Project on Muslims Are Our fellow Americans....

Lowe's Home Improvement recently pulled its ads from the TLC show All-American Muslim in response to an organization claiming the show "falsely humanized Muslims in America.” This controversy has exposed more Islamophobia in America which falls directly in line with what the My Fellow American project is trying to prevent and overcome in America.

As a supporter of the project, would you please visit www.myfellowamerican.us to share what this controversy means to you? Help spread the message of tolerance to fight back against intolerance and fear-mongering. 

Links:

Consulting/Training: www.alfalahconsulting.com

Consultant/Trainer: www.ahmad-sanusi-husain.com

Islamic Investment: www.islamic-invest-malaysia.com

OIC move to stop anti-Islam campaign

UNITED NATIONS, March 4: The Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) on Monday expressed concern over the negative political and media campaign in certain western nations targeting Muslims and Islam.In a statement, it urged the UN secretary-general to call upon the governments of member states which allowed publication of blasphemous cartoons and other anti-Islam material “to take all possible legal and administrative measures to prevent the repetition or continuation of these deliberate offensive acts, which impinge greatly on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion of the followers of Islam”.It asked the UN chief to publicly express his unequivocal opposition to all ‘acts of Islamophobia’.“The OIC group believes that lack of action to prevent the reprinting of the blasphemous caricatures and indifference in airing the inflammatory documentary against the Holy Quran, will be perceived as manifestation of insincerity towards the principles and objectives of various efforts within the UN system aiming at promoting understanding and respect among cultures and civilisations,” the statement added.

Community Holds Vigil For Burned Islamic Center

COLUMBIA, Tenn.- A Middle Tennessee house of worship marked with swastikas and set on fire has started the rebuilding process.
Last week, arsonists set the Islamic Center of Columbia ablaze, destroying the building.
This Saturday community members returned to the site of the Islamic Center for a community vigil.
The Islamic Center was a small one, serving about 20 families, but there were more than a 100 people that attended Saturday's event.
The center held its traditional noon prayer, before holding the vigil. It featured a diverse range of speakers that spanned across ethnic and religious boundaries. All of them condemned the act of arson.
Police have arrested three men in connection with the crime. Two of the suspects have been linked to a white supremacy group. On Saturday, supporters of the Islamic Center came from as far as Huntsville Alabama to express their support.
Organizations such as the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, the Islamic Center of Nashville, the Maury Alliance Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Organization for Progress and Education among others were present for the vigil.
Residents and city leaders in Columbia also stressed the importance of making people of all faiths and races feel welcome in the community.
"The message we want to send today that we hope to convey, not just to those who are present, but to everyone in this community and beyond, that this was a hate crime directed at all of us," said Dauoud Abudiab, president of the Islamic center of Nashville.
The group's president ended the vigil by promising the crowd that the Islamic Center of Columbia would rebuild.

Below is the information if you would like to contribute to the rebuilding fund.
Islamic Center of Columbia Rebuilding Fund
Community First Bank and Trust
501 S James Campbell Blvd.
Columbia, TN 38401
931-380-2265

UK Islamic organization condemns ban on Qaradawi

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has condemned the UK government's decision to refuse a visa to renowned Egyptian scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi, warning it would send the wrong message about the country's traditional right to free speech.
The MCB, the UK's largest Muslim umbrella group with over 500 affiliates, said it recognized Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been "under immense pressure from the pro-Zionist and neo-conservative lobby in recent weeks to take this decision." "It is regrettable that the government has finally given way to these unreasonable demands spearheaded by the Tory leader (David Cameron) whose government had in fact allowed Dr Qaradawi to visit the UK five times between 1995-97," it said.
MCB secretary general Abdul Bari said that the Islamic scholar, who has been outspoken in support the right of Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation, enjoyed "unparalleled respect and influence throughout the Muslim world." "I am afraid this decision will send the wrong message to Muslims everywhere about the state of British society and culture. Britain has had a long and established tradition of free speech, debate and intellectual pursuit," Bari said.
He said the principles of free speech were worth defending, especially as British government has claimed, it would like to see them spread throughout the world.
The ban from entering Britain comes after a sustained campaign over several years, led by the Zionist lobby. The sheikh, who lives in Qatar and has written over 50 books, previously has been a frequent visitor.

The Netherlands frets about the likely impact of a new anti-Islam film

THE Netherlands is going through a “considerable crisis”, says the prime minister. The Iranians are musing publicly about cutting diplomatic ties. The grand mufti of Syria has issued grave warnings of war and bloodshed. Dutch citizens living in Muslim countries have been asked to report any worrying incidents.
The one thing missing is the cause of the fuss: an anti-Islamic film neither made nor shown by a Dutch member of parliament, Geert Wilders. In November Mr Wilders revealed his plan to air on television an exposé of the wickedness of the Koran, which he calls an Islamic “Mein Kampf”. The film is said to include shots of him desecrating the Koran. Dutch state television appears reluctant to show it, so Mr Wilders now talks of a private broadcaster, or using the internet. But the mere talk of his film has been enough to ignite a renewed debate about Islam in Europe and the limits on free speech.
The Dutch have reason to worry. Two years ago the publication of Muhammad cartoons in a Danish newspaper triggered anti-Danish riots around the Muslim world. Two years before that a film about Islam, “Submission”, was shown on Dutch television; soon afterwards its director, Theo van Gogh, was butchered in an Amsterdam street by a radical Dutch Islamist, who also threatened the screenplay writer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (now living in America). Mr Wilders's film could, some fear, have similarly violent consequences.
Mr Wilders's anti-immigrant party has nine seats in parliament, too few to affect the government's fairly tolerant policy towards the country's Muslim minority. But he has jabbed his finger into several sore spots. He has publicly questioned the loyalty of two cabinet members with dual nationality (ie, Turkish and Moroccan as well as Dutch). He called a third minister “barking mad” because of her liberal integration policies. And he has demanded a ban on immigration from Muslim countries.
Mr Wilders might seem just a provocateur. But his power lies in the rhetoric that he uses to contrast such liberal notions as gay rights and female emancipation with the image of an intolerant and anti-modern Islam, says Paul Schnabel, head of a Dutch government social-science institute. Polls show that the Dutch rate freedom of speech as one of their most important values—and many see Mr Wilders as its champion. He is a “modern conservative”, argues Mr Schnabel, able convincingly to demand of immigrants that they should show full loyalty to Dutch values.
As important as Mr Wilders's political talent is the absence of powerful countervailing voices speaking up for inclusiveness, pluralism and a more respectful public debate. Many Muslim immigrants suffer from relative poverty, from high levels of crime and from social segregation. The government focuses on policies to improve the education of second-generation Muslims, get more of them to work and find ways to reduce crime. The justice minister, Ernst Hirsch Ballin, insists that such measures offer the best hope of improving the sour relationship between Muslims and native Dutch folk. But the technospeak often used to describe them hardly matches the fiery one-liners launched from the right. --(TheEconomist)

