Disciplining the Blog

Danios Rips Another Bogus Claim by Robert Spencer

2012-01-30T09:07:00.000-05:00

More Proof Why You REALLY Shouldn't Trust Robert Spencer's "Scholarship" | loonwatch.com

A fantastic refutation by Danios of Loonwatch. Click the link above for the full article.

Spencer is hawking his new book, which he is pushing as a “scholarly work” about how Muhammad didn’t exist. His home page boasts that Robert Spencer is “[t]he acclaimed scholar of Islam”, “[a] serious scholar”, and “a brilliant scholar.”
I have pointed out in the past that Spencer is not a scholar of any sort–especially not on anything related to Islam. He simply does not have the academic qualifications to claim this. What other “scholar” do you know of that doesn’t even have a master’s or PhD degree on the subject he claims to be a “scholar” of? He only has a one-year master’s degree in “the field of early Christianity”. How does that make him an “acclaimed scholar of Islam”?
Another major problem with Spencer’s claim to scholarship is that he simply does not speak or understand Arabic. This much has been apparent in the past, and it becomes painstakingly obvious in his latest response to me (as I shall show below). I don’t think Spencer needs to know Arabic to criticize Islam (as some Muslim apologists insist), but I do think he needs to know it in order to be considered a “scholar of Islam” (a title he claims)–let alone “[t]he acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Combine (1) not having any academic qualifications whatsoever with (2) not knowing Arabic and you have a situation like this: imagine some random blogger claiming to be “a world renowned physician” without ever having (1) gone to medical school and (2) without ever having studied or learned anatomy. Such a blogger might be able to bring up good points about the field of medicine, but nobody in their right mind would consider him a “world renowned physician”–and if he claimed any such thing, his credibility would be shattered.
The need to understand Arabic in order to be a “scholar of Islam” cannot become more apparent than it is now with Spencer’s latest reply. And here’s why: Spencer argues (see quote above) that thehadith (saying of the Prophet Muhammad) found in Haykal’s Hayat Muhammad contradicts the one in Ibn Sa’d's Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir. He argues that Haykal may have reproduced another hadith that contradicts the one found in Ibn Sa’d's book, or even that Haykal may have engaged in academic deceit (i.e. “altered this tradition for apologetic purposes”). That’s a serious and bold claim to make against Haykal.
Yet, had Spencer simply been able to read Arabic, he would have realized that the hadith in Haykal’sHayat Muhammad and Ibn Sa’d's Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir are the exact same! They are word-for-word identical. In other words, Haykal took the hadith from Ibn Sa’d's book. That Spencer couldn’t see this speaks volumes about his “scholarship.” So, Spencer’s blathering on about Haykal finding another contradictory hadith or of manipulating the text is indicative of his sophomoric “scholarship.”
How could Haykal have reproduced another hadith or have manipulated the text when in fact the wording in both Haykal’s book and Ibn Sa’d's is the exact same?

Hate Crimes and Islamophobia Myth Making

2012-01-24T13:14:00.001-05:00

Sheila Musaji of The American Muslim (TAM) writes an important piece on hate crimes and Islamophobia.

Some Islamophobes are saying that Islamophobia doesn't exist because there aren't (that) many hate crimes against Muslims in America.

However, Musaji destroys this argument:

For example, Robert Spencer asked a Muslim “What do you have to say about the fact that FBI statistics show that there is no “Islamophobia”?”

Actually, FBI statistics do not show that there is no “Islamophobia”. What the most recent “hate crime statistics” do show is that there have been fewer hate crimes committed against Muslims in the U.S. than there were against Jews. Whether this might also reflect a reticence to report such crimes on the part of members of some refugee communities particularly has been discussed. And, the same report documents the fact that the actual hate crimes against Muslims, while still lower than those against Jews, have increased by 50% over the last year.

Hate crimes statistics are only one of many possible indicators of prejudice and bigotry.
Following Spencer’s logic, we could make the following statement — There have been more hate crimes against Jews than against Muslims, therefore that proves that “there is no ‘Islamophobia.’” There have been more hate crimes against African-Americans than against Jews, therefore that proves that “there is no ‘anti-Semitism.’” Spencer’s argument is totally fallacious.

Other possible indicators of Islamophobia including EEOC complaints about work related discrimination, and a trend towards an increase of anti-Muslim and anti-Islam rhetoric from public figures, Christian and Jewish clergy, and even elected representatives would appear to show that this is a word describing a real phenomenon.

The very real problems that have been uncovered about anti-Muslim training of law enforcement and government personnel also point in the same direction.

Greenwald: Two lessons from the Megaupload seizure Mobile

2012-01-21T09:02:00.001-05:00

Salon.com » Two lessons from the Megaupload seizure Mobile

Glenn Greenwald writes about the government shut down of Megaupload and the death of due process in America.

It really is accurate to say that politicians don't give a hell about due process anymore, as Greenwald says, but I also think its equally accurate to say that the American people don't care much for due process any longer as well. The apathy in this society is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

The rights of the people in America are being sliced off one at a time, but as long as they have their reality TV shows and sports and gossip columns to read then they'll gladly allow the government to do whatever it wants here and abroad.

Twitter subpoena social media Boston occupy movement

2012-01-17T07:22:00.000-05:00

Twitter subpoena social media Boston occupy movement | Crikey

Interesting read on online privacy in the age of American government snooping and droning.

An Australian activist is fighting an attempt by Boston authorities to subpoena information about her from Twitter in relation to the #occupy movement.
Asher Wolf, a transparency and information activist, is based in Melbourne and over the past 18 months has quietly become one of the key people on Twitter for following news about transparency issues, WikiLeaks, net surveillance and the Occupy movement, via her extensive and systematic retweeting of information from around the world.
Just before Christmas, she learnt that the Boston District Attorney Benjamin A. Goldberger had contacted Twitter and demanded user information about “Guido Fawkes, @p0isonANon, @occupyBoston, #BostonPD, #d0xcak3” in what is called an administrative subpoena, commonly issued by law enforcement agencies to holders of information such as telecommunications companies.
The subpoena itself is bizarre and quickly became an internet laughing stock, as it got the #occupy account for Boston wrong (it’s @occupy_Boston, inter alia), it spelt @DoxCak3 wrongly, and purported to subpoena information about any account that used the hashtags #BostonPD and #d0xcak3. (“Guido Fawkes” isn’t a reference to the British blogger but the pseudonym of the holder of the account @p0isonANon i.e. it’s redundant).
But in trying to subpoena a hashtag, the Boston DA, one Benjamin A. Goldberger, either through a lack of understanding of social media, or as part of an extraordinary international fishing expedition, has sought information about anyone who used the hashtags in a tweet during the dates identified in the subpoena.
Goldberger also demanded that Twitter keep the subpoena secret, a request rejected by the company in the absence of any legal basis for it. Twitter last year defeated an attempt by the Department of Justice to keep secret a judicial order demanding information on users associated with WikiLeaks.
Australian lawyers Doogue & O’Brien, acting for Wolf and another, have told Goldberger and Twitter that they will resist the subpoena, given its broad scope and the “fishing expedition” nature of the request. “The ultimate effect of your subpoena is to pose a direct challenge to our client’s right to free speech. This is particularly concerning in light of the fact that one of our clients is a journalist who uses Twitter, amongst other media, to report on current affairs. Twitter encourages the free flow of information and reportage. The course which you have taken will inevitably stifle this important function.”
How much standing Twitter’s Australian users have is unclear. The user @p0isonANon, with assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, is currently seeking to overturn the subpoena in the Massachusetts courts. But the subpoena is directed to Twitter, and it is up to the company, which is registered in Delaware and headquartered in San Francisco, to determine its compliance. Lawyer Bill Doogue says the current goal is to get more information, particularly about the criminal investigation the subpoena says is currently under way. “The simple step of subpoenaing a hashtag captures people doing nothing wrong or potentially wrong — so why should their details be made available?” Doogue says, “But the essence is that Twitter shouldn’t be logging details like IP addresses.”
WikiLeaks recently launched a campaign to encourage Twitter, considered the most liberal-minded major social media company for its efforts to fight the Department of Justice, to end logging of real-time user information such as IP addresses. “In a progressive company concerned with protecting privacy and security of user data — the defacto position should be no data retention,” says Wolf.
The broader issue here is how governments (and the corporations they frequently act at the behest of) are seeking to respond to the borderless nature not so much of the internet itself as of internet communities. The issue takes a number of forms: the UK legal industry maintains it has a form of extraterritorial jurisdiction, and has so aggressively asserted its right to silence people via internet-related libel cases that US lawmakers have responded. But at the same time, the United States assumes an almost unlimited extraterritoriality in the application of its laws, both generally and specifically on online issues — the NDAA signed by Obama recently arrogates to the US military the power to abduct and indefinitely detain anyone considered to be linked to the War on Terror; British student Richard O’Dwyer is to be extradited under anti-terror legislation to face a decade in jail in the US merely for building a website that linked to filesharing sites.
However, when the world’s biggest social media companies are based in the US, governments there need no extraterritoriality, leaving users in any country using sites like Facebook and Twitter, or services like Google, liable to monitoring by the US government or state agencies via US law.
As Wolf points out, geographic segmentation is currently a standard feature of internet commerce, which means that in effect non-US internet users get the worst of both worlds when it comes to the borderless internet: they are subject to US monitoring of social media networks but often can’t access the full benefits of US internet commerce. “If Amazon and iTunes can segment their markets for restrictive purposes,” Wolf says, “then why not Twitter, to meet legal requirements enacted by countries demanding privacy protection for their citizens?
“If the Australian government wanted to protect its citizens it could legislate to protect data owned or generated by Australian citizens — by enacting strict laws against data retention,” she says. “For instance, the government could legislate companies wishing to do business with Australian citizens must delete data and traffic logs after a period of no more than three months after Australian citizens deleting their personal material. Australia should also place pressure on fellow common law countries to bring in similar legislation.”
The only real solution is social media networks outside the jurisdiction of nation-states. WikiLeaks is currently establishing its own social network, Friends of WikiLeaks, and Anonymous has established AnonPlus; there have also been anonymous microblogging sites such as Youmitter established, but their lack of critical mass is a key impediment, as is resilience in the face of surges in traffic, and they remain vulnerable, to the extent that it’s enforceable, to authorities claiming to exercise jurisdiction over whatever servers are used to host the networks.

U.S. Marines Urinating on Dead Taliban

2012-01-11T16:31:00.000-05:00

Marines peeing on taliban - YouTube

1. Disgusting barbarism.

2. Will lead to more hatred of United States.

3. Do we even know if the dead were actually hostiles? Does anyone even care to figure that out? The dead people being urinated upon could be innocents - like the many others our soldiers and drones have killed. But they're dead and brown, so who cares, right?

Good News Alert: Oklahoma Sharia Law Struck Down Again

2012-01-10T18:33:00.000-05:00

Constitutional Law 101: Federal Court Rules That Discrimination Against Muslims Violates the First Amendment » Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union

It should be a learning lesson for Islamophobes like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who were vocal supporters of this law, and their allies who helped craft this legislation that the Constitution doesn't need their help.

The Constitution is designed to protect the people from exactly this type of nonsensical garbage. The people of Oklahoma and other states are not under any real threat from Islamic Law. The entire basis of this legislation is baseless, as the ACLU notes:

Oklahoma’s proposed “Save Our State Amendment” would have changed the state constitution to bar state courts from considering so-called “Sharia Law” in making decisions. The amendment defined “Sharia Law” broadly as Islamic law based on the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed. If implemented, the amendment would have rendered Oklahoma’s Muslims second-class citizens before the state courts. For example, it could have prevented courts from probating a will that incorporated or even mentioned the religious beliefs of the deceased. It also could have inhibited Muslims from forming enforceable contracts in accordance with their religious beliefs, even while those of other faiths could. And it would have effectively denied Muslims the ability to bring suit in state court to remedy violations of their religious freedom rights.

In its ruling, the appeals court flatly rejected the State’s claim that the law was necessary to protect against the courts’ improper application of Sharia law. The court affirmed that the so-called “Sharia threat” identified by the State is a myth. The court wrote: “Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted, that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma.”

Spencer Caught In a Lie: Says He Agreed to Debate Loon Watch

2012-01-10T01:21:00.000-05:00

Why can't Muslims debate? (Again) - Jihad Watch

I just got done watching that horribly boring BCS National Championship game when I came across Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer saying that he agreed to debate the folks over at Loon Watch.

That is news to me and likely to others who frequent Loon Watch.

As I remember, Mr. Spencer refused to debate Danios from Loon Watch unless Danios revealed his true identity.

So Spencer says that Loon Watch charged him with refusing to debate them.

Spencer then says through Twitter that he will debate them "anytime."

So it seems that NOW Spencer is fine with debating Loon Watch, but he wasn't agreeable to doing so in the past when he gave Danios an ultimatum on the terms for even having a debate.

This is disingenuous on Spencer's part.

He clearly was avoiding debating Danios for a long time and only now has the guts to finally face someone he is clearly intimidated by.

And he is leaving out from his post how he refused on his own web site to debate Danios from Loon Watch.

Spencer is trying to make it seem that he had agreed to debate Loon Watch all this time and that it was Loon Watch that was lying about debating.

Well at least Spencer finally has mustered the courage to debate Loon Watch.

It's the least he could do since he's always blabbing on and on about how people are scared to debate him despite the fact that he himself was hiding from a debate with Danios.

Imam al-Ghazali's Book on Seeking Status

2012-01-09T08:04:00.000-05:00

Book VIII: Attributes Leading to Perdition

Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, may God be pleased with him, was one of the greatest scholars of Islam. His spiritual work, the Ihya Ulum al-Din, is one - if not the - greatest spiritual treatise in Islam.

This particular section of the Ihya deals with the spiritual disease of seeking status among the people.

I love Imam al-Ghazali for his ability to provide a firmly rooted understanding of a spiritual disease from the Qur'an and Sunnah and then provide a treatment for that disease in an easy to understand rehabilitation program.

Matt Taibbi: Iowa: The Meaningless Sideshow Begins

2012-01-04T07:11:00.000-05:00

Iowa: The Meaningless Sideshow Begins | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone:

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone describes the upcoming presidential election:

Most likely, it’ll be Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama, meaning the voters’ choices in the midst of a massive global economic crisis brought on in large part by corruption in the financial services industry will be a private equity parasite who has been a lifelong champion of the Gordon Gekko Greed-is-Good ethos (Romney), versus a paper progressive who in 2008 took, by himself, more money from Wall Street than any two previous presidential candidates, and in the four years since has showered Wall Street with bailouts while failing to push even one successful corruption prosecution (Obama).

It's change you can believe in!

Does Posting Jihadist Material Make Tarek Mehanna a Terrorist?

2011-12-19T02:32:00.000-05:00

Does Posting Jihadist Material Make Tarek Mehanna a Terrorist? | Mother Jones

Excellent article about freedom of speech issues involved in some terrorism cases.

"This case is being used by the government to really narrow First Amendment activity in dangerous new ways," says Nancy Murray of the Massachusetts branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It might be speech that horrifies people, but it's the nature of the First Amendment to protect that speech, unless it's leading to imminent lawless action."
Civil liberties advocates say the case represents a slippery slope.

In the 2010 case Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, which decided whether or not providing nonviolent aid (such as legal advice) to terrorist groups constitutes material support for terrorism, the Supreme Court ruled that even protected speech can be a criminal act if it occurs at the direction of a terrorist organization. Based on that ruling, you could be convicted of materially supporting terrorism merely for translating a document or putting an extremist video online, depending on your intentions.

How ironic that this attack on the freedom of speech is taking place under the stewardship of a President who was a constitutional law professor.

Rick Perry: We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Allow Prayer in Schools

2011-12-12T01:53:00.000-05:00

Little Green Footballs - Rick Perry: We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Allow Prayer in Schools:

But fear those Muslims and their creeping Sharia... smh.

The real creeping is being done by nutty Evangelicals who want to shove their faith down every other Americans throat.

Study Reveals the Obvious: "Muslim Homegrown Terrorism Not a Serious Threat"

2011-12-05T01:49:00.000-05:00

Prof. Risa A. Brooks's Study Reveals the Obvious: "Muslim Homegrown Terrorism Not a Serious Threat" | loonwatch.com

I'll highlight this relevant passage:

Studies of Muslim communities provide little evidence of changes or trends that suggest they are becoming any less resilient against the threat of militancy in their midst.

For example, one major effort funded by the Department of Justice, in which researchers resided for periods of two to three months in four midsized Muslim American communities, found that several features of these communities rendered them intrinsically resistant to militancy, including, in particular, the strength of their communal organizations and social networks. In addition, there were efforts expressly geared toward preventing and exposing any signs of militancy, including both outreach programs and a variety of internal monitoring, or self-policing, practices.

Despite the concerns expressed by many analysts and public officials, the evidence does not support the conclusion that Americans face a growing threat of deadly attacks plotted by Muslims in the United States.

Seen in light of the threats posed by other segments of the population, the one posed by Muslim Americans appears neither especially novel, nor severe.

But the Islamophobes won't listen to this, of course.

Muslim Americans are taking care of militancy within their own communities. There's no reason to worry America. Muslims are not out to kill you. Sure, there are some nuts out there, but the statistics demonstrate that this is not anywhere near any sort of large percentage of Muslims engaged in terrorism. Far from it. It's minuscule.

Wikileaks founder says all smartphones can be hacked with ease

2011-12-03T02:01:00.000-05:00

Think Carrier IQ is bad? Wikileaks founder says all smartphones can be hacked with ease

The common response to this problem is "I don't have anything to hide."

Oh yes you do.

We all have skeletons in our closets. We all have things we hope people won't find out about.

The people who are using these powers may eventually abuse this power. It's a very scary thing to imagine.

Law enforcement and government can use these powers to hack into your email or texts or documents to find out your secrets and use them against you.

Don't think it can happen to you? Don't think you have anything to hide?

You'll be sorry if you think that way.

This is a very complacent way of thinking. We as citizens need to ensure that our governments are not out there spying on us, finding out our darkest secrets in order to possibly use them against us.

A free society does not operate this way. In a free society we should not have to fear that our government is spying on us.

Sadly though, I feel most people will just shrug this off. Just look at the comments section of this article. People don't think it's a big deal or that they have anything to hide.

Free people shouldn't give up their rights so easily. Once they're gone they're much harder to get back.

Evangelical Threat?

2011-12-01T02:03:00.002-05:00

Salon.com » Are evangelicals a national security threat?

"Earlier this year, a Gallup poll illustrated just how apocryphal this story really is. It found that Muslim Americans are one of the most —if not the single most —loyal religious group to the United States."

Hmph!

Pamela Geller and the Stealth Jihad Turkey Conspiracy

2011-11-21T19:14:00.001-05:00

Little Green Footballs - Pamela Geller and the Stealth Jihad Turkey Conspiracy

Apparently Butterball Whole Turkeys are halal. That's freaking awesome.

Thanks to Pamela Geller for letting all of us Muslims who would have had to go get a turkey from a farm, cut it according to Islamic law and then prepare it, forego that difficult process and just pick up a Butterball Turkey from our local supermarket for Thanksgiving.

Pam, thank you so much. Please carry on your regularly scheduled anti-Islam bigotry.

Khalid Blankinship: Is An Islamic State Just a Form of Muslim Zionism?

2011-11-21T04:13:00.000-05:00

Question: Is An Islamic State Just a Form of Muslim Zionism?

Well, is it? Click the link to find out.

But wow, Dr. Khalid Blankinship is just a mountain of knowledge, mashallah.

