Posts Tagged: Muslims’


12
Oct 10

Spencer: The failure of moderate Muslims

My column in FrontPage this morning:

A Muslim chaplain at New York University, Khalid Latif, noting a recent debate at the university on the question of whether or not “Islam Is a Religion of Peace,” published a piece for CNN Monday saying that the answer is that “Islam is a religion of peace, or it isn’t.” Latif explains that “there is no one answer,” for “the Muslim community is by no means monolithic and viewing us as one is problematic. We are diverse.” Yet his own stance toward Islamic jihadists reveals the abject failure of self-proclaimed moderate Muslims in general to deal adequately with the global crisis within the Islamic world.

Latif complains that Muslims “find ourselves in a moment in which we are very narrowly understood. That normative understanding is equated to something radical, despite the fact that 93 percent of Muslims are found to be far from radical according to recent Gallup surveys.” Compounding this difficulty, he says, is that “typically when one of us from that 93 percent steps up to speak, we are vehemently told that we either do not represent Islam or even more absurdly that we are not truly practicing Islam’s teachings.”

This even happened during the NYU debate – or so Latif claimed. When a peaceful Muslim, Zeba Khan, spoke up, Latif said, her “voice, her interpretation, and all of her efforts were collectively dismissed since she did not fit into what Hirsi Ali believed Islam to be.” Ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on the panel arguing against the idea that Islam was a religion of peace.

Latif claimed of the Muslim who was arguing that Islam was peaceful, Maajid Nawaz, that “those opposed to the motion told him that it is his peaceful understanding of Islam that is rooted in misinterpretation, since it does not match up with the interpretation put forth by the radical minority, and thus somehow ignores the fundamentals of Islam since those groups somehow are the end-all be-all of what Islam actually means.”

Above all, Latif asserted that “characteristic of any text – whether religious or not – is its ability to be interpreted through the lens of its reader. Interpretations of the Quran that espouse ideas of tolerance, compassion and mercy have existed and continue to exist in the majority of Muslim communities since the advent of Islam 1400 years ago.” And therefore, “as much as Muslims need to acknowledge the existence of a minority voice that is radicalized, so too does a broader society need to acknowledge the existence of a majority voice that is not radicalized and more importantly condemns radical thought. There are those who make Islam to be something restrictive and radical, but there are many, many more who do not.”

That’s just great, and I am happy to acknowledge that Khalid Latif is not interested in Islam as “restrictive” and “radical.” It is also worth noting, however, that a few years ago, when NYU students planned to display the Danish cartoons of Muhammad at a campus event, Latif wrote a letter to NYU President John Sexton, asking that he “not allow these cartoons to be displayed in any shape or form.” Why not? Because “the potential of what might happen after they are shown is something else that should be considered and not taken lightly.” For “the repercussions that would take place outside of the university setting are potentially huge. All over the world Muslims have been coming together over this issue and in New York they would not hesitate in doing the same thing.”…

There is more.

Jihad Watch


12
Oct 10

Spencer: The failure of moderate Muslims

My column in FrontPage this morning:

A Muslim chaplain at New York University, Khalid Latif, noting a recent debate at the university on the question of whether or not “Islam Is a Religion of Peace,” published a piece for CNN Monday saying that the answer is that “Islam is a religion of peace, or it isn’t.” Latif explains that “there is no one answer,” for “the Muslim community is by no means monolithic and viewing us as one is problematic. We are diverse.” Yet his own stance toward Islamic jihadists reveals the abject failure of self-proclaimed moderate Muslims in general to deal adequately with the global crisis within the Islamic world.

Latif complains that Muslims “find ourselves in a moment in which we are very narrowly understood. That normative understanding is equated to something radical, despite the fact that 93 percent of Muslims are found to be far from radical according to recent Gallup surveys.” Compounding this difficulty, he says, is that “typically when one of us from that 93 percent steps up to speak, we are vehemently told that we either do not represent Islam or even more absurdly that we are not truly practicing Islam’s teachings.”

This even happened during the NYU debate – or so Latif claimed. When a peaceful Muslim, Zeba Khan, spoke up, Latif said, her “voice, her interpretation, and all of her efforts were collectively dismissed since she did not fit into what Hirsi Ali believed Islam to be.” Ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on the panel arguing against the idea that Islam was a religion of peace.