Nuclear physicist/Muslim cleric fights to get back job, security clearance

Sunday, February 03, 2008
By Sally Kalson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Dr. Moniem El-Ganayni is not the only imam to have served as a chaplain inside a state prison. But he may be the only one who is also a nuclear physicist working on classified U.S. military projects that require a security clearance.
At least, he used to do classified work at the Bettis Laboratory, an advanced naval nuclear propulsion technology lab in West Mifflin operated by Bechtel Bettis Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy.
But in October, the two tracks of his life collided. His security clearance was suspended, barring him from the lab where he has worked for 18 years.
Long a respected member of the Pittsburgh Muslim community and a founder of the Islamic Center of Pittsburgh in Oakland, the Egyptian-born Dr. El-Ganayni also was the imam at Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution-Forest in Marienville, Forest County, for five months in 2007. His contract was canceled in August after disputes over Ramadan observance and visiting policies.
Twelve weeks after that, agents from the Energy Department, and later the Pittsburgh FBI, began questioning him about a book he distributed to inmates at the prison as well as speeches he made opposing FBI recruitment at local mosques and prayers he led there.
His clearance was suspended on Oct. 24 pending further review. His pay has been cut in half pending the outcome.
Without his clearance, and at age 57, Dr. El-Ganayni stands to lose much of what he has worked for since arriving in this country in 1980. His job and medical benefits are in jeopardy. A U.S. citizen since 1988, he won't be able to work in his field, and, if his clearance is not reinstated after an upcoming hearing, he says he'll probably return to Egypt with his American-born wife.
Dr. El-Ganayni is the second local imam to run into a wall in recent months. Kadir Gunduz, 48, who has lived in Pittsburgh since 1988 and has raised three children here, was jailed in December on a visa technicality. He was released after a public outcry, but still faces deportation to his native Turkey. His appeal is pending.
An untold number of Middle Eastern immigrants and Muslims across the country have been quietly ensnared by measures aimed at strengthening national security in a post-9/11 world, including some, like Dr. El-Ganayni, who have lost their security clearance.
There is no way of knowing just how many, said Art Spitzer, director of the Washington, D.C., affiliate, of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"We've heard about a number of cases involving security clearances, so there must be a lot more we haven't heard about," Mr. Spitzer said.
The DOE, FBI, Bettis and SCI-Forest all declined comment on Dr. El-Ganayni.
Science or subversion?
It all began with a book, "The Miracle in the Ant," one of numerous volumes published by Harun Yahya, an Islamic creationist from Turkey. The book details ant anatomy and behavior, and argues that these characteristics disprove the theory of evolution.
Dr. El-Ganayni had ordered the book for the Forest prison library and was passing out photocopied chapters for the Muslim inmates housed in segregation to read in their cells. Eventually, he came to the chapter called "Defence and War Tactics," about ants that produce acid, use camouflage or enslave other ants.
Then there's this passage, under the heading "Walking Bombs":
"The ultimate in public service is to destroy enemies by committing suicide in defense of the colony. Many kinds of ants are prepared to assume this kamikaze role in one way or another, but none more dramatically than a species of Camponotus of the saundersi group living in the rain forests of Malaysia."
A quick Internet search shows that this passage and others (minus the creationism) were lifted almost verbatim from "Journey to the Ants," by Pulitzer Prize winning biologists Edward O. Wilson and Bert Holldobler. "Journey" was published by Harvard University Press in 1994, six years before the Harun Yahya version.
Dr. El-Ganayni said he scanned the chapters before passing them out, and the "walking bomb" passage didn't seem problematic because it was a scientific description of an insect. The passage must have raised hackles at the prison, however, because the Rev. Glenn McQuown, the chaplaincy director, was asked to examine the book -- he declined to say by whom.
"In my view, the book was completely benign," said the Rev. McQuown from Fort Bragg, N.C., where he was about to deploy to Afghanistan with the U.S. Army. He added that he would be happy to work again with Dr. El-Ganayni anytime and said, "I have him on my list to call for support as I prepare to engage with Muslims in Afghanistan."
Somehow, the prison literature made its way to the DOE. Dr. El-Ganayni is convinced it was sent in retaliation for his dispute with prison authorities, but Sue McNaughton, spokeswoman for the state Department of Corrections in Harrisburg, said any prison employee or inmate could have put a copy in the mail.
In any case, the DOE questioning began. "They asked, 'Would you support killing Americans?' I said, 'Of course not.' 'Are you loyal?' I said, 'Yes.' 'Would you do anything to harm this country?' I said, 'No.' "
Then they asked if he advocated suicide bombing, and if the "walking bomb" passage could be read as promoting attacks against Americans.
"I couldn't believe my ears," Dr. El-Ganayni said. "I am an American. How could I advocate killing myself? I am also a Muslim, a man of peace. I do not advocate killing anyone."
He said he told his questioners that he was against suicide bombing, and explained repeatedly that the passage was about ants, not people.
"You can twist anything to mean something else if you want to," he said.
From his office at Harvard, Dr. Wilson, the world's foremost authority on ants and the real author of passage, said he was startled to learn that his words had become an issue for Dr. El-Ganayni. "My reaction is astonishment at the unfairness of it," Dr. Wilson said.
Dr. El-Ganayni said he was similarly astonished. "I told them, 'Look at my actions. I have been here since 1980; I never had a problem at work; I never broke a law; I never had any trouble except the dispute at the prison.'
"Now they are taking two sentences from a book about ants that anyone can get in the bookstore, and making it more important than [my] 27 years in this country."
FBI interviewers also brought up a passage from the Quran -- Chapter Two, Verse 286, the last few lines (in English translation): "Oh God ... Thou art our protector. Help us against disbelievers."
The line is the Muslim equivalent of the Lord's Prayer's "deliver us from evil," according to Ahmed Rehab, spokesman for the Council of American Islamic Relations in Washington, D.C.
"It's a standard line that allies Islam with good against evil. It is not meant to be read through the filter of modern conflict," Mr. Rehab said.
The FBI saw it in a different light, said Dr. El-Ganayni.
"They asked me, did I ever pray in the mosque for God to grant victory to the mujahadeen [holy warriors] over kufra [disbelievers]?
"I said I read that passage, it is one of the most common prayers for Muslims, but they were misinterpreting it. It's not about war against Christians or Jews or Americans or any other group."
The agents also asked about Dr. El-Ganayni's speech opposing FBI recruitment at mosques, specifically two flyers from the bureau describing its work and inviting members to consider working for the agency.
Since the Sept. 11 terror attacks, U.S. investigators have tried various ways, including flyers and the use of informants, to get inside a community whose language, beliefs and practices are not well understood by most Americans and whose skills the agency sorely needs.
Lillie Leonardi, community affairs coordinator for the Pittsburgh FBI, said her office has arranged meetings with Muslim leaders, but that if flyers were left at mosques, it wasn't by her.
"That would be disrespectful in trying to build a relationship," she said.
The FBI interviewers asked Dr. El-Ganayni if he had attacked the bureau in speeches in the mosques.
"I said no, I attacked only their transgressions against the Muslim community.
"I said it's not good for us to report on each other because it makes a climate of fear in the mosque. No one will feel safe confiding their private problems about money or their marriage if they think it will be reported to the government and used against them. That is not against the FBI and America, it is against intimidation and coercion."
He showed a reporter a 2006 Wall Street Journal article about Yassine Ouassif, a 24-year-old Moroccan living in San Francisco. The FBI took away Mr. Ouassif's green card and threatened to deport him unless he informed on his friends. He refused and was jailed until Homeland Security cleared him.
"I never thought these things could happen here," Dr. El-Ganayni said. "This is not the America I came to in 1980."
Putting security first
There is no Constitutional right to a security clearance, but there's also no forfeiture of nonwork-related free speech by those doing classified jobs.
Hank Van Dyke, a lawyer for the security arm of the Schenectady Naval Reactors Office, said that in 18 years with the agency, he'd never seen anyone's clearance pulled because of conversations unrelated to work.
Yet as the Code of Federal Regulations is written, virtually any statement or "derogatory" information can be used against an applicant. And the Supreme Court has ruled that the courts will not review security denials.
The code directs officials to reach "a comprehensive, common sense judgment, made after consideration of all relevant material, favorable and unfavorable ... consistent with the national interest."
It further states: "Any doubt ... shall be resolved in favor of the national security."
That sentence has cost plenty of people their clearances for reasons that seem insubstantial, according to Mr. Spitzer, of the ACLU.
"The incentive for the agents is always to protect themselves by erring on the side of denial," Mr. Spitzer said.
Prison troubles
Up to now, Dr. El-Ganayni's life has been an immigrant success story.
He left his native Egypt in his mid-20s with a master's degree in nuclear physics from Ain Shams University in Cairo. He enrolled at the University of Pittsburgh, earning another master's in the same subject in 1981. The following year, he married Jean Louise Dell'Aquila, then a recent convert to Islam from a large Italian family.
In 1988, he became a U.S. citizen. Two years later, he earned his doctorate in atomic physics at Pitt and was hired at the lab, then run by Westinghouse Electric Corp.
The religious side of his life was an outgrowth of his upbringing, he said -- his father has the equivalent of a doctorate in Islamic law. So, finding few Muslim institutions in Pittsburgh, Dr. El-Ganayni helped found the Islamic Center. Over the years, he's been president, board member, committee chairman, teacher, prayer leader, prison outreach worker and relief-provider for people in need.
His apartment overlooking the Highland Park reservoir attests to his lifelong interest in learning. The walls are lined with shelves holding hundreds of beautifully bound Arabic-language books, arranged by subject matter: The Quran and commentaries; the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad; Islamic beliefs, law and history; Arabic, cultural studies and comparative religions. Other shelves hold many of the same works in English translation, as well as books on physics and math.
There are also signs of the charitable acts he has performed -- notably, a slab of marble bearing the painted image of a rabbi holding the Torah, the holy scroll of Judaism. It was given to him by an ailing, elderly Jewish woman in his building whom he and his wife helped with medical and financial support.
Until the trouble started, Dr. El-Ganayni was a senior scientist at the Bettis lab. Every few years, security agents would interview him. He said the exchanges were always friendly and his clearance was never at issue.
Bettis knew he had a sideline as a prison imam, he said. His first such job was at Belmont Correctional Institution in Ohio from 1999 to 2005. Kathy Cole, a spokeswoman for Belmont, confirmed that Dr. El-Ganayni had no trouble with authorities there.
Then he signed a one-year contract with SCI-Forest, described on its Web site as "a state-of-the-art maximum-security prison" built to house 2,200 adult male inmates.
Things went well enough at first, but during a three-week period in July, relations grew strained.
First, he says, officials at Forest refused to allow him to arrange for donations from the Muslim community to help impoverished inmates pay for a special holiday meal at the end of Ramadan, the month in which Muslims fast from dawn to dusk each day. He said he asked five times to meet with the superintendant, to no avail.
The next week, he had a run-in with officials at SCI-Muncy, the women's prison in Lycoming County. Dr. El-Ganayni said he had driven relatives of inmate Karena Dorsey on a four-hour trip to the prison after checking to make sure the family would be allowed to see her, but when they arrived, officials barred the visit. He disputed the decision, again to no avail.
In a letter of warning dated July 23, Muncy Superintendent D. M. Chamberlain said staffers had reported the imam to be "insistent and agitated" as well as "abusive and threatening toward the staff" -- a description he denied.
The week after that, he distributed the passage from the ant book. Then, in a letter dated Aug. 1 and giving no reason, SCI-Forest terminated his contract, seven months early. On Aug. 20, Dr. El-Ganayni and his wife launched a Web site, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Monitor -- pa-doc-monitor.org -- posting criticism of the prison system. Two months later, his clearance at Bettis was suspended. He had hoped it was a misunderstanding that would be cleared up quickly, but that didn't happen.
On Jan. 17, Dr. El-Ganayni received a letter from the DOE offering the option of a hearing to present his side of the story. He took the option and is waiting for a date.
"I will make my case," he said, "but I am not going to beg for mercy. If the government fights me, I get a lawyer and fight back. If I win, I get my job back. If I lose, I leave."
Farooq Husseini, director of interfaith relations at the Islamic Center, called it "astonishing" that two respected imams from Pittsburgh were suddenly in jeopardy.
"These are good men, very kind, very loyal," Mr. Husseini said. "If this can happen to them, it can happen to anybody."

