All Entries Tagged With: "MAS"

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

Omar Mazin | Sep 19, 2011 | Comments 0

Fear, Inc. The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America

By Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matthew Duss, Lee Fang , Scott Keyes, Faiz Shakir | Source

Download this report (pdf)

Read the report in your web browser (Scribd)

Download individual chapters of the report (pdf):

Video: Ask the Expert: Faiz Shakir on the Group Behind Islamophobia

On July 22, a man planted a bomb in an Oslo government building that killed eight people. A few hours after the explosion, he shot and killed 68 people, mostly teenagers, at a Labor Party youth camp on Norway’s Utoya Island.

By midday, pundits were speculating as to who had perpetrated the greatest massacre in Norwegian history since World War II. Numerous mainstream media outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Atlantic, speculated about an Al Qaeda connection and a “jihadist” motivation behind the attacks. But by the next morning it was clear that the attacker was a 32-year-old, white, blond-haired and blue-eyed Norwegian named Anders Breivik. He was not a Muslim, but rather a self-described Christian conservative.

According to his attorney, Breivik claimed responsibility for his self-described “gruesome but necessary” actions. On July 26, Breivik told the court that violence was “necessary” to save Europe from Marxism and “Muslimization.” In his 1,500-page manifesto, which meticulously details his attack methods and aims to inspire others to extremist violence, Breivik vows “brutal and breathtaking operations which will result in casualties” to fight the alleged “ongoing Islamic Colonization of Europe.”

Breivik’s manifesto contains numerous footnotes and in-text citations to American bloggers and pundits, quoting them as experts on Islam’s “war against the West.” This small group of anti-Muslim organizations and individuals in our nation is obscure to most Americans but wields great influence in shaping the national and international political debate. Their names are heralded within communities that are actively organizing against Islam and targeting Muslims in the United States.

Breivik, for example, cited Robert Spencer, one of the anti-Muslim misinformation scholars we profile in this report, and his blog, Jihad Watch, 162 times in his manifesto. Spencer’s website, which “tracks the attempts of radical Islam to subvert Western culture,” boasts another member of this Islamophobia network in America, David Horowitz, on his Freedom Center website. Pamela Geller, Spencer’s frequent collaborator, and her blog, Atlas Shrugs, was mentioned 12 times.

Geller and Spencer co-founded the organization Stop Islamization of America, a group whose actions and rhetoric the Anti-Defamation League concluded “promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam. The group seeks to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy “American values.” Based on Breivik’s sheer number of citations and references to the writings of these individuals, it is clear that he read and relied on the hateful, anti-Muslim ideology of a number of men and women detailed in this report&a select handful of scholars and activists who work together to create and promote misinformation about Muslims.

While these bloggers and pundits were not responsible for Breivik’s deadly attacks, their writings on Islam and multiculturalism appear to have helped create a world view, held by this lone Norwegian gunman, that sees Islam as at war with the West and the West needing to be defended. According to former CIA officer and terrorism consultant Marc Sageman, just as religious extremism “is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged,” the writings of these anti-Muslim misinformation experts are “the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.” Sageman adds that their rhetoric “is not cost-free.”

These pundits and bloggers, however, are not the only members of the Islamophobia infrastructure. Breivik’s manifesto also cites think tanks, such as the Center for Security Policy, the Middle East Forum, and the Investigative Project on Terrorism—three other organizations we profile in this report. Together, this core group of deeply intertwined individuals and organizations manufacture and exaggerate threats of “creeping Sharia,” Islamic domination of the West, and purported obligatory calls to violence against all non-Muslims by the Quran.

This network of hate is not a new presence in the United States. Indeed, its ability to organize, coordinate, and disseminate its ideology through grassroots organizations increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Furthermore, its ability to influence politicians’ talking points and wedge issues for the upcoming 2012 elections has mainstreamed what was once considered fringe, extremist rhetoric.

And it all starts with the money flowing from a select group of foundations. A small group of foundations and wealthy donors are the lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America, providing critical funding to a clutch of right-wing think tanks that peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam—in the form of books, reports, websites, blogs, and carefully crafted talking points that anti-Islam grassroots organizations and some right-wing religious groups use as propaganda for their constituency.

Some of these foundations and wealthy donors also provide direct funding to anti-Islam grassroots groups. According to our extensive analysis, here are the top seven contributors to promoting Islamophobia in our country:

Donors Capital Fund
Richard Mellon Scaife foundations
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust
Russell Berrie Foundation
Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund
Fairbrook Foundation

Altogether, these seven charitable groups provided $42.6 million to Islamophobia think tanks between 2001 and 2009—funding that supports the scholars and experts that are the subject of our next chapter as well as some of the grassroots groups that are the subject of Chapter 3 of our report.

And what does this money fund? Well, here’s one of many cases in point: Last July, former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich warned a conservative audience at the American Enterprise Institute that the Islamic practice of Sharia was “a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.” Gingrich went on to claim that “Sharia in its natural form has principles and punishments totally abhorrent to the Western world.”

Sharia, or Muslim religious code, includes practices such as charitable giving, prayer, and honoring one’s parents—precepts virtually identical to those of Christianity and Judaism. But Gingrich and other conservatives promote alarmist notions about a nearly 1,500-year-old religion for a variety of sinister political, financial, and ideological motives. In his remarks that day, Gingrich mimicked the language of conservative analyst Andrew McCarthy, who co-wrote a report calling Sharia “the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time.” Such similarities in language are no accident. Look no further than the organization that released McCarthy’s anti-Sharia report: the aforementioned Center for Security Policy, which is a central hub of the anti-Muslim network and an active promoter of anti- Sharia messaging and anti-Muslim rhetoric.

