The false dichotomy of Islamophobia

The false dichotomy of Islamophobia on July 27, 2015 • ( 67 ) Ottoman women Ottoman women by Massimo Pigliucci A false dichotomy is a basic type of informal logical fallacy, consisting in framing an issue as if there were only two choices available, while in fact a range of nuanced positions may be on offer upon more careful reflection. While I have argued together with my colleagues Maarten Boudry and Fabio Paglieri that often so-called logical fallacies turn out to be pretty reasonable heuristic strategies [1], there are nonetheless plenty of instances were they do identify truly bad reasoning. I have recently discussed one such case in reference to so-called trigger warnings in the context of college classes [2], but another one is arguably represented by the never ending “debate” about Islamophobia. It is easy to find stark examples of people defending what appear to be two irreconcilable positions about how to view Islam in a post-9/11 world. For the sake of discussion, I will bypass pundits and other pseudo-intellectuals, and use instead two comedians as representative of the contrasting positions: Jon Stewart [3] and Bill Maher [4]. Before proceeding I must acknowledge that while I’ve liked Stewart for a long time, and followed with pleasure his evolution from being solely a comedian to a savvy social commentator during his run at the Daily Show [5], my appreciation of Maher has slid further and further. I used to like his brusque style back when he was doing his “Politically Incorrect” show, first on Comedy Central, then on ABC [6]. I was aghast when ABC (allegedly) let him go because he had dared to make the truly politically (but clearly correct) statement that the 9/11 hijackers could properly be labelled with a number of negative epithets, but that cowards wasn’t one of them. But then he made his Religulous movie [7], where he slid into crass new atheism-style “criticism” of religion, and finally came out as an anti-vaxxer all the while chastising some of his guests who were “skeptical” of climate change for being anti-science. At the same time, my conscious transition from a youthful predilection for assault rhetoric to a more nuanced (okay, middle aged), if still ironic, discourse also definitely marked a permanent shift in my taste from Maher (a good representative of the first style) to Stewart (an excellent example of the second one). Back to Islam and Islamophobia. Maher has been repeatedly accused of the latter, while he defends himself as simply having the guts to be politically incorrect and openly criticize a religion that he considers the worst of a bad lot (since he rejects all religions anyway). Stewart, by contrast, has often had guests whose position is that there is nothing inherently wrong with Islam, and that the current undeniable penchant of a number of Islamic societies to harbor large reserves of potentially violent extremists has really nothing to do with religion and everything to do with external circumstances affecting those societies — circumstances that are usually traced back one way or the other to the aftermath of (Western) colonialism. Notice that part of what interests me in this debate is the contrast on this topic among individuals who all consider themselves to be on the left of the political spectrum, just like in the above mentioned case of trigger warnings. And again as in that other case, I am far less interested in the even more inflammatory, and intellectually much coarser, rhetoric coming from the extreme right, which will accordingly be left out of the current discussion. Now, broadly speaking, I don’t think religions in general are particularly good ideas. In my mind they originate from a combination of false presuppositions (that there are higher beings of a supernatural kind) and a power grab by individuals (i.e., religious leaders) who sometimes unconsciously (and sometimes not) end up exploiting the fears and hopes of the people that they are supposed to lead. Even so, I recognize that the religious instinct is pretty much universal among human beings, and not likely to go away any time soon, if ever. I also recognize that religions have done lots of good in the world throughout history, and that it isn’t at all clear whether a world without them would indeed be a better one, as a number of overconfident atheists keeps claiming [8]. What I’m saying is that I don’t believe that religion, any religion (including Islam) is a particularly good idea, but at the same time I also don’t believe that any religion (again, including Islam) is “the mother load of bad ideas” [9]. But of course we are not talking about religions in general, we are talking post-9/11 Islam. What are we to make of it? While the statistics on international terrorism are complex and can be read in a number of ways [10], there is little doubt even in the mind of sympathetic commentators like CNN’s Fared Zakaria that contemporary Islam does have a problem with violence and oppression (especially of women and gays). Zakaria (a frequent guest on the Daily Show), however, puts things in the right context when he reminds us that all we need to do is to look at the relatively recent comparative history of Islam and other Abrahamic religions to be convinced that there isn’t anything especially pernicious, in the long run, with the former when compared to the latter [11]. The (Muslim) Ottoman Empire, for instance, was one of the most tolerant places bordering with Europe for centuries, while many (Christian) European countries themselves were busy suppressing or violently expelling religious minorities, including different flavors of Christianity. This, Zakaria rightly concludes, ought to dispel any simplistic idea about one of the Abrahamic