EU ministers express concern about Dutch anti-Islam film

BRDO PRI KRANJU, Slovenia (AFP) — EU justice ministers have expressed concern about a far-right Dutch lawmaker's plan to make a potentially inflammatory film about the Koran, ministers and officials said Saturday.
They said that Dutch justice officials had raised the issue at informal talks in Slovenia, and had called for EU support, amid concern that the short film could reignite tensions with Muslims after the Danish cartoons affair.
"It would, of course, have important repercussions for other countries of the European Union as well," Luxembourg Justice Minister Luc Frieden told AFP, on the sidelines of the talks.
"It is our moral duty to call upon everybody, to make people aware, so that they do not abuse their fundamental rights" of freedom of expression, he said.
"We must also protect those who may be hurt or harmed by irresponsible statements."
Far-right deputy Geert Wilders has been in the spotlight since he announced in the Netherlands in November that he plans to make a short film to show that Islam's holy book is "a fascist book" that "incites people to murder".
Dutch observers fear that Wilders will burn or tear up the Koran in it.
"The Dutch minister expressed a certain preoccupation about that and asked for the support of his colleagues," an EU official told AFP.
It remains unclear if and when the movie will be shown. Wilders told Saturday's edition of Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf that it would be several weeks yet, after earlier giving a date of the end of January.
"The EU has to be attentive," the EU official said. "We are trying to avoid the situation we had with the cartoons."
A series of 12 cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published in Denmark's biggest daily newspaper two years ago led to deadly riots in several Muslim countries.
Devout Muslims consider all depictions of Mohammed in pictorial form to be blasphemous.
The EU official said that the bloc's Counter Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove noted during the discussions that "we have to think about how to deal with that."
German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries said the EU ministers "agreed we would remain in contact" with their Dutch counterpart Ernst Hirsch Ballin over the issue.
De Telegraaf said it had viewed some rushes from the film.
"The opening shot shows to the left the cover of the Koran, and to the right the words 'Warning: this book contains shocking pictures'," it said.
Then images such as "a decapitation in Iraq, a stoning in Iran and an execution in Saudi Arabia, where sharia (Islamic law) is applied" are shown, it said.
"Those who find that shocking should not get angry with me, but with those people who did these things," Wilders told the paper.
"The film does not only talk about the Koran, it plays out within its framework," he said. "The edges of the book will be permanently visible (in the film) and within this frame, we show images of what is described in the words of the Koran."
In another twist to the story Friday, Wilders' party spokesman said the lawmaker would take legal action against a clip circulating on the Internet where a poster with his picture is riddled with bullets.
"Mr Wilders will file a legal complaint against the film" which he finds "disgusting", a spokesman for his Freedom Party told AFP.
Wilders has been under heavy police protection since the 2004 murder of Dutch director and columnist Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh was killed by a radical Muslim after he directed a film criticising the position of women in Islam.
Numerous Islamic associations have already urged Muslims in the country to stay calm and not allow themselves to be provoked.
Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende has said the Netherlands is ready to act quickly if the film causes unrest, and stressed that "provocations" have no place in the Dutch tradition of tolerance.

Netherlands braced for Muslim anger as politician releases 'anti-Islam' film

By Claire Soares in The Hague

Friday, 25 January 2008

For a film that lasts just 10 minutes and for which no one has even seen a trailer, it is creating one hell of an uproar. The cinematic debut from the anti-Islamic politician Geert Wilders has forced the Netherlands to wrestle with the limits of its age-old tradition of free speech and stirred up anxieties about a multicultural society.
The film, billed by Mr Wilders as an illustration of how the Koran inspires people "to do the worst things", is the latest provocation from the maverick MP who has compared Islam's sacred text to Hitler's Mein Kampf, tried to ban the burqa and the building of mosques and called for all Muslims in the Netherlands either to give up their religion or go back to their own countries.
In a sign of how preoccupied the government is with the impending fallout, the Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, made an extraordinary statement before the Wilders film was even finished, let alone screened.
"It has become apparent that concerns exist, both here and abroad, that the film could be offensive, potentially inviting heated reactions that could affect public order, public safety and security and the economy," he said at a weekly briefing. "The government is preparing for the possible repercussions that the broadcast of the film could have, internationally as well as domestically." But there is no suggestion of a ban.
Mr Wilders had promised to screen his film today, saying he would post it on the internet if no willing Dutch broadcaster could be found. But he has since been quoted as saying that the film will not debut for a couple of weeks. When contacted yesterday, his spokesman refused to confirm or deny any release date.
Meanwhile, imams are being urged to preach calm at Friday prayers, while mayors across the country have been put on alert, as have Dutch embassies around the world.
Zainab al-Touraihi, a member of the Contact Group Between Muslims and the Government, said: "It's ridiculous that a film that's not even come out yet is dominating and getting so much attention. But as time approaches, people are getting scared.
"I know Wilders is a man who says crazy things, but now he's going to visualise them. Words on paper can touch you, but a movie packs more of a punch."
The prevailing sentiment on the streets of The Hague is that Mr Wilders has the right to say what he likes, swiftly followed by a desire that he reflect on the consequences of those words.
As the Prime Minister diplomatically put it: "This country enjoys a long tradition of freedom of expression, religion and belief. This country also has a tradition of respect, tolerance and responsibility. The government will honour these traditions and calls upon everyone to do the same."
If, as has been rumoured in the Dutch press, Mr Wilders rips or burns the Koran on camera, the images would be available across the world within minutes. Fears of a backlash are strong, especially given the anger that boiled over in 2005 after a Danish newspaper published cartoons of the prophet Mohamed.
Already, an Iranian parliamentarian has warned that he might call on the government to review its relations with the Netherlands, and on a visit to Europe this month, the Grand Mufti of Syria declared that any desecration of the Koran by Mr Wilders "will simply mean he is inciting wars and bloodshed".
But the film furore is also hitting the Dutch closer to home, reviving painful memories of the turmoil that followed the murder of the film director Theo van Gogh in 2004. A distant relative of his namesake Vincent, Van Gogh had made a film, Submission, which accused Islam of condoning violence against women and projected quotes from the Koran on to naked female bodies. He was gunned down by an Islamist militant in broad daylight on a busy Amsterdam street, before having his throat slit.
Today, on Linnaeusstraat, away from Amsterdam's picture-postcard canals, you have to look hard to find any sign of what happened on that November morning. On the rust-coloured asphalt of the cycling lanes are two teaspoon-sized indentations that a local says are the marks left by two of the bullets fired.
But the scars on the Dutch national psyche are much more visible. "I never expected anything like that would happen here in Holland. It was very strange, a total shock," said Ed Mulder, who owns an opticians opposite the spot where the outspoken film director died. "But if it's happened once, it could happen again."
Van Gogh's murder ignited a wave of religious violence, with mosques and churches being firebombed. And it also provoked much soul-searching in a country that had prided itself on its tolerance. The fact that the murderer had been born and brought up in Holland led many to question how well the country's one million Muslims were integrated into the nation's population of 16 million.
Mr Wilders was already known for his anti-Islamic diatribes at that time and was swiftly given round-the-clock protection, which he still has to this day. This week, it emerged that the government's top counter-terrorism official had reportedly warned Mr Wilders that he might have to leave the country if he released the film.
But in an open letter to the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant on Wednesday, the politician refused to accept any responsibility for what he described as the "hysterical panic" surrounding his unaired movie. "[That] says everything about the nature of Islam. Nothing about me," he wrote. "Islam is an intolerant ideology... within which there is no room for matters like self-reflection and self-criticism."
Mr Wilders' Party for Freedom won nine of the 150 seats in the Dutch parliament at the last election, but it regularly polls above that level. Some attribute his popularity to a talent for headline-grabbing soundbites, such as warnings of a "tsunami of Islamisation"; some suggest that his larger-than-life persona stands out in an otherwise uncharismatic political scene.
For others, he is carrying on the torch of Pim Fortuyn, the pioneer of anti-Islamic politics in Holland before he was murdered in 2002. Like Fortuyn, Mr Wilders taps into the anti-establishment feeling and voices the opinions of those who blame Muslims for all that is bad in their lives.
"The big political parties are almost afraid to address it, and that strengthens some people's sense of abandonment and allows Mr Wilders a way in," explained Tofik Dibi, a Green Party MP.
He added: "I feel so disappointed that everything is getting overshadowed by Wilders and we do not get round to discussing the important underlying issues. We should be properly discussing the place of religion, of Islam, in a Western society, but he is holding the country in a headlock."