In fact, CSP is a key source for right-wing politicians, pundits, and grassroots organizations, providing them with a steady stream of reports mischaracterizing Islam and warnings about the dangers of Islam and American Muslims. Operating under the leadership of Frank Gaffney, the organization is funded by a small number of foundations and donors with a deep understanding of how to influence U.S. politics by promoting highly alarming threats to our national security. CSP is joined by other anti-Muslim organizations in this lucrative business, such as Stop Islamization of America and the Society of Americans for National Existence. Many of the leaders of these organizations are well-schooled in the art of getting attention in the press, particularly Fox News, The Wall Street Journal editorial pages, The Washington Times, and a variety of right-wing websites and radio outlets.

Misinformation experts such as Gaffney consult and work with such right-wing grassroots organizations as ACT! for America and the Eagle Forum, as well as religious right groups such as the Faith and Freedom Coalition and American Family Association, to spread their message. Speaking at their conferences, writing on their websites, and appearing on their radio shows, these experts rail against Islam and cast suspicion on American Muslims. Much of their propaganda gets churned into fundraising appeals by grassroots and religious right groups. The money they raise then enters the political process and helps fund ads supporting politicians who echo alarmist warnings and sponsor anti-Muslim attacks.

These efforts recall some of the darkest episodes in American history, in which religious, ethnic, and racial minorities were discriminated against and persecuted. From Catholics, Mormons, Japanese Americans, European immigrants, Jews, and African Americans, the story of America is one of struggle to achieve in practice our founding ideals. Unfortunately, American Muslims and Islam are the latest chapter in a long American struggle against scapegoating based on religion, race, or creed.

Due in part to the relentless efforts of this small group of individuals and organizations, Islam is now the most negatively viewed religion in America. Only 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Islam: the lowest favorability rating since 2001, according to a 2010 ABC News/Washington Post poll. According to a 2010 Time magazine poll, 28 percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and nearly one-third of the country thinks followers of Islam should be barred from running for president.

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 alone did not drive Americans’ perceptions of Muslims and Islam. President George W. Bush reflected the general opinion of the American public at the time when he went to great lengths to make clear that Islam and Muslims are not the enemy. Speaking to a roundtable of Arab and Muslim American leaders at the Afghanistan embassy in 2002, for example, President Bush said, “All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true faith—face of Islam. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It’s a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It’s a faith based upon love, not hate.”

Unfortunately, President Bush’s words were soon eclipsed by an organized escalation of hateful statements about Muslims and Islam from the members of the Islamophobia network profiled in this report. This is as sad as it is dangerous. It is enormously important to understand that alienating the Muslim American community not only threatens our fundamental promise of religious freedom, it also hurts our efforts to combat terrorism. Since 9/11, the Muslim American community has helped security and law enforcement officials prevent more than 40 percent of Al Qaeda terrorist plots threatening America. The largest single source of initial information to authorities about the few Muslim American plots has come from the Muslim American community.

Around the world, there are people killing people in the name of Islam, with which most Muslims disagree. Indeed, in most cases of radicalized neighbors, family members, or friends, the Muslim American community is as baffled, disturbed, and surprised by their appearance as the general public. Treating Muslim American citizens and neighbors as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, is not only offensive to America’s core values, it is utterly ineffective in combating terrorism and violent extremism.

The White House recently released the national strategy for combating violent extremism, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.” One of the top focal points of the effort is to “counter al-Qa’ida’s propaganda that the United States is somehow at war with Islam.” Yet orchestrated efforts by the individuals and organizations detailed in this report make it easy for al-Qa’ida to assert that America hates Muslims and that Muslims around the world are persecuted for the simple crime of being Muslims and practicing their religion.

Sadly, the current isolation of American Muslims echoes past witch hunts in our history—from the divisive McCarthyite purges of the 1950s to the sometimes violent anti-immigrant campaigns in the 19th and 20th centuries. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has compared the fear-mongering of Muslims with anti-Catholic sentiment of the past. In response to the fabricated “Ground Zero mosque” controversy in New York last summer, Mayor Bloomberg said:

In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter’s on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center. … We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else.

This report shines a light on the Islamophobia network of so-called experts, academics, institutions, grassroots organizations, media outlets, and donors who manufacture, produce, distribute, and mainstream an irrational fear of Islam and Muslims. Let us learn the proper lesson from the past, and rise above fear-mongering to public awareness, acceptance, and respect for our fellow Americans. In doing so, let us prevent hatred from infecting and endangering our country again.

In the pages that follow, we profile the small number of funders, organizations, and individuals who have contributed to the discourse on Islamophobia in this country. We begin with the money trail in Chapter 1—our analysis of the funding streams that support anti-Muslim activities. Chapter 2 identifies the intellectual nexus of the Islamophobia network. Chapter 3 highlights the key grassroots players and organizations that help spread the messages of hate. Chapter 4 aggregates the key media amplifiers of Islamophobia. And Chapter 5 brings attention to the elected officials who frequently support the causes of anti- Muslim organizing.

Before we begin, a word about the term “Islamophobia.” We don’t use this term lightly. We define it as an exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from America’s social, political, and civic life.

It is our view that in order to safeguard our national security and uphold America’s core values, we must return to a fact-based civil discourse regarding the challenges we face as a nation and world. This discourse must be frank and honest, but also consistent with American values of religious liberty, equal justice under the law, and respect for pluralism. A first step toward the goal of honest, civil discourse is to expose—and marginalize—the influence of the individuals and groups who make up the Islamophobia network in America by actively working to divide Americans against one another through misinformation.

Wajahat Ali is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and a researcher for the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Eli Clifton is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and a national security reporter for the Center for American Progress Action Fund and ThinkProgress.org. Matthew Duss is a Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress and Director of the Center’s Middle East Progress. Lee Fang is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and an investigative researcher/blogger for the Center for American Progress Action Fund and ThinkProgress.org. Scott Keyes is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and an investigative researcher for ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Faiz Shakir is a Vice President at the Center for American Progress and serves as Editor-in-Chief of ThinkProgress.org.