faiths being intrinsically worse than the others, selective quotations of the Quran by some modern commentators (on both sides) notwithstanding. (As is well known, the quotation game can easily be played by more than one side, as Jewish and Christian scriptures are full of severely objectionable passages, by modern moral standards.) It would seem, then, that Maher & co. simply haven’t bothered to study history, and that it is a combination of social, economic and political factors that is creating a special problem for Islam in the contemporary world — just like different circumstances did not lead to the same problem during the Ottoman Empire, and did lead to them in Christian controlled countries for many centuries. Well, not so fast (and here comes the hopefully more nuanced approach that might save us from simplistic dichotomies). It is also simply unconvincing to argue, as Stewart and a number of his guests have done — that Islam qua religion and idea has nothing at all to do with the above mentioned culture of violence and oppression. If one asks recruits of Al Qaeda or ISIS why they are doing what they are doing they reply with a combination of political motives (get American military bases off their sacred land, for instance) and their own interpretation of what Islam is about and the Quran mandates. Sure, one can argue that such interpretations are simply mistaken (though it’s hard to adjudicate theological debates, since we can’t ask the alleged divine source), but even so those ideas clearly play an enabling and highly motivating role in the ensuing violence and repression. To deny this is simply not to pay attention to what is plainly in front of our eyes and ears. The above should clearly imply that the dichotomy presented to us by the “it’s the mother load of bad ideas” vs the “it has nothing to do with Islam” crowds is simply mistaken. And it is mistaken for reasons that, again, ought to be familiar to anyone even superficially acquainted with history. We have plenty of examples of how certain combinations of external and internal social circumstances have become fertile ground for extremist ideas, religious or not, and of when bad, or badly interpreted, ideas feed right back into people’s behaviors, giving them a way to rationalize and magnify their thinking and actions. Take, for instance, the rise of “communist” countries during the 20th century, particularly Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China. Unlike, say, nazism and fascism — which I think truly are irredeemably bad ideas — communism as developed by Marx and Engels [12] is not even close to being in the same ballpark. It may be unworkable, and even undesirable, but it isn’t intrinsically evil. Yet the communist ideal was easily twisted by unscrupulous and power hungry “leaders” like Stalin and Mao (and a number of others), resulting in many decades of entirely non-religious violence and oppression that killed many times more people than contemporary Islam has managed so far. Why? Because millions bought into the ideas that were being presented to them and used them as a justification for what they were doing, even though they were doing it at the least in part because of external social, political and economic circumstances (just remember in what context both the Russian and Chinese revolutions took place [13]). So, while some people may very well be “Islamophobes” (i.e., they may genuinely harbor an irrational prejudice against Islam), simply pointing out that Islamic ideas play a role in contemporary terrorism and repression does not make one a Islamophobe, and using the label blindly is simply an undemocratic, and unreflective, way of cutting off critical discourse. Then again, those who focus on Islam as uniquely problematic may themselves benefit from dusting off a couple of history books and learn a thing or two about the complex interplay of ideas and socio-political situations in human affairs, before making themselves Paladins of simplistic and highly misleading non-truths. _____ Massimo Pigliucci is a biologist and philosopher at the City University of New York. His main interests are in the philosophy of science and pseudoscience. He is the editor-in-chief of the online magazine Scientia Salon, and his latest books are Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem (Chicago Press, co-edited with Maarten Boudry) and Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life (Basic Books). [1] The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life, by M. Boudry, F. Paglieri and M. Pigliucci, Argumentation:1-26, 2015. [2] The false dichotomy of trigger warnings, by M. Pigliucci, Scientia Salon, 28 May 2015. [3] Jon Stewart, Wiki entry. [4] Bill Maher, Wiki entry. [5] See: The Ultimate Daily Show and Philosophy: More Moments of Zen, More Indecision Theory, ed. by J. Holt. I contributed chapter 17, “Evolution, Schmevolution.” [6] Politically Incorrect, Wiki entry. [7] Religulous, 2008, IMDB entry. [8] See: Would the World Be a Better Place Without Religion?, Rationally Speaking podcast, 8 March 2015. [9] Sam Harris Defends Assertion That ‘Islam Is the Motherlode of Bad Ideas’, Media ITE, 13 October 2014, commenting on an episode of Bill Maher’s show. [10] Take a look at the Global Terrorism Database, though this article by the BBC clearly shows a recent, sharp, increase in terrorist attacks, mostly of an extremist Islamic nature. [11] Let’s be honest, Islam has a problem right now, by F. Zakaria, Washington Post, 9 October 2014. [12] The Communist Manifesto, by F. Engels and K. Marx, Project Gutenberg. [13] Russian Revolution, Wiki entry; Chinese Communist Revolution, Wiki entry. https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/the-false-dichotomy-of-islamophobia/