Latif claimed of the Muslim who was arguing that Islam was peaceful, Maajid Nawaz, that “those opposed to the motion told him that it is his peaceful understanding of Islam that is rooted in misinterpretation, since it does not match up with the interpretation put forth by the radical minority, and thus somehow ignores the fundamentals of Islam since those groups somehow are the end-all be-all of what Islam actually means.”

Above all, Latif asserted that “characteristic of any text – whether religious or not – is its ability to be interpreted through the lens of its reader. Interpretations of the Quran that espouse ideas of tolerance, compassion and mercy have existed and continue to exist in the majority of Muslim communities since the advent of Islam 1400 years ago.” And therefore, “as much as Muslims need to acknowledge the existence of a minority voice that is radicalized, so too does a broader society need to acknowledge the existence of a majority voice that is not radicalized and more importantly condemns radical thought. There are those who make Islam to be something restrictive and radical, but there are many, many more who do not.”

That’s just great, and I am happy to acknowledge that Khalid Latif is not interested in Islam as “restrictive” and “radical.” It is also worth noting, however, that a few years ago, when NYU students planned to display the Danish cartoons of Muhammad at a campus event, Latif wrote a letter to NYU President John Sexton, asking that he “not allow these cartoons to be displayed in any shape or form.” Why not? Because “the potential of what might happen after they are shown is something else that should be considered and not taken lightly.” For “the repercussions that would take place outside of the university setting are potentially huge. All over the world Muslims have been coming together over this issue and in New York they would not hesitate in doing the same thing.”…

There is more.

Jihad Watch


12
Oct 10

Australia: Two Muslims accused of plotting terror attack were lectured on jihad by Islamic cleric

Funny how so many Islamic clerics turn out to be misunderstanders of the Religion of Peace™. One would think that a man who had devoted his life to the study of the Qur’an and Sunnah wouldn’t get it all so drastically wrong. And yet it seems to keep happening, as the learned analysts scratch their heads and mutter about poverty. “Terrorism accused were lectured on jihad,” by Anna Walker for Australian Broadcasting Company News, October 12:

The Victorian Supreme Court has heard how two men accused of planning a terrorist attack in Sydney were lectured by a sheikh on the values of jihad.

Five Melbourne men are on trial accused of plotting an attack at the Holsworthy Army Barracks in Sydney.

The transcript of an audio file, found on one of the men’s computers, was read to the jury today.

The file contained a conversation carried out over the internet between two of the accused men in Melbourne and a sheikh in Somalia.

In the recording, the Muslim leader spends an hour lecturing Saney Aweys and Abdirahman Ahmed on jihad, or holy war.

He tells the men to choose between two realities – Christianity or Al Qaeda.

He also urges them to fight with their closest infidels….

Jihad Watch


11
Oct 10

Bosnia: Muslims “wanted to draw NATO into war”

Of course, when people point out the activities of jihadists in the Balkans, the Commentary crowd accuses them of supporting the enormities and crimes, real and/or trumped-up, of the local opposition to that jihad. Of course, that accusation neither logically follows nor accords with fact. “Bosnia: Muslims ‘wanted to draw NATO into war,’” from AKI, October 7 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

The Hague, 7 Oct. (AKI) – Bosnian Muslims wanted to draw NATO into their country’s 1992-1995 war to help them against the Serbs, British general Michael Rose told the United Nations war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on Thursday.

Serbs deliberately targeted civilians with sniper fire in the capital Sarajevo in order to intimidate them, said Rose, who served as chief of the UN peacekeepers in Bosnia in 1994.

He was testifying at the trial of wartime Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, who is conducting his own defence.

But cross-examined by Karadzic, Rose conceded that there had been some cases in which Muslims fired at their own people to blame the Serbs and trigger foreign intervention.

He also said that reports in western media on Serb attacks on eastern town of Gorazde were often exaggerated.

Karadzic is being tried on eleven counts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The indictment is focusing on the shelling of Sarajevo and a massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys in the eastern town of Srebrenica in July 1995….