Download this report (pdf)

Read the report in your web browser (Scribd)

Download individual chapters of the report (pdf):

Video: Ask the Expert: Faiz Shakir on the Group Behind Islamophobia

To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

Print: Anna Soellner (economic policy)
202.478.5322 or asoellner@americanprogress.org

Print: Anne Shoup (education policy)
202.481.7146 or ashoup@americanprogress.org

Print: Christina DiPasquale (foreign policy and security, energy)
202.481.8181 or cdipasquale@americanprogress.org

Print: Raúl Arce-Contreras (ethnic media, immigration)
202.478.5318 or rarcecontreras@americanprogress.org

Radio: Anne Shoup
202.481.7146 or ashoup@americanprogress.org

TV: Andrea Purse
202.741.6250 or apurse@americanprogress.org

[scribd id=63489887 key=key-15nxgg2azw3yqelkv5v8 mode=list]

Omar Mazin | Sep 01, 2011 | Comments 0

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?”

Omar Mazin | Oct 31, 2010 | Comments 0

Joint statement from NCPCF chairperson and executive director

National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms

Washington, D.C.- October 25, 2010

It’s with great pleasure and humility that we accept your vote of confidence in us to respectively chair the Board Of Directors and the Steering Committee of the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms (NCPCF.)

For more than a decade our nation has been facing serious challenges regarding the increasingly deteriorating state of civil, constitutional, human, and political rights and freedoms. Although Arabs and Muslims have been the main targets by the government of several unjust legislations passed in the aftermath of 9/11, and many abuses of the criminal justice system and immigration proceedings that followed, there is no doubt that such unjust policies and practices corrupt the system of justice in our country and can eventually affect every segment in our society.

Although such abuses may start with the persecutions of “the other,” they don’t end there. On this occasion we recall the famous words of pastor Martin Niemöller over 60 years ago:

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn’t a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Similarly, over 47 years ago Martin Luther King, Jr. scolded those who tolerated injustice or called for slowing down the march for equal rights. He reminded them that “An injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere.” He also recalled the words of Thurgood Marshall: “A justice too long delayed is justice denied”.

Henceforth, our national coalition is born to bring together the collective efforts of many dedicated organizations and individuals that care deeply about the constitution, civil rights and freedoms, our system of justice, our country and its image around the world.

Our mission is to educate the public about the erosion of civil and political freedoms in our society. We intend not only to advocate for their preservation, but also to unite the efforts of all committed civil rights groups, dedicated public figures, and well-meaning citizens to affect real change against any government discriminatory policies, or prosecutions based on thought crimes, manufactured charges, and Islamophobia.

We embark on this mission fully cognizant of the sacrifices in blood, pain, and suffering by the countless past generations of African-Americans, and many other hyphenated Americans and immigrants. The history of civil rights in America is long and arduous. But the triumphs along its path came only because of dedicated movement and leaders that refused to accept the status quo, or to be intimidated or cowed by powerful and bigoted forces in our society.

We take this opportunity to pledge on behalf of the organizations within our coalition, their members, and the NCPCF board and leadership that we would follow in the footsteps of the great tradition of the civil rights movement in America. We would spare no efforts to be the voice of any victim of injustice, and become the advocate of a more just, free, and humane America, true to its constitutional promise, embracing all legal and peaceful means in the struggle towards justice, freedom, and equal rights in our nation.

Agha Saeed, Chairperson of the Board of Directors

Raed Jarrar, Executive Director of the Steering Committee

Member Organizations
1. American Muslim Alliance (AMA)

2. Bill Of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC)

3. Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR)

4. Defending Dissent Foundation (DDF)

5. Desis, Rising Up and Moving (DRUM)

6. Friends of Human Rights (FHR)

7. International Action Center (IAC)

8. Islamic Circle of North America – Council for Social Justice (ICNA-CSJ)

9. Muslim American Society-Freedom (MAS-F)

10. Muslim Justice Initiative (MJI)

11. Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA)

12. National Lawyers Guild (NLG)

13. National Liberty Fund (NLF)

14. The Peace thru Justice Foundation (PJF)

15. Project SALAM (PS)

16. Universal Justice Foundation (UJF)

Omar Mazin | Oct 27, 2010 | Comments 0

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).

Article - Aslan Sharia
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.

Omar Mazin | Oct 14, 2010 | Comments 0

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

Omar Mazin | Oct 07, 2010 | Comments 1

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!

2- Al Qaeda and the Islamist Militants had adopted a very different interpretations for Quran and Islam, which was refused more than once by the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, and which oppose the main principle of the MB.

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.

Omar Mazin | Sep 30, 2010 | Comments 0

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.

Omar Mazin | Sep 30, 2010 | Comments 0

TAM: Center for Security Policy Sharia Report a Threat to American Ideals

by Sheila Musaji | Source

This week, a 177 page report was released by the Center for Security Policy titled Sharia: The Threat To America. The Center for Security Policy was founded by Frank Gaffney who is also its’ director.

The group putting this together call themselves Team BII and are identified in the document as: Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin—US Army (Ret.), former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. Lieutenant General Harry Edward Soyster—US Army (Ret.), former Director, Defense Intelligence Agency. Christine Brim—Chief Operating Officer, Center for Security Policy. Ambassador Henry Cooper—former Chief Negotiator, Defense and Space Talks, former Director, Strategic Defense Initiative. Stephen C. Coughlin, Esq. —Major (Res.) USA, former Senior Consultant, Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Michael Del Rosso—Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute and Center for Security Policy. Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.—former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting), President, Center for Security Policy. John Guandolo—former Special Agent, Counter-Terrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Brian Kennedy—President, Claremont Institute. Clare M. Lopez—Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy. Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons—US Navy (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet. Andrew C. McCarthy—former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney (Southern District of New York); Senior Fellow, National Review Institute; Contributing Editor, National Review. Patrick Poole—Consultant to the military and law enforcement on antiterrorism issues. Joseph E. Schmitz—former Inspector General, Department of Defense. Tom Trento—Executive Director, Florida Security Council. J. Michael Waller—Annenberg Professor of International Communication, Institute of World Politics, and Vice President for Information Operations, Center for Security Policy. Diana West—author and columnist. R. James Woolsey—former Director of Central Intelligence. David Yerushalmi, Esq.—General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy.

