[Saylor note: I have known Mahdi for more than a decade. He is a steadfast ally and servant of our nation. My prayers are with him and his family.]
MAS Freedom Executive Director Mahdi Bray Hospitalized
Mahdi Bray, a veteran civil rights advocate, who serves as Executive Director of the Muslim American Society's Freedom Foundation (MAS Freedom) based in Washington, D.C. has suffered a massive stroke. He was admitted to Fairfax Hospital in the early morning hours of Wednesday. After, he became ill. He is scheduled for surgery today for angioplasty, a surgical repair to unblock a blood vessel. Coronary angioplasty (AN-jee-oh-plas-tee) is a procedure used to open blocked or narrowed coronary (heart) arteries. The procedure improves blood flow to the heart muscle. Angioplasty is done on more than 1 million people a year in the United States. Serious complications don't occur often. However, they can happen no matter how careful your doctor is or how well he or she does the procedure.
Mahdi Bray has been one of Islam's fiercest champions and most dedicated servants of civil rights causes and whose stellar services to American Muslims is held in the highest esteem. Bray served on the Board of Directors of the Interfaith Alliance and the National Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice, and is a National Co-convener of Religions for Peace-USA.
The staff of MAS-Freedom request that Muslims across America, and all those that share his vision for peace, equality and freedom, pray for a quick recovery and the return of a man that has been so vital to the Islamic movement in America.
Khalilah Sabra, MAS-Freedom Immigrant Justice Clinic director stated, "Mahdi's advocacy work has tripled the last two years. The rise of Islamophobia and religious profiling has left no hours for reflection and relaxation. Every weekend has been dedicated to advancing the religious and civil rights of Muslims in America, which is increasingly being challenged. We look forward to a speedy return and the resumption of all previous activities."
The Muslim American Society Family requests nothing but steadfast prayer for Imam Bray and his family.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Excerpt: Muslim nonprofits struggle with media portrayals
See the full story here.
More than 90 percent of Muslims worldwide said that they were against violence and extremism, according to “What Makes a Radical,” a 2008 poll by Gallup. The largest Muslim civil liberty and human rights group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, holds the same stance.
“Associating Islam with the actions of terrorists and religious extremists implies that we accept their argument that what they do is based on a legitimate interpretation of the faith,” said CAIR’s legislative director, Corey Saylor, in a 2008 press release. “It is best to call them what they are – criminals, terrorists, extremists – without giving them the false religious justification they seek.”
When dealing with the biases that the media illustrates, Saylor said that nonprofits often have to put the issue aside to focus on what is in their control to change.
“That’s why you hear us asking what can we do for ourselves,” said Saylor. “We don’t have any control over outside organizations and media.”
More than 90 percent of Muslims worldwide said that they were against violence and extremism, according to “What Makes a Radical,” a 2008 poll by Gallup. The largest Muslim civil liberty and human rights group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, holds the same stance.
“Associating Islam with the actions of terrorists and religious extremists implies that we accept their argument that what they do is based on a legitimate interpretation of the faith,” said CAIR’s legislative director, Corey Saylor, in a 2008 press release. “It is best to call them what they are – criminals, terrorists, extremists – without giving them the false religious justification they seek.”
When dealing with the biases that the media illustrates, Saylor said that nonprofits often have to put the issue aside to focus on what is in their control to change.
“That’s why you hear us asking what can we do for ourselves,” said Saylor. “We don’t have any control over outside organizations and media.”
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
‘False' patriots whipping up anti-Muslim sentiment
(Saylor note: Could not have said it better myself.)
Letter to the Editor written by John Selvidge, Oklahoma City
Published: December 8, 2010
The Oklahoman
Leonard Pitts Jr.'s “Mourning the loss of America's mind” (Commentary, Dec. 3) is much appreciated for injecting a dose of common sense into the hysteria over Oklahoma's recent anti-Sharia referendum. Regardless of what the measure's backers might wish us to believe, the Constitution does, in fact, provide for the protection of religious freedoms and against the legislative singling out of any religious group for official censure by the government.
U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange was right to issue an injunction against the referendum. Her decision was rooted squarely in constitutional principle, not some fuzzy notion of political correctness, and represents fundamental American values more truly than those who would seek to label her an “activist judge” for her ruling.
Fears that the most egregious offenses against a free society, such as those practiced under Taliban rule or other hard-line theocratic Islamic regimes, could somehow gain a legal foothold in our country or our state remain unfounded. Balanced and well-considered rulings like this one are a good part of the reason. The real danger lies in the anti-American efforts of demagogues like the legislators who whip up and exploit anti-Muslim sentiment in the name of a false patriotism. We don't need incoherent, pre-emptive campaigns against “the law of Islam,” whatever the referendum's authors take this to mean.