Early Muslims in America

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/the-founding-muslims.html The Muslims of Early America By PETER MANSEAUFEB. 9, 2015 Photo Credit Andrea Mongia Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Share This Page Email Share Tweet Save more Continue reading the main story IT was not the imam’s first time at the rodeo. Scheduled to deliver an invocation at the Fort Worth Stock Show and Rodeo last week, Moujahed Bakhach of the local Islamic Association of Tarrant County canceled his appearance because of the backlash brought on by a prayer he had offered a few days before. The imam had been asked to confer a blessing on horses, riders and members of the military. He was met with gasps from the audience and social media complaints: “Outraged at a Muslim prayer at an all American event!” “Cowboys don’t want it!” Vocal anti-Islamic sentiment is undergoing a revival. Four days before the imam’s canceled benediction, protesters at the State Capitol in Austin shouted down Muslim speakers, claiming Texas in the name of Jesus alone. In North Carolina two weeks earlier, Duke University’s plan to broadcast a Muslim call to prayer was abandoned amid threats of violence. Meanwhile Gov. Bobby Jindal, Republican of Louisiana claimed that if American Muslims “want to set up their own culture and values, that’s not immigration, that’s really invasion.” No matter how anxious people may be about Islam, the notion of a Muslim invasion of this majority Christian country has no basis in fact. Moreover, there is an inconvenient footnote to the assertion that Islam is anti-American: Muslims arrived here before the founding of the United States — not just a few, but thousands. They have been largely overlooked because they were not free to practice their faith. They were not free themselves and so they were for the most part unable to leave records of their beliefs. They left just enough to confirm that Islam in America is not an immigrant religion lately making itself known, but a tradition with deep roots here, despite being among the most suppressed in the nation’s history. In 1528, a Moroccan slave called Estevanico was shipwrecked along with a band of Spanish explorers near the future city of Galveston, Tex. The city of Azemmour, in which he was raised, had been a Muslim stronghold against European invasion until it fell during his youth. While given a Christian name after his enslavement, he eventually escaped his Christian captors and set off on his own through much of the Southwest. Two hundred years later, plantation owners in Louisiana made it a point to add enslaved Muslims to their labor force, relying on their experience with the cultivation of indigo and rice. Scholars have noted Muslim names and Islamic religious titles in the colony’s slave inventories and death records. The best known Muslim to pass through the port at New Orleans was Abdul-Rahman Ibrahim ibn Sori, a prince in his homeland whose plight drew wide attention. As one newspaper account noted, he had read the Bible and admired its precepts, but added, “His principal objections are that Christians do not follow them.” Among the enslaved Muslims in North Carolina was a religious teacher named Omar ibn Said. Recaptured in 1810 after running away from a cruel master he called a kafir (an infidel), he became known for inscribing the walls of his jail cell with Arabic script. He wrote an account of his life in 1831, describing how in freedom he had loved to read the Quran, but in slavery his owners had converted him to Christianity. Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story The story of Islam in early America is not merely one of isolated individuals. An estimated 20 percent of enslaved Africans were Muslims, and many sought to recreate the communities they had known. In Georgia, which has joined more than a dozen states in the political theater of debating a restriction on judges’ consulting Shariah, Muslims on a secluded plantation are known to have lived under the guidance of a religious leader who wrote a manuscript on Islamic law so that traditional knowledge might survive. Continue reading the main story Recent Comments cb 8 hours ago The muslims of early America? How about an article about the Christians of early Arabia? How have the muslims done in America vs. how have... vox_de_causa 8 hours ago USA provides for the most part what is needed for one to practice their humanity and whatever believes that they have and I think that is... Hisham 8 hours ago I shared this article with an American friend who is as white as they get although he is not a practicing Christian and this was his reply:... See All Comments A clue to what happened to these forgotten American Muslims can be found in the words of a missionary traveling through the South to preach the gospel on slave plantations. Many “Mohammedan Africans,” he noted, had found ways to “accommodate” Islam to the new beliefs imposed upon them. “God, say they, is Allah, and Jesus Christ is Mohammed. The religion is the same, but different countries have different names.” The missionary considered this to be lamentable evidence of Muslims’ inability to recognize the importance of religious truths. But in fact it proves just the opposite. They understood that their faith was important enough that they should listen for it everywhere, even in a country so distant from the places where they had once heard the call to prayer. Islam is part of our common history — a resilient faith not just of the enslaved, but of Arab immigrants in the late 19th century, and in the 20th century of many African-Americans reclaiming and remaking it as their own. For generations, its adherents have straddled a nation that jolts from promises of religious freedom to events that give the lie to those promises. In a sense, Islam is as American as the rodeo. It, too, was imported, but is now undeniably part of the culture. Whether or not protesters in Texas and elsewhere are ready for it, it is inevitable that some Muslims will let their babies grow up to be cowboys. A few cowboys may grow up to be Muslims as well. Peter Manseau is the author, most recently, of “One Nation Under Gods: A New American History.”