A number of our elected officials have backed this report. These folks are among those who have forgotten that they represent “we the people” and that includes American Muslims. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) both participated in the press conference announcing the reports release. Who are these elected officials?

Rep. Michele Bachmann has said “not all cultures are equal, not all values are equal,” letting it be known that she thought that people of the Muslim faith had an inferior culture to that of the United States and the West. She also called the American Muslims who came to pray at the Muslim Day of Prayer on Capitol Hill “terrorist sympathizers” and “Islamo-Fascist bastards”.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra is the the guy who breached the security of a Congressional delegation’s trip to Iraq by broadcasting its whereabouts and itinerary on Twitter. Hoekstra called for a boycott of mainstream Islamic organizations, although the U.S. Attorney’s office in Detroit seeks the cooperation of such organizations for homeland security. As Steve Benen noted “When it comes to national security issues, Hoekstra has one of the more transparently ridiculous track records of any member of Congress in recent memory. We are, after all, talking about a partisan clown who held a press conference in 2006 to announce, “We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

This report attempts to make up (by its length, and by working in every possible conspiracy theory that has ever been suggested about Muslims into one document) for the fact that it is utter nonsense. Daniel Luban points out about this report: “Suggesting that sharia is “the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time”, the report offers far-reaching – and to critics, draconian – proposals for how to combat it. These include banning Muslims who “espouse or support” sharia “from holding positions of trust in federal, state, or local governments or the armed forces of the United States”. The report similarly recommends prosecuting those who espouse sharia for sedition, and banning immigration to the U.S. by those who adhere to sharia. Few scholars of Islam would agree with the report’s conception of “sharia”. The word (typically translated as “the way”) is a broad term referring to Islamic religious precepts, and thus there are as many interpretations of sharia as there are interpretations of Islam. Even moderate practitioners of Islam, like all religious believers, strive to adhere to their conception of what sharia requires. This does not, however, mean that they necessarily aim to impose sharia, much less a fundamentalist version of sharia, on others.”

The report manages to work in the anti-Muslim memes of “stealth jihad” p.12, contributing to charity as something subversive p.16, Muslim “demographic jihad” p.127, Sharia as some sort of disease that Muslims spread by their very presence p.130, etc. This report joins the What Everyone Knows School of Islam which repeats the same old claims over and over:

“everyone knows” that most or all terrorists are Muslims, and there are no Christian and no Jewish terrorists (or terrorists of any other religious stripe), and that Muslims are inherently violent. Everyone also knows that Muslims are not equivalent to real Americans, that they are the enemy within, and a fifth column, that good Muslims can’t be good Americans, that they are not a part of our American heritage, that they are all militant, that Islam makes Muslims “backward”, that Muslims have made no contribution to the West, that Islam is “of the devil”, a Crescent menace, and an “evil encroaching on the United States”, and not a religion. Everyone knows that this is a Christian nation, which everyone knows the Muslims are trying to take over, starting with getting an Eid stamp which is the first step towards shariah law, and by purposefully having more children than others to increase their numbers. Everyone knows that Muslims have no respect for the Constitution. Everyone knows that Muslims are given a pass by the elite media. It’s “us versus them”. Their goal is world domination under a Caliphate. They don’t speak out against extremism or terrorism, and even those Muslims who do speak up or seem moderate are simply lying or practicing taqiyyah. Everyone knows the Qur’an is uniquely violent, that the Islamic concept of God doesn’t include God’s love, that Allah is a moon god. The problem is that what “everyone knows” is wrong. These self-righteous and incorrect statements are usually followed by a demand that the Muslim community do something about whatever is the false flag of the day or face the inevitable consequences.

The report released right in the middle of the Cordoba House/Park51 controversy, and starring many of the same characters just adds to the anti-Muslim bigotry being stirred up. The hate campaign that has been waged against Islam and Muslims by a certain extremist segment of the American population has seen no parallel since the anti-Semitic hate campaign against Jews in Europe in the 1930’s and 1940’s. This hate campaign is evil, but it has been extremely successful. American Muslims have become “the other”, not to be trusted, not good Americans.

This looks like a think tank product, but the only thought that went into it was bigotry and a determination to prove a pre-determined point of view. They have styled themselved team BII, referencing a 1976 Reagan era analysis of the Soviet Union as a continuing threat to the U.S. BII has simply replaced Islam with Communism to keep alive the dream of eternal war.

As Frank Woodward points out “The fact that Washington’s foreign policy establishment won’t take the report seriously is beside the point since Islamophobia needs neither the consent nor the interest of the establishment or the mainstream media in order to continue its advance across America.”

I will leave it to Islamic scholars to tear apart the scholarship of this attack on Sharia. I will stick to simply looking at the individuals and organizations involved with the production of this report.

WHO ARE THESE “experts” WHO UNDERSTAND SHARIA SO WELL?

Ret. Gen. William Boykin said in an interview: “What we are not seeing first and foremost is the fact that Islam is not a religion. It is a totalitarian way of life. There is a religious component. But we still treat it as a first amendment issue when in fact it is a totalitarian way of life. And when you think Islam you need to think Sharia law. Sharia law is the law that subjugates women, that cuts off the hand of the thief, that beheads the adulteress, that’s sharia law, and that’s what Islam is. It is a legal system more than anything else, with a religious component. And people simply do not understand that. And consequently, Skip, we still treat it as a first amendment issue. … And we continue to categorize them as extremists or radicals or people who are not following the dictates of Islam, well the reality is they are following the dictates of Islam and all we’re doing is playing their game of propaganda when we refuse to acknowledge that they are terrorists, they are Jihadists, they’re Muslims, they’re Islamists, and they want to destroy our constitution and replace it with Sharia law.” Boykin said Islam “is not a religion,” Boykin told Human Events. Extending First Amendment protection to Muslims, he added, was a “fundamental mistake.”