Analysis: Anti-Islam film scares The Hague

BERLIN, Jan. 22 (UPI) -- The Dutch government is bracing for widespread violence that could be sparked by an anti-Islam film that its producer wants to broadcast sometime this week.
The film, financed by right-wing politician Geert Wilders, will reveal the Koran as a source of "inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror," Wilders said.
The anticipated screening has already sparked international protests. Although no one has seen the film yet, there are rumors Wilders will tear up or burn the Koran in it. If that was true, Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun, the Grand Mufti of Syria, said earlier this month at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, "this will simply mean he is inciting wars and bloodshed. ... It is the responsibility of the Dutch people to stop him."
On Monday, an Iranian lawmaker warned The Hague not to allow the screening of the film.
"If the Netherlands will allow the broadcast of this movie, the Iranian Parliament will request to reconsider our relationship with (the Dutch government)," said Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of the Iranian security and foreign policy commission, according to Iran's federal news agency IRNA. "In Iran, insulting Islam is a very sensitive matter and if the movie is broadcast it will arouse a wave of popular hate that will be directed towards any government that insults Islam."
The Dutch government seems to think in the same terms. It fears a crisis similar to the one sparked by the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad in Danish -- and later European -- newspapers two years ago, when Danish products were boycotted, Danish embassies set on fire and dozens of people died in violent protests all over the world.
To be prepared for all eventualities, the Dutch government over the past days summoned its key ministers and officials linked to security issues. The Hague has compiled a secret document (which the Dutch media said it has obtained) detailing emergency measures in case of riots or attacks, including short-term evacuations of Dutch embassies and citizens from the Middle East. Apparently, imams in several large Dutch cities have already had to calm Muslims angry over the news of the film.
"We are ready to react quickly, it is our role to be prepared for calamities," Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende told journalists at his weekly news briefing.
While a state-funded TV station has already recalled its promise to air the movie, Wilders, the most prominent member of the far-right Freedom Party, or VVD, has vowed to broadcast his film -- on a smaller TV station or on the Internet via YouTube -- whatever the pressure may be.
The Netherlands has had a history of violence connected to anti-Islam statements, and thus, officials there are particularly vigilant.
In November 2004 in Amsterdam, a Dutch teenager from Moroccan descent stabbed to death and nearly decapitated the filmmaker Theo Van Gogh after the airing of his controversial film "Submission," which criticized the suppression of women in Islamic culture.
Van Gogh had made the film together with prominent Somalia-born Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali, then a Dutch lawmaker, who lives in self-imposed exile in Washington. Yet even Hirsi Ali has criticized Wilder's film as provocative and warned the Dutch government not to leave the field of debating integration of immigrants to extremists.
Wilders, however, has managed to grab all the headlines. The 42-year-old, infamous for his big platinum blond hair, sees himself as continuing the struggle of the late right-wing populist politician Pim Fortuyn, who was shot in 2002 by an animal-rights activist.
Wilders in the past years raised eyebrows with very controversial statements concerning Islam, saying the Koran was inciting hatred and fascism, and warning of an Islamization that was washing over the Netherlands like "a tsunami."
Dutch embassies all over the world have been told to highlight that the Dutch government is not backing the message of the film or any of Wilders' statements. While Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende fears that the film is able to "threaten the public order, the security and our economy," he said he cannot and does not want to censor the movie, citing the country's tradition of free speech.
At the same time, there is Holland's "tradition of respect, tolerance and responsibility. And absurd insults of certain groups are not part of that," Balkenende said in reference to Wilders' film.

Iran Warns Netherlands Not to Air Controversial 'Anti-Muslim' Film

FOXNews

A senior Iranian lawmaker warned the Netherlands on Monday not to allow the screening of what it called an anti-Islamic film produced by a Dutch politician, claiming it "reflects insulting views about the Holy Koran."
Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, promised widespread protests and a review of Iran's relationship with the Netherlands if Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders' work is shown.
"If Holland will allow the broadcast of this movie, the Iranian parliament will request to reconsider our relationship with it," Boroujerdi said, according to IRNA, the official Iranian news agency. "In Iran, insulting Islam is a very sensitive matter and if the movie is broadcasted it will arouse a wave of popular hate that will be directed towards any government that insults Islam.
Wilders calls his 10-minute film "a call to shake off the creeping tyranny of Islamicization, " and said it could air as early as this week on Dutch television.
"People who watch the movie will see that the Koran is very much alive today, leading to the destruction of everything we in the Western world stand for, which is respect and tolerance," Wilders, the 41-year-old leader of the right-wing Party for Freedom, said last month in a telephone interview with FOXNews.com.
/**/

"The tsunami of Islamicization is coming to Europe. We should come to be far stronger."
Like other European countries, the Netherlands is struggling to cope with an influx of Muslim immigrants, and the newcomers are often relegated to working at low-paying jobs and living in high-crime ghettos. Though the Dutch boast of their culture of tolerance, tensions have been high, with some blaming rising unemployment and crime on newcomers from Muslim countries like Turkey, Morocco and Somalia.
In the late 1990s, political leaders like Pim Fortuyn, Somalian-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali and outspoken filmmaker Theo van Gogh seemed to tap into a growing well of resentment against Muslims and criticism of Islam.
In 2002, tensions broke into outright murder when Fortuyn was shot by an animal rights activist who told the judge in the case that he was acting on behalf of the country's Muslims. Two years later, van Gogh was shot, stabbed and nearly decapitated on an Amsterdam street by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Muslim and a Dutch citizen of Moroccan descent.
Van Gogh, with Hirsi Ali, had recently made the film "Submission," a 10-minute movie that the two said depicted the abuse of women in Islamic cultures. After van Gogh's murder, the Dutch government placed public figures known for their anti-Muslim stances in safehouses.
Among them was Wilders.
He hasn't been out of government protection since, a situation he said "I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy," and his views on Islam have only hardened.
Five months ago, he called for the Koran to be outlawed in the Netherlands.
"I believe our culture is much better than the retarded Islamic cultures," he told FOXNews.com. "Ninety-nine percent of the intolerance in the world comes back to the Islamic religion and the Koran."
Though he refuses to claim the mantle of van Gogh's successor, Wilders clearly sees himself as continuing the controversial filmmaker's work. He acknowledges the similarities between "Submission" and his own 10-minute work.
"I have so much respect for van Gogh's movie, aimed at one part of the Koran, women's bodies, one very bad part of the Koran," Wilders said. "I will use not only that theme but many others. Of course at the end it is a different movie."
Though Wilders has remained steadfastly vague about the specific contents of his movie, saying he wants to maximize the "moment of the broadcast itself," he added that it will include "images and parts of real-time movies that really happen in the Netherlands and the U.K. and the Middle East, the intolerance of the Koran that is still alive and vivid today."
Wilders, raised Catholic but long an atheist, said he's working with professors who are experts on the Koran and Islamic culture, professional filmmakers and scriptwriters to complete his film, which he hopes to broadcast this week on "Nova," a popular news program on Dutch public television. If "Nova" refuses to air the program, he said, he will broadcast the movie using the air time his political party is guaranteed by the government.
The Dutch government, which is protecting Wilders, has publicly warned him about the potential for violence at the completion of his film and has expressed concern over his personal safety. The government is also concerned about peace within the country and interests abroad. In 2005, cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper led to Danish embassies being set on fire, multi-million-dollar anti-Danish consumer boycotts in the Middle East, and hundreds of deaths in riots across the Muslim world.
"The government is taking the announcement of this movie quite seriously," said Floris van Hovell, a spokesman for the Dutch Embassy in Washington, D.C. "Obviously, because the movie hasn't been made, we cannot say anything about the movie until the movie has been shown, but the message Mr. Wilders has told us he wants to portray is disturbing."
Asked if the government plans to beef up security, Van Hovell last month said the government is making a concerted effort to reach out to the Muslim community in the Netherlands and the larger Muslim world.
"We're explaining that in the Netherlands you have freedom of expression, and that at the same time the Dutch government is very concerned about the message Mr. Wilders supposedly wants to portray in his movie," van Hovell said. --(FOX News)