Jihad Watch


11
Oct 10

Peaceful Muslim demands that non-Muslims accommodate violent Muslims

Khalid Latif, a chaplain for New York University, here complains that moderate and peaceful understandings of Islam are being unfairly discounted: “As much as Muslims need to acknowledge the existence of a minority voice that is radicalized, so too does a broader society need to acknowledge the existence of a majority voice that is not radicalized and more importantly condemns radical thought.”

That’s just great, and I am happy to accommodate him in this. It is also worth noting, however, that a few years ago, when NYU students planned to display the Danish cartoons of Muhammad at a campus event, Latif wrote a letter to NYU President John Sexton, asking that he “not allow these cartoons to be displayed in any shape or form.” Why not? Because “the potential of what might happen after they are shown is something else that should be considered and not taken lightly.” For “the repercussions that would take place outside of the university setting are potentially huge. All over the world Muslims have been coming together over this issue and in New York they would not hesitate in doing the same thing.”

This has been widely interpreted as a veiled threat, but let’s give Latif the benefit of the doubt: let’s just say that he was simply noting the possibility of violence, not threatening violence, if the cartoons were displayed at NYU. Even if that were the case, another problem remains: he was asking Sexton to make sure that non-Muslims changed their behavior to accommodate violent Muslims, rather than directing his efforts to violence-minded Muslims to try to get them to stop the violence.

And that has everything to do with what he is saying here. Because here again, he is saying that it is up to non-Muslims to take due notice of peaceful Muslims. But how effective or helpful are these peaceful Muslims when one of their foremost exponents refuses to stand up to his violent coreligionists, but instead demands that non-Muslims curtail their activities to accommodate them? If Latif is really concerned that non-Muslims don’t believe his protestations of peace and moderation, this is why: his unwillingness or inability to stand up to the “radicals” either casts doubt upon his sincerity or demonstrates his impotence.

“My Take: Islam is a religion of peace, or it isn’t,” by Khalid Latif for CNN, October 11:

Last week, New York University hosted the Intelligence Squared Debates at its Skirball Center for the Performing Arts. Four panelists, two for and two against, presented arguments on the motion of “Islam Is a Religion of Peace.” About 800 showed up to learn the answer.

Problem is, there is no one answer.

The Muslim community is by no means monolithic and viewing us as one is problematic. We are diverse.

Yet we find ourselves in a moment in which we are very narrowly understood. That normative understanding is equated to something radical, despite the fact that 93 percent of Muslims are found to be far from radical according to recent Gallup surveys.

What becomes more problematic is that typically when one of us from that 93 percent steps up to speak, we are vehemently told that we either do not represent Islam or even more absurdly that we are not truly practicing Islam’s teachings.

Zeba Khan, a panelist for the “Islam Is a Religion of Peace” last week, was met with such a response. She started off the debate by sharing her personal story about growing up in Ohio, attending a Hebrew Day School, and being raised by Indian parents in a Muslim household. “Just because you may not hear us,” said Khan,” doesn’t mean we are not speaking.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali , speaking against the motion, followed Zeba and immediately said, “The problem with Islam is who speaks for Islam.” She went on to say, “I concede (the radical voice) is a minority,” and expressed her desire that someone like Zeba Khan actually would speak for Islam, but, in her opinion, could not and does not.

And so Zeba’s voice, her interpretation, and all of her efforts were collectively dismissed since she did not fit into what Hirsi Ali believed Islam to be.

Maajid Nawaz, Zeba Khan’s co-panelist for the motion, was dismissed just as easily. “This debate is not about making excuses for terrorism,” he said. “This debate acknowledges that Muslims bear a responsibility in reclaiming their faith from a minority.”…

Despite this, those opposed to the motion told him that it is his peaceful understanding of Islam that is rooted in misinterpretation, since it does not match up with the interpretation put forth by the radical minority, and thus somehow ignores the fundamentals of Islam since those groups somehow are the end-all be-all of what Islam actually means.

That a peaceful interpretation of the religion, or even one that is non-radical, can only exist by ignoring fundamental texts is flawed in its logic.

Characteristic of any text – whether religious or not – is its ability to be interpreted through the lens of its reader. Interpretations of the Quran that espouse ideas of tolerance, compassion and mercy have existed and continue to exist in the majority of Muslim communities since the advent of Islam 1400 years ago.