But is it sufficient merely to declare that we will have a state based on the Shari`ah and everything wll be perfect? Remember, the Shari`ah of classical times was almost entirely something sought out and voluntarily conformed to, not something imposed and enforced, because, although there was some enforcement through the muhtasib, eventually, the resources and means for the kind of intrusive enforcement used by modern states did not exist. Indeed, the Shari`ah-based state as usually envisioned by its modern supporters never really existed before, and especially not as an institutional state. The problem lies in the exercise of power: Who is qualified to do it, and what means of enforcing limitation and accountability on absolute power are there?

If only the Muslim Brotherhood and other would-be Islamist groups would understand that Islam is a vehicle for salvation and not political power.

Spencer whines about media coverage of alleged Muslim terrorist

2011-11-21T04:06:00.000-05:00

New York: Misunderstander of Islam arrested in bomb plot - Jihad Watch

Robert Spencer, Director of the Muslim hate site, Jihad Watch, said the following in regards to the recent arrest of a Latino convert to Islam who is charged with terrorism:

Every other story I have seen about this arrest identifies the man who was arrested only as Jose Pimentel, an "Al-Qaeda sympathizer," as if he were a non-Muslim who somehow had gotten the idea that Al-Qaeda was great, and thought he might detonate a bomb. But actually he was Muhammad Yusuf, yet another convert to Islam who somehow misunderstood his new, peaceful religion. Yet one thing is certain in the wake of this arrest: no one will be calling for an investigation into what mosques are teaching to converts. Anderson Cooper will not be on it. Bill Maher will pass. Chris Matthews will take no notice. And no other media outlet mentions his Muslim name because they don't think it is important. He is a terrorist, but his Islamic faith is unconnected to that. Coincidental. That it likely forms his motivations and goals in this plot is not a possibility they are willing to consider.

1. Notice how Spencer automatically assumes that this guy learned to do what he did at a mosque. There's no evidence that I have read that says that this guy learned extremism at a mosque. In fact, the reports so far tend to suggest he learned his anti-American extremism online - not at a mosque.

2. "He is a terrorist..." Guilty! He's been charged for a crime, not convicted. But for someone like Spencer, due process of law is just a nuisance. I swear, this guy swears to love America, but it's fools like him who would trash the Constitution in a second to push his anti-Muslim agenda forward.

3. Spencer continuously comments upon Muslim converts who end up becoming part of terror plots. He assumes that it is Islam that is causing them to become radicalized. Certainly, it's a possibility.

However, there are somewhere between 3-7 million Muslims in the United States and only a couple of dozen Muslims have been tried/charged for terrorism crimes. Many Muslims have been charged with terrorism related crimes only to have those charges dismissed and be convicted of lesser charges like illegal immigration or some other non-lethal offense.

Yet for Spencer, he never notices the glaring elephant in the room in most if not all of these convert-becomes-terrorist cases: the alleged terrorist is almost always committing the crime because of U.S. policies overseas.

This is not an excuse, just an explanation for the motivation of the alleged perp. I, too, dislike our country's foreign policy towards many Muslim nations, but I'm not going to kill anyone over it. I, too, like these alleged terrorists, believe in Islam. Yet my Islam doesn't lead me to want to kill anyone over it. But it doesn't occur to Spencer that the "vast majority" of Muslims in the U.S. never engage in terrorism, but only a tiny percentage do.

If Islam were the problem then wouldn't we see many more Muslims engaging in terrorism?

Spencer's reply would be something like, "well, many Muslims are not practicing their faith with devotion like these terrorists do." The terrorist Muslims are the better followers of Islam in Spencer's view.

Spencer doesn't seem to know the many Muslim Americans who are devout to their religion. Who pray, give charity, fast, never tell a lie, never curse or swear or use foul language, who read the Qur'an everyday, who attend their mosques for morning and evening prayers, and who never would consider killing others to retaliate for the oppression of their religious brethren overseas.

But the converts who end up becoming terrorists, who have only an iota of knowledge of their new faith, are somehow the standard bearers of Islam for Spencer and his Islamophobic friends.

Nor does he know of the many converts who are upright and outstanding citizens of this country. Meh, it doesn't fit the Islamophobic talking points so just ignore it.

Egypt's Christians Under Attack

2011-11-21T03:42:00.000-05:00

After Egypt’s Revolution, Christians Are Living in Fear - NYTimes.com

I'm not sure enough Egyptians/Arabs/Muslims are coming out and condemning the treatment of many Coptic Christians in Egypt.

The treatment of minorities in Muslim countries demonstrates not the failure of Islam, but the failure of those claiming to be the followers of Islam.

Muslim nations will find no Divine help when they oppress the weak and helpless.

I hope and pray that the Muslims in Egypt and other Muslim countries will stand up for the minorities in their countries. Yes, you may detest what those minorities believe in or worship, but those people are under your stewardship and you will be held accountable for how you treat them.

I hope these Muslims understand that eventually.

Is America already a Sharia state?

2011-11-21T03:37:00.000-05:00

Little Green Footballs - Why Theocratic Nationalism Imbues GOP Debates: A Look at American Values

Based on recent comments coming from GOP presidential candidates like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul (whose foreign policy ideas align with my own in most cases, but whose domestic ideas I think are just simply nuts) and a Pew Global Trust survey it seems America is a Christian-first nation.

I don't think that's very surprising to most people. However, it does sort of cast a shadow of hypocrisy on those in the U.S. who fear monger about Islamic law taking over America, while simultaneously pushing a Christian agenda on the people of this nation.

I also find it funny how many Islamophobes will ask Muslim Americans to voice their allegiance for America or who question if Muslim Americans place their faith before their nationality.

The hypocrisy is just too obvious.

Stop SOPA

2011-11-18T16:03:00.002-05:00

SOPA is a bill written by and for the entertainment industry that will likely alter the Internet as we know it for the worse.

Sites could be shut down without due process. That's scary and un-American.

How to help fight it? Just go to americancensorship.org and fill out the short form to contact your representative in Congress.

Easy.

Now go do it.

TheCall: Islamophobia at its worst

2011-11-17T22:49:00.001-05:00

Jesus, Carpet Bomb My Heart: An Undercover Muslim in Detroit | Politics | Religion Dispatches

Haroon Moghul went under cover to take notes of the evangelical extravaganza known as TheCall.

What he found was scary, repulsive and saddly very well known: evangelical Christians lying about Islam to further their own foreign and domestic political agenda.

Props to Haroon for braving the nuttiness and reporting on this conference.

(In)justice in America

2011-11-17T14:00:00.001-05:00

Woman Gets Jail For Food-Stamp Fraud; Wall Street Fraudsters Get Bailouts | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

Matt Taibbi notes how a mom committed fraud to get food stamps and then got jail time even after she paid back her debts.

Corporate banks commit fraud over and over yet get slaps on the wrist. They also get government bailouts.

The system is broken.

FBI Reports Dramatic Spike in Anti-Muslim Hate Violence

2011-11-14T18:08:00.001-05:00

Mark Potok: FBI Reports Dramatic Spike in Anti-Muslim Hate Violence

Robert Spencer over at Jihad Watch is constantly complaining that Muslim Americans are trying to portray themselves as victims of hate, and then use that victimhood status to conduct their "stealth jihad" against America.

Well, maybe Spencer should take a look at this report. Muslims don't need to portray themselves as anything. The statistics are very clear: Muslims are the victims of hate.

Anti-Muslim hate crimes soared by an astounding 50% last year, skyrocketing over 2009 levels in a year marked by the vicious rhetoric of Islam-bashing politicians and activists, especially over the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" in New York City.

Although the national statistics compiled by the FBI each year are known to dramatically understate the real level of reported and unreported hate crimes, they do offer telling indications of some trends. The latest statistics, showing a jump from 107 anti-Muslim hate crimes in 2009 to 160 in 2010, seem to reflect a clear rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric from groups like Stop Islamization of America. Much of that rhetoric was aimed at stopping an Islamic center in lower Manhattan...

But it was the anti-Muslim numbers that were dramatic, and they occurred in a year when many watchdog organizations, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, reported an increase in Islam-bashing rhetoric. The year 2010 saw multiple verbal attacks on planned mosques, along with several violent attacks and arsons.

It's not provable precisely how hateful rhetoric from public figures drives criminal violence. But anecdotal evidence suggests the link is a tight one. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, anti-Muslim hate violence skyrocketed some 1,600%. But then-President Bush gave several speeches that fall emphasizing that Muslims and Arabs were not our enemies -- only Al Qaeda was. Almost certainly thanks to that, anti-Muslim violence declined the following year by almost two thirds.

Oh yeah, Spencer is one of the leaders of hate that led the protests against the mosque near Ground Zero.

Pamela Geller-Robert Spencer Allies Arrested in London for Planning Attacks

2011-11-13T05:17:00.000-05:00

Little Green Footballs - Pamela Geller-Robert Spencer Allies Arrested in London for Planning Attacks

Hey look, the EDL, the friends of anti-Muslim bigots Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, were planning attacks against peaceful protestors in England.

Shouldn't be a surprise. Spencer and Geller love the EDL. The EDL likes to engage in violence against people they don't like, such as Muslims and liberals.

And that's why Spencer and Geller like them - because the EDL will do the dirty work that people like Spencer and Geller secretly wish they could do against Muslims.

Ann Coulter: Obama is a 'Marxist Muslim Atheist'

2011-11-11T15:35:00.001-05:00

Little Green Footballs - Ann Coulter: Obama is a 'Marxist Muslim Atheist'

The Republic Party is made up of some of the most bigoted and crazy people.

Ann Coulter is just spitting out gibberish here, as Charles Johnson points out.

However, the Republican base eats this illogical stuff up. They just love the juvenile name calling.

Matt Taibbi: Finally, a Judge Stands up to Wall Street

2011-11-10T15:49:00.001-05:00

Finally, a Judge Stands up to Wall Street | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

America is beginning to remind me of Gotham City in Batman Begins.

Hopefully there will be more judges acting the way the Honorable Jed Rakoff has - by not giving in to the SEC's lame and pathetic excuses for punishment against these criminal banks.

Also, this just shines the light on the disgusting practices these big banks have been involved in.

I keep hearing from big bank supporters that it was the government that was more responsible for the financial crisis than the big banks were.

Riiiiiiiight.

Was it the government that forced Citi into defrauding its clients by lying to them and then betting against their investments???

Of course not. That's why this whole situation is surreal. The blame is so obvious here that it's unbelievable that there are people out there who are defending these big banks after what they have done to nearly destroy our economy.

We have rampant corruption in America right now, as Matt Taibbi notes in this article. It's on every level of the financial sector and it even extends to the media where "journalists" are covering the butts of these big banks by trying to deflect valid criticism of the practices of these big banks.

Something has to change otherwise we risk another catastrophic financial meltdown in the very near future.

I mean, if the SEC has been constantly charging the same wing of Citi for crime after crime then what is there to prevent another mega fraud scheme that could tear down the entire economy again?

It's not the SEC, that's for damn sure.

God help us all.

Why Samsung pisses me off

2011-11-08T23:18:00.001-05:00

Gingerbread Rolling out for Sprint's Samsung Epic 4G Tomorrow (Nov. 9) http://phandroid.com/?p=71858

I had a Samsung Captivate once upon a time. I really liked. It was my second Android phone ever (flirted with Verizon and a Droid Eris but returned it).

It came with 2.1 Eclair. And it took over 8 months for it to finally get 2.2 Froyo.

That pissed me off. I didn't wait eight months to get Froyo. I waited around four months. Instead I used my wife's upgrade and got an Atrix, which has been nothing short of amazing.

A friend of mine who is also on AT&T wanted an Android phone and wanted to get the new Samsung Skyrocket. I told him the specs on the phone were rock solid, but that Samsung was terrible with its updates. That I couldn't trust Samsung with updating its phones with the latest Android OS.

It shouldn't take a phone manufacturer like Samsung more than 3-4 months to get the latest OS for its newly released phone. Motorola got me the 2.3 Gingerbread update in under 4 months for my Atrix. I appreciated the relatively quick upgrade to my new phone.

For owners of the Galaxy S phones, I feel your pain and can only hope you guys get 2.3 very soon.

Why the new Nook Tablet won't do well

2011-11-07T16:47:00.000-05:00

Barnes & Noble announces $250 Nook Tablet

Two main reasons this new tablet by Barnes & Noble will not do well.

1. No camera(s). People want cameras on there tablets. It's very simple. Sure, the new display is fantastic looking, and the processor speed is a huge boost. But no camera? At all? One thing I know from being married, girls love cameras. No camera, no big sales for Barnes & Noble.

2. Price. Sure, $250 is relatively cheap for a quality tablet like the new Nook, however, consumers want something cheaper than an iPad that can do most of what the iPad can do. There's no camera on the new Nook and the price is $250, which doesn't give it the same sizzle as Amazon' Kindle Fire priced at $199. Price matters a lot, especially with people saving their money in this economy.

If Barnes & Noble had just slapped on a (decent 3 MP) camera on to this tablet and put the price at $199, it would've done awesome sales wise. However, they didn't and based on those two major factors I seriously doubt seeing this tablet doing well. It's unfortunate because it seems they made a quality device here.

Taibbi on Bloomberg and other Wall Street defenders

2011-11-07T01:56:00.000-05:00

One Last Note on Michael Bloomberg | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone:

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone has refused to hold back on the criticism of Wall Street banks and how they led our economy into the abyss.

"So these people created giant masses of these defective loans, pumped the global system full of toxic debt, asked for the biggest government handout in history when it all went wrong, then walked away in the end even richer than before, forcing the rest of us to deal with their messes.

It baffles me that people can look at that behavior and still think it’s individuals in foreclosure who need to be lectured about “personal responsibility.”"

Sure, many home owners took on bad loans, but as Taibbi points out, those home owners are now in foreclosure.

What punishment have the banks that lent out those crappy loans received? In the words of Randy Moss, straight cash, homey.

Robert Spencer's Islamophobia mirrors Nazi propaganda against Jews

2011-11-04T04:21:00.001-04:00

Robert Spencer and Julius Streicher, Islamophobia and Anti-semitism: Same Message, Different Minority

Take a look at the evidence presented. Spencer's Islamophobic comments are placed next to the anti-Semitic words of a Nazi.

The similarities are pretty scary.

For U.S. Muslims, Work-Time Prayer a Struggle

2011-11-03T22:59:00.001-04:00

For U.S. Muslims, Work-Time Prayer a Struggle

I am very grateful that my supervisors have always allowed me time to make my prayers while at work. One of my supervisors (a Jewish woman) even let me pray in her own office, which was super nice of her. God bless her.

As for these Somali employees at Hertz, there is no reason they should have been taking more than ten minutes to pray their prayers. I understand many Muslims want to keep their sunnah prayers, but in the work place this is not realistic. The obligatory is what should be done, and if there is spare time then sure, go ahead and pray your sunnah prayers as well.

But don't screw over your employer who was generous enough to allow you time to pray by going over the allotted time they gave to you. This is not Islamic in any way at all.

Greenwald: The human toll of the U.S. drone campaign

2011-11-03T01:23:00.001-04:00

The human toll of the U.S. drone campaign - Salon.com

Glenn Greenwald writes a very sad and depressing story about the U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan.

Our government is killing innocent people in the name of security and our media is not reporting these crimes.

And then we wonder why they hate us.

Certain professional Islamophobes pontificate that it is Islam, the religion itself, that leads certain Muslims to take up arms and concoct plots to harm Americans.

No, it's not Islam. It is invasion, occupation, drones, murder, and state terrorism that lead certain Muslims to want to kill Americans.

Terrorism breeds terrorism. It's as simple as that.

Consumers still don't care about 3DTV, study finds

2011-11-02T17:40:00.000-04:00

Consumers still don't care about 3DTV, study finds

This is something I have thought to myself over and over: not many people give a hoot about 3D TV.

I personally hate it at the movies, and I would hate it even more at home knowing I would have to wear special 3D glasses just to watch a regular show or sporting event.

Of course there is now new 3D technology that allows you to watch 3D TV without any glasses at all. I haven't yet seen this in person, but I still very much doubt that I will be impressed.

It is too much of a gimmick at this point. Manufacturers will have a lot of work cut out for them to make 3D something that is appealing to the mainstream. The technology is still too choppy and inconvenient, plus there is barely any 3D TV available at all.

I'm hopeful that in the coming years 3D technology can improve and make television and movie viewing much more enjoyable without the costs to convenience and comfortability.

Google rolls out new look for Gmail: streamlined conversation view, high-res themes, better search

2011-11-01T22:56:00.000-04:00

Google rolls out new look for Gmail: streamlined conversation view, high-res themes, better search -- Engadget:

I decided to check out the new Gmail. At the bottom of my Gmail screen was a notification asking me to try it out. So I did.

I like what I see, although I was already using the preview theme of the new Gmail on the old Gmail (get that?). I haven't given it a full review yet, but so far so good.

Broward GOP Treats Muslims Worse Than Other Republicans

2011-10-28T17:04:00.000-04:00

Broward GOP Treats Muslims Worse Than Other Republicans | loonwatch.com

Whenever I read stories like this I can't help but wonder how my late father would be treated by his fellow Republicans because of his faith.

Spencer crying about takeover of U.S. courts by Islamic Law

2011-10-28T16:49:00.000-04:00

Tampa: Use of Islamic law OK in civil case

Man, Robert Spencer sure does know how to crank up the scare machine. There's a civil case going on in Tampa, FL right now where the two Muslim parties seem to have agreed to arbitrate their dispute under Islamic law (as they understand it). Spencer sees it as an opportunity for Sharia or Islamic law to take over America:

Yes, it's a civil case. Still, it opens the door farther to the use of a legal system that contains coercive and oppressive elements that infringe upon the rights of women and non-Muslims, and restrict the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience.

How does it open such a door? Spencer doesn't say. Why? Because he has know idea what he is talking about. He's pretty good at playing the charade of an "expert on Islam," but when it comes to his own country's legal system he is sadly unable to mask his ignorance of the subject.

The article he posts has a notable quote from one of the attorneys involved in the case Spencer is so freaked out about:

The uproar over the ruling went overboard, said Lee Segal, a Clearwater attorney representing the ousted trustees. He said the ruling follows established legal precedent and does not mean Nielsen is allowing Islamic law to trump U.S. law.

"When the parties agree (before the trial that) they are bound to Islamic law, they can be bound to Islamic law," Segal said. "As long as what you are agreeing to doesn't violate the constitution of the United States, you can apply any type of law."

But he's just a lawyer, what the heck does he know anyway.

Pooping on Pam Geller's Hate Party

2011-10-28T02:28:00.000-04:00

I'm very proud of CAIR-Florida for leading the charge against the scum of humanity known as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and their anti-Muslim organization, Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), and dissuading Florida elected officials from sharing the stage with these bigots.

These hate mongers were hoping to have Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Florida Senator Marco Rubio attend next week's Florida Tea Party conference alongside them.

Now they are not, thanks in large part to CAIR-Florida leading the effort to call attention to the type of deranged individuals that would be sharing the stage with them at this conference.

Learning Linux: Installing Ubuntu on my old PC

2011-10-28T02:17:00.000-04:00

I have this old Gateway computer in my home that has been collecting dust. I somehow came across an article online discussing Linux. I got curious about what Linux was since I had heard about it so much in offhand comments I read before. After reading about Linux I thought of my old Gateway computer and realized I had an opportunity to try Linux out.

Linux is an operating system like Windows or OS X. Apparently there are different types of Linux OS's out there, but the most popular seems to be Ubuntu (think of it as Windows and Mac's cousin).