Why Muslims Are Talking About Islam And Blasphemy After Charlie Hebdo

By Jaweed Kaleem
jaweed.kaleem@huffingtonpost.com
Posted: 01/07/2015 8:48 pm EST

The deadly shootings at the offices of French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo have reignited discussions among Muslims in the United States and elsewhere about violence purportedly done in the name of their faith, and about what their religion teaches about responding to mockery and criticism.

While no group took responsibility for the attack that left 12 dead, videos show a gunman screaming in Arabic, “Allahu akbar” (“God is great”) outside the publication’s building, and witnesses told police the gunmen said they had “avenged the prophet.” One surviving Charlie Hebdo staffer said gunmen told her they represented al Qaeda. Police have identified three suspects.

Several European and American Islamic organizations, as well as sheikhs and mosque leaders around the globe, have denounced the attacks, saying they don’t represent Muslim values. Many cited a popular story about the life of the Islamic prophet that features him getting ridiculed for his faith and not responding with violence.

But in statements and interviews, Muslim leaders have disagreed on how to proceed, with responses ranging from supporting prayer and education about Islam to calling for debate among Muslims over Islamic mores on blasphemy. On social media, a hashtag, #NotInMyName, that began as way for Muslims stand up against the ideology of the Islamic State terror group, was repurposed to condemn the Paris attack.

“Even if something is offensive to our religion, it can never be a justification to use violence or to hurt others,” said Azhar Azeez, president of the Islamic Society of North America, one of the many organizations that has forcefully condemned the attack. “But freedom of speech doesn’t mean I have to offend someone else’s faith or tradition. There are boundaries and limitations. There is a fine line between freedom of speech and bigotry.

“We can write articles in the newspaper, we can do educational seminars, we can even do a peaceful protest,” said Azeez, listing how his organization is considering responding to the violence being linked in reports to to Islamic extremism. “Still, it is very troubling that anytime such an incident happens, we are compelled to come out and issue statements as American Muslims.”

Charlie Hebdo, a weekly left-leaning Parisian newspaper known for lampooning Islam, Judaism and Christianity, has been targeted for its satire before. In 2011, its offices were bombed and its website was hacked after a special issue renamed the magazine “Charia Hedbo” and listed the prophet Muhammad as its editor-in-chief. The cover of that issue was a cartoon of the prophet saying, “100 lashes of the whip if you don't die laughing.” This week’s issue has caricature on the cover of author Michel Houellebecq, whose new book, Submission, tells a tale of a future Muslim-run France under Islamic law.

Images of the Islamic prophet are not banned by the Quran. But the hadith -- a record of orally-transmitted sayings and actions of the prophet and his companions that many Muslims follow -- frowns upon the practice. Many Islamic scholars have historically viewed depictions of the prophet as potentially leading to idol worship and reverence of him as a god instead of a man.