Unease in the Netherlands over MP's planned anti-Islam film

THE HAGUE (AFP) — The plans by far-right MP Geert Wilders to make a film that he says will show the Koran is "an inspiration for murder" has caused unease in the Netherlands which fears violent repercussions.
Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende has said that Wilders' plans and the international attention they are getting is causing the government headaches.
"We have seen other crises but this is a substantial one," he told Dutch public television.
Wilders, the head of the far-right Freedom Party, announced in November that he planned to release a 10-minute film this month that will show his view that Islam's holy book, the Koran, "is an inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror".
Nobody knows for sure if the film project will ever see the light of day but the government here is bracing for the worst.
Some observers fear Wilders will burn or tear up Islam's holy book in the movie, likely to prompt protests in Muslim countries.
The Hague fears a repeat of the 2005 riots when thousands took to the streets in Muslim countries to protest cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that appeared in a Danish newspaper.
"We are ready to react quickly, it is our role to be prepared for calamities," Balkenende told journalists.
The government is trying to get the message across abroad that while the famed Dutch tolerance guarantees Wilders the freedom of expression, The Hague does not support his opinions.
Wilders, whose party has nine of the parliament's 150 seats, is a remarkable presence in Dutch politics with his bleached blonde bouffant hairdo and his increasingly harsh comments about Islam and established political parties.
He won't comment on what his movie will actually show and refuses to be swayed by the government's concern about the possible effects of his film.
"Now that everybody is already in a state (over the film) I see it as a confirmation that I should go ahead. I would not be worth a button if I were to capitulate now," he told the HP/De Tijd magazine.
It is not sure how the film will be shown: on television, posted on the Internet or in another way.
In November Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen met with Wilders personally "to point out the risks in making such a movie for himself and his entourage, and for the Netherlands and the Dutch interests abroad," Verhagen's spokesman Bart Rijs said
The government is also working to minimise the possible fallout of Wilders' film in the Netherlands itself.
The MP has already received many death threats and he has been under round-the-clock protection since the November 2004 murder of outspoken columnist and filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a radical Muslim.
Van Gogh was killed in Amsterdam after he directed a controversial film written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- a former political ally of Wilders -- which examined the subordination of women in Islamic society.
Inter-ethnic tensions flared in the Netherlands after the murder but calm returned after a few months. Several mosques and some churches were set ablaze but nobody was severely wounded or died in the protests.
To try to defuse tensions here the Dutch police diversity watchdog LECD advised the police force this week to be "flexible" with possible legal complaints about the movie.
Police officers should write up complaints from citizens even if "no obvious criminal offence" is committed in the film. According to the diversity watchdog this will help people "vent their anger".
On Wednesday the Netherlands got a taste of a possible reaction of the Muslim world when the Grand Mufti of Syria Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun told the European Parliament in Strasbourg that if Wilders burns or tears up the Koran in his film "this will mean he wants war and bloodshed".

The Christian Democratic Party is behind anti-Muslim school rally in Australia

THE Christian Democratic Party is behind a mysterious group called the Committee for Public Affairs Education that organised a large meeting this week to protest against a proposed 1200-student Muslim school in Camden.
In the guise of a local residents' action group, the CDP organised the meeting, which has been accused of inflaming anti-Muslim feeling.
The CDP leader, the Reverend Fred Nile, and Robert Balzola, a Christian lawyer and lobbyist, were key speakers on the night.
Police had to calm about 100 people outside Camden Civic Centre who could not get into the packed hall, some of whom issued threats against people of Muslim heritage.
Mr Nile told the crowd he opposed the school because Islam opposed Christianity.
Mr Nile and one of the meeting organisers, Colin Broadbridge, a CDP member who lives in Campbelltown, denied that the party had staged the meeting.
But the state MP Charlie Lynn, who was also invited to speak, said he had been approached two weeks ago by the CDP and asked to attend.
Mr Lynn said objections to the school proposed by the Quranic Society should be made on planning grounds and because there was no local need for such a school.
He said Max Cracknell, a CDP Camden branch member, had been the main meeting organiser.
"They approached me about two weeks ago in Parliament but my advice was not to hold it but to wait for council's deliberation," he said.
Mr Cracknell referred the Herald to Mr Nile. Mr Nile said his party had not organised the meeting and referred the Herald to Mr Broadbridge.
"I was just invited to that meeting," Mr Nile said. "It was not a Christian Democrat meeting."
Mr Broadbridge also denied that Wednesday's event had been organised by the Christian Democrats, although he acknowledged that he was a member of the party.
"We are a loose coalition of people; we are people who are prepared to go one step further rather than just carp about something. There is no human face to the Quranic Society … The people of Camden want to know who is coming in to their town."
The Quranic Society was not invited to speak at the meeting.
Mr Broadbridge said the society had been insensitive to propose such a big school in a rural setting, a long way from any Muslim community.
Mr Balzola, who is a member of the lay Catholic organisation the NSW Knights of the Southern Cross, and a member of a group called the Religious Freedom Institute, which lobbies for Christian rights, said his religious affiliations had nothing to do with his attendance at the meeting. "I was the MC at the meeting. I was not acting on behalf of any other organisation," said Mr Balzola, who lives in the inner-western suburb of Croydon. "I was there in a private capacity as an environmental lawyer."
A spokesman for the Quranic Society, Jeremy Bingham, said the society was made up of people who were Australian citizens and Muslims who wanted to build a school for their children that would follow the NSW curriculum, and that would be open to non-Muslim children.
"This is their only school. and they are stretched to raise money to do this," Mr Bingham said.
"I think Fred is a little out of date. I don't think he realises the Crusades were over a long time ago. He was talking nonsense about Muslims being anti-Christian … that is absurd. I am very disappointed in Nile." --(The Sydney Morning Herald, 22 Dec 07)

Editor: Is this the Australian way of treating minority population? Human right? Religious tolerance? Why hopping mad like a kangaroo over an Islamic school? If Muslim countries can allow Christian schools why not a Christian country allow Islamic schools? In Malaysia and Indonesia there are hundreds of Christian or missionary schools, if Muslims try to stop them, there will be international condemnation. Quranic Society...you have the backing of 1.5 billion Muslims.

Islam should not be blamed for terrorism - UN conference

The international community should counter the spread of Islamophobia partly due to "misinformation and misperceptions", participants at a UN counter-terrorism conference said.
Speaking at the 3-day conference, experts said there is a need for the international community to counter the spread of Islamophobia, which they noted has been growing in recent years partly because of misinformation and misperceptions about the religion.
The emergence of "misguided groups" that have deviated from the straight path to fanaticism, violence and extremism, attributing their acts to Islam, in no way justifies associating this phenomenon with the Islamic faith, they said during the conference titled "Terrorism: Dimensions, Threats and Countermeasures" in Tunis.
"It profits from weak State capacity to maintain law and order," said co-chair and Tunisian Culture and Preservation of Heritage Minister Mohamed El Aziz Ben Achour, during the concluding session on November 17.
"These vulnerable areas are exploited by terrorists to mobilize recruits and justify violence. None of the religions are a cause of political radicalism and extremism. Religious doctrine may be 'tools of mobilization,' rather than a direct cause," he said at the conference which was jointly organized by the UN's Department of Political Affairs and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
Participants agreed that terrorism flourishes in environments where there is discontent, exclusion, humiliation, poverty, political oppression and human rights abuses, as well as in countries engaged in regional conflicts.

Reflections on defamation of Prophets

When it comes to the relations between "the West" and the "Muslim world," there is no question that we are currently living in an environment of heightened fear, hatred, anxiety, violence and extremism. We are living in a time in which the prudent and wise person will think about what he will say or do. It is obviously not a time in which we avoid speaking the truth and working for justice-as that is always a given. However, it is a time for reasonable people to avoid anything that can be used in a negative way to further destabilize the situation and cause senseless harm.

In particular since 9/11, one often hears the following question being posed by the people of the West, "Why do they hate us?" It is interesting to observe what behavior is occurring at the same time that they are asking this question-and, in fact, what behavior has been occurring for centuries, as shall be noted later. At the same time that they are, it must be presumed, sincerely asking the question, "Why do they hate us?" many of their societal leaders and many in their media continue to disrespect and ridicule Islam, Muslims and even the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)-doing acts that seem to be intended only to hurt the feelings of the Muslims. Most recently, one can point to the cartoons in Denmark that depicted, for example, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) having a bomb in his turban.

These classless and offensive cartoons were later republished in other newspapers throughout Europe, demonstrating support for the original publishers. Even before these events, one can find Christian leaders and social commentators in the United States making antagonistic and hate-provoking statements about Islam or the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), calling him a terrorist or even a child molester. The situation has not been much better in Europe, although they have much larger Muslim minorities. In this environment, beyond asking "Why do they hate us?" perhaps another important question needs to be asked by all: Is our own behavior leading us in a positive or beneficial direction? Maybe the answer to this question may shed some light on the answer to the aforementioned question.

Those who engage in the practice of defaming Islam or the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have claimed that they are simply exercising their rights of freedom of speech, opinion and belief. Within the Western framework, they may have an argument. At the end of January 2006, the Blair government was defeated in attempting to pass a law that would have made ridiculing faiths and religious leaders a type of hate crime. In an interview with BBC on February 1, 2006, a Member of Parliament who opposed the bill said that the law must protect life and property but need not protect "feelings."

Thus, as long as a person's "life or property" is not physically attacked, one should be free to express what one wishes. This approach reflects the currently accepted Western emphasis on individual rights as opposed to social welfare. Indeed, in the aftermath of the dispute concerning the cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), some in Europe are proudly-actually, arrogantly-proclaiming that they have the right to insult God if they want to. Whatever the man-made legal rights may be and ignoring the gravity of the manner in which such insults have been done, what if such statements do eventually lead to harm and attacks on life and property? What is the logic behind permitting "causes" that lead to "harm" while prohibiting the act of harm in itself?

For example, is there anything reprehensible about drunk driving in itself or is it prohibited by law only due to the harm that it can result in, the loss of life and property? In any case, of course, simply because something is legal by law does not necessarily imply that it is moral or even wise. In the current environment, this is the more important issue. One should never invoke one's "rights" in defense of harmful and hateful actions that could eventually even lead to bloodshed. Thus, it is not a matter of passing new laws, as was attempted in England. Instead, it is a matter of recognizing the morally correct path to follow and the prudent path to follow. No one can doubt that images and stereotypes presented in the media are very powerful. In many cases, they form a person's perception of reality. In particular, many of the West, more so in the US than in Europe, do not have first hand experiences with Muslims and therefore they must rely on the media to develop their perception of Islam and Muslims. Nacos and Torres-Reyna write, "Some 55 years ago, before the advent of television, Walter Lippmann observed that what people know about the world around them is mostly the result of second-hand knowledge received through the press and that the 'pictures in our heads' are the result of a pseudo-reality reflected in the news."