What's cool about Linux/Ubuntu? It's open source (like Android), which means it's free and you can do whatever you want to it that you can think of. Customizing it, theming it, and adding a plethora of applications to enhance your new OS.

It runs a bit laggy because my Gateway computer is about 8-9 years old. However, the layout and design of Ubuntu is impressively simple and visually pleasing. I'm enjoying it even as I run my MacBook next to it.

I find Ubuntu intuitively easy, even as I come from a Mac background. Ubuntu shares many of the benefits of Mac and Windows, while remaining relatively simple to use.

Trying out new things has become a hobby of mine lately. Definitely enjoying the experience so far. I'll update if I experience any problems or discover something worthy of note.

Expanding Scope

2011-10-28T02:07:00.000-04:00

Over the last few months I have become more and more involved in tech news, especially where Android (and smartphones) is concerned. For that reason I am going to slightly alter the scope of this blog to include news and analysis of technology as it relates to smartphones and related matters.

Most of my previous writing and posts have been about much more serious things, such as Islamic law, Islamophobia, foreign policy, etc. This new area of blogging I think will draw a greater audience and allow me the opportunity to be relieved from writing and posting about super serious matters (hence, giving me a breather).

In any case, my blogging has become very slow over the last three years, mainly due to law school, but I hope to pick it up soon.

Those of you who follow my blog, thank you for always checking in. I appreciate it a great deal.

Matt Taibbi on why protestors are against Wall Street

2011-10-26T02:50:00.001-04:00

Rolling Stone Mobile - Politics - Politics: OWS's Beef: Wall Street Isn't Winning - It's Cheating

Just a brilliantly explained article by Taibbi describing that it is corruption and cheating that has protestors enraged, not jealousy of the rich.

Cyanogen Mod

2011-10-18T01:08:00.001-04:00

I hacked my Motorola Atrix to run Cyanogen Mod 7.1 beta. Its been a great update and I hope the official release is even better. So far no issues with lag, force closing, or anything else. Just sweet gingerbread. Thanks to the Atrix dev team that worked on this.

Apple's Strategy with the New iPhone 4s

2011-10-04T17:11:00.000-04:00

Tech geeks and smart phone lovers were in high anticipation for the release of Apple's new iPhone. Unfortunately for many of these tech enthusiasts all the wait and anticipation ended with a relative thud as Apple did not unveil a brand new, completely redesigned iPhone 5, but a simpler upgrade of the already existing iPhone 4 - now called the iPhone 4s.

But as much as the tech world was disappointed by the arrival of an iPhone that was not as new and updated as they hoped, Apple seems to be focused squarely on one thing: market share.

I, too, was disappointed about this iPhone, even when I'm an Android lover, but I understood immediately what Apple's game plan was. Apple unveiled three smartphones today, not just one. Sure, the 3gs and the original iPhone 4 are old, but they serve Apple's purpose of taking on Android in the market share realm.

Android has long been able to dominate the cheap smart phone category as it unveils lower budget smartphones for those unable or unwilling to pay a couple hundred bucks or more for a high end device. But now, Apple has made the 3gs free on a two-year contract and the iPhone 4, which is still a great smart phone by any stretch, available for $99 on a two-year contract.

Google and its OEMs better be afraid because with the release of cheaper iPhones for the public, and now on three carriers with the addition of Sprint, Apple is poised to take a huge chunk of the market share that Android seemed to take for granted for the last few years.

Sure, Apple didn't blow the door off the hinges today with the unveiling of the 4s, but its strategy is very clear - it is making its iPhone line of products more available to the public. The bottom line is that Apple will sell a ton of iPhones now to many new customers who probably didn't think they could afford one. Google should be worried.

Krugman on 9-11 Exploitation

2011-09-12T01:13:00.001-04:00

The Years of Shame - NYTimes.com

Couldn't say it any better. Krugman summarizes in a few words how cowardice and fear were used by a corrupt few to lead our nation to war.

The problem with Jihad Watch

2011-08-17T16:39:00.002-04:00

The problem with Jihad Watch | loonwatch.com

Good article summarizing the implicit and sometimes explicit anti-Muslim hatred on Jihad Watch.

Spencer might claim not to hate all Muslims, but his work belies that vacuous claim. Jihad Watch essentalises Muslims on a daily basis, as if they were a monolithic whole acting in unison for the pursuit of an unspoken grand agenda. Every action performed by a Muslim, no matter what their actual motivation, is immediately ascribed to Islam. It is as if no Muslim ever acts without reference to their Islamic identity.

Steve Lehto: 'Sharia Law' Laws

2011-08-16T07:05:00.000-04:00

Steve Lehto: 'Sharia Law' Laws

Excellent and concise article on the idiocy of the anti-Sharia movement being led by Pam Geller and Robert Spencer, among others.

It would be nice if Spencer and Geller actually knew something about the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they run around stoking fear and hatred against Muslims with lies and half-truths.

Spencer debates fool; avoids LW's Danios like the plague

2011-08-13T16:06:00.001-04:00

Zayed, deceit, and body language - Jihad Watch

Why is Robert Spencer too cowardly to debate Danios of Loonwatch?

He will debate this fool, Zayed, but dodges Danios like the plague. I smell something. And it smells like chicken.

Danios has repeatedly told Spencer he would debate him, but Spencer just makes excuses. I think the bigot knows deep down he will be disposed of like the trash that he is.

House panel approves broadened ISP snooping bill

2011-07-31T00:10:00.000-04:00

House panel approves broadened ISP snooping bill | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

Obama has adopted another of Bush's policies: expanding surveillance of Americans under the guise of security and aiding law enforcement.

It represents "a data bank of every digital act by every American" that would "let us find out where every single American visited Web sites," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, who led Democratic opposition to the bill.

Here's to hoping the Senate kills this bill. Or even the House, if Tea Party members realize this is an expansion of government that intrudes upon the liberties of ordinary citizens.

Norwegian terrorist rumored to be anti-Muslim blogger; featured on Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs

2011-07-23T13:50:00.004-04:00

Breivik, Rightist Mass Murderer, ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Contributor « Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Apparently the Norwegian terrorist was a writer whose work was featured on both Atlas Shrugs and Jihad Watch. He wrote under the alias of "Fjordman."

Wow.

So I checked out JW just now and no comments by Spencer on anything related to this rumor. Geller and him must be in full blown damage control right now. Spencer's most recent posting of Fjordman was February of this year.

If this does check out, will Spencer be issuing any sort of apology? Doubt it. He's got way too much pride to ever admit defeat.

In any case, if this turns out to be true, I expect Spencer and Geller to be mentioned in the future as the "Norwegian terrorism linked-Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller."

Turns out that Southern Poverty Law Center report naming SIOA a hate group wasn't so crazy after all, eh Robert?

*****Update*****

Geller is saying that Fjordman isn't the terrorist. She says she has met Fjordman and Fjordman is still currently writing online right now.

*****Update 2*****

Little Green Footballs' Charles Johnson is saying that the news that Breivik is Fjordman is incorrect.

My apologies to Geller and Spencer. They did not post the terrorist's articles on their web sites. He was just an ardent admirer of their anti-Muslim bigotry. Kudos to you guys for being the inspiration for a man who just went on a killing spree. But of course, he must have just been a Misunderstander of Anti-Muslim Bigotry, right?

Taibbi: Corporate Tax Holiday in Debt Ceiling Deal: Where's the Uproar?

2011-07-21T14:57:00.001-04:00

Corporate Tax Holiday in Debt Ceiling Deal: Where's the Uproar? | Rolling Stone Politics | Taibblog | Matt Taibbi on Politics and the Economy

Our country is being destroyed.

As it is, leading members of the Senate are seriously considering giving the most profitable companies in the world a total tax holiday as a reward for their last seven years of systematic tax avoidance. Hundreds of billions of potential tax dollars would disappear from the Treasury. And there isn’t a peep from anyone, anywhere, on this issue.We’re seriously talking about defaulting on our debt, and cutting Medicare and Social Security, so that Google can keep paying its current 2.4 percent effective tax rate and GE, a company that received a $140 billion bailout en route to worldwide 2010 profits of $14 billion, can not only keep paying no taxes at all , but receive a $3.2 billion taxcredit from the federal government. And nobody appears to give a shit. What the hell is wrong with people? Have we all lost our minds?

Greenwald: Barack Obama is gutting the core principles of the Democratic party

2011-07-21T14:54:00.001-04:00

Barack Obama is gutting the core principles of the Democratic party | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Barack Obama is worse than George W. Bush. Well, unless you're one of the super rich or a corporation. Then Obama is just dandy.

"The same Democratic president who supported the transfer of $700bn to bail out Wall Street banks, who earlier this year signed an extension of Bush's massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and who has escalated America's bankruptcy-inducing posture of Endless War, is now trying to reduce the debt by cutting benefits for America's most vulnerable – at the exact time that economic insecurity and income inequality are at all-time highs."

Pakistanis Need to Get Over India

2011-07-21T02:54:00.000-04:00

Why My Father Hated India - WSJ.com

Pakistan is one of the most corrupt countries on Earth. One of the greatest reasons for its continual descent into oblivion is due to the populations undying love of hating India. Pakistanis love cricket, chai, and hating India. It's a national past time for many Pakistanis. It needs to stop.

India is a regional super power and is on the verge of becoming one of the great economic powers in the world. Pakistan, meanwhile, is rotting from within. Corruption exists all over the country. Religious fanaticism has been allowed to take over the religious discourse within the nation. The obsession with India is a large reason why Pakistan continues to stagnate. Pakistanis need to forget about India, and instead focus on rooting out corruption within their country, evicting the military as a political player, and stamp out the religious extremism.

As the child of parents who were a part of the partition in 1947, as a fellow Muslim, and as a student of history, I can only pray that Pakistanis can solve these issues in my lifetime. But being the realist I am, I see only the continued rotting of Pakistan.

Robert Spencer doesn't understand the Constitution

2011-07-15T13:29:00.001-04:00

Hamas-linked CAIR lies about anti-Sharia initiatives to raise funds - Jihad Watch

Spencer says the following in his rant against CAIR's fundraising efforts:

Non-Muslims want to outlaw the elements of Sharia that interfere with Constitutionally protected freedoms, not Islam as an individual religious practice. These anti-Sharia measures are aimed at political Islam, an authoritarian ideology at variance with the Constitution in numerous particulars: Sharia denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. That is what people want to restrict, and the elements of Sharia that contradict Constitutional freedoms are all they want to restrict.

First, there are no elements of Sharia that currently interfere with constitutionally protected freedoms. Read that carefully. I don't mean that there are not elements of Sharia that would deny equal rights as we know them. However, no such laws are currently in effect in the United States, and it is highly delusional to think that Islamic law would ever exist in America (especially where right wing Christians have been trying for decades to pass pro-Christian legislation and have failed time and again) . So again, there are no elements of Sharia that interfere with constitutionally protected freedoms. Spencer is fear-mongering.

Second, Sharia is a religious law. Just like the laws that Christians and Jews and others adhere to. Under religious laws, usually certain groups of people and practices are outlawed as heretical or deviant. If certain Christians in America had their way, there would be many groups of people denied equality before the law. And the threat of those Christians being successful is far more likely than any Muslims who would be attempting to do something similar. If Spencer is so concerned about threats on our freedom, then why isn't he speaking out against certain Christian groups that are actively anti-gay rights or who think women should be relegated to the kitchen? #hypocrisy

Third, our Constitution already cuts off any law that contradicts the Constitution. Spencer is an imbecile for even arguing this. He wants to "restrict" something that doesn't exist. Nowhere in the United States is Sharia the law of any state nor has it been held constitutional where it has contradicted the Constitution. That's precisely what the Constitution does - it bars any law that would contradict it. There's no need to restrict Sharia... because our Constitution and courts already do. Spencer doesn't seem to trust our Constitution and court system.

This man actually thinks that Sharia is a threat to our constitutional freedoms when Christians have failed time and again for decades to change laws to their liking. What chance would any Muslims have of accomplishing something similar when they represent 2% of the entire American population? That tells you all you need to know about the legitimacy of what Spencer is claiming. It's fear-mongering, plain and simple.

Reports: Obama pushing for cuts to Social Security, Medicare

2011-07-09T03:21:00.001-04:00

Reports: Obama pushing for cuts to Social Security, Medicare - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

There is no two party system. There is one party, bought and paid for by Wall Street and other wealthy interests. The greatest issue is awakening our citizenry from apathy and ignorance. As long as we play the game of the rich, we will lose our rights and entitlements. The battle for Medicare and social security is a major battle for the soul of this country. And I'm not optimistic.

Why they hate us...

2011-07-07T06:02:00.001-04:00

Afghan civilians killed in NATO strike - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English

Children being killed. For what? I really don't know, but this needs to stop.

My Fellow American

2011-06-07T14:15:00.000-04:00

My Fellow American

Great new web site. Will you take the pledge?

My Fellow American is an online film and social media project that calls upon concerned Americans to pledge and spread a message that Muslims are our fellow Americans. It asks people of other backgrounds to pledge, and share a real life story about a Muslim friend, neighbor, or colleague that they admire. Using the power of social media, My Fellow American seeks to change the narrative of Muslims as the other, to Muslims as our fellow Americans.

Most Americans have never met an American Muslim. Many only know Muslims through the way they are portrayed in the media. American Muslims are so often vilified as “the other” that it is possible not to recognize that most were born in the U.S. Or that those who immigrated here came seeking the same freedoms and opportunities that have always attracted people to America.

Muslims are our fellow Americans, who today face threats to their civil rights and even their personal safety because of the fearful and often hateful rhetoric that would not be tolerated were it uttered about any other minority group.

Help the Mothers of the Congo: A Deadly Mother's Day Secret

2011-05-08T19:57:00.000-04:00

Javier Bardem: A Deadly Mother's Day Secret

The conflict in the Congo has been going on for decades. Do what you can to help these women in the Congo to stop the use of conflict minerals. Write to your local congressman or congresswoman or senator. Also see: raisehopeforcongo.org.

Jewish groups wisen up to anti-Sharia laws

2011-05-07T14:16:00.001-04:00

Jews and Muslims united for sharia? - Salon.com Mobile

These proposed anti-Sharia laws will not only affect Muslims, but also other religious groups as well. It's good to see Jewish groups realizing how repulsive and unconstitutional these laws are.

Why Zionists promote anti-Muslim law enforcement trainings

2011-04-25T20:43:00.001-04:00

Mondoweiss » Why Zionists promote anti-Muslim law enforcement trainings

This is a major problem in training our law enforcement against real threats against our country's security. Its a shame that politics is allowed to enter into this issue.

By the Numbers: New Poll Says Capitalism and Christianity Are Incompatible

2011-04-21T22:15:00.000-04:00

By the Numbers: New Poll Says Capitalism and Christianity Are Incompatible | Religion Dispatches

Tea Partiers more likely to think that capitalism is compatible with Christianity. Everyone else? Not so much.

Missouri Legislator Still Can't Explain Why He Wants to Ban Sharia

2011-04-20T13:08:00.000-04:00

Missouri Legislator Still Can't Explain Why He Wants to Ban Sharia | Mother Jones

They are wasting the time and resources of the state for a witch hunt when there are no witches. The GOP is being dominated by fools and bigots. My late father would have no place in the currently structured Republican Party. They'd figure him to be a stealth jihadi looking to infiltrate their party.

Top ‘U.S.’ Corporations Outsourced More Than 2.4 Million American Jobs Over The Last Decade

2011-04-19T18:22:00.000-04:00

ThinkProgress » CHART: Top ‘U.S.’ Corporations Outsourced More Than 2.4 Million American Jobs Over The Last Decade

"The Wall Street Journal reports today that Corporate America certainly isn’t doing its part to help bring America out of its economic malaise. The paper surveyed employment data by some of the nation’s largest corporations — General Electric, Caterpillar, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Chevron, Cisco, Intel, Stanley Works, Merck, United Technologies, and Oracle — and found that they cut their workforces by 2.9 million people over the last decade while hiring 2.4 million people overseas."

King Politicizes “Unindicted Co-Conspirator” Muslim Brotherhood Conspiracy Theory

2011-04-19T01:20:00.001-04:00

King Politicizes “Unindicted Co-Conspirator” Muslim Brotherhood Conspiracy Theory | Religion Dispatches

I think Posner misses the mark in her critique of King's conspiracy theory. The gist of what King is getting at is why didn't the DOJ prosecute CAIR, ISNA and other unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case. Posner says they weren't prosecuted because unindicted means there wasn't enough evidence to try them. However, King and other right wingers assert that higher ups in the DOJ blocked the prosecution of these Muslim organizations - not because they lacked evidence - but because it was going to cause trouble with the Muslim community.

Glenn Greenwald has lambasted reporters who use anonymous officials to write stories. I won't be able to take these right wing stories as credible (and no one else should either) until one of these anonymous sources actually comes out and shows us the evidence. They claim these Muslim orgs supported aid to Hamas, which is a federal crime. They also argue that some current Muslim charities are carrying out the work of Holy Land in aiding Hamas with Muslim American donations.

Well, that's great, but there's no evidence to back these claims up. This just sounds like a ploy to smear these organizations in public without offering any proof of wrongdoing.

Chuck Norris warns of Sharia threat

2011-04-18T17:01:00.000-04:00

Tim Murphy | Mother Jones

You can't make this stuff up. Chuck Norris (yea, the Chuck Norris) is warning Americans of creeping Sharia. Meanwhile, right wing Christians are working everyday to implement their views of Christianity on the rest of this country. Go figure.

King Demands Answers from Holder on Decision Not to Prosecute CAIR, its Co-Founder, and other Unindicted Co-Conspirators in Holy Land Foundation Case | The House Committee on Homeland Security

2011-04-18T16:58:00.000-04:00

King Demands Answers from Holder on Decision Not to Prosecute CAIR, its Co-Founder, and other Unindicted Co-Conspirators in Holy Land Foundation Case | The House Committee on Homeland Security

Rep. Peter King wants the DOJ to prosecute CAIR and other Muslim organizations for allegedly fundraising for Hamas. I think the only problem King will face is that these organizations never did that. Hard to prove your case when you don't have any evidence of wrongdoing.

“Bullies Hang Somali Boy in Bathroom Stall in Kentucky” | The Crescent Post

2011-04-18T02:13:00.001-04:00

VIDEO: “Bullies Hang Somali Boy in Bathroom Stall in Kentucky” | The Crescent Post

Islamophobia? Sad story.

Pakistani Muslim scholars condemn suicide bombers

2011-04-17T15:56:00.001-04:00

Pakistan Newspaper: “Suicide attackers are enemies of Islam” | The Crescent Post

Krugman: Ryan's budget plan is ludicrous

2011-04-11T00:24:00.001-04:00

NYT: Ludicrous and Cruel

Muslim community letter to Miami Herald

2011-04-09T15:16:00.001-04:00

Don’t give in to Muslim bashing - Letters to the Editor - MiamiHerald.com

Terry Jones is a bigoted fool. But that doesn't excuse Afghanis perpetrating violence in response to his idiocy.

Debunking Shari'a Myths

2011-04-04T22:29:00.001-04:00

Debunking the latest sharia scare - Salon.com Mobile

It would be wise if the anti-Muslim bigots understood our legal system before they ranted about the alleged threat of Shari'a creeping into our courts. In a nutshell: it can't happen!