Stephen Coughlin Fox News reported that “Stephen Coughlin was fired from his job at the Pentagon after a confrontation with one of the deputy defense secretary’s aides, which ended with Coughlin being called, “a Christian zealot with a pen.” He was a speaker at the controversial CPAC event “Jihad: The Political Third Rail,” sponsored by Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.

FRANK GAFFNEY, as the director of the Center for Security Policy who put together this group and issued this report requires special mention. There really isn’t an Islamophobic controversy that Gaffney hasn’t been involved with:

– Gaffney is a “birther”. He said in an article Another question yet to be resolved is whether Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, a prerequisite pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. There is evidence Mr. Obama was born in Kenya rather than, as he claims, Hawaii. There is also a registration document for a school in Indonesia where the would-be president studied for four years, on which he was identified not only as a Muslim but as an Indonesian. If correct, the latter could give rise to another potential problem with respect to his eligibility to be president.

– Gaffney smeared the names of two Muslim White House staffers and unfairly charged Grover Norquist with giving White House access to “radical Muslims.”

– Gaffney commented in an article that Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court is part of a secret ploy to institute Sharia law in the United States. The article was accompanied by a photo of Elena Kagan in a turban.

– Gaffney contended in a Washington Times editorial that the efforts to use non-interest measures to do banking transactions was a Muslim conspiracy to impose Islamic law on the United States.

– Gaffney in the Wash. Times said “[I]t increasingly appears” Obama “will be embracing the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood”.

– Gaffney wrote an article titled Understanding Islam’s Threat to the U.S. Vital. Note, he didn’t qualify Islam in any way.

– After Pres. Obama’s Cairo Speech Gaffney said “there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself.” He said “Barack Hussein Obama would have to be considered America’s first Muslim president.” (This article seems to have been removed from the web?) However, there are many articles still existing that refer to Gaffney’s article including this one in the Washington Times.

– Gaffney used a fake quote from Abraham Lincoln to make his point in another article that objection to the war in Iraq was “treason”. (This article has also been removed) Glenn Greenwald’s article discussing this fake quote and Gaffney’s article is still online.

– Gaffney accused MPAC of being “pro-Hamas” and having a “Wahabi” ideology. And, he accused ISNA of supporting terrorism.

– Gaffney is one of the regular speakers at David Horowitz’ annual Islamo Fascism Awareness Week on college campuses.

– When asked by MSNBC host David Shuster and Mother Jones’s David Corn for proof of Obama’s supposed willingness to submit to Sharia, Gaffney pointed to a secret “code” Obama is using — which apparently only he, al Qaeda, the Saudis, and the Taliban understand: CORN: Where in that speech does he say we’re going to submit to anybody? GAFFNEY: “I think what he is using is code — … When he uses the word “respect,” in the context of a waist-bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, for example, and talks about respectful language, which is code for those who adhere to Sharia that we will submit to Sharia. We will submit to the kind of program.”

– Gaffney said regarding the the U.S. Missile Defense Logo: A just-unveiled symbolic action suggests, however, that something even more nefarious is afoot… Team Obama’s anti-anti-missile initiatives are not simply acts of unilateral disarmament of the sort to be expected from an Alinsky acolyte. They seem to fit an increasingly obvious and worrying pattern of official U.S. submission to Islam and the theo-political-legal program the latter’s authorities call Shariah… the new MDA shield appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star with the Obama campaign logo… Watch this space as we identify and consider various, ominous and far more clear-cut acts of submission to Shariah by President Obama and his team.

– Gaffney published an over the top Islamophobic rant calling the proposed Cordoba House/Park51 center “a durable, symbolic taunt by our enemies about their bloody victory”, which is “designed to be a permanent, in-our-face beachhead for Shariah, a platform for inspiring the triumphalist ambitions of the faithful and eroding resistence to their demands for separate and (for the moment, at least) equal treatment in America.” He also uses all the tired cliches – taqiyya, stealth jihad, etc.

– Gaffney regularly suggests that any opposition to his positions is taqiyya which we have dealt with previously.

– Gaffney said about the newly opened Zaytuna College “This is stealth jihad in the sense that it is about promoting in the United States incubators for sharia,” the religious law of Islam.”

– Gaffney made a web video in opposition to Park51 that says: “If we let them defile Ground Zero with a beachhead for sharia we will validate their sense of victory on 9/11 and encourage future attacks on America. No mosque at Ground Zero.” He also wrote that “the twin towers were destroyed on 9/11 by adherents to the barbaric, supremacist and totalitarian program authoritative Islam calls ‘Shariah.’”

– One of the anti-mosque rallies was sponsored by a group called The Coalition to Honor Ground Zero. They sponsored one of the most hateful rallies against the Cordoba House/Park51 Center. However, as Glenn Greenwald has reported “The group which sponsored this rally has a website—the repellently named StopThe911Mosque.com—which is registered to The Center for Security Policy, the group of Frank Gaffney.”