As much as Muslims need to acknowledge the existence of a minority voice that is radicalized, so too does a broader society need to acknowledge the existence of a majority voice that is not radicalized and more importantly condemns radical thought. There are those who make Islam to be something restrictive and radical, but there are many, many more who do not.

Moderating the panel last week, ABC News correspondent John Donvan said speaking to those against the motion, “You are making it sound like Islam is what you make it to be. Why then can it not be the peaceful Islam that we see being practiced by so many around the world?”

The answer, Mr. Donvan, is that it can be, and for the majority of us, it is.

Jihad Watch


11
Oct 10

Youngstown, Ohio: Muslim spokesman says “a greater number of Muslims need to be on TV informing people about the true tenets and principles of the religion” in response to jihad violence

This is just another story among hundreds that come across the transom all the time: a local Muslim group sponsors a meeting in which a Muslim spokesman explains that, contrary to appearances, Islam is actually a peaceful religion, when properly understood. There is nothing particularly noteworthy about this one in particular; it features the usual claim that the 9/11 jihadis hijacked Islam, with the usual paucity of evidence given to back up that claim.

But what is interesting about this piece is that Dr. Nibal Zaghloul recommends that in response to jihad attacks, “a greater number of Muslims need to be on TV informing people about the true tenets and principles of the religion.” And yet this is all we get now: when there is another Islamic jihad attack, Muslims are on TV in abundance, assuring us that the latest Qur’an-spouting, Muhammad-invoking murderer really wasn’t a true Muslim and his attack has nothing to do with Islam, and don’t forget Tim McVeigh, etc. etc. etc. We’re inundated with this nonsense all the time, and yet Zaghloul says we need still more of it.

One reason for that is that it is a species of dawah, Islamic proselytizing, and as a believer Zaghloul wants to see more of that. But another reason why he may want to see more of this fog pumped into the public sphere is because people are beginning to see clearly, despite the best efforts of Islamic supremacists to obscure their vision. The more jihad attacks there are, the more Muslim spokesmen have to talk talk talk talk talk so as to make people go back to sleep.

They never, you’ll notice, say that it’s time for the Muslim communities to clean house. They never say that in response to Islamic jihad attacks, Muslims need to do some serious soul-searching and reject jihad and Islamic supremacism. No, all that we ever hear from Muslims in response to jihad activity is that non-Muslims have to clear away their “misconceptions” of Islam, and realize that it really is peaceful and benign despite all those bristling knives, bomb belts, threats of blood and death, and vows to take over. It is up to non-Muslims to alter their perceptions and deny the evidence of their eyes, rather than up to Muslims to reform.

And although this scenario has played out thousands of times over the last few years, as we have chronicled ad nauseam at Jihad Watch, people still fall for it. I’m certain that Dr. Nibal Zaghloul was not challenged on this by anyone in his doubtless polite, attentive audience, which went home grateful to have been reassured.

“Muslim center in Valley holds open house to open minds about Islam,” by Sean Barron in Vindy.com, October 10:

YOUNGSTOWN – When 19 Muslim extremists hijacked four planes and killed several thousand peo ple [sic] during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, they also did major damage to a major religion, as far as Dr. Nibal Zaghloul is concerned.

“Those people also were hijacking my religion,” Zaghloul explained during Sunday’s open house at the Masjid Al-Khair mosque and school, 1670 Homewood Ave., on the city’s South Side.

Sponsoring the four-hour gathering was the Islamic Society of Greater Youngstown.

The fifth annual event was designed to give people a better idea of what the Islamic faith stands for and to allow them to meet Muslims and learn more about their traditions, organizers said.

Zaghloul, a Youngstown oncologist and hematologist, noted that the vast majority of Muslims advocates [sic] peace and submission to the will of God. Nevertheless, he said, the religion has seen occasional setbacks since 9/11, such as the actions of Faisal Shahzad, who recently drew a life prison sentence after being convicted in a federal courtroom in New York City of planting a car bomb in Times Square.

Yeah, you could call that a setback.

It’s not enough to condemn violent acts and rhetoric by the few extremists who receive a lot of publicity, he said. A greater number of Muslims need to be on TV informing people about the true tenets and principles of the religion, Zaghloul continued.