Cyra Choudhury comments:

"If you ask the lawmakers, "Has there ever been a situation in which sharia has been applied in a way that is antithetical to our public policy?" The answer is always no. It's a fundamental misapprehension of our legal system to believe this can actually happen. People are writing on the blogosphere "Judge Nielsen is pro-sharia law, what's next? Stoning of women?! Chopping off heads?!" We have a criminal system of law in the United States. The state prosecutes criminals under state criminal law. It's never going to apply Jordanian law in the United States. That would never happen. You have to be completely ignorant to make these claims, unless you're making them opportunistically in order to fan the flames of bigotry."

Greenwald on Duties of Citizenship

2011-04-02T15:35:00.001-04:00

Citizenship duties - Salon.com Mobile

Ethical teachings in Islam insist that leadership never be given to those who desire it. It is those who are inclined to power who usually will abuse it. Our American tradition is similar: every man if given the chance would be a tyrant.

Five myths about Muslims in America - The Washington Post

2011-04-01T18:49:00.000-04:00

Five myths about Muslims in America - The Washington Post

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf describes five myths about Muslim Americans. The sad thing about this story is that Muslims have been a part of this nation since its beginnings, yet we still have to keep proving our loyalty and patriotism to fellow Americans, as well as having to disprove lies about our faith.

Salafis seek power in Egypt

2011-03-31T00:02:00.001-04:00

Salafis seek power in Egypt - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

They will prey on the poor and less educated.

Omid Safi: Is Islamic Mysticism Really Islam?

2011-03-30T17:09:00.001-04:00

Omid Safi: Is Islamic Mysticism Really Islam?

Great article on how Sufism became distanced from the Islamic tradition. Unfortunately for Muslims, many of us have been stripped of this essential element of Islamic orthodoxy. I'm grateful to be among those who have been taught and brought up on Sufism. Alhamdulillah.

U.S. doesn't count civilians killed by drones - War Room - Salon.com

2011-03-24T08:05:00.001-04:00

U.S. doesn't count civilians killed by drones - War Room - Salon.com

This is why they hate us: "Moreover, these attacks typically are in areas -- like Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan -- where it's extremely difficult for reporters to operate safely and on their own. Thanks to the work of independent researchers, we do have some information on civilians killed by drones.

The administration, of course, says that all possible steps are taken to limit civilian casualties. But it's impossible to scrutinize that claim when the government is keeping all the data secret."

Study: Americans Think Al Jazeera English is Unbiased… When It Has a CNN Logo Placed On It - TVNewser

2011-03-17T14:29:00.000-04:00

Study: Americans Think Al Jazeera English is Unbiased… When It Has a CNN Logo Placed On It - TVNewser

This is not good for competition in the U.S. news market. The more diversity we have, the better off we are as a nation. We are relegated to a hard right news channel (FOX), and two slightly left of center news channels (CNN and MSNBC). Adding Al Jazeera to the mix would certainly add an important viewpoint to the news we receive in America - the perspective of those who don't live here. I'm sure it would provoke discussion of real issues - and not the focus on shock news like stories on weird or heinous crimes, missing persons, etc. Hillary Clinton recently commented on this subject, pointing out that our cable news channels focus little on real news, while Al Jazeera was doing a much better job of reporting events. I couldn't agree more.

Media Matters: 80% of Mosques Radicalized Myth

2011-03-05T20:34:00.003-05:00

I wrote about this topic a year ago, but I just found this excellent piece by Media Matters about the lie that has been spread by the rightwing claiming that 80% of American mosques are radicalized or are run by radicals. It's a fabrication. It's a lie. There is no statistic to corroborate this claim.

King's Claim Is The Latest Example Of A 10-Year-Old, Unsubstantiated Smear. King's claim that "80 percent of the mosques in this country are controlled by radical Imams" is the latest example of a smear that began in 1999. The claim, which is based on a single, unsubstantiated statement by California cleric Shaykh Hisham Kabbani, has been repeated by conservatives and anti-Islam activists for more than 10 years, despite a complete lack of evidence to back it up, and Kabbani's admission that his criteria for extremism was "a focus on the Palestinian struggle."

Read the whole thing.

Crazy Tennessee state senator wants to make following Islamic law a felony

2011-02-22T23:44:00.001-05:00

Bill Ketron proposes law to make following Shariah law a felony | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

You can't make this stuff up. Has he been reading too much JihadWatch?

Thank God for the First Amendment.

Bill Maher: what's wrong with you man?

2011-02-22T14:17:00.002-05:00

It's Official: Bill Maher is a Racist | loonwatch.com

I've been watching Maher's show on HBO here and there. I generally agree with a lot of what he has to say on politics. But good God how idiotic he sounds here implying Arab men are just naturally more abusive towards women than American men. Loonwatch calls him out on his racism. The more disturbing thing was how so many in the crowd agreed with Maher by clapping after his rants. Was this just a belief that the audience held as well? That we Americans are culturally superior to those irrational Arabs? Well statistics don't really bolster that belief. America is just as bad at abusing women. I've documented this issue many times before. But Maher's points about Arab men needs serious condemnation. However, I doubt any will be forthcoming.

Why can't American journalists act more like journalists?

2011-02-14T10:33:00.001-05:00

Journalists angry over the commission of journalism - Salon.com Mobile

Greenwald points out the obvious truth: our journalists aren't so good at their job. They would rather hob nob with political elites than expose them for their corruption and risk losing out on the perks they gain from befriending them. It's easy to call Hosni Mubarak a liar than call, say, George Bush one. There's no real risk in doing so in Mubarak's case.

Haroon Moghul on the Muslim Brotherhood

2011-02-06T00:17:00.001-05:00

Moghul describes how practically futile and destructive it would be for the Muslim Brotherhood to turn on Israel.

5 Reasons the Muslim Brotherhood Won’t Turn On Israel | Politics | Religion Dispatches

Study Shows that American Mosques are a Counter to Terrorism

2010-08-08T23:07:00.005-04:00

Proof that American mosques are serving as a deterrent to extremism. This only shows that those claiming that 80% of American mosques are radical, or whatever, are wrong - or at the very least have no evidence (other than hearsay) to back up their assertions.

From Thinkprogress.org:

In recent weeks, conservatives who have been arguing against the construction of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero have been claiming that such a building would be “offensive” to the memory of the 9/11 victims. They have also tried to imply that this mosque would embolden terrorists, with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich saying:
The idea of a 13-story building set up by a group many of whom, frankly, are very hostile to our civilization — and I’m talking now about the people who organized this, many of whom are apologists for sharia, which is a form of law that I think we cannot allow in this country, period.
However, today the New York Times highlights an academic study that concludes the opposite of what Gingrich and his uninformed ilk are claiming, finding that many mosques deter terrorism:
A two-year study by a group of academics on American Muslims and terrorism concluded that contemporary mosques are actually a deterrent to the spread of militant Islam and terrorism. The study was conducted by professors with Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy and the University of North Carolina. It disclosed that many mosque leaders had put significant effort into countering extremism by building youth programs, sponsoring antiviolence forums and scrutinizing teachers and texts.
“Our research suggests that initiatives that treat Muslim-Americans as part of the solutionto this problem are far more likely to be successful,” said David Schanzer, one of the authors of the study. Co-author David Kurzman added, “Muslim-American communities have been active in preventing radicalization. This is one reason that Muslim-American terrorism has resulted in fewer than three dozen of the 136,000 murders committed in the United States since 9/11.”
The Center for American Progress recently held an event on identifying, preventing, and responding to domestic terrorism, with Schanzer and other experts. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) was the keynote speaker, and he pointed to the “critical role Muslims in America have played and must continue to play in fighting domestic violent extremism.” For example, as ThinkProgress highlighted, Aliou Niasse, a Senagalese Muslim immigrant who works as a vendor in Times Square, was the first to bring the smoking car that was part of the failed Times Square bombing plot to the police’s attention.
Unfortunately, the battle at Ground Zero is playing out across the country. In Murfreesboro, Tennessee, protesters are similarly disparaging a proposed mosque. In June, Lou Ann Zelenik — a Republican candidate for Congress in that area — claimed the mosque was “designed to fracture the moral and political foundation of Middle Tennessee.” Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey (R), who is running for governor, wondered whether Islam is a “cult” and said Muslims “crossed a line when they start trying to bring Sharia Law into the state of Tennessee.”
Additionally, supporters of these Islamic centers are not the ones who are being extremists — it’s the opponents who are ramping up. Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), run by self-described “anti-jihadist” and right-wing blogger Pamela Geller — has launched a series of bus ads reading, “Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get answers!” in major cities. Opponents of a planned mosque in southern California have ominously warned of a “confrontational atmosphere” if the construction plans move forward:
The pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, just across a cul-de-sac from the site of the mosque, said the two religions “mix like oil and water” and predicted a “confrontational atmosphere” if the project moves forward.
“The Islamic foothold is not strong here, and we really don’t want to see their influence spread,” said Pastor Bill Rench.
“There is a concern with all the rumors you hear about sleeper cells and all that. Are we supposed to be complacent just because these people say it’s a religion of peace? Many others have said the same thing,” he said.
On Friday, the Connecticut Post reported that approximately “a dozen right-wing Christians, carrying placards and yelling ‘Islam is a lie,’” confronted Muslim worshippers outside a mosque. Using a bullhorn, the protesters yelled “Jesus hates Muslims,” and one protester “shoved a placard at a group of young children leaving the mosque.”

Why They Hate Us: Killing Civilians Leads to Insurgent Attacks in Afghanistan

2010-07-26T11:52:00.003-04:00

From the BBC:

Attempts to reduce civilian casualties caused by US-led forces in Afghanistan have led to a decline in insurgent attacks in some areas, a report says.

The document by America's National Bureau for Economic Research analysed incidents involving more than 4,000 civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

The curbs on aerial bombing and mortar fire were introduced last year by the recently sacked Gen Stanley McChrystal.

The general ended his army career at a ceremony in Washington on Friday.
Meanwhile, military officials confirmed on Saturday that four US personnel were killed in southern Afghanistan - continuing a recent upsurge in violence there.

Gen McChrystal was fired from his job as commander of multinational forces in Afghanistan by US President Barack Obama last month over a magazine interview in which he made disparaging remarks about the president and senior colleagues.

In an emotional farewell speech at Fort McNair parade ground, Gen McChrystal said his service had not ended as he had hoped, but he regretted few decisions he had made on the battlefield and was optimistic about his future.

Gen McChrystal, his wife Annie by his side, was given full military honours including a 17-gun salute.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates paid tribute to him, saying: "Over the past decade, arguably no single American has inflicted more fear, more loss of freedom and more loss of life on our country's most vicious and violent enemies than Stan McChrystal."

Gen McChrystal's successor, Gen David Petraeus, is reportedly considering loosening the restrictions on international forces.
'Primary driver'
The authors of the report by the Massachusetts-based National Bureau of Economic Research say they analysed 15 months of data on military clashes and incidents totalling more than 4,000 civilian deaths in a number of Afghan regions in the period ending on 1 April.

They say that in areas where two civilians were killed or injured by Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), there were on average an extra six violent incidents between insurgents and US-led troops in the following six weeks.

The report concludes that civilian deaths frequently motivate villagers to join the ranks of insurgents.

"In Afghanistan, when Isaf units kill civilians, this increases the number of willing combatants, leading to an increase in insurgent attacks."

"Local exposure to violence from Isaf appears to be the primary driver of this effect."

The curbs were imposed by Gen McChrystal in an effort to win more Afghan hearts and minds.

Those rules ban air and mortar strikes on houses unless allied troops are in immediate danger.

But some soldiers have complained that the restrictions make their jobs more dangerous.

So prior to McChrystal's new rule being implemented, our military could bomb houses without impunity?

"Ground Zero" Mosque

2010-07-22T07:28:00.003-04:00

A fantastic article by Robert Wright at the New York Times on the controversy surrounding the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero:

Just to show you how naïve I am: When I first heard about the plan to build a mosque and community center two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks, I didn’t envision any real opposition to it.
Sure, I can understand how some people traumatized by 9/11 — firefighters who survived it, or people whose loved ones didn’t — might not like the idea. But I’d have thought that opinion leaders of all ideological stripes could reach consensus by applying a basic rule of thumb: Just ask, “What would Osama bin Laden want?” and then do the opposite.
Bin Laden would love to be able to say that in America you can build a church or synagogue anywhere you want, but not a mosque. That fits perfectly with his recruiting pitch — that America has declared war on Islam. And bin Laden would thrill to the claim that a mosque near ground zero dishonors the victims of 9/11, because the unspoken premise is that the attacks really were, as he claims, a valid expression of Islam.

Apparently I was wrong. Two New York politicians — Representative Peter King and Rick Lazio, a candidate for governor — are ginning up opposition to the project, as is the Weekly Standard.
Their strategy is to ask dark questions about the motivations behind the project (known as Park51 because of its address on Park Place). Those motivations reside in an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement, the project’s co-sponsors. So far as I can tell, Rauf is a good person who genuinely wants to build a more peaceful world. (I met him briefly last year at a venue where we had both been asked to give talks about compassion — his from an Islamic perspective, mine from a secular perspective. Here’s the talk he gave.)
But if you think Rauf’s good intentions are going to keep him safe from the Weekly Standard, you underestimate that magazine’s creative powers. Its latest issue features an article about Park51 chock full of angles that never would have occurred to me if some magazine had asked me to write an assessment of the project’s ideological underpinnings. For example: Rauf’s wife, who often speaks in support of the project and during one talk reflected proudly on her Islamic heritage, “failed to mention another feature of her background: She is the niece of Dr. Farooq Khan, formerly a leader of the Westbury Mosque on Long Island, which is a center for Islamic radicals and links on its Web site to the paramilitary Islamic Circle of North America (I.C.N.A.), the front on American soil for the Pakistani jihadist Jamaat e-Islami.”
Got that? Rauf’s wife has an uncle who used to be “a leader” of a mosque that now has a Web site that links to the Web site of an allegedly radical organization. (I’ll get back to the claim that the Westbury Mosque is itself a “center for Islamic radicals.”)
The odd thing is that the author of this piece, Stephen Schwartz, is a self-described neoconservative whose parents were, by his own account, communists. You’d think he might harbor doubts about how confidently we can infer people’s ideologies from the ideologies of their older relatives. You’d also think he might disdain McCarthyite guilt-by-association tactics.
You’d be wrong. Schwartz’s piece goes on and on, weaving webs of association so engrossing that you have to keep reminding yourself that they have nothing to do with Rauf. At one point Schwartz spends several paragraphs damning someone whose connection to Park51 seems to consist of having spoken favorably about it.
If we are going to stigmatize everyone who in any sense supports Hamas, we are going to be tarring with a pretty broad brush.
As for the views of Rauf himself: In Schwartz’s universe, Rauf’s expressions of opposition to terrorism are themselves grounds for suspicion. Rauf, says Schwartz, has “cloaked the Cordoba effort in the rhetoric of reconciliation, describing himself and his colleagues as ‘the anti-terrorists.’”
Rauf has been the imam at a Manhattan mosque for a quarter of a century, so you’d think that, if he actually had radical views, there would be some evidence of that by now. Just to give you some idea of what solid evidence of radicalism looks like: Representative King, who shares the Weekly Standard’s grave suspicions about Rauf, supported the Irish Republican Army back when it was killing lots of innocent civilians. He raised money for the I.R.A. and said it was “the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland” and praised the “brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry” and in various other ways backed this terrorist group. If Rauf’s past looked like King’s past, there would indeed be cause for concern.
A big question when reading any Weekly Standard piece about nefarious Muslims is: What is the operative definition of “radical”? This question is worth spending some time on, because if the Standard is defining the term loosely, then the six-degrees-of-separation chains it uses to link people to radicalism are even less relevant than they seem.
Apparently one Weekly Standard criterion for radicalism is support for Hamas. Thus, Schwartz notes that the real estate developer for the project has a business partner who has an uncle (you still with us?) who dramatically affirmed his support for Hamas after the recent blockade-running flotilla incident.
Now, there are a lot of Arabs and Muslims, including Americans, who don’t consider Hamas evil incarnate. You might divide Hamas “supporters” into two camps:
“Hard” supporters say that Palestinians were wrongly dispossessed of their land six decades ago and that brutal tactics are therefore warranted. So what I call a terrorist they consider a freedom fighter.
“Soft” supporters may not approve of all Hamas tactics, but they note the following: In 2006, Hamas, with American and Israeli approval, participated in a Palestinian election and won — and, right after this victory, there were signs that Hamas might be willing to abandon terrorism, at least provisionally. But Israel and the United States decided that, while it was fine for Hamas to participate in elections, winning was unacceptable, and Hamas wouldn’t be allowed to govern. So Hamas seized control of Gaza, and Israel then subjected the people of Gaza to a crippling economic blockade (which, even after the post-flotilla “loosening,” doesn’t let Gaza export anything to speak of). Forced to choose between Israel and Hamas in this standoff, these “soft” supporters side with Hamas.
I can see how Israelis would have a different view of Hamas, which not so long ago pursued a concerted strategy of killing Israeli civilians, and could revive that strategy any day and still hasn’t accepted Israel’s right to exist. It’s understandable that Israelis hate Hamas, and Americans, including the people at the Weekly Standard, have every right to share this hatred.
Still, the point is that, whether the Weekly Standard likes it or not, there are a number of Arabs and Muslims, including Americans, who in one sense or another support Hamas and who aren’t dangerously radical from an American perspective; they didn’t support the 9/11 attacks or the Fort Hood shooting or the would-be underwear bombing. So if we are going to stigmatize everyone who in any sense supports Hamas — or even associates with someone whose uncle supports Hamas — we are going to be tarring with a pretty broad brush, excluding from a crucial American dialogue too many people for the dialogue to be productive. (Thomas Friedman recently made a similar argument in criticizing CNN’s reflexive firing of an editor who tweeted something favorable about a leader of Hezbollah after he died.)
So when Schwartz asserts that a Long Island mosque is a “center for Islamic radicals,” I personally have to suspend judgment until I hear from someone who has researched the matter and has a more useful definition of radicalism than Schwartz does. Meanwhile, I’ll just remind myself that this mosque has nothing to do with Rauf anyway.
One thing Peter King and Rick Lazio demand is that Rauf unequivocally denounce Hamas. In other words, they want him to go beyond just not being a professed supporter of Hamas and, in effect, criticize everyone who supports Hamas in even the “soft” sense.
No doubt Osama bin Laden, if apprised of the situation, would hope that Rauf will cave in to these demands and ritually denounce Hamas. Because the Muslims who are most vulnerable to bin Laden’s recruiting pitch are, it’s safe to say, at least somewhat sympathetic to Hamas. And if moderate Muslims like Rauf can be pressured into adopting Israel’s position, and thus be depicted by truly radical Muslims as Zionist tools, that will make them less effective in their tug of war with bin Laden for the hearts and minds of the vulnerable.
Pathetically, Rick Lazio seems to have made his demand for an “investigation” into Park51 the centerpiece-du-jour of his gubernatorial campaign. Happily, Mayor Bloomberg has shown true moral leadership and opposed Lazio’s demands in clear language. “Government should never — never — be in the business of telling people how they should pray, or where they can pray,” Bloomberg said last week. “We want to make sure that everybody from around the world feels comfortable coming here, living here and praying the way they want to pray.” Amen.

Why They Hate Us: Because Our Government Keeps Killing Innocent People

2010-07-01T13:39:00.004-04:00

A great article by Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute over at the Huffington Post:

The horrid attacks of 9/11 led to the cry: Why do they hate us? Most Americans seemed to believe that it was because we are such nice people. But the Times Square bomber reminds us that terrorism is mostly a response to U.S. government policies.

After 9/11 President George W. Bush reassured Americans: we were attacked because we are beautiful people, spreading freedom around the world. But often the actions of our government are seen by others as less than beautiful. To seek an explanation for terrorism is not to excuse monstrous attacks on civilians. But understanding what motivates people to kill could help reduce terrorism in the future.

