stand up for ourselves and the people of Israel,” offered Erlbaum. “Tell everyone you can that the world is a dangerous place.”This explains everything, the film has something to do with standing up for Israel.

An early review of Obsession posted on the Jewish Virtual Library site includes the statement: ”A film like this would have been difficult to make a few years ago when it was rare to hear Muslims speaking in their own language.” Exactly what language is the Muslim language?  I only speak English and am an American Muslim.  The same article also said:  ”Jimmy Carter and the Iraq Study Group members should be required to watch the film so they will be disabused of their delusion that Israeli policy is the obstacle to peace. Obsession makes clear the real obstacles are the Islamists’ refusal to recognize Israel, the outright hatred of the Jews by many Muslims and the unwillingness to accept a Jewish state on “Islamic land” or Jewish rule over Muslims.” Once again making clear the connection in the minds of these individuals that demonizing Muslims has something to do with supporting Israel.

This film is most likely seen by these individuals as a way to marginalize Islam and Muslims and put all of the focus strictly on Muslims as the source of all of the problems in the world, particularly as the source of opposition to some Christian and Jewish fundamentalists ideas about the State of Israel and its relation to end times prophecy.  An extremist religious belief that should not be the source of policy, and that is at least as dangerous as the confused religious beliefs of extremist Muslims.  The fact that the film Obsession and these folks in general do not see any possibility that actual historical events and political policies could have anything at all to do with the motivation of any worldwide disputes involving Muslims in any way is odd.  The fact that many in other countries do see such possibilities doesn’t influence their close minded views.  For example, a 2006 ICH poll of British citizens shows that 72% believe that foreign policy is feeding terrorism.

What happens when such propoganda is spread through society with no alternative voice?  We have seen what happens in the not so distant past in places like Rwanda and Bosnia, and in the last generation in the German attempt at genocide of the Jews, Gypsies, and other peoples deemed to be inferior and/or dangerous.

If the people who are promoting this believe that it is only the Muslims who will be affected, and that is a price they are willing to pay in order to achieve their goals, I believe that they are mistaken, and they are playing with fire, and adding fuel to that fire by bringing religion into the political mix.  There are a whole lot more folks out there who believe that America is a Christian nation (including John McCain who said “…the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.” ) than there are Muslims and Jews combined.  They are a fringe group of Christianity worldwide, but may represent as many as 40% of American Christians.  That these fringe Christians who believe that they can help bring Armageddon along earlier by helping their interpretation of Biblical prophecy happen would support films like this is not surprising.  They don’t care about any possible results to all of those who in their view will be “left behind” to suffer the consequences of a terrible war because they believe that they will be “raptured” to heaven before all hell breaks loose here on earth.  For them anyone who doesn’t believe in their particular view of Christianity is uninportant and doomed to eternal damnation.  That includes not only Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, and Catholics, but also Muslims and Jews.  Why any of us who are in this fring Christian world view going to be “left behind” would join hands with these folks to promote their agenda is truly a mystery.

That there is a line to be crossed between legitimate discussion of political issues and anti-Semitism is clear even to Robert Wistrich (one of the talking heads in the Obsession film), or at least it is clear when it comes to anti-Semitism.  In an article on Qantara.de he said:  “Does he or she rely on classic anti-Semitic stereotypes in so doing: for example, by dredging up the alleged Jewish/Zionist “conspiracy” to dominate the world, or by evoking Jewish/Israeli “warmongers” who supposedly run American foreign policy; or through referring to an all-powerful “Jewish Lobby” that prevents justice in the Middle East. If the “anti-Zionist” critic holds Jews to be responsible for the chaos and troubles that currently afflict the world, he is surely an antisemite. If he criminalizes Israeli behaviour, by gratuitously branding it as “Nazi” or intrinsically “racist”, then we are talking anti-Semitism.” What if he or she relies on classic anti-Muslim or anti-Arab stereotypes, or dredging up an alleged Muslim conspiracy to rule the world, or by evoking Muslim “warmongers” (no matter how marginal), or through referring to some all powerful terrorist organization that has the ability to destroy western civilization, or gratuitously branding political groups as Nazi, or attaching the name of the religion with terms like nazi, fascist, and terrorist – would that make the person an Islamophobe, and equally desicable?

Once the demons of religious, racial, or ethnic stereotyping are released, they are impossible to control.  What has been the result of the barrage of anti-Muslim propoganda over the last few years?  The real fascists are rearing their ugly heads again in Germany where their last incarnation was so devastating to the Jews.  Negative feelings towards Muslims, and to a lesser extent Jews, are on the rise in Canada.  Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are surging in Europe.  The latest Pew Research Center survey of global attitudes on religion is out and the news is not good for Jews – or Muslims.  Once you have convinced people that one form of prejudice is “acceptable” then it is difficult to stop that prejudice from being switched to other “out groups”.

Those behind the production of the Obsession film and those behind the recent distribution of the DVD in newspapers and by mail are attempting to be very secretive about exactly who they are, and who is financing this endeavor.

The Obsession website lists only the filmmakers, Wayne Kopping and Raphael Shore. However, the dvd packaging included with the Times lists the producers as Peter Mier and Raphael Shore, and states that the project was “conceived by” Peter Mier. and the production manager is listed as Brett Halperin.  However, an articleby Richard Silverstein of Tikun Olam attempting to get to the bottom of this notes that Raphael Shore says that Mier and Halperin are just aliases and that also according to Shore, about 80 percent of the film’s $400,000 budget was provided by Mier (whoever Mier might be).