Jihad Watch


9
Oct 10

Taranto: N.Y. Times Overreaches In Comparing Today’s Muslims to 19th Century Catholics

James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal opinion page online has an eye for the absurd, as in the story of one reporter named Paul Vitello:

The New York Times finds echoes of history in the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque. It seems that in 1785, some New Yorkers opposed a plan to build a Catholic church in Manhattan:

City officials in 18th-century New York urged project organizers to change the church’s initial location….Then there were fears about nefarious foreign backers…."We were treated as second-class citizens; we were viewed with suspicion," Father [Kevin] Madigan [now the church’s pastor] wrote in his letter to parishioners, adding, "Many of the charges being leveled at Muslim-Americans today are the same as those once leveled at our forebears."

Indeed, the two situations are all but identical. Remember when Catholic extremists attacked Manhattan in 1776, just two blocks from where the church was later built, killing 3,000 civilians? Oh wait, neither do we. Well, we did say "all but" identical.

Clearly, Catholics could have been viewed as an alien presence with a foreign leader in 1806, but there was no traumatic mass murder in Manhattan in the decade preceding the church founding. Nevertheless, Father Madigan is a very staunch backer of the Cordoba House project, as he told the Irish Echo:

The pastor of New York’s oldest Catholic parish has given his backing to the controversial Islamic center at Park Place, citing the “inalienable right” to build.

The Rev. Kevin Madigan, of St. Peter’s Church on Barclay Street at the edge of Ground Zero, said that people in the community were happy with the plans for Park51, the proposed 13-story complex that has become a national issue this month.

“I have a problem with the view that says: ‘Why can’t they compromise and go some place else.’ Well, that means they have to give up their rights; they’re relinquishing their rights. So that’s not compromise. That’s asking them to cave in,” he said.

“There are certain things we don’t vote on – the right to speak your mind, the right to worship as you please and the right to assemble. They’re called ‘inalienable’ because they cannot be taken away,” the priest added.

NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias


8
Oct 10

Eboo Patel in Washington Posts forgets about jihad terrorism, blames “fear of Muslims” on antijihadists

Eboo Patel has a used car to sell you. “Nine years after 9/11, a debate about Islam,” by Eboo Patel in the Washington Post, October 4 (thanks to all who sent this in):

How is it that fear of Muslims in America is actually higher nine years post 9/11? Watching Christiane Amanpour’s special on Islam Sunday provides plenty of clues.

Patel, you see, wants to fool his eminently foolable Washington Post readers into thinking that If there is any actual suspicion of or negative feelings toward Muslims in the United States, it is the fault of people like Franklin Graham and me. He would prefer that you not think about Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist; Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas underwear jihadist; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who killed one soldier and murdered another in a jihad shooting outside a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark.; Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square jihadist; Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden on 9/11; the London jihad bombers of July 7, 2005; and so many others.

The most striking voices in the debate were Amjad Choudry [sic! Patel is referring to Britain-based jihadist Anjem Choudary] and Reverend Franklin Graham. Choudry wore a regulation size beard, looked menacingly at the television camera and declared that the flag of Islam will one day fly over the White House. He knew full well that he was playing the scary Muslim figure from central casting. His message: Islam requires me to dominate you.

“He knew full well that he was playing the scary Muslim figure from central casting.”

Franklin Graham talked about church-burnings in the Sudan, the dangers of Sharia law, and the purpose of mosques as vehicles of conversion and domination. In other words, he agreed with Amjad [that is, Anjem]: Islam requires Muslims to dominate others.

Patel is here attempting a sleight-of-hand: Graham discussed church burnings in the Sudan, Sharia’s oppressive features, and mosques as vehicles of conversion and domination. See? — says Patel — he’s just like Anjem Choudary (although Patel does manage to spell Graham’s name correctly, so at least in that they differ). He doesn’t mention, of course, and apparently hopes that you won’t bring to mind the fact that it wasn’t Franklin Graham or Anjem Choudary who burned churches in the Sudan. It wasn’t Franklin Graham who used mosques to preach hatred; to spread exhortations to terrorist activity; to house a bomb factory; to store weapons; to disseminate messages from bin Laden; to demand (in the United States) that non-Muslims conform to Islamic dietary restrictions; to fire on American troops; to fire upon Indian troops; or to train jihadists.