We should place trust instead in the principles of honest debate, tolerance and fair treatment before the law that set our society apart from those who would rather govern by fear and terror.
Letter to the Editor written by John Selvidge, Oklahoma City
Published: December 8, 2010
The Oklahoman
Leonard Pitts Jr.'s “Mourning the loss of America's mind” (Commentary, Dec. 3) is much appreciated for injecting a dose of common sense into the hysteria over Oklahoma's recent anti-Sharia referendum. Regardless of what the measure's backers might wish us to believe, the Constitution does, in fact, provide for the protection of religious freedoms and against the legislative singling out of any religious group for official censure by the government.
U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange was right to issue an injunction against the referendum. Her decision was rooted squarely in constitutional principle, not some fuzzy notion of political correctness, and represents fundamental American values more truly than those who would seek to label her an “activist judge” for her ruling.
Fears that the most egregious offenses against a free society, such as those practiced under Taliban rule or other hard-line theocratic Islamic regimes, could somehow gain a legal foothold in our country or our state remain unfounded. Balanced and well-considered rulings like this one are a good part of the reason. The real danger lies in the anti-American efforts of demagogues like the legislators who whip up and exploit anti-Muslim sentiment in the name of a false patriotism. We don't need incoherent, pre-emptive campaigns against “the law of Islam,” whatever the referendum's authors take this to mean.
We should place trust instead in the principles of honest debate, tolerance and fair treatment before the law that set our society apart from those who would rather govern by fear and terror.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Elibiary: Muslims Can be Patriots, Too
Opinion
Muslims Can Be Patriots, Too
By Mohamed Elibiary
Published November 12, 2010
I was recently appointed a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) and had the honor of swearing an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Some of my track record over the past several years helping to confront foreign-inspired threats to our homeland has recently been made public. That same patriotic track record, however, was met with outrage in what I can only call the "keyboard crusader" corner of the blogosphere. Why? Because a Muslim was appointed to such a position.
What is becoming more obvious daily is that here at home we have some of our fellow citizens here at home have an unevolved view of the clash of civilizations. This self-righteous camp claims to be fighting to counter Bin Laden’s ilk by broadening the enemy category to the religion of Islam and/or casting broad suspicions on all Muslims.
It’s accurate to diagnose the American people as a confused bunch. After all, we are still debating who attacked us on 9/11 and what their ideology was. On the one hand, there are those see our enemy, post-9/11, as Al Qaeda and the global pseudo-jihad movement it spearheads. Then, there are others who believe in a "conveyor belt" theory of sorts. They feel that "Islamism" or the merging of one’s religious identity and nationalism is a gateway to extremism. -- Just as marijuana is considered by some as a "gateway" to harder drugs.
Currently the majority of academics and center-left think tanks view non-violent Islamists as the largely benign Muslim version of Evangelical Christians and therefore natural allies in countering Al-Qaeda and expanding democracies. That view is opposed by right-wing think tanks and security hawks who view non-violent Islamism as merely a pre-cursor stage to violence and an eventual threat to U.S. foreign policy objectives in the Middle East. All these groups and their viewpoints enrich our public discourse and generally welcome nuanced analysis of their point of views in a civil public discourse.
Finally however there is a unique category that views the circle of threat as not pseudo-jihadists or Islamists, but instead as the religion of Islam itself. They’re quick to classify any action by any public Muslim figure as “deception” in the pursuit of an ultimate goal to “subvert our Constitution” and impose a “Caliph” guided by the Koran in its place.
Many of our fellow citizens have spent the greater part of the past nine years confused as to whom our country’s enemy is and in response lash out harmfully at a great number of innocent fellow citizens. We must remember that one can’t listen while he’s shouting, nor discern while conflating broadly into global conspiracies, and only dialoging with sell-out “moderate” Muslims willing to reinforce what we want to believe is not patriotism but simply pouring Novocain upon our paranoia.
The intelligence field is basically about collecting information and producing analytical products to inform government’s policy making process. The counter-intelligence field is basically about playing defense against others trying to steal our national secrets or advance subversion operations against us. Our collective challenge therefore is to identify who America’s enemies are, what their plan is and where to draw the line between “us” and “them” so we stop suffering from fratricide.
An important step down the path of consensus and true service to our country is to settle our post 9/11 public conversation on who exactly “belongs” as an American. We can achieve that by not attempting to outsmart our common sense and adopt separate standards for separate religions and groupings of Americans in our public discourse about security topics. Simply put if we can't substitute the word "Jew" or "Christian" when speaking of Muslims then we should be wise enough to know that’s not the proper way to state a perspective.