In an interview on Fox News Raphael Shore said: “At the recommendation of a number of experts we worked with in making the film, many of the individuals and organizations who helped make this film possible requested anonymity. Tragically, we’ve seen numerous times the response of the radicals to those who openly expose or disagree with them.” But of course, they are afraid they will be killed by fanatical Muslims.  If that is so, why aren’t Raphael Shore or any of the other folks involved in this afraid.

I think that he Kassandra Project blog asks a very good question about this:  “Why all the aliases and secrecy I wonder. Maybe it has something to do with that pesky federal U.S. 501(c)(3) law prohibiting foreign political institutions or foreign organizations from contributing to the Clarion Fund’s operations. Given that both the producer and the director are foreigners (with an anti-Muslim agenda), and the financial backers are anonymous, it all looks very suspicious.” This is a much more likely motivation for all the secrecy.

Jews on First adds even more credence to this interpretation.  “Because it was established only recently, the Clarion Fund has not yet filed its first required disclosure (Form 990) with the IRS. It is not disclosing its officers.  The address Clarion used to satisfy the New York Times’ requirement that political or opinion advertisements include the advertiser’s contact information—255 West 36th St., Suite 800, in Manhattan—turns out to be Grace Corporate Park Executive Suites, an office-space rental operation which also rents “virtual office identity packages” for as little as $75 a month.” This is just about as shady as it is possible to be.

Erik Ose in an article on The Huffington Post raises an even more pertinent issue:  “However, one detail in this report seems mistaken, that “because it was established only recently, the Clarion Fund has not yet filed its first required disclosure (Form 990) with the IRS.” According to the New York Secretary of State’s website, the Clarion Fund was incorporated nearly two years ago, on December 28, 2006. So where are their Form 990’s? Hello, IRS?)”

I have done what I could to collect as much information as possible about the organizations and individuals involved in the production of Obsession and in the promotion and distribution of the film.  As I am able to find out more I will update this.  If you have any additional information please let me know.  I find it very interesting that these groups and individuals are so intertwined.  The dubious credentials of most of the “experts” are also interesting.  What is most interesting is that an organization that has not filed proper paperwork with the IRS, doesn’t have a legitimate address, and lists aliases on the cover of its “advertising” insert was still accepted as legitimate by so many newspapers (and of course, that doesn’t even touch on the matter of the content of the Obsession insert).

9-23-08 update:  According to an article by Tim Townsend in the St. Louis Post Dispatch (who refused to distribute the DVD’s) “Jen Wood, the Post-Dispatch’s vice president of advertising, said her department received the request to include the DVD as an insert at the beginning of the summer. She said the advertiser provided the newspaper only with a trailer, and refused when Wood asked to see a copy of the entire film – something she described as “not an unusual request.””I didn’t have enough information to make a decision, so I said ‘no thank you,’” said Wood. “It wasn’t clear what exact message they were trying to send.” This makes the Post-Dispatch along with the Greensboro North Carolina News-Record one of only two newspapers to have refused to participate in this campaign.

9/23 update:  CAIR has issued a press release saying that they are asking the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to Probe Anti-Muslim DVDs Sent to Swing Stateshttp://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/cair_asks_fec_to_
probe_anti_muslim_dvds_sent_to_swing_states/0016749

ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN THE PRODUCTION OR PROMOTION OF OBSESSION

AISH HATORAH

When the Israeli Foreign Ministry sought to combat anti-Israel ideas on college campuses, it called on Aish HaTorah to develop the HASBARA FELLOWSHIPS. This program has flown hundreds of student leaders to Israel for intensive training in pro-Israel activism training. In North America, Hasbara Fellowships guides and funds pro-Israel activities on 80 college campuses.

Aish also founded HONEST REPORTING, a web-based operation that monitors the media for ‘anti-Israel bias’. Honest Reporting has claimed to be independent from Aish for several years, but its UK branch, launched earlier this year, boasts an Aish-registered website domain name and contact address.  The Aish International site main page says:  “Campuses everywhere are deluged with anti-Israel propaganda. Mass media is often strongly biased against Israel. Our efforts through affiliate HonestReporting Campus and Hasbara Fellowships are defending Israel everywhere.”

CLARION FUND

This is a shadowy group who organized and paid for the distribution of the Obsession DVD to 28 million Americans by newspaper inserts and direct mailing.  Clarion was founded by Raphael Shore.  Their site does not list any officers, board members, nothing.

CHRISTIANS UNITED FOR ISRAEL

This group headed by Pastor John Hagee helped pay for a mass mailing of the Obsession video some months ago.  According to an article on Israel eNews:  “At the July 16-18, 2007 Christians United For Israel (CUFI) yearly conference in Washington D.C., Senator Lieberman lavished praise on Christians United For Israel’s founder, Texas megachurch evangelist Pastor John Hagee, likening Hagee to Moses, calling Hagee a “man of God”, and stating that, like Moses, Hagee was the leader of a ‘mighty multitude’.  But on July 18, 2007, at the nonprofit 501(c)(3) group’s “A Night To Honor Israel” capstone event of it’s three-day conference, CUFI Regional Director Billye Brim suggested that “God has a plan” for the Dome of The Rock, Islam’s 3rd holiest site on Earth and the spot from which Muslims believe Moses ascended into Heaven. In the eschatolgical, or “End-Time” belief system held by most Christians United For Israel members, The Dome Of The Rock must be removed or destroyed to make way for the construction of a 3rd Jewish temple.” According to that article Brim went on to say:
“Upon that hill, there is a rock.  Upon that rock there is a dome.  God has a plan for that hill.” Bruce Wilson, the author of the article adds that “Billye Brim did not directly call, on July 18th that night, for the destruction of The Dome of The Rock, but the message was clear–the Dome had to go–and in an undated audio recording I have discovered, from Billye Brim addressing a moderate sized and nearly orgiastic religious gathering, Brim makes the point more directly, stating that while she was with a group of evangelical Christians who were covertly praying around and on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount Brim received a message directly from God which told her “that dome’s coming down” and Billye Brim suggested that she knew the very date on which The Dome Of The Rock would be destroyed. “That dome’s coming down,” exulted Brim to her audience, and then she emitted what could be called nothing other than a triumphant ululation of victory.” This is the sort of inflammatory rhetoric that could easily be used in a documentary showing the danger that this version of Christianity poses to all of civilization.