Thus, the press bears a great responsibility. What and how the press presents something can ultimately lead to decisions of life and death or war and peace. Indeed, political cartoons and yellow journalism can be sufficient to drive a country into a war frenzy-as they appeal to the emotions of the masses. Anyone familiar with the Spanish-American War is well aware of this fact. There were powerful forces in the United States who were determined to go to war against Spain, fearing the "Spanish threat" on the Americas. The New York Morning Journal (headed by William Randolph Hearst) and The New York World used yellow journalism to depict Spanish oppression in Cuba. Even though President McKinley wanted to follow a hands-off policy, the effect of the media was such that it led to great popular support to come to the aid of the Cubans. This put great pressure upon President McKinley, leading him to send the Battleship Maine to Havana in 1898. The Battleship Maine exploded. The Navy at that time was unable to determine the cause of the explosion-although more recently many have concluded that it was due to mechanical problems. At that time, the Spanish offered to turn the issue of responsibility over to an arbitrator. However, even without being able to identify the exact cause of the explosion, the media pounced on the opportunity, spread the slogan "Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain" and continued to depict the evil Spaniards in their cartoons. The United States was now definitely going to war.

The lessons of those events should not be lost on the world today. Another example of the influence of the press is discussed in the following passage: "The racism that led to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was created partly by the motion picture industry, which for years typecast Orientals as villains, and partly by the press, especially the newspapers of William Randolph Hearst." Today, of course, the internment of the Japanese is something that we Americans remember with shame. The result-if not the goal-of blatant defamation and ridicule is the dehumanization of the enemy. When the enemy is dehumanized, one no longer cares how much they suffer. One can then do things to them that humans would, under normal circumstances, completely shun-such as all forms of horrendous torture and humiliation.

Inexcusable defamation is occurring. Before discussing who may be pleased with such occurrences, I would like to first discuss who should not be participating in such activities. First, it seems to me-and only God knows-that those who want to display the Christian witness to humanity certainly should shun and oppose any such behavior. It is the Christian who usually claims that Muslims do not understand that "God is love" and that one should love one's enemy.

Thus, they should be at the forefront of putting an end to such harmful statements and defamation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). These shameful acts certainly do not demonstrate grace and love. Second, those who are truly interested in peace must also take a stand. You cannot simultaneously allow and support hate-provoking messages and ridicule while at the same time claiming to be working for true peace among the different peoples. True peace cannot come without some form of mutual respect and understanding. Certainly immaturely attacking the icons or beliefs that are dear to millions living on the planet could not be seen as a means of respect and understanding. Third, those who are interested in human rights and human dignity should also be outraged at what is done in the name of freedom and human rights. If the concept of human rights is going to mean anything it should at least mean respect for humans! To unjustifiably ridicule, attack or defame others should be considered a violation of one's right to a decent life without unwarranted aggression and attack. When will the paradox of humans being dehumanized and humiliated in the name of human freedoms and human rights ever be solved? Indeed, when will secular humans finally realize that such is a paradox for which they may never have a solution? Muslims also should never engage in false or ridiculing propaganda against others. Even if there is great hatred between the Muslim and others, a Muslim is never allowed to deviate from what is truthful and proper.

This is because the ultimate goal of a Muslim is the pleasure of God and God is pleased with truth and justice. The mere ridicule of others resulting only in increased hatred-not to speak of hatred between individuals but, indeed, even a hatred for God's religion-is not part of the character of a Muslim. The following verses of the Quran should make all Muslims alert to these points: "O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice…" (al-Nisaa 135); "O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah and be just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allah. Verily, Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do" (al-Maaidah 8); "And do not insult those [objects of worship] whom they worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge. Thus We have made fair-seeming to each people its own doings; then to their Lord is their return and He shall then inform them of all that they used to do" (al-Anaam 108).

The question then remains: Who is it that could possibly be pleased with and support such rude and ill-mannered behavior as the defaming of the spiritual leader of almost one-fifth of the planet? Unfortunately, there are a few categories of people who are actively pushing and promoting a phenomenon described as "Islamophobia," putting the fear of Islam and Muslims in the hearts of non-Muslims. It is hoped that no rational, sincere person would want to be from these different groups of people who foster such hate and, eventually, violence. First and most obvious are people who are simply racists. These people have a hatred for all "others" and see them as inferior, untermenschen. They want their own people to also hate the "other" and therefore they are happy to spread any slurs or insults. The whole basis of racist thought is that someone is superior not due to anything that he has actually done but only due to something given to him by God and over which the individual himself had no control or choice. It seems that this would appeal most to persons who have no individual redeeming qualities of their own! Be that as it may, it is amazing how prevalent racism and racist feelings are in the West.

It is the people of the West, in general, who are saying that they want the Muslims to become modernized, claiming that Islam and Muslims are barbarians, backwards, uncivilized and un-modernized. Is it any wonder that their message has been unappealing to so many Muslims? Unfortunately, there are also many strong political factors behind the current demonizing of Muslims. There is a political-philosophical belief that one's country needs a well-defined and dangerous enemy. Especially since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, that enemy has more and more been identified as Muslims and Islam (sometimes referred to in more politically correct terms as "fundamentalist Islam"). One can return to the example of the Soviet Union to see how an enemy can be created and made as giant as can be. During the 1950s, the children of the United States were repeatedly going through drills in case the Soviets should attack the US with nuclear weapons.

Looking back, the reality seemed to be very different. Former US statesman George Kennan, who had originally proposed the policy of Russian containment, admitted that he knew that Russia did not want to go to war. He stated, "The image of a Stalinist Russia poised and yearning to attack the West, and deterred only by [US] possession of atomic weapons, was largely a creation of Western imagination." A report in the Guardian also states that British military and intelligence chiefs believed that, "The Soviet Union will not deliberately start general war or even limited war in Europe," so said a classified paper marked "Top Secret, UK Eyes Only." One of the leading proponents of the concept of the clash of civilizations, Samuel Huntington, is himself one of the believers in this outlook. Among the many things he stated pointing to this view of the world is, "We know who we are only when we know who we are not and often only when we know whom we are against." Finally, those Muslims who might hold some extreme views in regards to the West are also very happy with such practices that demonstrate the West's lack of respect toward Muslims.

In turn, they use this as an argument that the people of the West, therefore, are not deserving of respect. They want no limits to the manner in which they fight-and it is only a small step from quoting non-Muslim disrespect for Muslims to convincing a person that civilian non-Muslims, therefore, are also not deserving of respect. Hence, those people who defend acts of defamation and ridicule in the name of "rights and freedoms" are simply playing right into their hands. These are the main categories of people who would be pleased with such acts of defamation and ridicule of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), of Muslims or of the "other" in general. As stated earlier, it is hoped that rational and sincere people would not wish to be counted among such groups of people.

However, there is another important point that needs to be made. This has to do with those who defend such hate-producing acts, again probably in the name of free speech, liberty and so forth. What, though, is the difference between defending acts like this-that lead to more hatred and therefore more violence-and directly supporting known terrorists? Yes, one can argue that there is a difference. But to the person who truly wants to take responsibility for the ramifications of his actions (what he does as well as what he advocates), he should consider what occurs when he supports or sees nothing wrong with denigrating and defaming others in such a manner that will only produce more hatred. There is no question that this hatred may easily lead to more violence, bloodshed, turmoil and suffering. Certainly, he cannot truly believe that his hands are absolutely free of any guilt.

Most of the inhabitants of the West are non-Muslims. Many of them are not Muslim because they feel that there is something unacceptable in Islam. Hence, it is to be expected that they would have thoughts about the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that Muslims would not share. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself debated with Jews, Christians and polytheists who did not believe in him and even after discussions with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself they remained true to their own faiths. Thus, no one, Muslim or otherwise, should be surprised if a non-Muslim has a lesser opinion of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) than a Muslim has. The Quran welcomes discussion and dialogue with the non-Muslims: "Invite (mankind, O Muhammad) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and fair preaching, and debate with them in a way that is better. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided" (al-Nahl 125). In fact, more than once, the Quran even asks the non-Muslim to, "Produce your proof if you are truthful" (al-Baqarah 111; al-Naml 64; al-Qasas 75). Thus, the objection is not to non-Muslims-especially in their own lands-expressing their view about the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). If what they state is sincere and rational, then they can be spoken to on a rational level with sincerity. Indeed, Muslims welcome such discussions and, in reality, such discussions are best for Islam, because, to this day, most of the people in the West have distorted views of Islam. If they wish to express their views honestly and discuss them honestly, they can be presented with the truth of Islam. This act in itself may reduce the tension and discord that exists between non-Muslims and Muslims.

In fact, after the events of 9/11, many Americans took the effort to find out more about Islam and there was much more exposure of Islam and Muslims. Thus, in comparing surveys before 9/11 and after 9/11, Nacos and Torres-Reyna found that "the American public in general viewed Muslim-Americans more favorable after September 11, 2001." One can respond to rational arguments with an honest and straightforward rational discussion. However, there is no real response to something that is meant only to ridicule, insult or harm. In sum, if non-Muslims want to debate and discuss the real issues of religion and belief, Muslims are more than ready to do that. If they resort to defamation and ridicule, then they should not be surprised if they are in turn responded to with hatred and disrespect. There is no need for them to then ask, "Why do they hate us?"