When that kind of thing is known to have gone on in mosques, and when Muslims implementing Sharia in Saudi Arabia and Iran have victimized non-Muslims and women, people aren’t thinking that “Islam requires Muslims to dominate others” because Franklin Graham or Anjem Choudary told them so; they can see with their own eyes. And no amount of smoke blown into those eyes by Eboo Patel and his ilk can ultimately obscure the truth.

There are Muslims who go on television representing Islam and non-Muslims who go on television representing “Why you should fear Islam” and they are saying the same scary things. Is it any wonder that many Americans, whose first conscious experience with Islam was 9/11, are thinking: “I’m scared of these people.”

The idea that people saying “scary things” on television makes Americans “scared” of “these people” is as ridiculous as it is condescending. Americans are not that stupid, Mr. Patel. Manipulative talking heads, Muslim or non-Muslim, are not the problem in this: Nidal Hasan and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Faisal Shahzad and innumerable others are. But for Eboo Patel to face that, he would have to face up to the reality of the Islamic texts and teachings that inspired those jihadis. And that is a reality that he seems determined to obscure.

What about the moderate Muslims?

Daisy Khan, leader of a group called the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), explained that she was moved by the events of 9/11 to leave her corporate career to start an institution to grow the moderate voice in Islam. She has led Muslim youth and women’s events all over the world. One of the “fear Islam” panel members was unimpressed. “How do we know you are not a secret radical?” he asked.

A blunt but apposite question, given Daisy Khan’s dishonesty about whether or not this “community center” would be a mosque — she has said so in the past in my presence, but has now adopted the line that it is not a mosque, with no explanation for or acknowledgment of the change. Moreover, her husband, the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an open proponent of Sharia, and calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech in his book What’s Right with Islam. These things should cause concern for free people. And that Patel would hold the likes of Daisy Khan up as an example of a moderate Muslim doesn’t speak well of him, either.

The imam of a Muslim community in Murfreesboro, TN pointed out that Muslims had been a visible part of Murfreesboro for 30 years and not one member of the community had been involved in a single crime in that time. Recently, the community’s mosque construction site had experienced vandalism and arson, likely because of the fear of Islam cutting through the culture. Robert Spencer’s response: Muslims have a pattern of fabricating such things, and perhaps the imam was making this up as well.

Do Muslims fake hate crimes, or is this just an invention of that greasy Islamophobe Spencer? From “CAIR’s Hate Crimes Nonsense” by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha:

  • CAIR cites the July 9, 2004 case of apparent arson at a Muslim-owned grocery store in Everett, Washington. But investigators quickly determined that Mirza Akram, the store’s operator, staged the arson to avoid meeting his scheduled payments and to collect on an insurance policy. Although Akram’s antics were long ago exposed as a fraud, CAIR continues to list this case as an anti-Muslim hate crime.

  • CAIR also states that “a Muslim-owned market was burned down in Texas” on August 6, 2004. But already a month later, the owner was arrested for having set fire to his own business. Why does CAIR include this incident in its report?

  • CAIR lists the March 2005 lawsuit filed by the Salmi family for the firebombing of their family van as one example of a hate crime report it received in 2004. However, the crime named in the lawsuit occurred in March 2003, was already reported by CAIR in 2003, and should not have been tabulated again in the 2004 report.

  • CAIR reports that “a home-made bomb exploded outside of the Champions Mosque in the Houston suburb of Spring, Texas,” staking its claim on eyewitness reports that on July 4, 2004, “two white males” were seen placing the bomb. We inquired about the incident and found that Spring’s sheriff department could not locate any police files about an explosion. Further inquiries to the mosque and an e-mail to CAIR both went unanswered. There is scant evidence that any crime even occurred.

  • CAIR notes that “investigators in Massachusetts are still investigating a potential hate-motivated arson against the Al-Baqi Islamic Center in Springfield.” However the case was long ago ruled a simple robbery, news that even CAIR’s own website has posted. The Associated Press reported on January 21, 2005, that prosecutors determined the fire was set by teen-age boys “who broke into the Al-Baqi mosque to steal money and candy, then set the fire to cover their tracks.” The boys, they clarified, “weren’t motivated by hatred toward Muslims.”