There is no valor in being ugly or debasing our democracy’s public discourse in a bullying manner, just evil cowardice.
As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb, good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of hatred, good men must commit themselves to the glories of love…”
Mohamed Elibiary is a national security expert and an advisor to several government agencies and American Muslim community groups. His e-mail address is melibiary@texasintel.org.
Muslims Can Be Patriots, Too
By Mohamed Elibiary
Published November 12, 2010
I was recently appointed a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) and had the honor of swearing an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Some of my track record over the past several years helping to confront foreign-inspired threats to our homeland has recently been made public. That same patriotic track record, however, was met with outrage in what I can only call the "keyboard crusader" corner of the blogosphere. Why? Because a Muslim was appointed to such a position.
What is becoming more obvious daily is that here at home we have some of our fellow citizens here at home have an unevolved view of the clash of civilizations. This self-righteous camp claims to be fighting to counter Bin Laden’s ilk by broadening the enemy category to the religion of Islam and/or casting broad suspicions on all Muslims.
It’s accurate to diagnose the American people as a confused bunch. After all, we are still debating who attacked us on 9/11 and what their ideology was. On the one hand, there are those see our enemy, post-9/11, as Al Qaeda and the global pseudo-jihad movement it spearheads. Then, there are others who believe in a "conveyor belt" theory of sorts. They feel that "Islamism" or the merging of one’s religious identity and nationalism is a gateway to extremism. -- Just as marijuana is considered by some as a "gateway" to harder drugs.
Currently the majority of academics and center-left think tanks view non-violent Islamists as the largely benign Muslim version of Evangelical Christians and therefore natural allies in countering Al-Qaeda and expanding democracies. That view is opposed by right-wing think tanks and security hawks who view non-violent Islamism as merely a pre-cursor stage to violence and an eventual threat to U.S. foreign policy objectives in the Middle East. All these groups and their viewpoints enrich our public discourse and generally welcome nuanced analysis of their point of views in a civil public discourse.
Finally however there is a unique category that views the circle of threat as not pseudo-jihadists or Islamists, but instead as the religion of Islam itself. They’re quick to classify any action by any public Muslim figure as “deception” in the pursuit of an ultimate goal to “subvert our Constitution” and impose a “Caliph” guided by the Koran in its place.
Many of our fellow citizens have spent the greater part of the past nine years confused as to whom our country’s enemy is and in response lash out harmfully at a great number of innocent fellow citizens. We must remember that one can’t listen while he’s shouting, nor discern while conflating broadly into global conspiracies, and only dialoging with sell-out “moderate” Muslims willing to reinforce what we want to believe is not patriotism but simply pouring Novocain upon our paranoia.
The intelligence field is basically about collecting information and producing analytical products to inform government’s policy making process. The counter-intelligence field is basically about playing defense against others trying to steal our national secrets or advance subversion operations against us. Our collective challenge therefore is to identify who America’s enemies are, what their plan is and where to draw the line between “us” and “them” so we stop suffering from fratricide.
An important step down the path of consensus and true service to our country is to settle our post 9/11 public conversation on who exactly “belongs” as an American. We can achieve that by not attempting to outsmart our common sense and adopt separate standards for separate religions and groupings of Americans in our public discourse about security topics. Simply put if we can't substitute the word "Jew" or "Christian" when speaking of Muslims then we should be wise enough to know that’s not the proper way to state a perspective.
There is no valor in being ugly or debasing our democracy’s public discourse in a bullying manner, just evil cowardice.
As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb, good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of hatred, good men must commit themselves to the glories of love…”
Mohamed Elibiary is a national security expert and an advisor to several government agencies and American Muslim community groups. His e-mail address is melibiary@texasintel.org.
Monday, October 4, 2010
North American Muslims Stand for Free Speech
Credit to Sheila Musaji, founding editor of The American Muslim for initiating the below statement on free speech. I endorse it.
Follow this link to see the full list of endorsers.
A DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH BY AMERICAN AND CANADIAN MUSLIMS
We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.
We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation.
We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims. We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur’an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.
We affirm the right of free speech for Molly Norris, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and all others including ourselves.
As Muslims, we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance, respect, and forgiveness.