The answer should be clear. Actually, there is one author who makes the point that those in the past who attacked the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did so in an attempt to avoid discussing the real issues. Minou Reeves writes in a work entitled Muhammad in Europe: A Thousand Years of Western Myth-Making, The trouble started with early medieval Christian polemicists. They chose not to attack Islamic theology, which was too seductive in its simplicity and clarity, and which raised too many awkward questions about Christian dogma. Nor could they cast doubt on the pious practice of ordinary Muslims. Instead, anticipating the worst excesses of tabloid journalism, they personalized the issue and attacked the Prophet of Islam, dispensing with all but the barest knowledge of any facts and inventing falsehoods. Muslims could not reply in kind, since they are told by the Qur'an to revere Jesus as a holy prophet. It seems that not much has truly changed over the centuries.

In conclusion, I think all in the world can agree that mutual understanding, mutual respect, peace and justice certainly will never result from defamation, ridicule and insult. Therefore, there is no real benefit from defaming or denigrating the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in a manner like the recent political cartoons in Europe. The only result that one can expect from such practices is more hatred, violence and fear. Certainly, if you disrespect someone else, you cannot expect that he will show great respect for you in return. If this hatred does turn into more terrorism, the longer term result may simply be more restrictions on civil liberties and freedoms in the West. Those who are supporting such cartoons in the name of rights and liberties may, in the long-run, find their liberties restricted because of what these disrespectful acts produced. In essence, nobody wins in the long-run. There is simply no rationale for such behavior. At the same time, we have to call upon all interested parties to show restraint and to consider what ramifications anything that they say or do might have. Muslim scholars should take the lead, as they have done in the past, to stress to the Muslims that the actions of the non-Muslims should never anger them so much that it leads them to do something that contradicts the Law of Islam. It is time for leaders in the West to realize that the "freedom" which is very dear to the Western conscience should not be an unwise or harmful freedom. I believe it was Milton Friedman who stated, "My freedom to swing my fist stops where your chin begins." In today's turbulent environment, perhaps it should be said-not as a law but as moral behavior-"My freedom of speech ends where your personal dignity begins."

Sears joined a growing list of advertisers to reject ads in Michael Savage's "Savage Nation" radio program filled with anti-Islam rhetoric

WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 -- The Hate Hurts America Community and Interfaith Coalition (HHA) today announced that Sears, one of the nation's largest retailers, has joined a growing list of advertisers that have stopped advertising or refuse to place their ads on Michael Savage's "Savage Nation" radio program. In an e-mail to HHA, a Sears official wrote: "Sears Holdings will not be advertising on 'The Savage Nation.'" HHA, a group of religious and civic organizations seeking to challenge hate speech on talk radio, was formed as a result of Savage's recent rhetorical attacks on Muslims, Islam and the Quran, Islam's revealed text. Coalition members are calling on advertisers nationwide to stop airing commercials on Savage's nationally-syndicated program.

SEE: Hate Hurts America
http://www.hatehurtsamerica.org/

SEE ALSO: National Radio Host Goes on Anti-Muslim Tirade (CAIR)

Savage has a long history of rhetorical attacks on a variety ofminority groups. He says he has lost at least $1 million in revenue becauseof the advertiser campaign.

Advertisers that have already stopped airing, or refuse to air commercials on "Savage Nation" include Universal Orlando Resorts, AutoZone, Citrix, TrustedID, JCPenney, OfficeMax, Wal-Mart, and AT&T. The Hate Hurts America Community and Interfaith Coalition includes public officials and civil rights advocates, as well as representatives of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Latino, and Asian communities.

CONTACT: Hate Hurts America Community and Interfaith Coalition
Coordinator Sabiha Khan, 407-430-3747, coordinator@hatehurtsamerica.org

SOURCE Council on American-Islamic Relations

Islam’s detractors wrong on Quran

by Ammar Al Marzouqi
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 (BH)

Attacks on Islam have been escalating over the last few years. It’s become a fashionable thing to do, and the fact that these “informed opinions” stem from a complete ignorance of the true teachings of Islam and the Quran isn’t making it any better. I’ve had it with these attacks, and as a Muslim, I feel compelled to set the record straight.

In last Tuesday’s paper, Kyle Szarzynski wrote in his article (“Islam no defense for extremist action,” Nov. 20) about the Muslim response to the insulting cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten and subsequent republishing by many other newspapers including The Badger Herald. He described the cartoons as merely “unflattering,” expressed his inability to understand the Muslim response and why “leftists” were making up excuses for them.

First of all, I deeply regret the actions of some of my fellow Muslims, which lead to the deaths of more than 100 people, and for that I make no excuses. What I’m not sorry for is the protests and the economic and political boycotts of Denmark and other Scandinavian countries that occurred after the publishing of those cartoons. There was nothing “courageous” about publishing those cartoons, and publishing them simply because they were newsworthy was poor justification for bad judgment.

It is one thing to criticize a religion, but it’s another thing to deliberately insult its followers. Not only were the cartoons a depiction of the prophet — which approaches an idolatry Muslims have fought since the dawn of Islam — but it also portrays the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. That is why most of the 1.2 billion Muslims of the world, including myself, were outraged by the cartoons. It is certainly our right to protest in every peaceful way possible. Sadly, those in the West smart enough to distinguish between the violent minutia and the outraged but peaceful majority were treated by most observers as sellouts to the Muslim religious right.

However, Western misconceptions about Islam and Muslims are not limited to this issue, but extend to broader areas of beliefs, practices and representation. They are also often the result of the intentional cherry-picking of facts and a copy-and-paste method of understanding Islamic scripture.

Mr. Szarzynski and others claim Islam sanctions oppression of women and non-Muslims, and they claim the sanction for such acts comes straight from the Holy Quran. I say nonsense. I’m sick of these critics, who know next to nothing about the Quran, making such statements without presenting their proof. I’m also sick of how the rest of us seem to take those statements as fact and leave them unquestioned. Islamic scholars spend their lives poring over scripture in an attempt to fully interpret its meanings, and a person who hasn’t read the Quran over once suddenly claims to have sufficient knowledge of it.

It is true that under the current governments of most countries with a Muslim majority, some of the aforementioned oppressions exist. The real question here is whether or not those governments represent Islam. I say no. But U.S.-backed dictatorships do exist in some Muslim countries.

But if you want to see a model of a modern Islamic government, there is no better example than Malaysia. Malaysia is one of the richest Muslim countries in the world and has a booming economy. Women and minorities in Malaysia have fully institutionalized rights such as suffrage, even though the Malaysian people are mainly conservative Muslims. Malaysians also have a prominent role in the Muslim World Conference, where they have stood for Muslim causes around the world. Truly, the Malaysian experience is a role model for all Islamic countries.

Also, those who claim Islam oppresses women ignore the tremendous privileges a woman enjoys in Islam. Women in Islam have no obligation to work, as their closest male relative or husband has the obligation of fully providing for them, and even if a Muslim woman decides to work, all the money she makes is solely hers. Islam gives mothers an honored position and values their sacrifices tremendously. Even the Hijab (the headscarf), looked upon as a symbol of oppression in the West, is actually, as described to me by a Muslim woman, a form of liberation from the burden of obsessing over external appearance and personal aesthetics. It is a symbol of piety and modesty that has its roots in the Bible (1 Corinthians 11:6).

Mr. Szarzynski also claims there is no such thing as “anti-Islamic racism” and since Islam is not a race, its critics should not be called racists. I agree with only half of his statement. Islam is susceptible to criticism, and its critics shouldn’t be called racists. However, since most Muslims in this country are of Arabic or South Asian descent, race is still an issue. Instead of trying to play with words and definitions, we should try to find ways to eliminate racism.

Personally, I believe religion is subject to criticism and only through the process of critical thinking can we reach the truth. However, such criticism should be respectful and objective while avoiding hateful sentiments and patronizing spirits. We should strive to understand the other point of view instead of deeming it evil and unworthy of contemplation.

Ammar Al Marzouqi (aalmarzouqi@wisc.edu) is freshman majoring in computer engineering.

AS I SEE IT: Hateful words beget hateful deeds

by James A. Everett

24 Nov 07

The Kansas City Star is to be commended for its recent front-page story “Hate-Crime Count Rises.”

However, there is much more that The Star can, and should, do to focus on factors in our own community that contribute to this ugly phenomenon. Hate crimes do not spring out of a vacuum, they germinate and grow out of hate speech and ignorance.

A recent example of hate speech and ignorance occurred on Oct. 29 through the airing of a radio show on KCMO 710 AM. On the syndicated “Michael Savage Show,” Savage said, “I’m not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I’m not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I’m not getting on my all fours and praying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don’t like it.… I don’t wanna hear any more about Islam. I don’t wanna hear one more word about Islam. ”

Savage continued, “I’m sick of you. What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don’t tell me I need re-education. They need deportation.”