As Louay Safi points out “John Guandolo involved himself in the Rifqa Bary case and in an article published by CSP, uses misleading arguments to fault the FDLE and defend the fundamentalist Global Revolution Church. Guandolo accuses the FDLE investigators of negligence and willful blindness, and urge Florida Governor Charlie Crist to dismiss the current investigative team and appoint another one that will vindicate his version of the case. … How do I know that Guandolo got his facts wrong? Well, he used, or rather distorted, my own writings on the issue of apostasy to advanced his prejudicial views on Islam and American Muslims. Guandolo proclaims that “a due diligence review would reveal the existence of authoritative Islamic Law” and found that “Islamic Law – which is real law – has requirements and rules as to how to deal with those who leave Islam.” One crucial piece of evidence of his “due diligence review” comes from a book “Peace and the Limits of War.” Guandolo writes: “In it, Mr. Safi notes that individual apostates cannot be killed for a ‘quiet desertion of personal Islamic duties,’ but can be put to death as ‘just punishment’ when the apostate deserts Islam publicly (p. 31).” Speaking of negligence and willful blindness, it helps to reproduce the passage that preceded that selective quotations cited by Guandolo in its entirety: “When a group of Muslim individuals fortify themselves in an area of the Muslim territory and refuse to permit the application of certain fundamental Islamic principles or laws, such as the establishment of public prayer (salah al jama’ah), the payment of zakah, and the like, it is a case of apostasy, for which, the group is to be fought until its members cease their rebellion with respect to the law. It should be clear that apostates are to be fought not because they refuse to profess or practice Islam, but because they disobey the Islamic law. Therefore, nobody should be questioned or prosecuted for not fulfilling his personal duties toward Allah – for he is answerable to Allah, not to the Muslim community, insofar as his personal duties are concerned-as long as he fulfills his public duty.” A fair reading of the above passage should lead to a conclusion quite contrary to the one Guandolo conveniently arrived at through the partial and incomplete quotation he cherry picked from the passage to advance his ideologically held position. Indeed, the above argument was made in the context of limiting the ground for war and rejecting the use of force against people on the basis of their personal beliefs. My more definitive statement on religious freedom and the notion of apostasy in Islam is provided in another article, “Apostasy and Religious Freedom,” that was published in the wake of the case of apostasy in Afghanistan in 2006.”

Andrew McCarthy said that the proposed Cordoba House/Park51 center was “Islamist supremacism” and that “well-meaning people would know that this is an affront to common sense.” In an NRO interview with Andrew C. MCarthy. The first question is: “What do health-care reform and ‘the Grand Jihad’ have in common?” To which McCarthy replies: “They both enjoy the support of Islam and the Left.” John Guardiano notes “McCarthy has written that “Islam is innately political,” and that “Islam and Communism are aligned… Both are diametrically opposed to the core assumptions of American constitutional democracy: individual liberty and free-market capitalism.” He has called Islam’s legal code “totalitarian.” He rejects the concept of moderate Islam as an “invention” that “does not currently exist.” He declares, in the subtitle of his book, that Islam — not radical Islam, but Islam — is a fifth column political movement intent on “sabotaging” America.”

Think Progress notes that: “At an event on Capitol Hill, retired Lt. Gen. Soyster introduced the report by admitting, “I’m here out of ignorance. Three years ago I realized how little I knew about Islam.” Soyster said he “went to some classes,” and “the more I learned, the worse it got.”

Tom Trento of the Florida Security Council planned a “free speech summit” featuring Geert Wilders.

David Yerushalmi of SANE (Society of Americans for National Existence) that released a policy paper that in part stated: “Whereas, adherence to Islam as a Muslim is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the US. Government through the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution and the imposition of Shari’a on the American People . . . It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.” Yerushalmi said “On the so-called Global War on Terrorism, GWOT, we have been quite clear along with a few other resolute souls. This should be a WAR AGAINST ISLAM and all Muslim faithful…At a practical level, this means that Shari’a and Islamic law are immediately outlawed. Any Moslem in America who adopts historical and traditional Shari’a will be subject to deportation. Mosques which adhere to Islamic law will be shut down permanently. No self-described or practicing Muslim, irrespective of his or her declarations to the contrary, will be allowed to immigrate to this country…” He also said “Muslim civilization is at war with Judeo-Christian civilization…The Muslim peoples, those committed to Islam as we know it today, are our enemies.” And, “Instead of a promise of victory, Sura 24:52 must be made ashes in the mouths of Muslims. A seemingly unending air control campaign over enemy territory is the way to continually remind the Muslims of their subordinate status and the impotence of Allah without becoming mired in the quagmire of counterinsurgency.” Yerushalmi was a member of the Stop the Madrassa Coalition, which was instrumental in the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim smear campaign that brought down Debbie Almontaser, the founding principal of Khalil Gibran International Academy, a dual-language Arabic school in Brooklyn. Yerushalmi is also an attorney with the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which is run by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. Yerushalmi also published a racist article that, as Alex Kane points out “Yerushalmi has deleted as much evidence of the “On Race” article as he could; he removed it from the Internet Archive and the Google cache, and put his entire website behind a registration wall. But here’s a PDF that contains the full article, and it’s as ugly and twisted a piece of racism as anything I’ve ever seen. Yerushalmi opens by calling Islam “an evil religion,” and “blacks … the most murderous of peoples.”

The Center for Security Policy sponsors “Family Security Matters.” On August 3, 2007, Family Security Matters published an opinion piece by Philip Atkinson, which advocated for making George W. Bush president for life, because “the inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable.” Furthermore, after giving Atkinson’s interpretation of Julius Caesar’s treatment of Gaul, the article called for emptying Iraq of its Arabs: If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestige while terrifying American enemies. The website removed all articles by Atkinson and references to the writer the next day after complaints were received, but several bloggers found similar passages in other articles by means of Google Cache

Think Progress notes thatdue to: “… some of the report’s broad and controversial claims about Islamic law, such as that all devout Muslims are duty-bound to wage jihad against unbelievers, ThinkProgress asked Gaffney how many actual Muslims or Islamic scholars he and his group had consulted with in writing the report. He could not name any, though he noted that he had consulted with various Muslims “over the years.” So there you have it. A report on the threat posed by Islamic law to the United States, one of whose leaders admits to having started studying Islam only three years ago, whose authors admit consulting with no actual Muslims, produced by a think tank that has previously claimed that key members of the Obama administration are part of the Iran Lobby.”

Commentary: Building Mosque Vs Burning Quran!!

Ikhwanophobia

“Pastor Terry Jones’ call for ‘International Quran Burning Day’ “, which hit headlines in breaking news has succeeded in grabbing worldwide attention. According to the Qatari Aljazeera satellite channel ‘Pastor Jones seems to be “happy” with the media coverage’ and this may explain why Pastor Jones’ is talking about making deals with Muslim Imams.

However the man behind the mosque building initiative Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf maintained that he has not spoken to the Florida Pastor whom he described as fanatical

In a statement Rauf expressed much surprise to the Pastor’s allegations who alleged that he had struck deals with the Muslims to build the mosque elsewhere stressing;

“I am surprised by their announcement; we are not going to toy with our religion or any other. Nor are we going to barter. We are here to extend our hands to build peace and harmony.”