ENDOWMENT FOR MIDDLE EAST TRUTH

On 9/23 The Detroit Free Press reported that: Endowment for Middle East Truth, is a partner with the Clarion Fund in “The Obsession Project,” which will also include research publications and issue forums.

HONEST REPORTING

HonestReporting.com was founded by AISH HATORAH, and now exists as an independent organization.  An article on the Israel on Campus Coalition site says that both HONEST REPORTING and HASBARA FELLOWSHIPS are projects of AISH.  “HonestReporting.com (HR.com) and Hasbara Fellowships have teamed up to create HonestReporting.com for Campus.” The Honest Reporting site on its history page says:  “In early 2001, those first volunteers turned to the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah to help build a website, develop materials and grow the subscriber base even further. Later that year, the project, having grown to become a major organization in its own right, was established as a US non-profit organization (501c3) with an Independent Board of Directors.” Honest reporting has had some difficulties with honesty.  They called the Qana ambulance attack by Israel a hoax, a false rumor which spread all over the internet on far right sites, even though Human Rights Watch debunked their claim.

Honest Reporting bills itself as a watchdog organization that monitors the media for bias against Israel.  According to Wikipedia (where the article may not be up for long) the Management of Honest Reporting includes:  Rabbi Ephraim Shore(president) took over HonestReporting in 2000 after it was founded by a group of students in England. In late 2001, he organized an independent USA board of directors and established HonestReporting as a registered non-profit (501 (c) 3) organization. He is also a co-director of Hasbara Fellowships. Both HonestReporting and Hasbara Fellowships were launched by, or with the assistance of, Aish HaTorah.[1] Joe Hyams (CEO) is a former strategic planner for London’s oldest advertising agency, Saatchi & Saatchi Advertising (Tel Aviv).  Simon Plosker (managing editor) has worked for a variety of non-profit organizations, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, BICOM, and NGO Monitor.  Yarden Frankl (senior editor) worked for ten years as a senior aide to Congresswoman Nita Lowey of New York and as the Strategic Affairs Lobbyist for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).  Pesach Benson (blog editor) is a former reporter for the Baltimore Jewish Times.  Gary Kenzer (USA director) was formerly involved on the national level of grassroots organizations like American Friends of Magen David Adom[2] and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. He is the contact person for speaking engagements, fund-raisers and other US activities.[3] (Note:  Rabbi Ephraim Shore is the brother of Rabbi Rafael Shore.)

Honest Reporting, in addition to media watch activities, produced a documentary discussing the Jewish-Muslim conflict in association with The CLARION FUND. This film was entitled “Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East”. Interest in the video exceeded expectations and the documentary is now marketed independently of HonestReporting. Recently, the same team produced a film titled Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.

MEMRI

The translations in the film Obsession were provided by Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) which, according to Source Watch, is connected to Israeli intelligence organizations and Christian evangelicals and is funded in part by the right wing OLIN FOUNDATION.  Obsessions production credits include the Middle East Media Research Institute.  According to an article in Common Dreams: MEMRI is a translation service founded in 1998 by Col. Yigal Carmon, who spent more than 20 years in Israeli intelligence and later advised two Israeli prime ministers; and the PALESTINIAN MEDIA WATCH, an Israeli group founded by Itimar Marcus, that monitors Palestinian news organizations for alleged anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic propaganda.  According to the Jewish Daily Forward:  “MEMRI was co-founded by Meyrav Wurmser and Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, “both of whom were early critics of the Oslo accords.”

According to Source Watch “MEMRI’s stance is that it is opposed to Islamic fundamentalism, not Islam itself, although the integrity of this position may be questioned because of links on MEMRI’s website to certain evangelical Christian organizations who take a harder line on Islam. Yigal Carmon, MEMRI’s founder, is a former advisor on terrorism to the Israeli Prime Ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin, so he actually worked for both Labor and Likud governments. Praise for MEMRI should be taken with a grain of salt since it is almost always motivated by politics, not the quantity or quality of MEMRI’s work.”

The quality of their translations has been challenged over the years, including their famous Mickey Mouse look-alike translation, their translations of the articles of Prof. Halim Barakat of Georgetown University, and their most famous “wiped off the map” mistranslation of what Ahmadinejad actually said.

RADICAL ISLAM.ORG http://www.radicalislam.info/ a site copyrighted by the CLARION FUND.

REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION Richard Silverstein on Tikkun Olam has raised the question of whether or not the Republican Jewish Coalition had something to do with this mailing, and he notes in another article that The Republican Jewish Coalition has distributed free copies of the film in promotional mailings to U.S. rabbis and other Jewish mailing lists.  This mailing was also documented by Jews on First who added that the Obsession DVD was inserted in a book called “Standing With Israel” by CHRISTIANS UNITED FOR ISRAEL’S (CUFI) executive director David Brog which was then sent out to Rabbis.