Concern about violent responses to satire of Islam and depictions of the prophet has made headlines globally in recent years, most infamously after protests in dozens of cities after Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published cartoons in 2005 poking fun at the Islamic prophet. Years later, the “The Innocence of Muslims,” a YouTube video, ignited protests and was blamed for helping spur the attack on the American mission in Benghazi, Libya.

Maajid Nawaz, the London-based founder of Quilliam, a counter-terrorism organization made up of former members of Islamist organizations, called on Muslims to reconsider Islamic views on insulting its beliefs and prophet. “Yes this is about victims. It’s also about how how our communities reform and abolish blasphemy codes,” he tweeted. Nawaz, a former member of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, also encouraged for Muslims to speak out that satirical cartoons don’t faze them.

Yasir Qadhi, an assistant professor of Islamic studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee, said he took a more nuanced view.

“Loving the prophet is a necessary requirement of (faith). Defending his honor is a sign of belief. This is done by following his teachings and practice, not by murdering in his name,” Qadhi wrote in a widely shared Facebook post. “Even for those who believe that the penalty for blasphemy should be death: by unanimous consensus of all the scholars of Islam, this must take place after a legitimate trial, by a qualified judge, appointed by a legitimate Islamic state. Under no circumstances does Islam allow vigilante justice.”

“The damage these people do to the image of the prophet is much more than cartoonists do to our prophet,” Qadhi, who is also dean of academic affairs at Houston-based AlMaghrib Institute, said in an interview, adding that he believed “Muslims in the modern world need to talk and engage about blasphemy in Muslim countries. But no reputable cleric is calling for laws like that in America or Paris.”

The largest American-Muslim organizations -- the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Circle of North America -- condemned the attacks Wednesday, and suggested further action from American Muslims was premature.

After an uproar in many Muslim-majority countries over the controversial Danish cartoons in late 2005, CAIR launched “Explore the Life of Muhammad,” a campaign in the U.S. and Canada to mail free educational DVDs and books about Islam to thousands of Americans. The civil rights organization also recruited mosques to hold open houses to teach about Islam. CAIR communications director Ibrahim Hooper said in an interview that it was “too soon” to say if it planned a similar outreach after the slaughter in Paris.

“We may plan an outreach campaign on the life of the prophet, what is love of the prophet, how Muslims feel about him," said Naeem Baig, ICNA president. “My personal thought is that whatever I can do peacefully, I should. If I am upset at cartoons, I must say I am upset, if I don’t like an article about our prophet, I will say so. But this concept of blasphemy -- sometimes I think we humans fall into this false concept of revenge. That shows a weakness of faith. Our faith teaches us that the ultimate justice is God almighty.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-muslims-blasphemy_n_6433104.html

Islamophobia still has its place at CPAC

SALON.com

Saturday, Mar 16, 2013 03:34 PM EDT
Islamophobia still has its place at CPAC
A panel of "Uninvited" anti-Islam activists trashed Grover Norquist and former Bush staffer Suhail Khan
By Jillian Rayfield

Though, for the most part, the fringiest conservatives were shut out of CPAC this year, one unofficial panel hosted by Breitbart.com did not disappoint, bringing out “The Uninvited” anti-Islam activists for a panel on national security. Speaking to a packed room, Pamela Geller, Frank Gaffney, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, talked of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration of America, and, more imminently, of the CPAC conference.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who introduced the panel on Saturday and called the speakers “the world experts on global jihad,” bemoaned that the FBI has “scrubbed out” derogatory references to Islam or Muslims because their Muslim advisers told them they had to. He also couldn’t pass up the opportunity to talk illegal immigrants, who he called “undocumented Democrats.”

Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey warned of Islam’s “need to impose sharia on the world,” noting that “there has been a systematic purging of references to Islamism, lest offense be given to Muslims.” And where is the government finding out what will give offense to Muslims, Mukasey asked. From groups like CAIR and ISNA, “both of which are branches of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“The vast majority of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims adhere to a view of their religion that agrees on the need to impose Sharia, or Islamic law, on the world,” he said.

Robert Spencer, the blogger for Jihad Watch, got a standing ovation for tying both Grover Norquist, who is married to a Muslim woman, and ex-Bush staffer and CPAC board member Suhail Khan, who is Muslim, to the Muslim Brotherhood. “What I do know is that they’re completely in bed with the same people Barack Obama is listening to to draft the entire foreign policy of the United States and domestic policy as well.”