In all reality there is no logic in linking the Quran Burning which is a clear violation of the religious sanctities affecting 1.4 Billion Muslims around the world, and the building of a religious centre in lower Manhattan which in fact is a human right for any religious sect.

By burning the Quran Jones is advocating hatred and racism with his insinuations comparing Islam to Nazism as opposed to Imam Faisal’s call which is promoting Peace and international tolerance

The Quran Burning must be prevented without negotiations and mediation since there is no parallel where one instance illustrates the burning of a holy book while the other urges the building of bridges between different civilizations and peoples.

Pastor Jones must end his prejudice actions and begin to culture himself and read up on Islam. Muslims in turn, must not make any compromising deals, and any concessions with such racist bigots will surely indicate that Muslims are not worthy enough of what they defend.

Omar Mazin | Sep 10, 2010 | Comments 0

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.

Omar Mazin | Sep 10, 2010 | Comments 0

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.

Omar Mazin | Sep 08, 2010 | Comments 0

‘Anti-Islamic’ bus ads appear in major cities

Source
Ikhwanophobia Comment

Here are the start of hate crimes and bigotry aggressive actions. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller with their new SIOA organization are trying to have the American people beside them in their hatred and racism.
Unfortunately, They succeeded with 10/10 !

The appeal now is for moderate Americans to stop this bigotry and racism. For the sake of freedom! for the sake of Democracy.. Stop this anti-American actions!

The growing debate over Islam’s place in America, which is escalating in light of plans to build a mosque near ground zero, is increasingly playing out on city streets across the country. On the sides of buses, to be precise.
Several groups are engaging in something of a religious ad war over the merits and misconceptions of Islam, a religion that remains a mystery to many Americans.

Ads by a group calling itself Stop Islamization of America, which aims to provide refuge for former Muslims, read: “Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get answers!”

Those ads, appearing on dozens of buses in the San Francisco Bay Area, Miami, and New York, are a response to ones from a Muslim group that say, “The way of life of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Islam. Got questions? Get answers.”

In New York, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community sponsored this campaign: “Muslims for Peace. Love for All – Hatred for None.”

The ads are part of a larger conversation over Islam’s image, which Muslim organizations say has been hurt by extremists both at home and abroad. But many conservative groups say that concern about the spread of Islam isn’t alarmist, pointing to evidence of imams in this country inciting militancy and a growing number of American Muslims arrested for plotting terror attacks.

A self-described “anti-jihadist,” Pamela Geller is the conservative blogger and executive director of Stop Islamization of America who conceived of the “Leaving Islam” ad campaign. Her bus posters, she says, were partly inspired by the ongoing Florida case involving a teenage girl who ran away from her Muslim parents after converting to Christianity. The girl, Rifqa Bary, made headlines last year when she claimed her father threatened to kill her for becoming a Christian.

Ms. Geller described her campaign as “a defense of religious freedom,” in an e-mail response to questions. The goal, she says, is mainly “to help ex-Muslims who are in trouble” and also “to raise awareness of the threat that apostates live under even in the West.”

But some religious rights organizations contend that the real intent is to incite fear about a faith that, according to recent studies, remains misunderstood. A 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center found that 38 percent believe Islam is more likely to encourage violence than other religions.

“In this post-9/11 world … it’s almost like there’s some political and spiritual currency to be gained by being anti-Islamic,” says Steve Spreitzer, programs director for the Detroit-based interfaith group Michigan Roundtable for Diversity and Inclusion.

RefugeFromIslam.com, the website promoted on Geller’s ads, contends that Muslim Americans who “long to be free” of their religion are in danger of being killed, and offers protection, including “safe houses,” for those who want out. Muslim rights groups and religious leaders say there is no penalty for leaving Islam and that the Koran condemns killing as a sin.

The campaign has whipped up controversy in several cities. In Detroit, which has one of the highest Muslim populations in the country, Geller sued the SMART transit agency in federal district court after it rejected the ads.

In the Bay Area, more than 125 religious leaders of various faiths signed a statement in July denouncing the ads as “Islamophobic” and saying they “promote fear of Muslim Americans.”

Geller says calling the ads anti-Islam is “a tactic to divert attention” away from the “plight” of ex-Muslims.

In Florida, the Miami-Dade Transit agency initially pulled the ads but then reinstated them days later after Geller and her group threatened to sue. Miami-Dade Transit spokeswoman Karla Damian says the county attorney had reviewed the ad campaign and determined that “although considered offensive by some, it did not constitute removal.”

And in the Bay Area, where both tolerance and free speech are regarded as sacred, the 30 bus ads that recently began rolling through San Mateo County have been met with surprise and bewilderment.

Omar Ahmad, a Muslim city council member in San Mateo who also sits on the board of directors for SamTrans, the bus agency running the ads, says he found the campaign “bizarre” but didn’t think it would have much effect. “I have a great deal of faith in folks in the Bay Area to take a critical eye to what they see and read,” he says.

Geller and her supporters point out that transit agencies in Detroit and elsewhere had no problem with a controversial campaign sponsored by a group of atheists last year. Those ads, also on buses and billboards in many cities, read: “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone.” Although the ads offended some, they were deemed free speech.

The ads in New York City sponsored by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community recently began appearing on 100 New York City buses and promote the website MuslimsForPeace.org, which condemns terrorism and advocates for a separation of church and state.

Waseem Sayed, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community spokesperson, says the campaign is not a response to Geller’s ads but an ongoing effort to reclaim the public image of Islam, which he says has been “hijacked by extremists.”

“It’s an effort to have the Muslims, the silent majority, snatch the flag of Islam away from these extremists and hoist it above ourselves,” he says.