TERRORISM AWARENESS PROJECT promotes the film and says on its site:  Terrorism Awareness Project is a program of the DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER.

INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THE MAKING AND PROMOTING OF OBSESSION

Sheldon Adelson The press has already reported that Sheldon Adelson personally distributes copies of Obsession to participants in the Taglit-Birthright Israel indoctrination tours he funds.  This article makes an educated guess that he is the financier behind this DVD distribution

Nonie Darwish identified in Obsession as the daughter of a Fedayeen terrorist.  She is the founder of a group called ARABS FOR ISRAEL.

Alan M. Dershowitz The honesty of his attacks on Prof. Finkelstein of De Paul University has been questioned.  At the time of Robert Kennedy’s assassination, Dershowitz said:  “It was in some ways the beginning of Islamic terrorism in America. It was the first shot. A lot of us didn’t recognize it at the time.” Obviously he doesn’t know the difference between a Muslim and a Christian, since Sirhan Sirhan is a Palestinian Christian, not a Muslim.

Steven Emerson, Executive Director, THE INVESTIGATIVE PROJECT, produced the critically acclaimed PBS documentary “Jihad in America”.  Emerson’s relationship to the truth may also be questionable.  Emerson told a reporter shortly after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that he believed the perpetrators were likely Islamic terrorists.  He has made other unsubstantiated claims including the “fact” that a hit team of Islamic Fundamentalists had been dispatched to kill him.  Emerson filed a lawsuit against the journalist who raised doubts about his claims, but a court ruled against him in the lawsuit.  Emerson has made claims against CAIR, against MPAC, and againstISNA.  Paul Kendall has raised the issue of whether or not he conspired with a foreign government (Israel) to violate the Constitutional rights of American Muslims.

Brigitte Gabriel heads ACT FOR AMERICA.  In a recent interview with the New York Times about her anti-Muslim book They Must Be Stopped she said:  “The moderate Muslims at this point are truly irrelevant.” As noted inanother Times article which called Gabriel a “radical Islamophobe” she has made a number of statements which show that she has a problem with all Muslims.  Statements including: “Every practicing Muslim is a radical Muslim.” The author of this article notes:  Gabriel believes that Muslims cannot serve loyally in the U.S. military, that interfaith dialogue is “nonsense,” and that the difference between the Arab world and Israel is “barbarism versus civilization.” She was pme pf the speakers at John Hagee’s CITIZENS UNITED FOR ISRAEL convention where she said:  “The difference, my dear Christian friends, between Israel and the Arab world is quite simply the difference between civilization and barbarism. It’s the difference between good and evil and this is what we’re witnessing in the Arabic and Islamic world. I am angry. They have no SOUL! They are dead set on killing and destruction. And in the name of something they call “Allah,” which is very different from the God we believe in, because our God is the God of love.” Well, since we poor Arabs and/or Muslims have no soul, it is no wonder that we cannot comprehend this form of love.  The Australian Jewish News Agency has also reported on her anti-Muslim statements.

Sir Martin Gilbert is Winston Churchill’s official biographer, a historian, and the author of Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy (published in the United States as The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War).

Caroline Glick is a Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, and deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post.  A former officer in the Israel Defense Forces, she was a core member of Israel’s negotiating team with the Palestinians in the Oslo Negotiations under former Prime Minister Rabin, and later served as an assistant policy advisor to the prime minister.  She is also on the advisory board of the ENDOWMENT FOR MIDDLE EAST TRUTH.

Rev. John Hagee leader of CHRISTIANS UNITED FOR ISRAEL, author of Jerusalem Countdown.  He preachesan extremist Christian message that “… Muslims—that’s all Muslims—have a “scriptural mandate” to kill Christians and Jews. But don’t worry. America, according to Hagee, is on top of this coming showdown with Islam. He predicts, and seems to pine for, an all-out nuclear war with Iran, as the beginning of a new global war. Writing for the evangelical Pentecostal magazine Charisma, Hagee argues that “The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty.” In his 2006 book, Jerusalem Countdown, he expanded the first theater of operations for his coming world war to include Russia. This nuclear war, according to Hagee, would eventually end with the second coming of Christ and the whisking away of true believers to the heavens.” He has also been identified as one of John McCain’s religious advisors.  According to Douglas Todd, he has also “denounced Catholicism as “The Great Whore,” called for the destruction of Islam, demonizes homosexuals, thinks global warming is a hoax and constantly insists the U.S. should attack Iran because it will help usher in the Second Coming.”

Brett Halperin, alias for unknown individual.

Alfons Heck identified as a Former Hitler Youth Officer.  Actually, that is all the information that I need to ignore anything he says.

David Horowitz
Discover the Network Site [2] (Kurt Nimmo), attack on Professor Nadia Abu El-Haj, Barnard College professor in tenure dispute [3] (Larry Cohler-Esses) – 2nd annual Islamo Fascism Awareness Week [4] (Sheila Musaji)

Glenn Jenvey is identified on the Obsession site as a former spy for several unnamed countries and freelance terrorism investigator – not much else on him anywhere.  Even Wikipedia has no more information than to reprint just about word for word what is published on the Obsession site.