The Qur’an enjoins Muslims to:
* bear witness to Islam through our good example (2:143);
* restrain anger and pardon people (3:133-134 and 24:22);
* remain patient in adversity (3186);
* stand firmly for justice (4:135);
* not let the hatred of others swerve us from justice (5:8);
* respect the sanctity of life (5:32);
* turn away from those who mock Islam (6:68 and 28:55);
* hold to forgiveness, command what is right, and turn away from the ignorant (7:199);
* restrain ourselves from rash responses (16:125-128);
* pass by worthless talk with dignity (25:72); and
* repel evil with what is better (41:34).
Islam calls for vigorous condemnation of both hateful speech and hateful acts, but always within the boundaries of the law. It is of the utmost importance that we react, not out of reflexive emotion, but with dignity and intelligence, in accordance with both our religious precepts and the laws of our country.
We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority.
We therefore call on all Muslims in the United States, Canada and abroad to refrain from violence. We should see the challenges we face today as an opportunity to sideline the voices of hate—not reward them with further attention—by engaging our communities in constructive dialogue about the true principles of Islam, and the true principles of democracy, both of which stress the importance of freedom of religion and tolerance.
Follow this link to see the full list of endorsers.
A DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH BY AMERICAN AND CANADIAN MUSLIMS
We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.
We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation.
We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims. We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur’an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.
We affirm the right of free speech for Molly Norris, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and all others including ourselves.
As Muslims, we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance, respect, and forgiveness.
The Qur’an enjoins Muslims to:
* bear witness to Islam through our good example (2:143);
* restrain anger and pardon people (3:133-134 and 24:22);
* remain patient in adversity (3186);
* stand firmly for justice (4:135);
* not let the hatred of others swerve us from justice (5:8);
* respect the sanctity of life (5:32);
* turn away from those who mock Islam (6:68 and 28:55);
* hold to forgiveness, command what is right, and turn away from the ignorant (7:199);
* restrain ourselves from rash responses (16:125-128);
* pass by worthless talk with dignity (25:72); and
* repel evil with what is better (41:34).
Islam calls for vigorous condemnation of both hateful speech and hateful acts, but always within the boundaries of the law. It is of the utmost importance that we react, not out of reflexive emotion, but with dignity and intelligence, in accordance with both our religious precepts and the laws of our country.
We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority.
We therefore call on all Muslims in the United States, Canada and abroad to refrain from violence. We should see the challenges we face today as an opportunity to sideline the voices of hate—not reward them with further attention—by engaging our communities in constructive dialogue about the true principles of Islam, and the true principles of democracy, both of which stress the importance of freedom of religion and tolerance.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Islamophobia and Critical Race Theory
UC Berkeley's Center for Race and Gender Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project will be hosting a program on October 12 to discuss the phenomenon.
Learn more about the event.
Is America Islamophobic? No. Anyone who watched the general revulsion over the planned Florida Quran burning, along with subsequent copycats, will acknowledge that fact.
Is there an Islamophobic element in America? Yes. Bigotry directed against a religion is nothing new in our nation. Just ask the Catholics, Mormons and Jews. Those groups, among others, have much to teach Muslims about overcoming the bias that some have directed toward them.
If you cannot go to in person, the UC Berkeley event will hopefully be streamed.
Learn more about the event.
Is America Islamophobic? No. Anyone who watched the general revulsion over the planned Florida Quran burning, along with subsequent copycats, will acknowledge that fact.
Is there an Islamophobic element in America? Yes. Bigotry directed against a religion is nothing new in our nation. Just ask the Catholics, Mormons and Jews. Those groups, among others, have much to teach Muslims about overcoming the bias that some have directed toward them.
If you cannot go to in person, the UC Berkeley event will hopefully be streamed.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Saylor's Recent Media Appearances
A number of media appearances lately. Here are three of them.
NPR's On the Media from Saturday, September 10, 2010, talking about a series of public service announcements (PSAs) recently produced by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Muslim-American Public Service Announcements
On CNN, also talking about the PSAs.
Finally, on MSNBC's Countdown to discuss growing anti-Muslim hysteria.
NPR's On the Media from Saturday, September 10, 2010, talking about a series of public service announcements (PSAs) recently produced by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Muslim-American Public Service Announcements
On CNN, also talking about the PSAs.
Finally, on MSNBC's Countdown to discuss growing anti-Muslim hysteria.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The Swiftbombing Dilemma
Shortly after the failed bombing in Times Square my phone started ringing. Journalists across the nation asked for my opinion on the event. They needed it immediately. They needed it concise. They did not need a long, intellectualized sermon about how Muslims like me already have a rock-solid track-record when it comes to condemning terrorism.