Omar Mazin | Sep 03, 2010 | Comments 1

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

Source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Omar Mazin | Aug 28, 2010 | Comments 0

Pamela, Robert .. Congrats!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source

Student Arraigned in Anti-Muslim Stabbing of Cabdriver

By KAREN ZRAICK AND ANDY NEWMAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Omar Mazin | Aug 26, 2010 | Comments 1

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:

1. It’s Not at Ground Zero

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.

2. It’s Not Strictly A Mosque

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.

3. You Can’t Simultaneously Acknowledge A Right And Insist That Your Government Suppress It

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.

Omar Mazin | Aug 25, 2010 | Comments 1

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

Source

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

Omar Mazin | Aug 23, 2010 | Comments 2

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

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

Source
By David Edwards and Daniel Tencer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c

Extremist Makeover – Homeland Edition

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

Omar Mazin | Aug 21, 2010 | Comments 0

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

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

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

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

Source

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

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

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

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

Omar Mazin | Aug 19, 2010 | Comments 0

Why Building THE Mosque is GOOD for America!

Dean Obeidallah
Award Winning Arab-American Comedian
Source

Where can the Muslim Community Center be built in NYC?

To me, the answer is the same as if you asked me where a church, a synagogue, a Sikh temple or any place of worship in the US can be built. To paraphrase Dr. Seuss: I say you can build it here or there, by a house or a mouse, in Tribeca by Robert DeNiro or further down by Ground Zero. It’s that simple.

It’s alarming and disheartening to see the angry, hate-filled rhetoric by some in response to the building of the Muslim Community Center. Some people truly appear to hate Muslims more than they love the ideals of our country.

I don’t subscribe to the view that everyone who is opposing the Muslim Community Center is a bigot. But to those who really have no issues with Muslims but simply object to it’s proposed location I say: You might want to take a quick look to your left and right – I’m going to bet that at least one of them is a bigot, such as the “Christian” Pastor from Florida who is threatening to burn Korans on September 11 – the way the Nazis burned Torahs. Or those who are protesting mosques being built in other parts of the country hundreds of miles from Ground Zero and threatening to release pigs on the property to keep the Muslims away. These aren’t people I really want to hang with.

So here are my simple responses to the main arguments I have heard in my effort to balance the avalanche of hate coming from the other side:

1. Should a sushi restaurant be allowed to open near Pearl Harbor? It’s important to emphasize that the Founding Fathers of America did not flee England to the New World because they wanted to make California rolls or sashimi. It was for freedom of religion. You can’t compare the sacred right of freedom of religion with the right to sell raw fish.

2. The location is the issue. This is frankly the toughest one. I understand fully the visceral opposition by some to the location. I stood about 20 blocks from the WTC on 9/11 and watched the Towers crumble before my eyes. I lived in Manhattan then and continue to today. But let’s also keep in mind that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – who will be leading the Muslim Community Center – is the long time leader of a mosque that is located 12 blocks from Ground Zero – it has been there since 1983. That is where his congregation is located. Should he have to move his congregation because terrorists happen to share the same religion? And how far is “enough” of a move – is 6 blocks okay? 20 blocks? 2 miles? And who decides how far is enough: Sarah Palin? Newt Gingrich? Do any of you trust these people to decide the scope of our fundamental Constitutional rights? Can we allow the very right that inspired the creation of our nation to be decided by a popularity contest-if that were the case, do you think in certain parts of the South they would have agreed to allow synagogues or Churches that serve African-American communities to be built?

3. American Muslims should not build a Muslim center near Ground Zero because the twenty 9/11 terrorists were Muslim. This is like saying that because a handful of Catholic priests molested young boys, Catholic Churches should not be allowed to be built near elementary schools. Or because Bernie Madoff and several others in the recent Wall Street scandals were Jewish, no synagogues can be built near Wall Street. I know these men didn’t kill people, but they destroyed many, many lives, however, we would never punish everyone in their religion because of the sins of a few. Plus even more importantly, the people who are building this mosque and will worship in it will be American Muslims, not members of Al Qaeda.

4. This is a “Victory Mosque” because Muslims build mosques to symbolize military victories. There are approximately 1900 mosques in the US already. Somebody please list the military victories against America that each of these mosques represent. Seriously, I’m all ears.

5. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – who will be leading this mosque – is connected to terrorist activity. He has been the Imam of a mosque located 12 blocks from Ground Zero for 27 years- if he had been involved in terrorist activity, I think by now he would have been arrested. In fact, he has publicly condemned terrorism, worked to build bridges between the US and Muslim world, and spearheaded extensive Interfaith work bringing people of different religions together to foster understanding. But if you have any evidence whatsoever that he is involved with terrorism- not “he likes falafel and terrorists like falafel” – but credible evidence, I implore you to turn it over to the FBI or US Attorney’s Office. If you don’t, then please stop the character assassinations and blood libels against him.

6. The Mosque will encourage terrorism. Actually, I believe strongly that the opposite is true. As a comedian, I have performed in the Middle East frequently over the past few years. There are many there who truly believed that during President Bush’s term the US was waging a war against all Muslims – not just terrorists. One of the best arguments we had against this assertion was to say look how the American Muslims are treated – they are free to worship and have the same rights as people from any other religion. Banning this Muslim Community Center will change that forever and – to be brutally honest – will be used as a tool to recruit terrorists against us by simply saying look how America treats their Muslims.

Why is the Mosque good for America?

Allowing the Muslim Community Center to be built where it is being proposed represents the best of America -the idea that the United States is a special place in the world, a beacon of fairness that welcomes and protects the rights of all it’s people. Too many have sacrificed their lives for these sacred rights to say that certain Americans should not enjoy them simply because of their religion.

As our Declaration of Independence famously states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” and it is my belief that they should be treated equally as well.

Follow Dean Obeidallah on Twitter:

www.twitter.com/Deanofcomedy

Omar Mazin | Aug 16, 2010 | Comments 1

Read More

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.

Omar Mazin | Aug 15, 2010 | Comments 0

Read More

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!

Omar Mazin | Aug 15, 2010 | Comments 0

Read More

Older Entries

Next Page »