Wayne Kopping the director and co-writer – also produced “Relentless”

John Loftus, President of The Intelligence Summit and of the Florida Holocaust Museum.  According to Wikipedia“John J. Loftus is the author and co-author of several controversial books on Nazis, espionage, and similar topics including The Belarus Secret (1982), Unholy Trinity: How the Vatican’s Nazi Networks Betrayed Western Intelligence to the Soviets (1992), The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People (1994), Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, the Nazis, and the Swiss Banks (1998).  Most historians see his books as non-scientific political pamphlets.” In 2005 In what Fox News officials concede was a mistake, “John Loftus, a former U.S. prosecutor, gave out the address Aug. 7, saying it was the home of a Middle Eastern man, Iyad K. Hilal, who was the leader of a terrorist group with ties to those responsible for the July 7 bombings in London.  Hilal, whom Loftus identified by name during the broadcast, had moved out of the house about three years previously.  But the consequences were immediate for the Voricks. (the current residents)” An article in a local newspaper pointed out that:  …”statements made by John Loftus, a commentator for Fox News, describing grocery store owner Iyad K. Hilal as a terrorist. Although the article accurately quoted Loftus’ expression of his opinion, The Times wants to make clear that Hilal has not been charged with any illegal activity and The Times is not aware of any law enforcement agency or official that has identified Hilal as a terrorist.” I’m not certain that I would put too much faith in this fellows statements.

Itamar Marcus is director of PALESTINIAN MEDIA WATCH based in Israel.  That’s about all that I have been able to turn up about him.  He doesn’t even get a page on Wikipedia.

Peter Mier, alias for unknown individual.

Daniel Pipes.  This is a fellow that has had so much to say about Islam, Muslims, and Muslim organizations in the U.S. (all of it negative) that there is no point in doing more than pointing out a few of the responses that have listed in the past to his claims.  … Daniel Pipes article attacking Khaled Abou El Fadl [1], “Identifying Muslim Moderates”[2], and [3] (Sheila Musaji) and 4 (Louay Safi), and response to Daniel Pipes attack on The American Muslim logo[5] (Sheila Musaji) and [6] (Jeremy Henzell-Thomas), and collection of articles on religion building [7], on Pipes’ position on Palestinian right of return [8] (Habib Siddiqui), on Campus Watch [9] (Valerie Saturen), nomination to USIP by President Bush [10], Pipes and the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) [11], Pipes history [[12]], interview with Andrew Potter [13] (Sheila Musaji).  He is on the advisory board for the ENDOWMENT FOR MIDDLE EAST TRUTH.

Gregory Ross the communications director of the New York based CLARION non-profit group.

Walid Shoebat identified in Obsession as a Former PLO Terrorist.  He paints a one sided picture.  Claims about his former terrorist background have been disputed by more than one source.  I’ve even written about his claims previously.  Although he is a born again Christian he has written a book “Why We Want to Kill You”.  He is on the advisory board of THE ENDOWMENT FOR MIDDLE EAST TRUTH.

Rabbi Raphael Shore who is the producer/co-writer of the film and founder of the CLARION FUND.  He is aCanadian-Israeli living in Jerusalem.  He also made the film “Relentless” which he developed from a power point presentation he had created.  He was the director of both Aish HaTorah International and the Hasbara Fellowships, a pro-Israel advocacy group.  Elliot Mathias, director of the Hasbara Fellowships program which aims to train students to be effective pro-Israel activists on their campuses said:  “ ‘Obsession’ is so important because it shows what’s happening in Israel is not happening in a vacuum … and that it affects all American students on campuses, not just Jewish students.”

Tom Trento, who heads http://www.watchobsession.org, the group that distributed the movie at the Democratic and Republican parties’ nominating conventions.  Trento also heads something called the FLORIDA SECURITY COUNCIL http://www.floridasecuritycouncil.org/

Robert Wistrich Chair, Sassoon Center for Anti-Semitism

FURTHER READING:

American Muslim Resources – article collections http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/american_
muslim_resources_collections_of_articles_and_references/
Exposing “Obsession”: Truth Over Fear, MPAChttp://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/expoing
obsession_truth_over_fear/0016721
Obsession:  Radical Misinformation and the War Against Islam, Muhammad al-Darsanihttp://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/obsession_
radical_misinformation_and_the_war_against_islam/0016708
Resources for responding to Obsession DVD distribution, Sheila Musajihttp://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/resources_for
_responding_to_obsession_dvd_mass_distribution/0016707
Schism film in English http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGw6rsQ8xHk&feature=related

Ikhwanweb Archive: Truth About the Global Muslim Brotherhood

by Khaled Salam
The ongoing controversy in the U.S. surrounding resignation of Mr. Mazen Asbahi, Muslim-outreach advisor to presumptive democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, is quite intriguing. Mr. Asbahi is an Arab American corporate attorney who resigned last week amidst allegations of old loose ties with individuals associated with organizations thought to be linked to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Mr. Asbahi’s crime is that he also appeared as a guest speaker before such organizations allegedly linked to the MB. Islamic organizations in the U.S. described the campaign against Mr. Asbahi as “nationwide efforts by Islamophobes who seek to deny Muslims access to the political process.”

The MB has repeatedly denied it has any representation in the U.S., nor does it maintain any links with any of the Islamic or charitable organizations in the U.S. We have previously clarified that moderate and pragmatic Islamic thought is not exclusive of the MB, however, there are many other Islamic movements and organizations throughout the world that have the same mainstream principles as the MB but not necessarily part of its organizational structure.

In this regard, the MB confirmed that it absolutely has no organizational links, ties, or associations with any of the Islamic organizations in the U.S., including but not limited to: The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Muslim Student Association (MSA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

There are however, ideological similarities between the MB and most of above mentioned Islamic organizations for the fact that these ideologies represent mainstream moderate Islamic thinking. However, some of the founders or members of these organizations were at some point in their lives either members or sympathizers of the MB in their native countries before they migrate to the U.S. or other countries.