Spencer added that Norquist “is the one who made it so that Pamela Geller and I are on this panel called ‘The Uninvited.’”

“Maybe you don’t know, but Barack Obama has completely aligned this nation with the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said. “Barack Obama is not stupid and we should give him credit for knowing what he’s doing and for doing it on purpose.”

Pamela Geller, who called the panel “poetic justice,” said that “truth is the new hate speech,” and that those who try to speak the truth are “marginalize[d], demonize[d] and render[ed] radioactive.”

She also took a shot at Khan: “Suhail Khan is worse than Anwar al Awaki” because “look what’s he’s done to this conference.”

Frank Gaffney, who was banned from the conference several years ago, said that Khan “was recruited to the Muslim Brotherhood” when in college. “He is a prince of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

After the panel, Robert Spencer told Salon that “Islamophobia is a concept manufactured by the Muslim Brotherhood in order to intimidate people into being afraid to resist Islamic supremacism.”

Jillian Rayfield is an Assistant News Editor for Salon, focusing on politics. Follow her on Twitter at @jillrayfield or email her at jrayfield@salon.com.

SOURCE: http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/islamophobia_still_has_its_place_at_cpac/

Muslim Communities Must Draw the Line on Killing of Shia

Muslim Communities Must Draw the Line on Killing of Shia
Sign onto the IntraFaith Code of Honor

The persistent and horrific attacks against Shia in Pakistan and the Middle East are an outrageous violation of Islam. Hundreds have been killed in the most recent string of sectarian violence across the region. MPAC condemns all attacks on minority groups and calls on all the governments in these countries as well as Muslim leaders to act immediately to stop this cancerous fratricide within our faith.

The latest attack took place in Pakistan on Sunday, when a bomb destroyed a Shia mosque in Karachi, killing 48 and wounding hundreds. The next day, a shooter opened fire on thousands of mourners who were returning home from the funeral of those killed in the bomb blast.

“We Muslims cannot let events which took place 1,400 years ago and created these labels be the demise of our community today,” said Dr. Maher Hathout, MPAC’s Senior Adviser. “These attacks are forbidden and a violation of Islam. The senseless murder of Shia must stop, and it is past time for political and religious leaders to step in to forbid and stop this slaughter, and hold the perpetrators accountable.”

In just the first two months of this year, about 250 Shia have been killed by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a Sunni group which has been responsible for most attacks against Shia in Pakistan.

Tragically, these attacks are not limited to Pakistan. Shia have being expelled from the United Arab Emirates; major Shia mosques and villages have been destroyed in Syria; suicide bombers have attacked Shia shrines in Iraq; and Shia are being denied basic human rights in Saudi Arabia.

Governments that promote sectarianism, like those in Saudi Arabia and Iran, share responsibility for this misguided and senseless violence. They do not represent the Islamic values they claim to uphold when young impressionable Muslims take their lead to kill other Muslims from their cues. This deviation from Islamic principles based on justice are apparent when the Saudi military suppresses the Bahraini opposition while arming extremists in Syria, and while Iran arms the Syrian dictatorship while promoting their ideology throughout the region. They both fuel their ideological narrow-mindedness with their petrodollars.

The current deadly silence of Muslim organizations and leaders about this disaster is heart-breaking. Islam teaches us that the most sacred thing is human life, which we are seeing discarded and violated in gang-like confrontations. God’s commandments are clear:

“But whoever kills a believer intentionally – his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and God has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.” (Quran 4:93)

This continued violence can no longer be tolerated, and we call upon all Muslim leaders to address these atrocities and put an end to the hate and violence. Condemning the violent acts is the first step in the right direction, but many leaders are ignoring the issue and taking solace in ceremonial interaction. The growing number of attacks is an indicator that these unchecked problems are getting worse.

Five years ago, MPAC brought together American Muslim leaders to sign onto an “Intra-Faith Code of Honor” to address the increasing sectarian violence abroad and, most importantly, ensure that American Muslim communities are not divided or infected by international events. The code, which was adopted by major American Muslim Sunni and Shia leaders, reads in part:

"As Muslim Americans who live and struggle together in harmony and cohesion, and who agree that the challenges of the future should supersede the problems of the past, we are eager to offer any help and join hands with all those who wish well for our Ummah (community) toward stopping this vicious cycle of violence in the Middle-East, which is abhorrent to all Islamic values and principles."