  • CAIR describes what happened to a Muslim family in Tucson, Arizona: “bullet shots pierced their home as they ate dinner in October 2004″ and two months later their truck was smashed and vandalized. But the only evidence that either incident was motivated by hate of Muslims is the Dehdashti family itself, not the police. Detective Frank Rovi of Pima County Sheriff’s Department, who handled the shooting investigation, said that according to the neighbors, the desert area by the Dehdashti house was often used for target practice. Neither incident was classified as a hate crime and both cases were closed by February 2005, long before the CAIR report went to press.

  • Of twenty “anti-Muslim hate crimes” in 2004 that CAIR describes, at least six are invalid – and further research could likely find problems with the other fourteen instances.

    Would Eboo Patel really say, in light of all this and more, that it is unreasonable for non-Muslims to be suspicious when a Muslim claims that he has been the victim of a hate crime? How many times must we submit to being fooled?

    There you have it in a nutshell. The forces of intolerance scream from the rooftops, “Islam is about domination”. The forces of moderation are questioned with the intent of delegitimizing them (they’re either just liars, or liars and secret radicals).

    Well, Patel, it would help if you could come up with an example of a “force of moderation” who wasn’t a public and demonstrable liar like Daisy Khan.

    Patel then proceeds to build a “fear bomb,” to hoodwink his hapless readers into being afraid to resist the advance of Islamic supremacism:

    How do you build a fear bomb? Here’s how:

    1) A high-profile event like 9/11 that raises fears and suspicions of a religion and a community.

    2) People like Amjad Choudry [sic!] who claim to represent that religion and community who look scary and say scary things.

    3) People who claim to want to protect everybody else who point to people like Amjad Choudry and say, “See, he represents Islam. Told you they were scary.”

    4) A deliberate campaign to delegitimize humanizing, moderate voices.

    This is all so patently dishonest. If Eboo Patel really wants to present himself as an alternative to the person he persists in calling “Amjad Choudry,” he needs to counter Choudary’s influence in the Muslim community. Then if non-Muslims see that the “humanizing, moderate voices” are really doing something among Muslims to neutralize Islamic supremacists and jihadists, and to counter their appeal, it will be a lot harder for anyone to make the case that “Choudry” “represents Islam” — which of course I have never said anyway.

    And that Patel would also praise the likes of Reza Aslan, a Board member of an organization that can’t think of a single move the U.S. should take to counter the actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, is telling as well:

    The role played by Reza Aslan in the conversation was hugely important. He made a few compelling key points. Number one: Islam is a huge religion with a long history. Saying all of its adherents are about one thing – domination – is the very definition of bigotry.

    This case would be a lot easier to make if the people Patel praised weren’t so unsavory. Daisy Khan and Reza Aslan are the voices of reason and moderation? Then we are indeed in trouble. Aslan is a Board member for the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which has clear links to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and he has called for the U.S. to “squeeze a deal out of” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Number two: people like Franklin Graham and Amjad Choudry say they’re on different sides of the debate, but really they represent the same position (and ought to go have coffee together and leave the rest of us alone, as Reza colorfully suggested).

    Finally, people like Robert Spencer who seek to intentionally delegitimize moderates are advancing a not-too-subtle form of racism, and their ideas will join anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism in the dustbin of history.

    I don’t “delegitimize moderates.” They do that all by themselves. Daisy Khan said at a Lower Manhattan Community Board meeting that the building was a mosque. I was there. Then she said on ABC News that it wasn’t a mosque. I am supposed to trust her now? And Reza Aslan is part of a group that seems to have numerous links to the bloodthirsty Iranian mullahcracy. Moderate?

    And this business about anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism, in which Patel echoes Aslan and the latest talking points that are making the rounds among the Islamic supremacists, is supremely specious. Jews and Catholics weren’t shooting people at military bases, or hijacking planes and flying them into skyscrapers, or setting off bombs in their underwear on other airplanes, or trying to blow up Times Square, etc. etc. etc. There is simply no comparison between concern about Islamic supremacism and jihad and nativism, which was baseless and indeed racist.

    Patel’s agenda is clear, and the Washington Post ought to be ashamed of itself for publishing him — that is, if it had any shame.