During the 1960s, many members of the MB have fled Egypt to escape persecution by the Egyptian regime. Most of them settled in European countries or the U.S. and benefited from the atmosphere of freedom and prosperity in these countries and continued to practice and promote moderate Islamic thought. Thus, several local Islamic organizations were created to help Muslims integrate within their local communities and engage in charitable work mandates by Islam. Islamic work worldwide was also enriched by Muslim students who studied abroad and were keen on practicing their religion. In the U..S, several of these local active groups have merged and created large national organizations widely known throughout the country.

Most of the alleged ties between the MB and any of the U.S. based organizations were extensively scrutinized during the Holy Land Foundation trial and were found groundless by the juries in court case that ended in mistrial. The prosecution in this case failed to establish any evidence that link the MB as an organization with any of the Islamic organizations in the U.S., but instead presented the court with notes, diaries and minutes of meetings among individuals who were not in any form or shape part of the MB and were not representing it, although they might of shared its ideology as we previously alluded to.

The so called Global Network of the Muslim Brotherhood is merely a Hollywood fiction that only exists in the minds of those who created it as part of their scare tactics to insight fears among the public and instigate government hostilities. There is no “global network” for the Muslim Brotherhood, but rather coordination among the different MB chapters in various countries, in which the MB has formal presence or representation, which clearly does not apply to the U.S. This coordination among international MB chapters mainly revolves around political issues, sharing experiences in the field of public Islamic work and exchange new ideas.

We call on the public to carefully examine any allegations spread by special interest groups in the U.S. to smear certain individuals or groups for political gain in a heated presidential campaign season. These radical special interest groups and lobbies are driven by extreme hate towards Muslims and feel that Islamic moderation and the presence of strong Islamic organizations in the U.S is a major threat to their extreme ideology of hate and evil.

Criminal Injustice Against the Holy Land Foundation Charity

By Stephen Lendman

On December 4, 2001, the Treasury Department declared HLF a terrorist group, froze its assets, and falsely claimed they were being used to funnel millions of dollars to Hamas. HLF appealed at the time but in court was denied.

On January 25, 1995, Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12947 – Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process. The same year Hamas was declared a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). It’s still one today, so any individual or group charged with providing it material support (true or false) becomes a convenient target for prosecution.

Post-9/11, many have been, and HLF is one. For the Department of Justice (DOJ), a big one because of their prominent charitable activities. Shut it down and chill out all others while at the same time providing open-ended billions for Israeli state terrorism as a partner in its commission.

Background on HLF

Until shut down, it was the largest Muslim charity in America, founded in 1989 in Culver City, CA and thereafter based in Richardson, TX. Its work was to provide vital relief to Palestinian refugees in Occupied Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan as well as aid for the needy in various other countries, including Bosnia, Albania, Chechnya, Turkey and America. With an annual budget of about $14 million, it “provided continuous volunteering and services in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.”

Its major activities included:

— financial aid to needy and impoverished families;

— a sponsorship program for orphaned children;

— various social services;

— educational services;

— medical and other emergency work; and

— community development, including help to rebuild Palestinian homes on their own land in their own country that Israel destroyed in violation of international law.

The Indictment

On July 27, 2004, a DOJ indictment came down and an accompanying press release headlined: “HOLY LAND FOUNDATION, LEADERS, ACCUSED OF PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO HAMAS TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.”

It alleged the HLF “was an organization created by” defendants Shukri Abu-Baker (HLF president and CEO), Mohammad el-Mezain (California office director), Ghassan Elashi (HLF chairman), Haitham Maghawri, Akram Mishal, Mufid Abdulqader and Abrulraham Odeh (New Jersey office director) “to provide financial and material support to the HAMAS movement. It is also alledged that, since 1995, HLF and its members have illegally sent $12.4 million to support HAMAS and its goal of creating an Islamic Palestinian state by eliminating the State of Israel through violent jihad.”

The 42-count indictment also charged the defendants “with engaging in prohibited financial transactions with a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, money laundering, conspiracy, and filing false tax returns.”

It further stated that charges resulted from a three-year investigation by “the Joint Terrorism Task Force, involving agents from federal, state, and local agencies including: the FBI, IRS, BICE (Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement), Department of State, Secret Service, US Army CID (Criminal Investigation Command), the Texas Department of Public Safety,” and various Texas police departments, including Dallas.

The DOJ got a Dallas grand jury to indict HLF, its directors and fundraisers even though they have no more connection to terrorism than do other innocent Muslims who’ve been targeted for their faith, ethnicity, activism, and in HLF’s case its notable charitable work.

Incredibly but not surprisingly in an age of over-hyped terror threats, the indictment accused HLF of sponsoring orphans and needy West Bank and Gaza families. It stated:

“While the program was mantled with a benevolent appearance, HLF specifically sought orphans and families whose relatives had died or were jailed as a result of furthering Hamas’ violent campaign, including suicide bombings. This type of support was critical to Hamas’ efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people and to create an infrastructure solidifying Hamas’ presence.”

It’s enough to say that all the above charges are false, misleading, and outrageous. For its part, HLF “den(ies) any ties to Hamas and insist(s) that feeding Palestinian women and children is not only legal, but a moral duty that no government has the right to interfere with.” It’s the universal spirit of charity and the third pillar of Islam, or zakat, to aid the poor with voluntary alms (a percentage of income) or through a tithe on property.