We call on leaders of Muslim communities in America and abroad to adopt the Code of Honor and use it as a point of dialogue and connection with their fellow Muslims of all schools of thought. This is a time for critical leadership to prevent atrocities against the Shia communities and to demonstrate the true values of Islam that abhor sectarian violence.

Last year, MPAC brought together a panel of scholars and human rights advocates, including Imam Sayed Moustafa Al-Qazwini of the Islamic Educational Center of Orange County, for a forum on “Minority Rights in Muslim Countries.” The powerful event focused on reconciling Islamic ethics with the rights of minorities and arguing against the un-Islamic actions of governments that persecute religious minorities.

“Persecuting and oppressing religious minorities does not make us better Muslims,” Dr. Hathout said at the event. “Muslims do not need to believe in what religious minorities believe, and Muslims of different schools of thought need to accommodate one another, not produce animosity from their historical and jurisprudential differences. As human beings and fellow citizens, minorities deserve the same rights as majorities in Muslim countries.”

We call on leaders of Muslim communities in America and abroad to read the Code of Honor and use it as a point of conversation with their fellow Muslims. This is a time for critical leadership to prevent atrocities against the Shia communities and to demonstrate the true values of Islam that abhor sectarian violence.

[Contact: Hoda Elshishtawy, Legislative and Policy Analyst, hoda@mpac.org, (202) 547-7701]

SOURCE: Muslim Public Affairs Committee

Hannity accuses Keith Ellison of “a host of radical connections”

SALON

Friday, Mar 1, 2013 01:35 PM EST
Hannity accuses Keith Ellison of “a host of radical connections”
After a dust-up on Fox News, Sean Hannity attacked the Muslim Democrat

By Jillian Rayfield

Sean Hannity attempted to tie Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., to controversial Nation of Islam pastor Louis Farrakhan and his national assistant Khalid Mohammed, following an explosive interview on Fox News earlier this week in which Ellison accused Hannity of being “the worst excuse for a journalist I’ve ever seen” and a “shill for the Republican Party.”

In a segment on his show Thursday, Hannity accused Ellison of having “a host of radical connections,” and revived attacks made during Ellison’s 2006 campaign about ties to Farrakhan and the Million Man March. “The reality is, the congressman not only associated with these radicals – but he spent years spewing their hateful rhetoric,” Hannity said.

He continued: “What is the difference, I mean, do we have somebody then in Congress that is the equivalent of one side of what the Klan is? Because I view the rabid ranting of Khalid Mohammed as frightening in terms of racism, anti-Semitism.”

As ThinkProgress reports, Ellison addressed his work with the Million Man March and Farrakhan several years ago:

In the late 1990s, Ellison worked with the group to organize the Million Man March, but apologized for failing to “adequately scrutinize the positions and statements” of the Nation of Islam and Farrakhan six years ago in a letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas.

“I wrongly dismissed concerns that they were anti-Semitic,” he wrote, adding, “They were and are anti-Semitic and I should have come to that conclusion earlier than I did.” “I have long since distanced myself from and rejected the Nation of Islam due to its propagation of bigoted and anti-Semitic ideas and statements, as well as other issues.”

MediaMatters points out that this is not the first time Hannity has attacked Ellison for reasons related to his religion. In 2006, when Ellison was sworn into office and took his oath on a Quran, Hannity compared it to using “Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf,’ which is the Nazi bible.”

In advance of the segment, Ellison’s office sent out a statement calling Hannity’s attacks a “smear.”

“Tonight on Fox News, Sean Hannity will be airing a segment designed to smear Rep. Keith Ellison’s record,” wrote Ellison’s communications director Jeremy Slevin. “We need as many of our friends as possible supporting Rep. Ellison and helping him stand up against right-wing hate.”

Jillian Rayfield is an Assistant News Editor for Salon, focusing on politics. Follow her on Twitter at @jillrayfield or email her at jrayfield@salon.com.