Terrorism is not new. It was used against Russian Tsars, the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, and British colonial officials. Algerians employed terrorism against the French and later Algerian governments. Basque and Irish separatists freely relied on terrorism. Until Iraq, the most promiscuous suicide bombers were Tamils in Sri Lanka. In none of these cases did the killing occur in response to freedom, whether in America or elsewhere.

Robert Pape of the University of Chicago studied the most recent cases: "The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign--over 95 percent of all the incidents--has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw."

Consider Chechnya. Both suicide bombers in the recent Moscow subway attacks apparently were "Black Widows," whose militant husbands had been killed by Russian security forces. Even some conservatives, who typically decry discussion of "root causes" of terrorism, pointed to Russian brutality in Chechnya.

Pape, along with Lindsey O'Rourke and Jenna McDermit, also of the University of Chicago, studied 63 Chechen suicide terrorists and found that few had religious motives. Rather: "As we have discovered in our research on Lebanon, the West Bank, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and elsewhere, suicide terrorist campaigns are almost always a last resort against foreign military occupation. Chechnya is a powerful demonstration of this phenomenon at work."

As for America, the Defense Science Board Task Force reported in 2004: "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies." What might those be? Unseating democratically elected leaders, supporting dictatorships, backing Israel's Apartheid-like treatment of the Palestinians, and promiscuously waging war in Muslim lands. America is constantly "over there," as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) put it.

Nearly three decades ago President Ronald Reagan inserted U.S. forces into a multi-sided civil war in Lebanon to aid the minority Christian government which controlled little more than the capital of Beirut. Once Washington joined the conflict, the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks became natural targets.

In 1996 United Nations Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked to justify sanctions against Iraq which, the questioner charged, had killed a half million children. Amb. Albright did not contest the claim. Instead, she responded chillingly: "we think the price is worth it." Muslims did not view as beautiful the assertion that Washington had the unilateral right to kill hundreds of thousands of Muslim children for its own purposes.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the Iraq war, said of America's presence in Saudi Arabia: "It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina."

In Iraq both invasion and occupation have fomented terrorism. Daniel Benjamin, now the State Department's counter-terrorism coordinator, observed while at the Brookings Institution that "the invasion of Iraq gave the jihadists an unmistakable boost. Terrorism is about advancing a narrative and persuading a targeted audience to believe it."

London's Chatham House reported that Iraq "gave a boost to the al-Qaeda network's propaganda, recruitment and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition, provided an ideal targeting and training area for al-Qaeda-linked terrorists." Britain's Intelligence and Security Committee studied the July 2005 London attacks and concluded: "Iraq continues to act as a motivation and focus for terrorist activity."

Many Islamists say the same thing. For instance, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's deputy leader, spoke of "aggression against Iraq." Lebanese Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah stated that "the occupation of Iraq has increased acts of terrorism against the U.S. and everyone going along with it, including the Iraqis themselves."

U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan appear to be having a similar effect. Before being relieved as Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal admitted: "We've shot an amazing number of people [at checkpoints] and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force."

Faisal Shahzad, the naturalized American citizen who recently pled guilty after attempting to set off a car bomb in Times Square, was a troubled fellow, but there is no evidence that he disliked the liberties of the society which he chose to join. Instead, he grew to hate the policies carried out by the U.S. government.

During his court hearing Shahzad said: "until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S."

When the judge objected that people walking in Times Square had not attacked Muslims, Shahzad responded: "the people select the government; we consider them the same." As for children, he said: "the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill women, children. They kill everybody." Thus his resort to terrorism: "I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I'm avenging the attacks."

Unfortunately, Shahzad is not alone. He spent 40 days with Pakistani Taliban/jihadist forces, most notably the Tehrik-e-Taliban, from which he received money and explosives training. Which means the group has turned its attention from Pakistan, which has been conducting military operations against its strongholds, to the U.S. Wrote Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution: "This means the United States is facing a larger pool of terrorists in Pakistan committed to attacking al-Qaeda's target set than ever before."

No doubt, some terrorists hope to reestablish the caliphate or knock Madonna off of television. But most anti-American terrorists appear to be motivated by something much more mundane: responding to U.S. government depredations in their own nations and other Muslim lands.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration appears to be as clueless as its predecessor. After Shahzad's arrest U.S. officials raced to Islamabad to urge Pakistan to do more to stop terrorism. But Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said simply: "This is a blowback. This is a reaction. And you could expect that."

The administration seems likely to increase its use of drones. However, Shahzad cited drone strikes. So did former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith, who in 2002 warned that they could "create more martyrs."

The moral issues are daunting enough even if the intelligence is faultless, and it rarely is. Americans should consider how they would react if a more powerful nation was slaughtering their relatives and friends--and even entire families--in an attempt to kill a few targeted individuals alleged to be terrorists.

There's also the problem of blowback. David Kilcullen, who advised Gen. David Petraeus on terrorism, and Andrew McDonald Exum, of the Center for a New American Security, recently argued: "on balance, the costs outweigh these benefits." By their count, drones have killed 700 civilians and just 14 terrorist leaders, a 50-to-1 ratio. Writing in the New Yorker Jane Mayer contended that the campaign to get one particular terrorist killed between 207 and 321 other people along the way. Even if the ratios are not so unbalanced, as claimed by U.S. officials, Kilcullen and Exum warned that "every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a military movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased."

Pakistanis believe the drones kill far more civilians than terrorists. Polls show enormous popular hostility towards America. Moreover, the U.S. has begun targeting Pakistani Taliban leaders. One U.S. official told the New York Times: "The Pakistani Taliban gets treated like al-Qaeda." However, that encourages the Pakistan Taliban to treat the U.S. like al-Qaeda treats the U.S. One intelligence officer said: "Those [drone] attacks have made it personal for the Pakistani Taliban--so it's no wonder they are beginning to think about how they can strike back at targets here." Jeffrey Addicott, a former legal adviser to U.S. Special Forces, said: "Some of the CIA operators are concerned that, because of its blowback effect, it is doing more harm than good."

The same appears to be the case in Afghanistan, where civilians are dying in air strikes, at checkpoints, and from drone attacks. Afghan Najibullah Zazi, arrested last fall for planning a suicide bombing in the New York subway, explained: "I would sacrifice myself to bring attention to what the United States military was doing to civilians in Afghanistan by sacrificing my soul for the sake of saving other souls."

Certainly civilian casualties have spurred more mundane guerrilla opposition to U.S. forces. New York Times reporter David Rohde was held captive for seven months by the Taliban. After he escaped he wrote that he "saw how some of the consequences of Washington's antiterrorism policies had galvanized the Taliban." For instance, "They said large numbers of civilians had been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian territories in aerial bombings." To his complaint that he was a civilian, they said the U.S. "had held and tortured Muslims in secret detention centers for years," so why "should they treat me differently?"

The point is not that there is never a legitimate case for military intervention or use of drones. However, the high costs of these tactics must be recognized and weighed. To reduce terrorism, Washington should do less, not more, abroad.
September 11 demonstrated that America is not invulnerable. Washington no longer can expect to invade, bomb, and intervene in other nations without consequence. Policymakers should consider all the costs, including terrorism, before they casually thrust the U.S. into foreign controversies and conflicts. As Glenn Greenwald put it, "if we continue to bring violence to that part of the world, then that part of the world--and those who sympathize with it--will continue to want to bring violence to the U.S." That's why many people in other nations not only hate us, but are trying to kill us.

Anti-Islam Bus Ads Described Accurately as Hate Messages

2010-06-10T18:28:00.004-04:00

Joyce Dubensky of the New York Daily News calls out Pam Geller and Robert Spencer's hate ads running on NYC buses. Sure, they have the freedom of speech to say hateful things disguised in liberty, but the reality is that the ads are designed to stoke the imagination of Americans that Muslims are trying to flee Islam but are prevented from doing so out of fear of being killed.

Since Geller and Spencer know so much about this issue, maybe they can throw out some statistics showing us that these ads are actually needed, and are not simply propaganda. Not holding my breath on that though.

Is it free speech, subliminal stereotyping or hatemongering? It is all three.

Last month, about 30 buses in New York City's fleet started running ads professing to assist individuals trying to leave Islam; they'll continue to run through the middle of next week.

These are messages of hate masquerading as messages of help - and all New Yorkers who believe in peaceful coexistence should reject them.

Sponsored by an organization called Stop the Islamization of America, led by Pamela Geller, the ads read like something aimed at battered women trying to escape abusive relationships: "Fatwa on your head? Is your community or family threatening you? Leaving Islam?" Readers are then directed to a Web site aimed at providing support as they "escape" their religion.

The implication: Countless American Muslims are trapped in an oppressive and violent faith, dying to get out. And if they dare try, they could be injured or killed.

These are lies, and offensive ones at that. We should be clear: Few of the 5 million to 7 million Muslims in America want to escape their faith - and those who do are free to do so. There are extremists of all faith traditions, including those who identify as Muslim. But they are a small minority and do not represent Islam as a whole or American Muslims, for whom Islam is a beautiful and inspiring faith - not a prison.

So should the ads be banned from the buses? No. That's not the solution. Instead, the message should be countered by informed people of goodwill, who are ready to demand that we treat one another with respect.

In fact, a ban probably wouldn't hold up to legal scrutiny. Similar ads ran earlier this year in Miami-Dade, Florida. When Miami-Dade Transit yanked the ads from 10 buses because they could be offensive, the sponsoring organization threatened to sue. The county attorney's office intervened and found that, even though the ads might be offensive, they were within permitted guidelines. They were reinstated.

There is precedent across the country for using public transit ads as the platform for political or religious messaging that is sometimes offensive and targets different groups (including Christians and Jews). Many U.S. cities have recently had pro-atheist advertisements appear on buses - one of which states, "You can be good without God."

We should recognize the right of diverse voices to free speech - and the corollary responsibility to name the message when it stirs ill-informed hatred. Unless we understand the ads and reject their message, their ultimate impact will be to reinforce prejudice.

Islamophobia and anti-Islam hatred are on the rise in the U.S., especially after the events of 9/11. Even before that fateful day, Muslims were often portrayed in the media as democracy- and America-hating terrorists - a portrayal that, unfortunately, has increasingly seeped into our consciousness. In 2002, 41% of respondents in a national poll admitted to harboring anti-Muslim sentiments (even though only 7% said they understood Islam very well). In 2009, the percentage of those admitting anti-Islam attitudes reached 46%.

The bus ads fuel the fire. Although Geller says that practicing Muslims should simply ignore the ads, and that they are aimed at those who want to leave the religion, the reality is that people frequently switch religions in the U.S., Islam included. Approximately half of all Americans change religious affiliations at some point in their lives.

And violence is not a U.S. response to those who leave a tradition, whether it is Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or any other faith.

Thus, the ad is not really directed at a marginalized group of individuals yearning to leave Islam across the U.S. Rather, these ads subliminally reinforce the fearful stereotype that Islam is a religion of violent coercion. That it is cultlike in its hold over adherents. That it is a dangerous belief system from which people must escape.

A comparison across a wide range of traditions, Islam included, results in one conclusion: Most of our fundamental values are common across religious beliefs - values like compassion, respect for the "other," charity, peace, forgiveness and, above all, the golden rule. In every case, Islamic texts strongly support those values.

Geller's group has the right to buy ads that are within the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's regulations. And those of us who find the message offensive have the obligation to condemn them for what they are - statements designed to stoke fear and hatred, without cause, without facts, without justice. To do anything less is to let hate win.

Dubensky is CEO of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding, a secular, nonsectarian not-for-profit organization.

Gaza: Robert Spencer's Lies

2010-06-10T10:38:00.003-04:00

I apologize for the very, very long delay. I was busy with law school finals and then got caught up in simply being lazy. But I'm back now, and ready to get to work.

Robert Spencer, the Jihad Watch director, said the following about Gaza recently:

He might in that event not find too many of the oppressed, starving, but inexplicably obese (indeed, one of the most obese populations in the world) people of Gaza not quite as “pro-justice” as he might have hoped.

And also:

A Danish reporter finds that in Gaza, the victimhood propaganda is as much in abundance as the foodstuffs.

His view of Gaza's humanitarian plight is so skewed and ridiculous that I thought I would just point it out for the simple reason of showing how willfully blind this man, and many like him, is.

After reading Spencer's claims that the catastrophe that is Gaza is just a Palestinian propaganda initiative, please see NBC News' report/video (via Hufffington Post) on what the conditions in Gaza really are like.

Also, see Howard Schweber's article at the Huffington Post about what items Israel has been restricting from Gaza (candy, soda?). Schweber notes:

The BBC has compiled reports from a variety of international organizations. They report that at various times the ban on importation has included light bulbs, candles, matches, books, musical instruments, crayons, clothing, shoes, mattresses, sheets, blankets, pasta, tea, coffee, chocolate, nuts, shampoo and conditioner. CNN reports that books and paper have also been kept out. Al JAzeera reports that there is a current list of 81 permitted items that seems to change almost daily.

Yea, no humanitarian issues in Gaza. They're just obese jihadis. F**k 'em.

Greenwald on South Park Controversy

2010-04-26T12:51:00.008-04:00

I am currently working on a response to the South Park controversy from an Islamic/Muslim perspective, however, Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com has written an excellent piece on the topic today.

For the Muslims who are angry, upset, pissed off about this entire ordeal, I really have to say that we as an ummah have bigger things to worry about than this:

While obviously Muslims in America are weaker when it comes to political clout than other religious groups, we cannot get so easily offended in a society where nothing is sacred any longer. We must ignore the insults or at the very least protest within acceptable boundaries. Death threats have been called by a group of Muslims who are not even at the fringes of the Muslim community here in the U.S. They do not represent us. They are not a part of us. And so they're not even worth denouncing.

I feel like the Muslim American community has simply ignored the issue, and I'm proud that we did. This is nothing to get upset about. South Park is made by a bunch of court jesters. The real anger should be held for those who malign our Prophet (peace and prayers be upon him) insistently and spread lies about him. Our attention and energy as a community to protest and refute should be directed solely on individuals and groups that go beyond simple cartoons, but who spread falsehoods about our faith and our Lord's beloved. However, violence is never an option.

Ross Douthat, The New York Times, today:

In a way, the muzzling of "South Park" is no more disquieting than any other example of Western institutions' cowering before the threat of Islamist violence. . . . But there's still a sense in which the "South Park" case is particularly illuminating. . . . [I]t's a reminder that Islam is just about the only place where we draw any lines at all. . . .Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place. Except where Islam is concerned.

The New York Times, March 28, 2010:

A Texas university class production of "Corpus Christi," by Terrence McNally, below, has been canceled by college officials citing "safety and security concerns for the students" as well as the need to maintain an orderly academic environment, The Austin Chronicle reported. "Corpus Christi," Mr. McNally’s 1998 play depicting a gay Jesus figure, was scheduled to be performed on Saturday as part of a directing class at Tarleton State University in Stephenville, Tex. But early on Friday, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst condemned the performance, saying in a press release that "no one should have the right to use government funds or institutions to portray acts that are morally reprehensible to the vast majority of Americans." Although Tarleton's president, F. Dominic Dottavio, first defended the students' right to perform a play he considered "offensive, crude and irreverent," university officials changed course late Friday night, canceling the performance after receiving threatening calls and e-mail messages, according to The Star-Telegram.

Dallas Star-Telegram, April 8, 2010 (h/t Queerty):

A Fort Worth theater that had agreed to show a student-directed play with a gay Jesus character has withdrawn its offer. The board of directors of Artes de la Rosa, which runs The Rose Marine Theater on North Main Street, decided Thursday against offering the venue for the production of Corpus Christi, just one day after saying it would. A March performance set for a directing class at Tarleton State University in Stephenville was abruptly canceled after the school received threatening emails.

It looks like Ross Douthat picked the wrong month to try to pretend that threat-induced censorship is a uniquely Islamic practice. Corpus Christi is the same play that was scheduled and then canceled (and then re-scheduled) by the Manhattan Theater Club back in 1998 as a result of "anonymous telephone threats to burn down the theater, kill the staff, and 'exterminate' McNally." Both back then and now, leading the protests (though not the threats) was the Catholic League, denouncing the play as "blasphemous hate speech."

I abhor the threats of violence coming from fanatical Muslims over the expression of ideas they find offensive, as well as the cowardly institutions which acquiesce to the accompanying demands for censorship. I've vigorously condemned efforts to haul anti-Muslim polemicists before Canadian and European "human rights" (i.e., censorship) tribunals. But the very idea that such conduct is remotely unique to Muslims is delusional, the by-product of Douthat's ongoing use of his New York Times column for his anti-Muslim crusade and sectarian religious promotion.

The various forms of religious-based, intimidation-driven censorship and taboo ideas in the U.S. -- what Douthat claims are non-existent except when it involves Muslims -- are too numerous to chronicle. One has to be deeply ignorant, deeply dishonest or consumed with petulant self-victimization and anti-Muslim bigotry to pretend they don't exist. I opt (primarily) for the latter explanation in Douthat's case.

As Balloon-Juice's DougJ notes, everyone from Phil Donahue and Ashliegh Banfield to Bill Maher and Sinead O'Connor can tell you about that first-hand. As can the cable television news reporters who were banned by their corporate executives from running stories that reflected negatively on Bush and the war. When he was Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani was fixated on using the power of his office to censor art that offended his Catholic sensibilities. The Bush administration banned mainstream Muslim scholars even from entering the U.S. to teach. The Dixie Chicks were deluged with death threats for daring to criticize the Leader, forcing them to apologize out of fear for their lives. Campaigns to deny tenure to academicians, or appointments to politicial officials, who deviate from Israel orthodoxy are common and effective. Responding to religious outrage, a Congressional investigation was formally launched and huge fines issued all because Janet Jackson's breast was displayed for a couple of seconds on television.

All that's to say nothing of the endless examples of religious-motivated violence by Christian and Jewish extremists designed to intimidate and suppress ideas offensive to their religious dogma (I'm also pretty sure the people doing this and this are not Muslim). And, contrary to Douthat's misleading suggestion, hate speech laws have been used for censorious purposes far beyond punishing speech offensive to Muslims -- including, for instance, by Christian groups invoking such laws to demand the banning of plays they dislike.

It's nice that The New York Times hired a columnist devoted to defending his Church and promoting his religious sectarian conflicts without any response from the target of his bitter tribalistic encyclicals. Can one even conceive of having a Muslim NYT columnist who routinely disparages and rails against Christians and Jews this way? To ask the question is to answer it, and by itself gives the lie to Douthat's typically right-wing need to portray his own majoritarian group as the profoundly oppressed victim at the hands of the small, marginalized, persecuted group which actually has no power (it's so unfair how Muslims always get their way in the U.S.). But whatever else is true, there ought to be a minimum standard of factual accuracy required for these columns. The notion that censorship is exercised only on behalf of Muslims falls far short of that standard.

A Call to Justice: Amnesty Asks for Support in Ending Trade of Conflict Minerals

2010-04-21T23:35:00.005-04:00

I received this message from Amnesty International today. Please do what they ask. It's the bare minimum we can do to help the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo who are suffering from years of war and death. Much of it due to the foreign policy of our country.

Dear Supporter,

A small window of opportunity just opened this week that could finally break the cycle of weapons freely flowing in to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and conflict minerals irresponsibly being mined out.

Right now, the House of Representatives is weighing a piece of legislation that would make it easier to identify imports into the United States that contain minerals such as coltan, cassiterite, wolframite – commonly found in cell phones, laptops and other electronic devices – used to fund the activities of armed groups operating in the DRC.