    Jihad Watch


    7
    Oct 10

    It’s High Time We Muslims Confronted Our Own Hypocrisy: Pak Tribune, Pakistan

    Are Muslims unwilling to accord others the same rights they demand for themselves? From the Pak Tribune, highlighting the tolerance of American Christians and Jews and sharply criticizing the Taliban, the Saudis and Muslim ‘apartheid’ toward other religions, this article by columnist and former Pakistan Air Force pilot Anwaar Hussain argues that it’s time Muslims looked in the mirror before complaining about the injustices practiced by members of other religions.

    For the Pak Tribune, Anwaar Hussain writes in small part:

    Someone needed to say this, so here it is.

    We huff and puff in a self-righteous rage over the refusal of a few in the US of A to allow the building of a mosque near Ground Zero. Particularly for the bigots on either side, the issue has become so all-consuming that it’s hard to distinguish their collective voice from one continuous, high-pitched, piercing blare.

    Quite a few on my mailing list enthusiastically forwarded me an amazing article written by Michael Moore (yes, of Fahrenheit 9/11 fame) titled as, If This Mosque isn’t Built, This is no Longer America. In this stunning piece, Michael Moore wants the mosque built “not two blocks from Ground Zero” but “on Ground Zero.” He goes on to give a long list of reasons for this. What really stumped me in Michael’s write-up was that since the beginning, according to him, it has been the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan whose rabbi has been helping the New York Muslim community in their quest.

    And I thought the Jews were our worst enemies.

    Bang in the middle of this controversy, other dazzling news was almost drowned out. According to a Christian Science Monitor report, the hundred thousand strong Muslim community of the Italian city of Milan are pushing for building the first-ever mosque in that city. And who is their most steadfast ally in this quest? Lo and behold, it’s none other than the Vatican itself. Says Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, the Catholic Church’s highest authority in Milan, “Milan civil institutions must guarantee everyone religious freedom,” and “Muslims have the right to practice their faith.”

    All power to the Muslim communities in New York and Milan – and Michael Moore and Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, but where does that leave ordinary Muslims like me? I’m all confused. I thought these people could never be friends with Muslims. That, as a matter fact, is an article of faith with us Muslims. I appeal to the paragons of moral consistency to now come to my aid. And pronto please. What’s happening? Someone please reassure me that these friendly gestures are actually more “Judeo-Christian conspiracies” against us Muslims. And if they are, what exactly are we going to do about them? Refuse the help or refuse building the mosques?

    Later, in a very interesting exposition about how the Saudis treat non-believers, Hussain writes in part:

    Not allowed to practice their faith openly, Christians are forced to worship secretly in private homes. Even articles and symbols like Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, items with religious icons, etc. are prohibited. The government doesn’t permit non-Muslim clergy to enter the country for the purpose of conducting religious services. In that country, blood money for the accidental death of a Christian male is half as much as that for a Muslim (lucky, one would say, because all others i.e. Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs etc. are valued at 1/16th the amount).

    READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.


    The Moderate Voice


    7
    Oct 10

    DOJ Civil Rights Head Goes To TN To Reassure Muslims

    Thomas Perez, the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, went to Murfreesboro, Tenn., last week in an attempt to reassure Muslims there who have been the victims of arson and vandalism.

    The Nashville Scene reports that Perez traveled around Murfreesboro on Sept. 28, speaking to leaders of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro and other Muslims.

    “Basically, what we’re being told is that if there’s any civil violation of the rights of the Muslim community here, they’ll step in,” said Abdou Kattih, vice president of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro.

    “It was a very sobering meeting to listen to Murfreesboro leaders describe the climate of fear that they’re living in,” Perez told the Scene. The DOJ has said it is investigating several cases of potential hate crimes against Muslims, including the arson in Murfreesboro.

    The Islamic center, which has been in Murfreesboro for decades, is building a new facility just outside the city, including a mosque. Some residents have been extremely vocal in their opposition to the mosque, and three are suing the county in an attempt to block its construction. They claim officials didn’t post proper notice of the meeting in which construction was approved.

    Perez said the DOJ is seeing an uptick in the number of zoning challenges to mosques.

    “We have seen a spike in the zoning confrontations, in efforts to keep mosques and the like from being built,” he said. “During times of uncertainty in our nation’s history, people often look for scapegoats.”

    The mosque site has also been vandalized and was the victim of arson, when someone torched construction equipment at the site.







    TPMMuckraker


    tag on every page -->