SOURCE: http://www.salon.com/2013/03/01/hannity_accuses_keith_ellison_of_a_host_of_radical_connections/

Radically Wrong: Misstated Threats - Terrorism isn’t an American-Muslim Problem

Radically Wrong: Misstated Threats - Terrorism isn’t an American-Muslim Problem
By Dena Sher
ACLU Washington Legislative Office
4:50pm 22 February 2013

None. Zero. That’s the number of fatalities or injuries from terrorist acts by American Muslims over the last two years, according to a recent report from the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Here are some other numbers from the report worth noting: In the United States in 2012, there were nine “terrorist plots” by American Muslims—only one of which led to violence. Of those nine plots, only 14 suspects were indicted. Separately, six suspects were indicted for support of terrorism.

Terrorism is not a “Muslim” phenomenon. Indeed, last year, the author of the report called terrorism by American Muslims “a minuscule threat to public safety.” Yet far too many policymakers assume the opposite is true, and too many policies are predicated on the false and bigoted assumption that Muslims are more likely to engage in terrorism than other Americans. The numbers above show how false the premise is. So why are we willing to undermine civil liberties, target an entire religious community, and devote countless resources to this “minuscule threat?”

The answer: a widely debunked “theory” on describing the “process” that drives people to become terrorists. This “theory” is based on the mistaken notion that adopting “radical” ideas (which, under the theory, includes religious beliefs) is a dangerous first step toward committing terrorist acts. Countering terrorism, the thinking goes, begins with countering “radicalization.”

Although it’s been refuted, the “theory” continues to drive policy. Recent Congressional Research Service reports cite it, and the White House issued a plan to counter violent extremism based on it. While the White House deserves some credit for using more careful language and for emphasizing the need for community engagement, it still perpetuates the notion that “how individuals are radicalized to violence” is something we can and should study and understand. And the number of agencies, task forces, working groups, and committees across government that are engaged in the White House’s plan is, well, staggeringly high.

Not surprisingly, when flawed theory drives policy, implementation of the policy is flawed too. If counterterrorism officials believe that adopting radical beliefs is a necessary first stage to terrorism, they will obviously target religious communities and political activists with their enforcement measures.

Take for example, the practice of “preventive policing” by which law enforcement doesn’t focus on crime, but rather tracks legal activities. It has a real and negative impact on individuals: the FBI conducts “assessments” or uses informants, conducts interviews, and surveils people based on their ideas or religious beliefs, or whether they are a certain religion, race, or ethnicity rather than information suggesting they might be involved in criminal activity. Preventive policing also affects entire communities. Through “domain management,” the FBI monitors and tracks entire religious, ethnic, and racial communities based on false stereotypes that ascribe certain types of crimes to entire minority communities. Targeted groups include Muslim- and Arab-Americans in Michigan, and also African-Americans in Georgia, Chinese- and Russian-Americans in California, and broad swaths of Latino-American communities in multiple states.

The FBI has increasingly relied on another tactic based on this flawed theory: the agent provocateur. Remarkably, most of the nine terrorist plots carried out by American Muslims uncovered in 2012 involved informants and undercover agents. According to a recent investigation, undercover agents and informants have targeted “Muslims who espouse radical beliefs, are vocal about their disapproval of American foreign policy, or have expressed sympathy for international terrorist groups”—otherwise known as First Amendment-protected activity. The investigation shows that these targets are fairly unsophisticated and “clearly pose little real threat” on their own. With all essential materials (like money and weapons) coming from government agents and informants, these plots are more manufactured by the government than interdicted.

It’s also clear that preventive policing won’t be tied to an empirical analysis of where significant violence occurs. According to West Point's Combating Terrorism Center, violent acts by far-right extremists significantly outnumber those by American Muslims, but have been virtually ignored by policy makers (though the report has its own problems). While there have been multiple congressional hearings on so-called radicalization of Muslims, there have been none on political violence emanating from the Far Right.

When we implement law enforcement practices that say those who hold “radical” political ideas or religious beliefs, for instance, are dangerous, we could all be in danger. What’s a “radical” idea or belief? It’s one that “reject[s] the status quo.” It’s not hard to imagine that almost all of us hold some “radical” beliefs, which is why it’s not surprising that so many groups come under government suspicion. Anti-government militiamen, misfit anarchists, PETA, Greenpeace, and the Catholic Worker have already been targeted. Who’s to say the group you belong to won’t be next.

SOURCE: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-religion-belief/radically-wrong-misstated-threats-terrorism-isnt-american