If Congress required companies to disclose the origins of the minerals used in their products, then we, as consumers, could be assured that the electronics and products we purchase do not directly finance conflict or fuel human rights abuses.

We’ve been told that if Representatives don’t hear from constituents on this issue in a big way by the end of this week, then they are likely to put this issue on the back burner until next year when the new Congress is seated.

Don't let this rare opportunity slip right through their fingertips. Send
an email to your Representatives right now and urge them to co-
sponsor the Conflict Minerals Trade Act.

The link between the raging violence in eastern Congo and the complex
multimillion-dollar trade in conflict minerals is undeniable. A recent
report by the UN found that armed groups in eastern DRC continue to
control and profit from the extraction and trade of these minerals.¹

If passed, the Conflict Minerals Trade Act would go a long way in
regulating this industry and ultimately restricting the ability of armed
groups to benefit from conflict minerals.

Representatives can ensure that critical protections like these are
enacted to help promote peace and security in the DRC:
Improving standards for transparency and accountability from
companies involved in the extraction and trade of these minerals
Mapping the mines currently under control by armed groups
Providing support for further investigations by the UN Group of
Experts
We must do our part to let Congress know that we care about where
these resources come from.

Help us break this cycle of violence. Tell your Representative to do
everything possible to stop mining that fuels human rights abuses
in the DRC.

Thank you for taking action,

Scott Edwards
Director, International Advocacy (Africa)
Amnesty International USA

Islam and Apostasy: Classical and Contemporary Opinions

2010-04-16T16:22:00.020-04:00

Robert Spencer, the anti-Islam director of Jihad Watch, is very, very upset that his little bus ad campaign in Miami, FL was, for lack of a better phrase, thrown under the bus.

He's especially peeved about The Miami Herald's reporting of apostasy laws in Islam. He claims that the Herald didn't ask any hard questions about the topic.

The anti-Muslim bigot said the following:

Muhammad, the prophet of Islam and supreme example of conduct for the Muslim (cf. Qur'an 33:21): "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him." (Bukhari 9.84.57)

He then said:

About Qur'an 2:217, Qurtubi says this: "Scholars disagree about whether or not apostates are asked to repent. One group say that they are asked to repent and, if they do not, they are killed. Some say they are given an hour and others a month. Others say that they are asked to repent three times, and that is the view of Malik. Al-Hasan said they are asked a hundred times. It is also said that they are killed without being asked to repent."

And then:

[T]he schools of Islamic jurisprudence... all teach that a sane adult male who leaves Islam must be killed. They have some disagreements about what must he done with other types of people who leave Islam, but they have no disagreement on that.

Finally:

Meanwhile, although it's just dandy that "Islam guarantees freedom to and freedom from religion," Muslims all over the world seem to misunderstand Islam on this point. There are m any killings of apostates and threats to their lives that take place frequently in the Islamic world.

So, let's start with the first paragraph, where Spencer claims the Prophet Muhammad said "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him."

First, the relevant hadith is actually the saying of ibn Abbas, the cousin of the Prophet, who was paraphrasing what he believed to be the words of the Prophet (peace and prayers of Allah be upon him).

Secondly, if we look at what the Prophet actually said on the issue, we'll see that apostasy is NOT punishable by death on its own. Rather, it must be accompanied by rebellion against the Muslim state.

“The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that there is no God but God and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In penalty for murder, a married person who commits adultery and the one who reverts from Islam (apostates) and leaves the community.” This hadith is reported in Bukhari.

Notice that apostasy is attached to leaving the Muslim community, i.e. high treason. Apostasy itself is not punishable by death, based upon the words of the Prophet Muhammad himself.

Additionally, looking at another hadith clarifies the matter further:

The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshiped but God and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: 1) a married person who commits adultery; he is to be stoned and 2) a man who went out fighting against God and His Messenger; he is to be killed or crucified or exiled from the land and 3) a man who murders another person; he is to be killed on account of it. Reported in Abu Dawud.

Tying this hadith with the one from above we can see that the issue of apostasy is tied to an individual fighting in a war against the Muslim state. Therefore, capital punishment is tied to three distinct crimes then: 1) murder, 2) adultery, and 3) rebelling against the Muslim state. Apostasy goes hand in hand with fighting against the Muslim state.

So, sorry Spencer, but your argument falters right off the bat. For a more detailed treatment of this particular issue, see Danios' article at Loon Watch.

Moving on to paragraph #2 and 3, Spencer quotes Imam al-Qurtubi, a famous medieval Islamic scholar from Spain, discussing if Muslim scholars agreed on whether apostates should be asked to repent before they were killed. Spencer then says that all four schools of Islamic law "teach that a sane adult male who leaves Islam must be killed."

Sure, the dominant medieval (classical) opinion was that apostates are to be killed. However, famous contemporary Muslim scholars, including the heads of the top Sunni university (Al-Azhar) reject the medieval era opinion on apostasy and instead base their opinion on apostasy on the hadith I mentioned above, as well as certain verses from the Qur'an that deal with the issue.

Their legal reasoning has led to the rejection of the classical era opinion on apostasy. Many of these scholars are also followers of at least one of the four schools of Islamic law, and thus Spencer's claim is not entirely true. It would make more sense for Spencer to say that at one time the four schools of Islamic law taught that apostasy was punishable by death. However, as I have noted, that is not the case today.

So, sure, all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that apostasy is punishable by death, as long as we confine our research strictly to the opinions of the classical era Muslim scholars, something Spencer fails to mention in his screed against the Miami Herald.

Finally, let's get to paragraph #4, where Spencer sarcastically remarks that Muslims all over the world are misunderstanding Islamic teachings on apostasy by threatening to kill or having killed numerous individuals who have left Islam.

Surely, Spencer would agree that no faith should be demonized for the mistakes its followers make. As I demonstrated above, apostasy by itself is not a crime punishable by death based on the explicit hadith of the Prophet Muhammad, unless it was tied with rebelling against or defecting from the Muslim state. This is the opinion held by many famous Muslim scholars today.

These scholars have come out and have discussed the issue of apostasy in Islam and have clarified that there is no earthly punishment for apostasy on its own. These scholars include the former grand Imam of al-Azhar University Shaikh Mahmud al-Shaltut, the recently deceased former grand Imam of al-Azhar Shaikh Muhammad Sayed al-Tantawi, Dr. Jamal Badawi, Dr. Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Dr. Muhammad Maruf al-Dawalibi of Syria, S.A. Rahman - the former chief justice of Pakistan, and Dr. Timothy Winter (aka Abdal Hakim Murad) of Cambridge University, amongst many others.

Another Azhari scholar agrees:

According to Sheikh Gamal Qotb, former head of the Fatwa Committee at Al-Azhar, "being an apostate is a sin, but the preponderance of evidence from both the Quran and Sunna indicates that there is no firm ground for the claim that apostasy in itself deserves a mandatory fixed punishment [hadd], namely capital punishment."
"There is no hadith confirming punishment or retribution solely for apostasy. In every case where punishment has been meted out, apostasy involved treason or rebellion," Qotb told the Weekly.

Many of the above mentioned scholars of Islamic law cannot be disregarded as outside of the mainstream, for Spencer himself consistently points to the decision of al-Azhar University to endorse The Reliance of the Traveler, a book of Islamic law, when he wants to make a point about Islamic law that is in conformity with his warped views. Spencer argues that since al-Azhar University is the most respected and famous Islamic university in the Muslim world, it must mean their endorsement of The Reliance means that many Muslims will be following the teachings of The Reliance on the particular issue Spencer is blabbing about.

Here, I have noted two of the more recent grand Imams of al-Azhar and their agreement on the issue of apostasy in Islam - an opinion in contradiction to what The Reliance says, I might add. Their positions on this issue give my arguments here a great deal of weight regardless of the classical era position on apostasy.

Add their positions on apostasy with that of Grand Mufti of al-Azhar, Shaikh Ali Gomaa, who said:

"...apostasy is a grave sin, and, when combined with sedition, it is punishable in both this world and the next."

All of these traditional, mainstream Muslim scholars of today have rejected the dominant opinion amongst the classical era Muslim scholars. While the classical era opinion on apostasy still carries weight in some Muslim scholarly circles and is cited by ultraconservative Muslims, my references above show that there is at a minimum a very real and genuine debate on this issue in the Muslim world with many well known and highly regarded Muslim scholars rejecting the dominant classical era position on apostasy for an opinion more in conformity with the actual words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad himself (may God's peace and prayers be upon him).

So, to conclude, if the Miami Herald wants a refresher course in apostasy law in Islam, feel free to check out what I wrote above or check out these two excellent web sites that discuss the matter even better than I could:

Apostasy and Islam

Loon Watch: Fathima Rifqa Bary Needs to Read Her Bible

Whichever web site the Miami Herald decides to look at, it should avoid listening to Spencer. Nuanced arguments and in depth research are not a part of his forte.

Stop Islamization of America has their ad campaign derailed

2010-04-16T02:03:00.011-04:00

Robert Spencer and Pam Geller are part of an organization called Stop Islamization of America (SIOA). SIOA just announced a bus ad campaign on Tuesday, April 13 in Miami-Dade County, FL designed to thwart the supposedly "misleading" bus ad campaign created by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and CAIR to promote the shared commonalities of Islam with Christianity and Judaism.

SIOA's bus ad campaign had the following remarks on the 10 or so buses running their ads:

Fatwa on your head?

Is your family or community threatening you?

LEAVING ISLAM?

This ad was apparently designed for the purpose of promoting freedom of religion. Obviously, the purpose is a bit more sinister once you start to dig deeper into what Spencer and Geller are promoting here.

The ad includes an address to a website: refugefromislam.com. Go ahead and check out that web site. What do you find there? A web site dedicated to slandering Islam and promoting the views of Spencer and Geller.

Here's a fair and poignant remark from this web site:

Muslims like you who have seen the falsity of Islam and have made the difficult decision to be free.

Oh sure, that's just speaking the hard truth. Islam is false and Spencer and Geller want all Muslim apostates to know they got their back in saying so.

Well, it's Friday, April 16 now, and guess what? The Miami Herald is reporting that the Miami-Dade transit authority took a look at the ads after they were posted on some buses and decided to remove them because they "may be offensive to Islam." Ya think?

Of course, there's a freedom of speech issue here. Certainly, Spencer, Geller and their lunatic fringe can spew their hatred on their blogs, but once they take their trashy bigotry outside of their internet cesspool into civil society it only goes to show you that normal, civilized people aren't going to go along with the whole freedom of speech defense these bigots might use.

Do you think the Miami-Dade transit folks would be okay with posting up ads for the KKK or for some neo-Nazi group? Of course not. So why should ads smearing Islam and manufacturing propaganda against Muslims be tolerated? It shouldn't, and it isn't. Kudos to Miami-Dade County for standing up and doing the right thing here.

This entire ad campaign being led by Spencer and Geller is not about freedom of religion anyway, but is about their agenda of smearing Islam and Muslims.

There may in fact be Muslims out there who want to change their faith and fear doing so, but this ad campaign is nothing but propaganda designed to smear Islam and scare ignorant Americans into believing there is a genuine problem with Muslim apostates fearing for their safety. There is no such problem.

The real problem is the double standard Spencer and Geller hold when it comes to Muslim Americans exercising their First Amendment rights.

So for example, Spencer and Geller argue for the freedom of apostates to leave Islam. But what about Muslims who want to be able to practice their faith here in the United States?

Such Muslims don't get any love from Spencer and Geller. In fact, they only get scorn and vitriol.

For example, recently a Muslim woman in Michigan was refused a position with McDonald's because she wore the hijab or Muslim headscarf. Spencer accused Muslims of wanting America to conform to their "Islamic sensibilities." No mention of freedom of religion there. Of course not, because freedom of religion doesn't apply to Muslims, according to Spencer. The EEOC was quoted in the article Spencer referenced as saying that it had issued new guidelines for accommodating religious practices and beliefs in the workplace. The EEOC must also be a part of this whole Islamic sensibilities campaign, too.

Applying Spencer's logic to other faiths would mean that a Sikh man shouldn't complain if he is not given a job at McDonald's either, or an orthodox Jew. They simply want to impose their "sensibilities" on the rest of us real Americans. Freedom of religion? Pssh.

After saying things like that, Spencer has got a lot of gall to be talking about freedom of religion. The Miami-Dade County transit folks aren't buying his and Geller's propaganda, and neither should anyone else.

Why They Hate Us: Greenwald on Afghan Bus Shooting

2010-04-12T17:40:00.002-04:00

It's starting to get redundant, but repetition is a great learning tool. It seems like there has been an opening of the floodgates when it comes to civilian deaths caused by our U.S. military. The sad thing is, it doesn't seem like the blood of these people means much to our citizenry since it's not causing a great uproar. The deaths of these innocent people should wake up our country and move us to demand a withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, and to leave those countries to the people who live there.

Alas, that's just wishful thinking on my part.

Glenn Greenwald discusses the latest tragedy our military has exacted on Afghan civilians:

The extreme paradox of our actions in the Muslim world is now well-documented: namely, the very policies justified in the name of fighting Terrorism (invasions, occupations, bombings, lawless detentions, etc.) are the precise ones that most inflame and exacerbate that threat. With the news this morning that "American troops raked a large passenger bus with gunfire near the southern [Afghan] city of Kandahar on Monday morning, killing as many as five civilians and wounding 18" -- a report which unsurprisingly "infuriated Kandahar leaders" and triggered anti-American demonstrations -- there's one small though revealing vignette from last week I wanted to highlight.

As I wrote about last week, American troops in mid-February entered a village in the Eastern Afghan province of Paktia, killed five civilians (a male government official, his brother, and three female relatives, including two pregnant women and a teenager) and then lied about what happened. ABC News this week described the efforts of U.S. Special Forces to apologize to Haji Sharabuddin -- the 80-year-old patriarch of that family who lost two sons, two daughters and a granddaughter in the attack -- by offering him two sheep (a gesture of begging forgiveness in Pashtun custom), and the article included this:

Presenting sheep is such a powerful form of requesting forgiveness that the father is now obligated not to take revenge, even though he has told reporters he wanted to become a suicide bomber. . . . But the incident so inflamed the family, the father initially vowed to take revenge, "even if it breaks me into pieces."

"I have lost patience. I am obliged to revenge my martyrs," he told an ABC News cameraman on March 18. "I will destroy everything I have and will launch my own suicide attack. My heart is burning."

The ABC News article celebrates the fact that the sheep offering "will help defuse" lingering anger over the massacre (the U.S. military, following standard practice, previously paid the family $2,000 for each victim it killed). But the fact that this 80-year-old man was vowing to perpetrate a suicide attack on U.S. forces speaks volumes about the effects of our actions in that country (and had this man carried through on that threat, American media -- as always -- would undoubtedly have depicted it as some sort of senseless, irrational act of religious fanaticism underscoring yet again how primitive, violent, and full of baseless rage those radical Muslim Terrorists are and how vital it therefore is that we stay and defeat these Evil Enemies).

This is what has been happening over and over for a full decade now. How many new America-haters and suicide bombers did we create today with the story (accurate or not) of our bombarding that civilian bus with bullets? How many have been created by what Gen. McChrystal calls the "amazing number" of innocent people and families we've shot at Afghan checkpoints in the last nine months alone? Listen to the embittered anti-American rage of the brother of the 21-year-old Reuters photographer killed by the Apache helicopter in Baghdad after the brother (along with hundreds of millions of other Muslims) viewed the WikiLeaks video. Two weeks ago, horror over a deadly suicide attack in the Moscow subway system was quickly followed by the unsurprising revelation that the suicide bomber was the young widow of an insurgent killed by Russian forces three months ago, because suicide bombers tend to be what gets produced when foreign armies kill people's loved ones. WikiLeaks is now preparing to release graphic video of an American airstrike last year that killed close to 100 Afghan civilians, after which the U.S. vehemently (and falsely) insisted that it was Taliban fighters, not civilians, who were killed. How many suicide bombers did that incident create, and how many will be created when the video of what we did is broadcast around the world?

Last September, when Najibullah Zazi was arrested for plotting to bomb the New York subway system -- a plot which administration officials anonymously announced "was the most significant since 9/11" -- the key, overlooked fact was that this was one of the first times an Afghan citizen was involved in alleged acts of Terrorism against the U.S. Similarly, there's no question that anger over U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was a major factor in Nidal Hasan's attack on Fort Hood. And in an acrobatic act of Orwellian rationalization, those plots -- caused at least in large part by our current policies in the Muslim world -- are then cited to justify those policies and demand their continuation (see, this proves that we must stay over there and continue to fight these heinous Terrorists). Both Gen. Petraeus and Gen. McChrystal have been admirably candid about the link between our actions and the Terrorist reaction they cause, along with the need to be mindful of that causal link, but waging war in countries where the Enemy is composed of a substantial part of the population will inevitably entail incidents like the bus shooting this morning, and thus inevitably worsen the Terrorist problem we are ostensibly trying to combat.

Even worse, we continue to vest extraordinary powers in the President and to change our form of government based on the bipartisan decree that WE ARE AT WAR! -- meaning not our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but our "War on Terror" generally. It has been obvious (and openly acknowledged) from the start that this "war" has no real end, at least not for decades, which means all these executive powers to which we are acquiescing are essentially permanent. But just to be sure, the U.S. Government continues to engage in a litany of actions that spawn more and more anti-American hatred and thus ensure that the Terrorism used to justify these always-expanding domestic powers will endure forever. Even for those who are convinced of both the justifiability and morality of our ongoing wars, aren't these costs intolerably high?

* * * * *

Speaking of counter-productive policies, Iran analysts Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett today present a very well-reasoned argument that the new "no-first-nuclear strike" policy announced last week by the Obama administration is -- as a result of the explicit exclusion of Iran -- reasonably understood in the Muslim world (especially Iran) to constitute a threat of first-strike nuclear attack on the Iranians, and will do more to motivate Iranian nuclear proliferation than any other act in some time. Without necessarily endorsing all of the points they make, I highly recommend their analysis.

UPDATE: The reason we know about the U.S. Special Forces' sheep sacrifice is because The Times of London's Jerome Starkey, who broke the story about what really happened in the Eastern Afghanistan civilian killing, was present at the scene and described it in detail, including the fact that the U.S. Vice-Admiral who offered the sheep, along with Afghan soldiers, wanted to bar the media from witnessing the event and refrained only when the family members insisted that they stay. In contrast to ABC 's sunny report that all is now forgiven, Starkey writes:

"When people come to your gate and ask forgiveness, according to Afghan law, it’s difficult to reject them," Haji Sharabuddin said later. "I am happy they came." But the family insists that it still wants justice. "I don’t care about the money," Haji Sharabuddin said. He believes the troops attacked after faulty intelligence from one of his enemies — a spy. He wants the Americans to face international justice and the spy handed to Afghan authorities and punished. "When they surrender the spy, then I will make a decision. Maybe I will forgive them," he said.

As more people victimized by such acts realize that we are a country that only Looks Forward and Not Backward, the rage left by such incidents seems likely to intensify.

Why They Hate Us: U.S. forces slaughter Iraqi civilians; caught on tape

2010-04-05T23:53:00.006-04:00

Wikileaks today released a video of U.S. forces shooting down in cold blood a group of Iraqi civilians in 2007, including two Reuters employees.

The video is gruesome and should serve as a reminder that our idiotic and soulless foreign policy has real consequences to real people. The man driving the minivan in the clip is assumed dead, and now those kids that were in that van are fatherless thanks to our military's deliberate targeting of civilians.