What they needed was a sound-bite: “Muslims condemn terrorism.” or “We condemn terrorism whenever it happens, wherever it happens, whoever commits it.”*
So, without hesitation, I condemned terrorism again and again. The truth must be told over and over. Seeing people attempt to murder civilians sickens me. The leaps of logic needed to justify blowing-up people who are going to work or maybe trying to have a fun night out elude me. Anwar Awlaki’s “if you’re an American paying taxes you are a legitimate target” argument takes the whole death and taxes guarantee way further than I can stomach.
Recently, many Muslims have begun to question how we respond to crises such as the Christmas Day bomber and Faisal Shahzad. They say our record is clear. We should no longer hold press conferences in the wake of terror incidents to condemn the perpetrators.
They are right in that our record is clear. But they are wrong to think that we should stop proactively issuing condemnations.
I compare our situation to the dilemma John Kerry faced when he ran for president in 2004.
Kerry’s opponent’s hit him square between the eyes with a memorable talking-point: “You voted for the war, but against funding the troops.” It is short, snappy, seems to point to a flip-flop and, most priceless, can be said in mere seconds.
Kerry’s response was neither short, nor snappy. He may have had the best argument to dispel the apparent flip-flop. However, it took too long and it did not seem to address the emotional punch of apparently not supporting our troops. The response lost him votes.
So when a reporter calls me and asks for my response to an act of terror what I want to do is start in on the lecture: Look, since 9/11 I have condemned terror so many times that instead of my wife kicking me out of bed for snoring, I get kicked out for muttering condemnations in my sleep. When my neighbors greet me I respond by condemning terrorism. In 2006 after a congressional office asked me to organize a statement condemning the kidnapping of an American journalist in Iraq, I got on a plane and criticized the extremist’s actions from Baghdad. I have left my daughter in tears at home as I broke a promise to her so I could return to work and condemn Nidal Malik Hassan.
I could go on but you get the point. So does the reporter who does not have time to write about all that.
What could end up appearing in the news later that night is the less than inspiring, “Saylor noted that Muslims feel they have condemned terrorism already and are not going to repeat this condemnation today.”
Obviously that is not going to work.
Muslims are being hit square between the eyes with something more powerful than a talking point: images of some psycho claiming our faith motivated him or her to commit some unconscionable atrocity.
If I do not have a short, snappy, mere seconds of a response the result could be the loss of more than votes. I am going to be dumping fuel on the problem. It is a sin in my book to try to provide intellectual analysis in the immediate wake of a near massacre. Emotions are too high and your words must speak to those emotions. The best argument will get buried under the adrenaline.
So we are stuck, swiftbombed as it were. Those who argue that we have a clear track-record of condemning terrorism are right, but when they argue that we should move on and stop issuing the condemnation they have failed to comprehend John Kerry’s lesson.
Following the Times Square attack, I got an e-mail from a fair-minded person who asked why we Muslims did not condemn terrorism.
I responded with my usual lengthy list of links to such condemnations and, in part, wrote this:
“It is true that such condemnations often do not reach the general public…Short of an advertising campaign that is beyond the financial reach of our community organizations, we have been unable to come up with a solution to the problem of our condemnations and opposition to extremists not reaching everyone. Always welcome your thoughts on the subject.”
Until someone solves that problem, I will continue to repeating my sincere condemnations of terror.
*******************************************************************************************************
*Personally, I always thought this line was pretty comprehensive and hard to misinterpret. However, in some circles it gets me accused of being a HAMAS supporter. Another pitfall we Muslims face: you can universally condemn terrorism but if you don’t do it exactly the way some agenda driven people think you should, well that must mean you are a supporter. Foolish.
What they needed was a sound-bite: “Muslims condemn terrorism.” or “We condemn terrorism whenever it happens, wherever it happens, whoever commits it.”*
So, without hesitation, I condemned terrorism again and again. The truth must be told over and over. Seeing people attempt to murder civilians sickens me. The leaps of logic needed to justify blowing-up people who are going to work or maybe trying to have a fun night out elude me. Anwar Awlaki’s “if you’re an American paying taxes you are a legitimate target” argument takes the whole death and taxes guarantee way further than I can stomach.
Recently, many Muslims have begun to question how we respond to crises such as the Christmas Day bomber and Faisal Shahzad. They say our record is clear. We should no longer hold press conferences in the wake of terror incidents to condemn the perpetrators.
They are right in that our record is clear. But they are wrong to think that we should stop proactively issuing condemnations.
I compare our situation to the dilemma John Kerry faced when he ran for president in 2004.
Kerry’s opponent’s hit him square between the eyes with a memorable talking-point: “You voted for the war, but against funding the troops.” It is short, snappy, seems to point to a flip-flop and, most priceless, can be said in mere seconds.