These words of rabid bigotry and hate reflect the same venom that Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels spewed out against the Jews in Nazi Germany. At that time Germany was a Christian nation with a respected historical and social heritage. Allowing such hate speech to flourish, millions of Jews and other disrespected persons were systematically killed.

In 2004, Savage said over the air, “I think (Muslims) need to be forcibly converted to Christianity … It’s the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings.”

In 2006 he called for a ban on Muslim immigration and recommended making “the construction of mosques illegal in America.” He attacks other ethnic groups with similar hateful messages.

When Savage’s stupid, outrageous and bigoted inflammatory remarks were brought to the attention of the radio station, there was no apology, just a feeble response saying they run a disclaimer prior to airing the show. Their disclaimer only warns about adult language. The Federal Communications Commission told me that everything Savage said was covered by the right of free speech.

You’ve all heard, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” But they do. In fact, they can kill. A belief in free speech does not give a person the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

In a similar sense, our nation’s democratic tradition strongly supports freedom of expression over publicly licensed airwaves, but they should not be used to promote hatred and violence.


James A. Everett is the former executive director of the Kansas City Interfaith Peace Alliance. He lives in Independence.

Comment by Marcello:
Thank you so much for speaking out, Mr. Everett! I'm a Christian who has read the Quran from beginning to end. For Michael Savage or anyone else to call it a "book of hate" is supremely ignorant. America's airwaves belong to the American people, and we deserve better than hate speech.

11/26/2007 11:40 PM

Ad criticizes the way in which some Oklahoma lawmakers reacted to gift Qurans

A group that includes Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson and Secretary of State Susan Savage has bought half-page advertisements in the state's two largest Sunday newspapers condemning the manner in which some state legislators refused copies of a commemorative edition Quran.

Retired Oklahoma Baptist University professor Mack Roark, who drafted the letter that appears in the ad, said the group was also motivated by public reaction to the incident.

"My initial (reaction) to this came from a strong sense that we need to pull away from the things that polarize us," Roark said Friday.

The controversy began three weeks ago when state Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, wrote fellow legislators that he had turned down a commemorative edition Quran because "most Oklahomans do not endorse the idea of killing innocent women and children in the name of ideology."

The Quran was offered to House and Senate members by the Governor's Ethnic American Advisory Council, which is chaired by a Muslim.

About three dozen other legislators ultimately refused copies of the Quran, most of them without comment.

The incident elicited numerous electronic posts to the Tulsa World's online edition and many letters to the editor, both in support and opposition to Duncan.

Vincent LaVoi, a Tulsa investment advisor who signed the letter appearing Sunday, said he objected to the way Duncan handled the situation.

"Anyone is free to turn something down, absolutely," LaVoi said. "But the inflammatory remarks (and) the aggressive way he did it aren't good Oklahoma manners."

Headed "A Letter to Oklahomans," the advertisement is signed by more than 100 individuals, including Edmondson and his wife Linda, and Savage, a former Tulsa mayor.

Others signing the letter include former state Treasurer Robert Butkin, now a University of Tulsa law professor; state Energy Secretary David Fleischaker; former state Senate President Pro Tem Cal Hobson; Pulitzer Prize-winning author N. Scott Momaday; Norman Mayor Cindy Rosenthal; state Secretary of Environment Miles Tolbert; former state Attorney General Mike Turpen; and former Tulsa lawmaker Penny Williams.

Roark said those signing the letter belong to no formal organization, although many of them met through the Oklahoma Symposium, a three-day event held every year at Quartz Mountain State Park.

The decision to take out the ads, Roark said, was "very ad hoc" and made through a series of e-mails passed from one person to another.

"There are names on there I don't know," said Roark, who still teaches a few OBU classes in Greek and the New Testament despite his retirement.

For him, Roark said, the issue is a matter of religious liberty and tolerance.

"I know many people in the Muslim community, some of them for 20 years or more," he said. "All the ones I know are very peace-loving, open-minded citizens."

War on Terror Rhetoric Sounds Like War on Islam

Given their divergent views on issues from abortion to same-sex unions, televangelist Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani makes them the quintessential odd couple.
One area in which they have discovered a convergence of interests is fighting “Islamic terrorism,” echoing Giuliani's longstanding description of the war on terror as a war on "radical Islamic fascism."
This belligerence reverberates in conservative activist Gary Bauer’s characterization of the fight against “radical Islam” as a major “family value” that tops the new Conservative agenda. Christian leader Charles Colson describes “Islamofascism” as the “long war” while James Dobson exhorts his fellow faithful to “wake up” for the fight against “militant Islam.”
For Giuliani and these conservative leaders, the point of emphasis is on Islam, not terror. Thus exempt from their “war on terror” are groups like the Lord's Resistance Army of Uganda, which commits terrorism in the name of Christianity and Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers, a Hindu-Marxist group, which remains one of the worst perpetrators of suicide bombings.
This new battle cry seeks to exploit pre-existing fears of Islam. Nearly 4 in 10 Americans admit to being prejudiced against Muslims, and 70 percent say that Islam has nothing in common with their faith. Among self identified Conservatives, such trends are generally worse.
Pat Robertson is the latest in a long line of Team Rudy fans who are distinguished by their disdain for Muslims.
New York Congressman Peter King, an advisor to Giuliani, complains that "unfortunately we have too many mosques in this country." Another Giuliani advisor, Daniel Pipes, questions the wisdom of allowing American Muslims to vote and views the "enfranchisement" of American Muslims as a threat to the Jewish community.
In his hostility to Islam and Muslims, Robertson outshines them all. Robertson has railed against many groups that he views as “un-Christian,” but he has always managed to save his harshest invective for Muslims.
He has called Muslims "satanic," claimed the Quran is "fraudulent" and said Islam is "a monumental scam." Robertson also called the Prophet Muhammad "an absolute wild-eyed fanatic, a robber and a brigand...a killer."
Politics has always been a theatre of the absurd. However, the injection of Islamophobic rhetoric into presidential campaigns is not mere rhetoric, as it solidifies the specter of a self-defeating clash between civilizations.
People like Giuliani, who insist on conflating Islam with terrorism and fascism, care not about the linguistic absurdity of such combinations. “Islam” is an Arabic word while “terrorism” and "fascism" are English words rooted in the European, not Islamic, experience.
Alas Giuliani is not alone in his attacks. Other Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, have followed his lead. Mitt Romney went a step further and ran television advertisements citing “jihadism” as "this century's nightmare.”
Along with the sheer naiveté of such views, a more fundamental question is - what do Arabic words like “jihad” or “Islam” mean when combined with English suffixes like ‘-ist’ or ‘-ism’? Muslims understand “Islam” and “jihad” to mean “peace” and “striving” respectively. But words like Islam-ist, Islam-ism, jihad-ist or jihad-ism lack uniform definition and appear to most Muslims as essentially the rhetorical equivalent of Islam.
It is thus not coincidental that today almost 8 in 10 Muslims worldwide perceive the war on terror to be a war against their faith of Islam. Such perceptions, by most expert accounts, cannot make America safer. As such, those actions or policies that lead to these perceptions cannot reasonably be accepted as either promoting “family values” or America’s security.
Ironically, those promoting the use of "Islamic terrorism" side with terrorists if it suits their agenda. They remain silent while the U.S. military permits the PKK, a Kurdish terrorist organization, to keep safe harbor in Northern Iraq from where they launch terror attacks against Turkey.
They find no double standards in Bush administration’s tacit support of Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, a State Department designated terrorist group, which conducts terror attacks against Iran from their bases in Iraq.
The “family value” champions often speak about a culture of life and yet remain silent about the Iraq war, which has left hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, more than two million homeless, more than three thousand dead American soldiers and countless others injured. How can they keep supporting a war that was initiated on deceptions and lies? Lying and deception that leads to loss of countless innocent lives is not a value that most Americans seek. Opposition to the Iraq war is at an all time high and most Americans do not approve of further military actions against Iran.
As the election season heats up, the politicization of the “war on terror” will unfortunately intensify. In this new political game, Islam will be made a scapegoat to rally voters through evoking fear and paranoia. Muslims will be divided into those who are “with us” (good Muslims) and those who are “against us” (bad Muslims).The “good Muslims,” no matter how undemocratic or oppressive, will be touted as our “Westernized” and “secularized” friends. The “bad Muslims,” even if popular and representative of their own people, will be marginalized as “fanatical” and “radical.”
American Muslims long for the day when their faith is no longer the object of such machinations by our political leaders or targeted by the spurious religious interpretations of those who commit terrorism in the name of Islam.
Speaking out against these promoters of a clash between civilizations will be a value worth fighting for.

By Parvez Ahmed

[Parvez Ahmed is board chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy group. His e-mail address is pahmed@cair.com.]

Editor: Pat Robertson endorsement to adulterer, gay right activist and warmonger Rudy Giuliani exposed the truth about this televanlegist who has scandalised Prophet Muhammad, Islam, Quran and Muslims. Andrew Sullivan said "Robertson is a charlatan and a religious phony. He has enriched himself at the expense of millions of gullible followers who did not understand that this man's sole principle is his own power and wealth. It doesn't surprise me that he sees eye to eye with Giuliani. They are very similar characters. … It is enlightening to me to witness two very similar politicians sink their differences to forge that new, fascistic direction.". This is the Truth about Pat Robertson, the "new Jimmy Swaggart".....Thou who disrespect Prophet Muhammad shall be disgraced by God.