It should also be remembered that this video, and the actions being engaged in by our soldiers against helpless civilians, will likely be used by Muslim extremists as a recruiting tool. Hell, it's likely many angry Muslim youth are already looking for militant groups to link up with in order to exact revenge on our military.

And last, remember these wise, sarcastic words from Glenn Greenwald: "they hate us for our freedom!"

Why They Hate Us: U.S. special operation forces kill Afghan civilians

2010-04-05T08:04:00.006-04:00

The soldiers allegedly removed the bullets from the dead bodies in order to cover up the murders. Awesome. These actions will surely help the U.S. win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world in order to win the war on terror.

Also, see Glenn Greenwald's blog for how the U.S. media blindly reports whatever talking points are handed to them by the Pentagon.

KABUL, Afghanistan — After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid.

The admission immediately raised questions about what really happened during the Feb. 12 operation — and what falsehoods followed — including a new report that Special Operations forces dug bullets out of the bodies of the women to hide the true nature of their deaths.
A NATO official also said Sunday in an interview that an Afghan-led team of investigators had found signs of evidence tampering at the scene, including the removal of bullets from walls near where the women were killed. A senior NATO official later denied on Monday that any evidence tampering occurred.
The disclosure could not come at a worse moment for the American military: NATO officials are struggling to contain fallout from a series of tirades against the foreign military presence by the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, who has also railed against the killing of civilians by Western forces.
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has tried hard, and with some success, to reduce civilian casualties through new rules that include restricting night raids and also bringing Special Operations forces under tighter control. But botched Special Operations attacks — which are blamed for a large proportion of the civilian deaths caused by NATO forces — continue to infuriate Afghans and create support for the Taliban.
NATO military officials had already admitted killing two innocent civilians — a district prosecutor and local police chief — during the raid, on a home near Gardez in southeastern Afghanistan. The two men were shot to death when they came out of their home, armed with Kalashnikov rifles, to investigate.
Three women also died that night at the same home: One was a pregnant mother of 10 and another was a pregnant mother of six. NATO military officials had suggested that the women were actually stabbed to death — or had died by some other means — hours before the raid, an explanation that implied that family members or others at the home might have killed them.
Survivors of the raid called that explanation a cover-up and insisted that American forces killed the women. Relatives and family friends said the bloody raid followed a party in honor of the birth of a grandson of the owner of the house.
On Sunday night the American-led military command in Kabul issued a statement admitting that “international forces” were responsible for the deaths of the women. Officials have previously stated that American Special Operations forces and Afghan forces conducted the operation.
The statement said that “investigators could not conclusively determine how or when the women died, due to lack of forensic evidence” but that they had nonetheless “concluded that the women were accidentally killed as a result of the joint force firing at the men.”
“We deeply regret the outcome of this operation, accept responsibility for our actions that night, and know that this loss will be felt forever by the families,” said Brig. Gen. Eric Tremblay, a spokesman for the NATO command in Kabul.
The admission was an abrupt about-face. In a statement soon after the raid, NATO had claimed that its raiding party had stumbled upon the “bodies of three women who had been tied up, gagged and killed” and hidden in a room in the house. Military officials had also said later that the bodies showed signs of puncture and slashing wounds from a knife, and that the women appeared to have been killed several hours before the raid.
And in what would be a scandalous turn to the investigation, The Times of London reported Sunday night that Afghan investigators also determined that American forces not only killed the women but had also “dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath” and then “washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened.”
A spokesman for the Afghan Interior Ministry, Zemary Bashary, said that he did not have any information about the Afghan investigation, which he said remained unfinished.
In an interview, a NATO official said the Afghan-led investigation team alerted American and NATO commanders that the inquiry had found signs of evidence tampering. A briefing was given by investigators to General McChrystal and other military officials in late March.
“There was evidence of tampering at the scene, walls being washed, bullets dug out of holes in the wall,” the NATO official said, adding that investigators “couldn’t find bullets from the wounds in the body.”
The investigators, the official said, “alluded to the fact that bullets were missing but did not discuss anything specific to that. Nothing pointed conclusively to the fact that our guys were the ones who tampered with the scene.”
On Monday, a senior NATO official denied that there was any effort to tamper with evidence.
“We have discovered no evidence in our investigation that any of our forces did anything to manipulate the evidence at the scene or the bodies,” said the deputy chief of staff for communications for General McChrystal, Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith.
Several bullets that were fired but had not struck either of the two men were removed from the walls, Admiral Smith said. But he said that was done “to make sure what kinds of rounds they were.”
NATO officials have also rejected allegations that the killings were covered up. But it was not immediately clear on Sunday night how troops who shot the women and later examined their bodies would not have recognized that it was their bullets that killed them.

Abdul Waheed Wafa contributed reporting.

Muslim Scholars Step Up to Jihadi Thugs

2010-04-02T00:23:00.007-04:00

And it's about time, too. Shaikh Abdallah bin Bayyah, the Muslim scholar who is leading the charge in this movement, is arguably one of the greatest living Muslim scholars today.

The comments made by the scholars at this conference also cast a large shadow over the continuing charges made by Robert Spencer and others that Islam is incapable of allowing people to live together in peaceful coexistence.

PARIS (Reuters) – Prominent Muslim scholars have recast a famous medieval fatwa on jihad, arguing the religious edict radical Islamists often cite to justify killing cannot be used in a globalized world that respects faith and civil rights.
A conference in Mardin in southeastern Turkey declared the fatwa by 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyya rules out militant violence and the medieval Muslim division of the world into a “house of Islam” and “house of unbelief” no longer applies.

Osama bin Laden has quoted Ibn Taymiyya’s “Mardin fatwa” repeatedly in his calls for Muslims to overthrow the Saudi monarchy and wage jihad against the United States.

Referring to that historic document, the weekend conference said: “Anyone who seeks support from this fatwa for killing Muslims or non-Muslims has erred in his interpretation.

“It is not for a Muslim individual or a Muslim group to announce and declare war or engage in combative jihad … on their own,” said the declaration issued Sunday in Arabic and later provided to Reuters in English.

The declaration is the latest bid by mainstream scholars to use age-old Muslim texts to refute current-day religious arguments by Islamist groups. A leading Pakistani scholar issued a 600-page fatwa against terrorism in London early this month.

Another declaration in Dubai this month concerned peace in Somalia. Such fatwas may not convince militants, but could help keep undecided Muslims from supporting them, the scholars say.
The Mardin conference gathered 15 leading scholars from countries including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, India, Senegal, Kuwait, Iran, Morocco and Indonesia. Among them were Bosnian Grand Mufti Mustafa Ceric, Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah of Mauritania and Yemeni Sheikh Habib Ali al-Jifri.
Ibn Taymiyya’s Mardin fatwa is a classic text for militants who say it allows Muslims to declare other Muslims infidels and wage war on them. The scholars said this view had to be seen in its historic context of medieval Mongol raids on Muslim lands.

Bursting Robert Spencer's bubble in 3... 2... 1...

But the scholars said it was actually about overcoming the old view of a world divided into Muslim and non-Muslim spheres and reinterpreting Islam in changing political situations.

The emergence of civil states that guard religious, ethnic and national rights “has necessitated declaring the entire world a place of tolerance and peaceful co-existence between all religious, groups and factions,” their declaration said.

Spencer will be editing his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), specifically page 37, where he says "Always remember, 'peaceful coexistence as equals in a pluralistic society' isn't one of the choices," in reference to his assertion that Islam only offers non-Muslims three choices: conversion, tax, or war.

Aref Ali Nayed, a Libyan who heads the Dubai theological think-tank Kalam Research and Media, told the conference the great Muslim empires of the past were not a model for a globalized world where borders were increasingly irrelevant.

“We must not be obsessed with an Islam conceived of only geographically and politically,” he said.

“Living in the diaspora is often more conducive to healthy and sincere Muslim living. Empires and carved-out ‘Islamic states’ often make us complacent.”

Nayed said Muslims must also understand that “not all types of secularisms are anti-religious.” The United States has stayed religious despite its separation of church and state, but some “French Revolution-like secularisms” were anti-religious.
The declaration ended with a call to Muslim scholars for more research to explain the context of medieval fatwas on public issues and show “what is hoped to be gained from a sound and correct understanding of their respective legacies.”

This was a momentous announcement. The jihadi ideological basis for terror is being systematically dismantled by the likes of bin Bayyah and others. Let's hope it continues.

***************

Spencer has responded to this initiative led by bin Bayyah with his typical cynicism. He said two things worth note.

First, Spencer asked, "So why do these Muslim reformers seem to focus on Ibn Taymiyyah, at least from the looks of this report, as if he originated the ideas they are condemning? Are these scholars criticizing and rejecting the principle of offensive jihad, or just this particular ancient fatwa?"

Maybe if Spencer read the article a little more carefully he would find his answer. The article says the reason the scholars critiqued this specific fatwa was because "Osama bin Laden has quoted Ibn Taymiyya's 'Mardin fatwa' repeatedly in his calls for Muslims to overthrow the Saudi monarchy and wage jihad against the United States."

As for Spencer's second question, whether the declaration by these scholars is "criticizing and rejecting the principle of offensive jihad," it seems as though it is. The article says the following important point:

But the scholars said it was actually about overcoming the old view of a world divided into Muslim and non-Muslim spheres and reinterpreting Islam in changing political situations.
The emergence of civil states that guard religious, ethnic and national rights "has necessitated declaring the entire world a place of tolerance and peaceful co-existence between all religious, groups and factions," their declaration said.

The point of offensive jihad is to make the entire world under the power of Islam, at least as jihadis see it. Defensive jihad would find its purpose in preserving the lands already under the sway of Islam. These scholars are nipping the entire idea of offensive jihad in the bud. They are clearly saying that the whole world should be a place for all people, of all religions, to live together in peace. Therefore, there is no need for offensive jihad.

But this is not good enough for Spencer, of course. This brings us to the second point worth noting in Spencer's remarks about this initiative: he will dig down as far as he has to in order to find anything that would lend doubt to such a move by Muslims.

This is very positive and important, depending on what they mean. "Tolerance and peaceful co-existence" could refer to the arrangement of dhimmitude under Sharia, which Muslims often refer to as a tolerant system that makes for peace, or to Muslims and non-Muslims living together as equals under a non-Sharia government. This needs clarification.

No, it doesn't need any clarification. Why? Because by declaring, as these scholars did, the entire world a place of peace and tolerance as it stands now, today, clearly means that they intended to recognize the existing governmental structures already in place around the world. Enforcing shariah on the world is clearly not something that can be extrapolated from what they said, but don't let that stop Spencer from leaping to that possible, yet baseless, conclusion.

The man is hopelessly consumed by his inability to see anything positive in Islam, even when it stares him right in the face.

Ignoring Domestic Violence in the U.S.

2010-03-30T12:23:00.005-04:00

Robert Spencer, director of the anti-Islam blog Jihad Watch, once said to me:

Spousal abuse is found in every culture. But in America, creeps who beat their wives are arrested and punished.

Are they? The level of ignorance on display in such a comment is amazing.

Recently, The Nation published an article on Jamie Leigh Jones, a former KBR/Halliburton employee who alleged that she was "raped by coworkers and then imprisoned in a shipping container for three days by KBR staffers who wanted to keep her complaint quiet..."

Jones has been working for over five years now to get her case to trial.

The author notes that this was a follow up article to "an expose on the rash of rape and sexual harassment allegations lodged against Halliburton, KBR, and its subsidiaries. One Houston firm alone was representing more than fourteen women with similar rape or harassment complaints."

Not good enough?

Let's try the case of Jessica Gonzales, "whose daughters were abducted by her estranged husband and killed after the police repeatedly refused to enforce her domestic violence restraining order against him..."

The U.S. Supreme Court "found that she had no constitutional right to police enforcement of her restraining order."

Now Gonzales is seeking justice from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Her case "involves the affirmative obligations of law enforcement to respond to domestic violence and protect victims, and the United States’ responsibility to provide a remedy when those obligations are not fulfilled."

Why would this woman be seeking a judgment from an international organization to hold that it is the obligation of law enforcement in the United States to respond to and protect domestic violence victims, and to make it clear that the U.S. has a responsibility to give women like her a remedy when those duties are not fulfilled?

Based on what Spencer said above, shouldn't that already be happening?

But of course, it's not.

Maybe Spencer, since he's such an avid fighter of domestic violence, can lend his prestige and voice to these two women, both of whom are Americans, and both of whom were the victims of domestic violence.

But for some strange reason I think Spencer will pass on this idea. It might not fit in well with his agenda for bashing Islam and Muslims.

A Call to Action: By Imam Omar Ahmad Suleiman

2010-03-27T01:00:00.006-04:00

His call to reject terrorism through the Qur'an and Sunnah should have been said many years ago. But better late than never.

By Imam Omar Ahmad Suleiman, Imam in New Orleans, LA and a member of ICNA’s Shariah Council
In the name of Allah, the most Compassionate, the most Merciful.

May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon His final messenger Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).

First and foremost, everything that is written is in assumption that the messages from Imam Anwar that have recently surfaced are indeed from him and no one else.

As American Muslims, many of us used to wonder at how Allah has blessed Imam Anwar with such a degree of eloquence, and the gift of storytelling if you will, that he could move you to tears within 5 minutes of his lecturing. The news that he was detained a few years ago in Yemen brought many of us into a state of shock and depression. We invoked Allah (subhanahu wa ta ala) to free our beloved Imam nightly until we heard the wonderful news that he had been freed on December 12, 2007. I remember all the text messages, emails, and blog posts with ecstatic Muslims around the country praising Allah for his release.

Then something happened. Slowly, we began to see the post-prison Anwar Al Awlaki express strange radical views. Lectures that were as fiery as ever were being published on various websites that called on Muslims to join the “global jihad.” Out of our blind love for him, most American Muslims simply dismissed his new lectures and writings as tainted by his frustration with what had happened to him in prison. As a community, we were willing to forgive him for his new bitter and pessimistic attitude towards the world because of the ordeal he had faced.

On November 7, 2009, 2 days after the Fort Hood shooting, the love affair between conscience American Muslims and Imam Anwar suffered a huge blow. Although Imam Al Awlaki was sounding increasingly radical in his lectures, he never once before condoned terrorism. In fact, he very clearly denounced the attacks of 9/11 in various interviews and sermons both within public and private circles. This time was different. He not only condoned the Fort Hood shootings but even went so far to say that Muslim organizations and scholars in the United States were guilty of cowardice, treason, and hypocrisy for condemning the shootings. As American Muslims who loved the old Anwar Al Awlaki so much, most of us immediately declared that these words were probably forged in his name to create dissension amongst the community. Then as the interviews started to come out, we couldn’t believe what was happening. Some of us probably questioned our own faith and principles because of our attachment to Imam Anwar. We watched Imam Johari of Dar Al Hijrah, where Imam Anwar once delivered a powerful condemnation of 9/11, as he had to stand and denounce one of his former closest friends and a man who captured our hearts for so many years.

Then came Imam Anwar’s praise of the failed Christmas day terrorist plot of Umar Farouk AbdulMuttalib. This left us even more baffled since this was an attack intended to kill 278 innocent airline passengers, many of whom were Muslims. How could an Imam who once seemed so level-headed now be a proponent of such a clear transgression of Islamic law?

Our search for answers and excuses for Anwar Al Awlaki have run out. Today we are hearing the words of hate and violence in the voice of the very same Imam which used to bring us so much good through the stories of our prophets and the remembrance of the hereafter. His call today for us as American Muslims to take up arms against our own country serves no other purpose but to wreak havoc and destruction. It is the same call of the kharijites that has been repeated so many times that feasts on the frustration and uncontrolled emotions of vulnerable youth that do not have the foundation or knowledge to recognize its illegitimacy.

In the next few days, I sincerely hope that American Muslim scholars will repudiate this call of hate using the injunctions of the Quran and the authentic Sunnah of our beloved Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). In the long run however, as Muslim communities and organizations we must seek to offer avenues of positive energy, in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah, for our zealous youth. We also should not shy away from repudiating calls of violence and hate that recklessly ignore the manhaj (methodology) of our pious predecessors. It is only through the dissemination of authentic knowledge of our religion that such calls can be drowned.

To our dear young brothers and sisters who grew up listening to the lectures of Imam Anwar and are overcome by emotion, I can only advise you with the words of the late Imam Al Ghazali (ra): “Islam is a commitment to principles, not people.” Think about the repercussions of this call to the religion of Allah. Will yielding to this pessimistic view of world destruction bring about any good to the ummah? Will it really end the occupation of Palestine or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or will it simply make matters worse than they already are. Allah desires from you that you bring about a positive change in your society, not chaos and destruction that will only further jeopardize an already delicate situation.

As for the Imam Anwar of today who spreads messages filled with hate and violence, perhaps no one could refute you more effectively than the Imam Anwar that was so beloved to our community who once said in a sermon back in October 2001:

“We as Muslims… we want to bring an end to terrorism more than anyone else. Our position needs to be reiterated and needs to be very clear. The fact the US has administered the death and homicide of over 1 million civilians in Iraq, the fact that the US is supporting the deaths and killing of thousands of Palestinians, does not justify the killing of 1 US civilian in New York City or Washington DC.”

I sincerely ask Allah to guide Imam Anwar back to the path of moderation, and enlighten him to renounce this new methodology which stands contrary to the Quran and Sunnah. May Allah protect our community and allow us to be amongst those who call to guidance and are guided, and not amongst those who call to misguidance and are astray. Ameen.

To answer the Imam's call, about Muslim scholars repudiating terror through the Qur'an and Sunnah, everyone should read and disseminate Imam Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti's fatwa denouncing terrorism through the Qur'an and Sunnah. It is the most thorough and explicit legal condemnation of terrorism using Islamic sources.

Greenwald on Israeli Arms Obtained By American Dollars

2010-03-23T21:35:00.005-04:00

Will the antisemitism ever stop?

One does not normally see this truth stated so starkly in places like Time Magazine -- from Michael Scherer's interesting article on AIPAC's current strategy to "storm Congress":

The third "ask" that AIPAC supporters will make of Congress on Tuesday is to once again pass the $3 billion in U.S. aid provided annually to Israel. "It's a very tough ask this year," [AIPAC lobbyist Steve] Aserkoff admitted, noting the U.S. domestic budgetary and economic challenges. Among other major purchases, the Israeli government has announced plans to replace its aging fleet of F-16 fighter jets with new, American-made F-35 fighters, a major cost that Israel hopes will be substantially born for [sic] by American taxpayers.

Those would be the same "American taxpayers" who are now being told that they have to suffer cuts in Medicare and Social Security because of budgetary constraints, who are watching as the most basic social services (the hallmark of being a developed country) are being rapidly abolished (from the 12th Grade to basic care for children, the infirm and elderly), and are burdened with a national debt so large that America's bond ratings are being degraded by the minute. Why should those same American taxpayers bear the enormous costs of Israel's military purchases (as Israel enjoys booming economic growth)? Especially if the issue is presented as cleanly and honestly as Scherer did here, and especially if Israel continues to extend its proverbial middle finger to even the most basic U.S. requests that it cease activities that harm American interests, how much longer can this absurdity be sustained?

On a related note, a new Rasmussen Poll found that only 58% of Americans now view "Israel as an ally" -- down from 70% just nine months ago. The same poll found that 49% of Americans believe Israel should be "required" to stop building settlements, with only 22% disagreeing. That's why the primary objective now of AIPAC and its bipartisan cast of Congressional servants is -- as Scherer put it -- "to pressure the Obama Administration to avoid airing disagreements publically [sic]." Indeed: you can't have the American people knowing anything about the U.S./Israel relationship and the ways in which the interests of the two countries diverge.