Kerry’s response was neither short, nor snappy. He may have had the best argument to dispel the apparent flip-flop. However, it took too long and it did not seem to address the emotional punch of apparently not supporting our troops. The response lost him votes.
So when a reporter calls me and asks for my response to an act of terror what I want to do is start in on the lecture: Look, since 9/11 I have condemned terror so many times that instead of my wife kicking me out of bed for snoring, I get kicked out for muttering condemnations in my sleep. When my neighbors greet me I respond by condemning terrorism. In 2006 after a congressional office asked me to organize a statement condemning the kidnapping of an American journalist in Iraq, I got on a plane and criticized the extremist’s actions from Baghdad. I have left my daughter in tears at home as I broke a promise to her so I could return to work and condemn Nidal Malik Hassan.
I could go on but you get the point. So does the reporter who does not have time to write about all that.
What could end up appearing in the news later that night is the less than inspiring, “Saylor noted that Muslims feel they have condemned terrorism already and are not going to repeat this condemnation today.”
Obviously that is not going to work.
Muslims are being hit square between the eyes with something more powerful than a talking point: images of some psycho claiming our faith motivated him or her to commit some unconscionable atrocity.
If I do not have a short, snappy, mere seconds of a response the result could be the loss of more than votes. I am going to be dumping fuel on the problem. It is a sin in my book to try to provide intellectual analysis in the immediate wake of a near massacre. Emotions are too high and your words must speak to those emotions. The best argument will get buried under the adrenaline.
So we are stuck, swiftbombed as it were. Those who argue that we have a clear track-record of condemning terrorism are right, but when they argue that we should move on and stop issuing the condemnation they have failed to comprehend John Kerry’s lesson.
Following the Times Square attack, I got an e-mail from a fair-minded person who asked why we Muslims did not condemn terrorism.
I responded with my usual lengthy list of links to such condemnations and, in part, wrote this:
“It is true that such condemnations often do not reach the general public…Short of an advertising campaign that is beyond the financial reach of our community organizations, we have been unable to come up with a solution to the problem of our condemnations and opposition to extremists not reaching everyone. Always welcome your thoughts on the subject.”
Until someone solves that problem, I will continue to repeating my sincere condemnations of terror.
*******************************************************************************************************
*Personally, I always thought this line was pretty comprehensive and hard to misinterpret. However, in some circles it gets me accused of being a HAMAS supporter. Another pitfall we Muslims face: you can universally condemn terrorism but if you don’t do it exactly the way some agenda driven people think you should, well that must mean you are a supporter. Foolish.
Friday, March 5, 2010
John Adams and Lawyers Working Terrorism Cases
Emotionally, it can be a hard thing to see people accused of atrocities benefiting from our legal system. However, in terms of our essential values--objective justice--and maintaining the moral high ground that makes our nation appeal to people around the world, it is essential.
See: Targeting Justice Department Lawyers for Work in Terrorism Cases is Misdirected
As with everything under the sun, the current tensions over current Department of Justice lawyers who worked on unpopular cases has a precedent, in this case one emerging from the very revolution that established our country.
John Adams, our second President, set the standard for placing essential values over emotions when he went acted as legal counsel to British soldiers accused in the Boston massacre, one of those iconic incidents that contributed to sparking full scale colonial revolt against King George.
In 1770, British troops shot and killed five civilians in Boston. I am always hesitant about citing wikipedia, but in this case the text provides a significant insight into how the incident parallels today:
"Captain Preston [the British officer in charge] and the soldiers were arrested and scheduled for trial in a Suffolk county court. The government was determined to give the soldiers a fail trial so there could be no grounds for retaliation from the British and so that moderates would not be alienated from the Patriot cause. A problem was that no lawyers in the Boston area wanted to defend the soldiers, as they believed it would be a huge career mistake. A desperate request was sent to John Adams from Preston, pleading for him to work on the case. Adams, who was already a leading Patriot and who was contemplating a run for public office, nevertheless agreed to help, in the interest of ensuring a fair trial."Writing in his diary, Adams expressed fear he felt for his own safety, as well as that of his family from more radical elements of the revolutionary movement. He also wrote of "...hazarding a Popularity very general and very hardly earned: and for incurring a Clamour and popular Suspicions and prejudices..."
In the end Adams concluded: "It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country."
Vigorous defense of the unpopular as laid out by the laws of our land, and when convictions occur a justice that does not impose cruel of unusual punishment, is a basic value. The public may not feel the need to like it, but it should be respected. Certainly, the careers of people pursuing such work should not be tarred and feathered. These lawyers provide a service that can powerfully inspire the imaginations of the people overseas who are wondering if they should side with us or with the authoritarian guys in the caves.