Nonetheless, innocent, dedicated men now suffer grievously for their “crime of compassion.” HLF never funded, supported or committed violence. It provided food, clothes, shelter, medical supplies and education to desperately needy people in Occupied Palestine and elsewhere. These are “crimes” for the Bush administration when it wants “unworthy” recipients deprived of charitable aid.

HLF’s Humanitarian Work

HLF’s Freedom to Give (family members and friends of the defendants) web site provides verifiable information about the organization and its charitable work. With a picture of needy children on its home page it asks: “Is it a crime to feed these children?” Indeed, according to DOJ that wants it stopped and for so doing acts collaboratively with Israel’s multi-decades slow-motion genocide policy against the Palestinian people.

For its part, HLF responds – “We gave:

— books, not bombs;

— bread, not bullets;

— smiles, not scars;

— toys, not tanks;

— peace, not terror;

— liberty, not poverty;

— hope, not despair;

— love, not hate; (and)

— life, not death.

So we ask: If (over six decades of occupation) obviously shatters lives, while charity builds them and charity feeds children, while occupation kills them, why is a charity organization – not occupation – paying the price?”

No matter, and on November 24, The New York Times (and other media organizations) reported the disturbing news: “Five Convicted in Terrorism Financing Trial.”

After 15 years and two trials, “federal prosecutors won sweeping convictions (today) against five leaders of a Muslim charity in a retrial of the largest terrorism-financing case in the United States since” 9/11.

The five defendants “were convicted on all 108 criminal counts against them,” and US Attorney Richard Roper was jubilant in saying: “The jury’s decision demonstrates that US citizens will not tolerate those who provide financial support to terrorist organizations.” He neglected to explain how juries are pressured to convict innocent victims by scaring them into doing it – a commonly used tactic against prominent Muslims with many other innocent ones languishing unjustly in federal prisons.

The jury reached its decision in less than nine days (after seven weeks of testimony) unlike in the first trial last October when federal judge A. Joe Fish declared a mistrial because jurors were deadlocked on all 197 counts against four defendants after nearly two months of testimony and 19 days of deliberation. The other defendant, Mohammad El-Mezain, was acquitted on all but one charge.

At the time, Georgetown constitutional law professor David Cole said the jury’s verdict called into question the government’s tactics of freezing a charitable organization’s assets, using secret evidence unavailable to the defense, and when they “have to put (it) on the table, they can’t convict anyone of anything. It suggests the government is really pushing beyond where the law justifies them going.”

True enough then, but in the retrial, prosecutors again pushed but changed their tactics enough to convict. The defendants can be sentenced to 15 years for each count of supporting a terrorist organization and 20 years for money laundering. They thus face a possible life sentence – for doing noble work to help the needy and violating no laws doing it.

Nancy Hollander, representing Shukri Abu-Baker, said the defendants will appeal based on a number of issues, including the anonymous testimony of an expert, that she said was a first. “Our clients were not even allowed to review their own statements because they were classified – statements that they made over the course of many years that the government (illegally) wiretapped. They were not allowed to go back and review them. They were statements from alleged co-conspirators that included handwritten notes. Nobody knew who wrote them; nobody knew when they were written. There are a plethora of issues.”

Ghassan Elashi’s daughter, Noor, expressed shock at the outcome and called it “a truly low point for the United States of America.” She added that family and friends won’t rest until this injustice is reversed.

The Hungry for Justice web site represents friends and supporters of the accused, reported on both trials, and has extensive information on the case. It and the Freedom to Give site together referred to the November 24 verdict as follows:

“The lowest point on earth was not the shoreline of the Dead Sea on Monday, November 24, 2008. Rather it was a federal courthouse in Downtown Dallas. At around 3 p.m., the courtroom – where the anticipated Holy Land Foundation retrial verdict was to take place – filled up in fast forward. Family members, justice supporters and government officials poured into the large room, sat on wooden benches and chatted quietly with mixed emotions.”

“Then silence” as the jury entered, handed their verdict to Judge Jorge Solis, and he began reading….”Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.” Unfortunately, jurors were intimidated by “the prosecution’s fear-tactics and guilt-by-association,” especially against innocent Muslim victims of the “war on terrorism.”

“The judge recessed briefly as the jury” decided on whether the $12.4 million in charity to Palestinians should be “forfeited to the government.” After 30 minutes, they said “yes.”

Federal prosecutors and FBI agents “smirked” while most of the room was stunned and outraged at such a miscarriage of justice. The defendants were then taken away and flashed peace signs as they left, displaying their strength and pride for saving lives in Occupied Palestine.

“Yet an aura of betrayal pervaded the room. Two decades ago, they came to this country to escape such Israeli-influenced persecutions, and now they” endured the same injustice in America. They plan to appeal and believe “truth and justice will emerge triumphantly from this gloomy low point in American history.” It’s a curse at a bad time to be Muslim in America. When the noblest among them are victims of injustice – prosecuted for their prominence, activism and charity.

On November 27, Thanksgiving day, one observer expressed his feelings this way:

“Grateful to live in a country where bankers who rape our entire economy receive 100s of billion of dollars in thanks while humanitarians who feed starving children are sent to jail.”

Timeline of the Case

In 1992, the government began tapping all HLF phones and those of the defendants. It also bugged HLF offices and meeting rooms with voice activated microphones. Thereafter, Muslim community members throughout the country were interviewed, vast amounts of non-incriminating information was obtained, and Washington shared it freely with Israel and other foreign governments.