Having these issues discussed openly and having the American citizenry be informed might shatter all sorts of vital myths, which is exactly what has happened over the last month, which has, in turn, led to this change in public opinion (that, along with the fact that the Israeli Government, by being viewed as the opponent of Obama, has incurred the wrath of large numbers of Democrats who are loyal to Obama and automatically dislike any of his critics or opponents). That's why their overriding goal is to hide all these differences behind a wall of secrecy -- "the Administration, to the extent that it has disagreements with Israel on policy matters, should find way[s] to do so in private," demanded Democratic Rep. Steve Israel -- because an open examination of this "special relationship," how it really functions, and the costs and benefits it entails, is what they want most to avoid. It's common in a democracy for government officials to openly air their differences with allies; why should this be any different?

Another part of the Time article, which Greenwald didn't mention, that is worth seeing to believe:

The second lobbying priority identified for AIPAC delegates was to reaffirm the U.S.-Israeli relationship, and pressure the Obama Administration to avoid airing disagreements publically. Aserkoff referred to a letter arranged by AIPAC last year from several members of Congress to President Obama, urging the new White House to deal with Israel as a close friend. "I guess they didn't get that letter at the White House, because here we are again," he said. "It's kind of dumb to get into a big fight about some small issue."
The talking points did acknowledge that the Netanyahu government had made "a mistake" in announcing the East Jerusalem construction during Biden's recent visit.

You see, the whole settlement problem is a "small issue." No big deal. Those Palestinians that have been kicked off their land? Just go find some other place to live. Stop whining.

But hey, if you got most of the U.S. Congress in your back pocket, like the Israel Lobby does, then you can do pretty much whatever you want. Even if your claims to the land you are occupying are dubious at best, completely illegal at worst.

Are 80% of US Mosques Run By Extremists?

2010-03-19T07:45:00.001-04:00

Robert Spencer, director of the rabidly anti-Muslim Jihad Watch blog, said the following, it seems in response to my post on the lack of proof that U.S. mosques are breeding grounds for extremism:

Terror analysts have devoted a great deal of time to discussing how both [Colleen LaRose aka Jihad Jane and Jamie Paulin-Ramirez] were “radicalized” via the Internet. This calls for a new variation on an old truism. Just as guns don’t kill people (people kill people), so also the Internet doesn’t radicalize Muslims: Islamic jihadists radicalize Muslims.
And these bored suburbanites didn’t have to go to the Internet to get “radicalized.” As long ago as January 1999, the Naqshbandi Sufi leader Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani declared in a State Department Open Forum that Islamic supremacists controlled most mosques in America...

... Because they are very active they took over the mosques; and we can say that they took over more than 80% of the mosques that have been established in the US.

Spencer then quotes an Israeli terrorism "expert":

Terrorism expert Yehudit Barsky affirmed the same thing in 2005, saying that 80% of the mosques in this country “have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence.”

Finally, Spencer tells us that Saudi propaganda literature has filled U.S. mosques:

The Center for Religious Freedom found in 2005 a massive distribution of hateful jihadist and Islamic supremacist material in mosques in this country.

First, neither Shaikh Hisham Kabbani or Barsky have provided any evidence or documented proof that 80% of American mosques are radicalized by Saudi influence. Nobody to this day has been able to find out where Kabbani got this magical number from. Even Kabbani himself was unable to explain where he got this number from, as can be seen in this interview he had with the Middle East Quarterly:

On the basis that a large percentage of the population has been exposed to extreme ideas, due to the leadership. This does not imply that the majority of the Muslim population accepts these ideas they have been exposed to – in fact, most of them reject it, as it is so contrary to the faith. I find that many Muslim leaders have this kind of uncompromising, hard-line mentality —"follow us or you are not with us. If you don't follow us, you will be rejected from the community." This is completely contrary to the spirit and practice of mainstream Islam, which is one reason they are hostile to the traditional teachings which I am attempting to make known. On the other hand, the majority of the Muslim community itself is peaceful, loving, and wants to live a normal life without conflicts.

In reality, it seems, Kabbani's voice actually sides with what I and many other Muslim Americans have been saying all along, that the majority of Muslim Americans are peaceful citizens who are not radicalized. This probably doesn't sit well with Spencer, as his desire for American mosques to implement "comprehensive, honest, verifiable programs teaching against the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism" is not needed to confront or subdue radical teachings in such mosques since, as Kabbani says, the majority of Muslims in those mosques reject radical messages anyway.

However, getting back to the original point I wanted to make, Kabbani offers no proof or evidence or document or study that shows how he arrived at the now famous 80% figure. The fact is, that number was just an arbitrary, and irresponsible, guess made by Kabbani that is now being exploited by the likes of Spencer and other anti-Islam goons.

Moving on to the terrorism "expert" Spencer cites, Yehudit Barsky, she also does not provide any documented evidence for her conclusion that 80% of American mosques have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence. I even checked the organization she works for, the American Jewish Committee, and could not find any report or article documenting how she arrived at her conclusion about Saudi influence in American mosques. There is quite a bit about Hamas and Hezbollah on the AJC's web site, but nothing on the topic of radicalism in American mosques. It seems as though Barsky simply took Kabbani's guess as holy and passed it off as fact. But Barsky is free to comment on my post here and tell us all how she arrived at her 80% figure, which so coincidentally matches Kabbani's figure.

Last, Spencer tells us that the "Center for Religious Freedom found in 2005 a massive distribution of hateful jihadist and Islamic supremacist material in mosques in this country." The Center for Religious Freedom is run by the notorious Hudson Institute, a think tank that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt described in their famous book, The Israel Lobby, as being closely aligned with neo-conservatives (yes, those same guys that sold the American public on WMD's in Iraq, and advocate on behalf of Israeli interests over American ones).

The CRF's study itself is flawed since all the study did was note that there were Saudi publications on the shelves of a dozen or so American mosques amongst the thousands of mosques all across the U.S. Certainly, the texts that were in the mosques may have been from Saudi Arabia, but the study does not tell us if anyone or any group was studying them or whether the texts were collecting dust. But again, based on Kabbani's own testimony, which Spencer was so quick to highlight when it supported his argument, it seems as though most Muslim Americans wouldn't be reading that Saudi trash anyway. Right, Spencer?

Also, that CRF study also tells us a bit about Adam Gadahn, the great white hope of al-Qaeda, which further undermines Spencer's argument that U.S. officials should not assume that the majority of Muslims reject radical beliefs:

Adam Gadahn, thought to be the “American jihadi” who appeared in a mask on a videotape just before the 2004 elections threatening that America’s street would “run with blood,” had converted to Islam and became radicalized after spending hours studying Islam with seven or eight other young men at the Islamic Society of Orange County in California, the mosque chairman is quoted telling the Washington Post. We cannot tell precisely what he and his group were reading, but the mosque chairman told the Post: ‘“They were very rigid, cruel in talking to people….’ They criticized [the chair] for wearing Western clothes, for not wearing a beard, for trying to reach out to the local Jewish communities. Seizing on his American nickname, Danny, they circulated fliers around the mosque calling him ‘Danny the Jew.’”

The CRF uses Gadahn's studies at the mosque as an example of how Saudi texts in American mosques can radicalize Muslim Americans. But even the CRF admits that they had absolutely no clue what Gadahn and his boys were reading, whether it was one of those Saudi books from the mosque they attended or if it was from their own personal libraries.

Yet, the entire episode highlighted by the CRF about Gadahn's interaction at the Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC) tells us more about how there is little to no connection between Saudi publications being on the shelves of a mosque and how that mosque ultimately operates. For the ISOC leadership was, based on the very article the CRF cites to, active in interfaith work and was westernized. They were not radicals. They were, it seems, as Kabbani himself described most Muslim Americans, "peaceful, loving, and want[ing] to live a normal life without conflicts."

All of the above undermines Spencer's reasoning as to why American mosques should implement programs teaching against extremism. As Kabbani says, the majority of Muslim Americans are regular folks who reject extremism anyway. The above also shows why the likes of Jihad Jane and Jihad Jamie had to go on the Internet to meet up with Islamic extremists, because there weren't any at their local mosque.

To conclude, while I agree with Spencer that American mosques should implement programs to teach against extremism, I do not subscribe to his belief as to why such programs should be implemented. Spencer believes most American mosques are already breeding grounds for extremism. Kabbani and I believe that is not the case. Kabbani said the mosques were controlled by radicals, not that 80% of Muslim Americans are radical. I believe such programs should be implemented not because the Muslim American community is prone to radicalism, as Spencer believes, but because it's the right thing to do. It should be done to ensure that our mosques are not involved in any way, or on any level, with extremism because that in itself would be anathema to Islamic teachings.

Sun-Sentinel Misquotes Me

2010-03-18T17:46:00.004-04:00

In an article about Muhammad Malik, the new director of the CAIR South Florida office, Sun-Sentinel reporter Lois Solomon wrote the following about me:

"Muslims usually advocate for larger issues, like Palestinian issues, but we're getting involved on the local level," said Omer Subhani, a CAIR executive committee member and University of Miami law student. "We want to network with other religious groups. If there is another [terrorist] attack, we want to have community support."

Uhm, no.

This makes me sound like the reason Muslims in South Florida are reaching out to other faith groups is in order to use other faith groups for our own protection in case of another terror attack.

What I told Solomon is that Muslim Americans, like Muhammad and myself, who were born and raised in the United States, want our community to become more politically active in order to speak on behalf of our community and to ensure our community can defend itself from Islamophobes, while also partaking in the political process in order to speak out on a variety of issues besides Muslim specific ones, like health care and the economy. As citizens of this country, we want our community to become more involved with domestic issues, instead of what the old guard became preoccupied with, such as the Palestinian issue.

We want to reach out to other faith groups in order to build bridges of understanding so that, like the Qur'an says, we can know one another. Not so these other faith groups can protect the Muslim community.

Solomon's reporting of my words were completely off the mark.

Thanks for making me look like some opportunistic stealth militant. Super!

A Review of American Radical: a film on Norman Finkelstein

2010-03-18T03:21:00.004-04:00

By the Electronic Intifada

One night about two weeks ago, while I was walking down Bleecker Street in New York City’s West Village, I crossed paths with Norman Finkelstein. He was wearing a light jacket and eating a banana, seemingly impervious to the bitter wind and heavy snowfall pouring from the sky. I told Finkelstein that a YouTube clip of him parrying attacks from Zionist student activists during a speech he gave at the University of Waterloo was gaining popularity online. “Well, that scene hasn’t been very good for me,” he remarked in a near whisper.

The YouTube clip was an excerpt from American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein, a riveting 2009 documentary that has just opened in US theaters. In the scene, a female student tells Finkelstein that his comparisons of the Israeli government to the Nazis are “extremely hurtful” before she breaks down in tears. Instead of offering the demonstrative young woman a token gesture of empathy, Finkelstein grows indignant, angrily dismissing what he called her “crocodile tears.” He then launches into a stentorian tirade about “the lessons of the Holocaust” he learned from his Holocaust survivor parents, booming above a chorus of heckles from pro-Israel students, “If you had any heart in you, you would be crying for the Palestinians!” While the young woman holds her head in hands as though she was bracing for an air raid, a substantial portion of the crowd leaps to its feet with wild cheers. Finkelstein may have regretted the spectacle he generates later on, but he seemed to be enjoying himself at the time.

With unfettered access to Finkelstein during the most dramatic stage of his career, American Radical directors David Ridgen and Nicolas Rossier provide a compelling look at one of the most roundly vilified academics in recent American history. If the film had simply rehashed the tale of Finkelstein as a rabble-rousing iconoclast who defied the Jewish-American consensus to agitate for Palestinian civil rights, it would have been prosaic at best. But by giving equal time to Finkelstein’s critics, who proved unable to conceal their visceral disdain for him even though they have succeeded in isolating him from the intellectual mainstream, the film offers a devastating portrait of an academic establishment that will go to extraordinary lengths not only to rebut but destroy potent critics of Israel, even obviously idiosyncratic characters like Finkelstein. Even with his excessive tendencies and strident style on bold display, when seen in the shadow of his adversaries, Finkelstein appears more than odd — he becomes utterly sympathetic.

Finkelstein was raised in post-war Borough Park, Brooklyn, a community settled by Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe whose sense of ambition and intellectual intensity far outweighed their interest in assimilating to American middle class cultural sensibilities. From her experience in the Warsaw Ghetto, Finkelstein’s mother, Mayla, developed ardently pacifist convictions — “with the first killing, you’ve already lost,” she stated. According to a family friend interviewed in the film, Finkelstein “was influenced by his mother to an unhealthy extent,” a critique even he acknowledged.

When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, Finkelstein began to see the Palestinian refugees as victims of the same sort of brutality his mother endured. He is seen in American Radical protesting Israel’s occupation of Lebanon outside the Israeli consulate in New York City, holding a sign denouncing “Israeli Nazis” and invoking his parents’ enslavement in concentration camps. The film then detours to the West Bank, where Finkelstein made enduring friendships with several families in Hebron, deepening his commitment to the Palestinian cause in the process.

Finkelstein’s closest Palestinian friend, a pensive middle aged man named Musa Abu Hashhash, recalls being startled when Finkelstein cried openly after watching Israel troops shoot a boy to death for burning a tire. Another friend confesses on camera that Israel’s brutal actions against the Palestinians had caused her to hate Jews. But after Finkelstein befriended her, her perspective on Jews broadened, forcing her to rethink her resentment. She added with admiration that Finkelstein never attempted to disguise his Jewish identity while traveling through the West Bank. By presenting frank recollections from everyday Palestinians about their encounters with Finkelstein, American Radical subtly interweaves their struggle with his own.

While pursuing his PhD at Princeton, Finkelstein was mentored by his intellectual hero Noam Chomsky. Chomsky encouraged Finkelstein as he composed his thesis, which was intended to expose Joan Peters’ book, From Time Immemorial, as a hoax. Peters boasted that her work revealed the Palestinian cause as “a scam.” She claimed to have proven that Palestine was relatively unpopulated — “a land without a people,” as the saying goes — until Arabs flocked there from other regions during the 19th century. Cultural icons from Elie Wiesel to Barbara Tuchman hailed Peters’ book as a great revelation. “It was the book American Jews wanted to have because it whitewashed Israel,” the Israeli revisionist historian Avi Shlaim recalls in American Radical.

While Immemorial shot to the top of the bestseller list, a few small left-wing journals published articles poking holes in Peters’ claims. But it was not until Finkelstein’s dissertation was published (over the strident objections of Princeton faculty members) that mainstream intellectuals were forced to reckon with Peters’ shoddy research and ideological zealotry. Chomsky told Finkelstein that by dismantling Peters, he would inadvertently expose the “American intellectual community as a gang of frauds.”

He warned, “They’re going to destroy you.”

As Finkelstein’s public profile grew, he sought out rancorous conflicts with increasing intensity. In 2000, he published the work that would inflame his adversaries to the point of blind rage: The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. Finkelstein argued that American Jewish groups and an assortment of venal “hoaxers and hucksters” were using the Holocaust “as an ideological weapon” to stifle criticism of Israel and line their own pockets. He skewered Wiesel for his insistence that the Holocaust was a quasi-religious event that could not possibly be understood and for downplaying the Armenian genocide. Though the renowned Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg called Finkelstein’s conclusions “moderate,” Finkelstein incited his critics through characteristically strident presentations.

Finkelstein’s book was lambasted by an array of distinguished scholars. More predictably, he was condemned as a “disgusting self-hating Jew” by Leon Wieseltier, the literary critic of The New Republic. (”We’re the cops,” Wieseltier told journalist Eric Alterman regarding the magazine’s role in suppressing criticism of Israel (”Semites and Anti-Semites,” The Nation, 25 February 2010). Finally, Finkelstein’s employers at Hunter College reduced his course load and salary without explanation, forcing him to leave his hometown for Chicago, where he took a teaching position at DePaul University.

While providing a forum to Finkelstein’s most malevolent critics, American Radical suffers from the absence of Peter Novick, the University of Chicago professor who Finkelstein credited with providing “the initial stimulus” for The Holocaust Industry with the release in 1999 of his book The Holocaust in American Life. Novick had arrived at many of the same conclusions as Finkelstein would, however, when Finkelstein’s book appeared Novick dismissed it as “trash,” accusing its author of fabricating some of his findings. Pro-Israel “enforcers” like Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School immediately appropriated Novick’s criticisms to undermine Finkelstein, praising Novick as a voice of moderation when they might have attacked him had Finkelstein’s book never appeared.

Why was Finkelstein targeted when Novick was not? Perhaps Finkelstein, the unabashed radical, was the more convenient target. Or perhaps his book was judged to be a greater threat to the Zionist narrative. The film could have benefited by wrestling with this issue rather than glossing over it as though Finkelstein was the first to publicly accuse anyone of exploiting the Holocaust for political gain.

None of Finkelstein’s conflicts disrupted his career as much as his apocalyptic battle with Dershowitz. Dershowitz first appears in American Radical seated beside Finkelstein in a studio of the progressive radio program Democracy Now!, looking like a deer in the headlights as Finkelstein accuses him of plagiarizing large portions of his book The Case For Israel from Peters’ Immemorial. Later on in the film, Dershowitz pontificates on what he sees as Finkelstein’s hidden motivations, charging him and other anti-Zionist Jews with “struggling with identity problems.” The plagiarism accusation had clearly shaken Dershowitz to his core, challenging his sense of inviolability by forcing him to defend his scholarship down to the last footnote.

However, some of Finkelstein’s friends were rightly concerned that he had underestimated his foe’s vengeful propensity. Chomsky had warned his former understudy not to attack Dershowitz’s book on the basis of plagiarism, but to dismantle his propagandistic portrait of Israel as an unfairly persecuted bastion of democratic tolerance instead. And John Mearsheimer, the University of Chicago political scientist who was falsely accused by Dershowitz of quoting neo-Nazi sources in his book The Israel Lobby (see the scholar’s response in the London Review of Books, 11 May 2006), urged Finkelstein to “get all the hot rhetoric out of there.” Meanwhile, an Israeli friend of Finkelstein was convinced he had signed away his future. “He called Dershowitz a plagiarist and a liar,” she remarks in the film. “What did he expect him to do? Doesn’t he know the kind of connections he has?”

When Finkelstein was rejected for tenure at DePaul after a long and stormy battle that marshaled much of the faculty behind him in the name of academic freedom, the dean of the college, Charles Suchar, wrote a revealing letter blaming Finkelstein’s “personal and reputation demeaning attacks on Alan Dershowitz” and other Zionist intellectual figures. Having lost confidence in his public case against Finkelstein, Dershowitz had resorted to skullduggery, apparently tapping his connections to deliver the coup de grace to Finkelstein’s career as a professor. But as American Radical shows, antagonists like Dershowitz ultimately transformed Finkelstein from a gadfly into a victim hero, ensuring him an international platform for as long as the Israel-Palestine conflict continues.

For more information about American Radical: the trials of Norman Finkelstein visit http://www.americanradicalthefilm.com/

Max Blumenthal (http://www.maxblumenthal.com/) is a writing fellow with the Nation Institute and contributor to Al Jazeera English, Salon.com, Alternet, the Huffington Post, and the Washington Monthly. The winner of the USC Annenberg Online Journalism Award for his investigative print journalism, he has produced numerous widely-recognized video reports that have garnered hundreds of thousands of hits on Youtube. His book, Republican Gomorrah: Inside The Movement That Shattered The Party,” was published by Basic Books in 2009.