If we master our fears and project our values we will win these imaginations over hands down. The other road--providing no real legal defense, substandard lawyers, or a system that cannot provide any verdict other than one pre-determined by an emotional mob--ends up making us look a lot like the the states our cave-dwelling enemies covet.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Is America a Christian Nation?
The founders wrote, and the state's ratified Article VI, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution which states, "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Additionally, the First Amendment, added to the Constitution as part of the deal to get it ratified, says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The Library of Congress published a piece entitled "The Founding Fathers and Islam” in 2003 and that hallowed institution concluded, “The Founders of this nation explicitly included Islam in their vision of the future of the republic.”
However, in all honesty, whether our nation was founded as a Christian or not is an argument best left to academics debating over the dusty tomes of history.
America was definitely founded as a nation that counted African Americans as three-fifths of a human being (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, but the language was wisely scrubbed by the Fourteenth Amendment) and denied women the right to vote (took them until 1920 until someone wised up and enfranchised the all the ladies, credit to Wyoming for giving them the vote first).
We evolved for the better. The slaves secured their natural right to liberty. Women secured their natural right to vote.
Today, America is a multi-ethnic and multi-faith society with a shared set of core values: individual freedom and dignity, rule of law under which everyone is treated equally, individual opportunity, all committed to fostering the common good, etc.
Christianity is there, contributing to the good of our nation. But so are Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and a host of other faiths.
Additionally, the First Amendment, added to the Constitution as part of the deal to get it ratified, says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The Library of Congress published a piece entitled "The Founding Fathers and Islam” in 2003 and that hallowed institution concluded, “The Founders of this nation explicitly included Islam in their vision of the future of the republic.”
However, in all honesty, whether our nation was founded as a Christian or not is an argument best left to academics debating over the dusty tomes of history.
America was definitely founded as a nation that counted African Americans as three-fifths of a human being (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, but the language was wisely scrubbed by the Fourteenth Amendment) and denied women the right to vote (took them until 1920 until someone wised up and enfranchised the all the ladies, credit to Wyoming for giving them the vote first).
We evolved for the better. The slaves secured their natural right to liberty. Women secured their natural right to vote.
Today, America is a multi-ethnic and multi-faith society with a shared set of core values: individual freedom and dignity, rule of law under which everyone is treated equally, individual opportunity, all committed to fostering the common good, etc.
Christianity is there, contributing to the good of our nation. But so are Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and a host of other faiths.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Advancing Bigotry on Capitol Hill
Liliana Segura over at alternet has published a worthy piece titled
“How Members of Congress Are Advancing Anti-Muslim Hysteria to Push a Radical Legal Agenda”
Here is an excerpt, but I recommend clicking on the link and reading the whole thing:
“How Members of Congress Are Advancing Anti-Muslim Hysteria to Push a Radical Legal Agenda”
Here is an excerpt, but I recommend clicking on the link and reading the whole thing:
Beyond Congressional hearings that push the "homegrown Islamic terrorist" narrative -- or even repressive pieces of legislation like the [Stop Terrorists Entry Program (STEP)] -- CAIR's Corey Saylor says the alliances formed by members of Congress like Barrett with members of the anti-Muslim right are far more dangerous.
"It's less the legislation and more the legitimacy that's offered to some of the anti-Muslim bigots by members of Congress," he says.
One example Saylor cites is Rep. Paul Broun, a Republican member of the House from Georgia. Broun recently invited a man named David Yerushalmi to testify at a hearing on Capitol Hill. "Yerushalmi belongs to an organization that once called for adherence to Islam to be punishable by 20 years in prison," says Saylor.
Yerushalmi is the president and founder of the Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), which, in addition to seeking to criminalize Islam, has statements on its Web site such as: "There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote."
"This man has the right to free speech, he has the right to believe what he believes," says Saylor. "But he gets legitimized because someone like Paul Broun invites him to Capitol Hill and gives him a platform … That allows him to go out and push his hate speech."
Two days before Christmas, CAIR sent a letter to President Obama, urging him to address what it described as a "rise in Anti-Islam hate, Islamophobic incidents, and rhetoric targeting ordinary American Muslims." Among these incidents was "an attack on a Sikh youth in Texas who was mistaken for a Muslim," "a Colorado sheriff who called the U.S. Marines 'Travel agents to Allah,'" and "a spate of vandalism incidents at mosques nationwide." It also listed a disturbing number of anti-Muslim incidents among supporters of and aspiring elected officials, as well as elected officials themselves.