In January 1993, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) arrested Muhammad Salah of Illinois. He was taken to (internal security) Shin Bet’s Ramallah facility where he was interrogated, tortured for 54 days, and forced to sign false statements in Hebrew that he didn’t understand.

In October 1993, the FBI bugged a Philadelphia conference room where Arab-American intellectuals, including two HLF officials, were gathered. Agents then claimed that attendees criticized the 1993 Oslo Accords and praised Hamas – two years before the government declared it a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1995.

Beginning in 1994, the Dallas Morning News and national media began vilifying HLF and connecting it to terrorism, citing Israeli intelligence as their source. In 1996, the Israeli government shut HLF’s office near Jerusalem, claiming it was used to fund Hamas.

In May 2000, Jewish-Americans Stanley and Joyce Boim sued HLF, claiming a connection of its charitable work to their son’s death in the West Bank. In December 2001 in a Rose Garden press conference, George Bush accused HLF of fronting for Hamas and announced he was shutting its offices in Texas, California and New Jersey.

In July 2004, FBI agents arrested five HLF officials at their homes, four of whom were subsequently convicted. In November 2004, a federal grand jury awarded the Boim family $52 million, and a US magistrate ruled triple damages amounting to $156 million. HLF attorneys appealed the verdict.

In July 2007, the first HLF trial began. In October, a mistrial was declared as explained above. In December, the Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Boim ruling for failing to link HLF to their son’s death. In early September 2008, prosecutors simplified their case by dropping various charges. On September 15, the retrial began and played out to conviction as one of many (post-9/11) politically motivated witch-hunt prosecutions against innocent targeted Muslims.

This and the first trial had an unprecedented twist. In spite of strong defense objections, an anonymous Israeli intelligence agent (identified as “Avi”) was allowed to testify as an expert witness – with no knowledge of who he is, his credibility if any, no fact-checking on his claims, his obvious bias, and no accountability if he lied under oath. It remains for the appeals court to rule on whether to reverse the verdicts because of this, the use of secret “evidence” unavailable to the defense, and other gross prosecution discrepancies.

Background Information on the Defendants

HLF Chairman Ghassan Elashi

He was born in Gaza City in 1953, lived there until age 14, and then in Cairo, Egypt where he graduated from Ain Shams University in 1975 with a degree in accounting. After also living in Saudi Arabia and London, he came to the US in 1978 and got a master’s degree in accounting at the University of Miami.

In 1985, he and his wife moved to Culver City, CA, lived there for seven years and then moved to Richardson, TX in 1992. He worked at a family-owned computer business and served as HLF chairman.

HLF president and CEO Shukri Abu-Baker

He was born in Brazil in 1959 and is of Palestinian and Brazilian heritage. At age six, he and his family moved to Silwad, Palestine, then to Kuwait in 1967 for about 10 years. He came to the US in 1980, graduated from Orlando College, Florida with a degree in business administration, and helped launch the first mosque in central Florida.

In 1982, he worked as an office manager for the Muslim Arab Youth Association in Indianapolis, IN. In 1990, he and his family moved to Culver City, CA, helped open HLF, then to Richardson in 1992.

HLF volunteer Mufid Abdulqader

He was born in Silwad, Palestine in 1959, then lived for most of his youth in Kuwait. In 1980, he came to the US, lived briefly in Irving, TX, then Claremore, OK and Stillwater where he attended and received a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Oklahoma State University in 1984 and a master’s in 1994.

He then lived in Oklahoma City before moving to Richardson in 1996 where he worked for the city of Dallas as a senior project manager in the public works and transportation departments and as a HLF volunteer.

HLF’s New Jersey office director Abdulrahman Odeh

He was born in Silwad, Palestine in 1959, then lived in Kuwait for about 20 years before coming to the US in 1982. He graduated from Montclair State College, NJ in 1989 with a degree in computer science. He worked as a limo driver for three years and for his own vending business for 10 years before opening HLF’s New Jersey office. Besides providing aid to Palestinians and others abroad, he opened a food pantry in Patterson, NJ that served over 200 needy families. He also represented HLF in many UN events in Egypt and Jordan.

HLF’s California office director Mohammad El-Mezain

He was born in the Khan Yunus, Gaza refugee camp in 1953 and lived there until age 19. He then moved to Egypt in 1973 and graduated from Al-Azhar University, Cairo with a degree in business. Before coming to the US in 1983, he also lived in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates. In 1985, he received a master’s degree in economics from Colorado State University. He then lived in New Jersey before moving to San Diego in 1999. Besides his HLF work, he served earlier as an Imam in Colorado and New Jersey.

A Final Comment

Post-9/11, Muslims have been the administration’s main “war on terrorism” victims. Many thousands have been mercilessly hounded and targeted through mass witch-hunt roundups, detentions, deportations and  prosecutions. Many now languish unjustly in federal prisons for the crime of being Muslim at the wrong time in America. For their activism, religion, ethnicity, prominence and in the case of HLF’s officials their charitable compassion for the desperately needy.

They now await sentencing and the results of their planned appeal. The defendants and their attorneys are hopeful that the convictions will be reversed – with good reason. These men aren’t terrorists and weren’t accused of violence – only philanthropy to the wrong people, ones America and Israel want oppressed, not helped.

Ghassan Elashi’s daughter Noor speaks for many and asks how can “the government….say that someone doing perfectly legal humanitarian aid should be designated illegal for strictly political reasons.” It means anyone for any reason may be victimized the same way at a time the “war on terrorism” trumps all legal protections and isn’t likely to change under a new administration not about to look softer than the current one.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM – 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national topics. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11219

Stephen Lendman is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Stephen Lendman