Most memorable, perhaps, was the attempt last year by right-wing members of Congress to convince the public that CAIR itself was engaged in a sinister conspiracy to infiltrate and take over Congress, by dispatching interns to Capitol Hill. Last October, U.S. Representatives Sue Myrick, R-South Carolina, was joined by Rep. Broun as well as Arizona RepublicansJohn Shadegg and Trent Franks in issuing a call for a federal investigation into CAIR's attempts to place interns in the Committees on the Judiciary, Intelligence and Homeland Security. The accusation was inspired by a book titled Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America, written by Dave Gaubatz, an anti-Islamic activist who posed as an intern for CAIR in an attempt to prove that the group is trying to infiltrate Congress. (Rep. Myrick wrote the introduction to the book.)
The backlash against Myrick and her co-conspirators was swift. "These charges smack of an America of sixty years ago where lists of 'un-American' agitators were identified,"wrote Reps. Michael Honda, D-CA, Barbara Lee, D-CA and Nydia Velazquez, D-NY in a letter on behalf of the Congressional Tri-Caucus, and signed by 87 members of Congress.
"The idea that we should investigate Muslim interns as spies is a blow to the very principle of religious freedom that our founding fathers cherished so dearly. If anything, we should be encouraging all Americans to engage in the U.S. political process; to take part in, and to contribute to, the great democratic experiment that is America."
Friday, January 8, 2010
Another Fox News Appearance Discussing Security
A second Fox News interview this week. I disagree with the decision to call the segment "When Sensitivity Trumps Security." I feel it is reasonable to accommodate a person's sincerely held religious beliefs in this situation.
Fox News CAIR Warns Against Profiling
I recently appeared on Fox News to discuss the racial profiling as a technique to enhance security:
CAIR Warns Against Profiling
CAIR Warns Against Profiling
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Response to ADL in Boston Globe
ADL casts stones of accusation
January 6, 2010
IN HIS Dec. 24 letter “In league with anti-Semites,’’ Derrek Shulman, New England regional director for the Anti-Defamation League, casts accusatory stones at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization that has consistently condemned all forms of bigotry, including anti-Semitism, and has a long record of defending the civil and religious rights of all Americans, regardless of faith.
For example, CAIR condemned an Iranian cartoon contest mocking the Holocaust. The council also called on an Arab-American publication that printed excerpts of the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion to apologize, and condemned bias attacks on a rabbinical assistant in Brooklyn and on a Jewish student on the campus of Temple University.
CAIR disagrees with Israeli occupation policies, the likely genesis of the ADL’s smears. But converting legitimate disagreement with the policies of a foreign government to hatred of Jews is a logic-defying stretch.
Usually, the driving motivation behind letters such as the one published by Shulman is the Israel-Palestine conflict. CAIR is on record condemning both terror attacks on Israeli civilians and Israeli state terror attacks on Palestinians. Unfortunately, organizations such as the ADL lack a similar track record when it comes to condemning the killing of Palestinian civilians.
The ball’s in Shulman’s court. Will we keep casting stones at each other or, God willing, seek a way to actualize a word both our faiths love: shalom, salaam, peace?
Corey Saylor
National legislative director
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Washington
January 6, 2010
IN HIS Dec. 24 letter “In league with anti-Semites,’’ Derrek Shulman, New England regional director for the Anti-Defamation League, casts accusatory stones at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization that has consistently condemned all forms of bigotry, including anti-Semitism, and has a long record of defending the civil and religious rights of all Americans, regardless of faith.
For example, CAIR condemned an Iranian cartoon contest mocking the Holocaust. The council also called on an Arab-American publication that printed excerpts of the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion to apologize, and condemned bias attacks on a rabbinical assistant in Brooklyn and on a Jewish student on the campus of Temple University.
CAIR disagrees with Israeli occupation policies, the likely genesis of the ADL’s smears. But converting legitimate disagreement with the policies of a foreign government to hatred of Jews is a logic-defying stretch.
Usually, the driving motivation behind letters such as the one published by Shulman is the Israel-Palestine conflict. CAIR is on record condemning both terror attacks on Israeli civilians and Israeli state terror attacks on Palestinians. Unfortunately, organizations such as the ADL lack a similar track record when it comes to condemning the killing of Palestinian civilians.
The ball’s in Shulman’s court. Will we keep casting stones at each other or, God willing, seek a way to actualize a word both our faiths love: shalom, salaam, peace?
Corey Saylor
National legislative director
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Washington
Monday, January 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
