Corey Saylor's Personal Blog

Fox News: "Group blasts Gingrich for limiting hires to Muslims who renounce Shariah law"

2012-01-18T16:06:00.000-05:00

The largest Muslim civil liberties group in the United States on Wednesday condemned Newt Gingrich for saying he would only hire Muslims to his administration if they renounced the use of Islam's Shariah law as a tool for U.S. government.

Calling Gingrich "one of the nation's worst promoters of anti-Muslim bigotry," the Council of American Islamic Relations suggested the Republican presidential candidate is a segregationist.

“Newt Gingrich's vision of America segregates our citizens by faith. His outdated political ideas look backward to a time when Catholics and Jews were vilified and their faiths called a threat," said CAIR Legislative Director Corey Saylor in a statement.

"The time for bias in American politics has passed and Newt Gingrich looks like a relic of an ugly era," Saylor said.

CAIR said the release was prompted by the candidate's remarks Tuesday in Columbia when, asked if he would ever endorse a Muslim running for president.

"It would depend entirely on whether they would commit in public to give up Shariah," Gingrich said.

"A truly modern person who happened to worship Allah would not be a threat, a person who belonged to any kind of belief in Shariah, any effort to impose it on the rest of us, would be a mortal threat," Gingrich told the crowd, adding that he's "totally opposed" to Shariah law being applied in American courts and favors a federal law that "preempts" its use.

This month, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Oklahoma ban on the application of "Sharia law" and "international law" in courts.

Pointing to the religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, CAIR defends Shariah law as a set of beliefs that "teaches marital fidelity, generous charity and a thirst for knowledge," and mandates that Muslims respect the law of the land in which they live.

Gingrich had a different interpretation of Shariah law, pointing to the, "rising Islamization of Turkey has been accompanied by a 1,400 percent increase in women being killed."

"When you look at the application of Shariah in places like Iran, when you look at churches being burned in Nigeria and Egypt, and that the decline of Christians in Iraq from a million, 200 thousand when the Americans arrived to about 500,000 today, I think it depends entirely on the person," he said.

"If they are a modern person integrated in the modern world and they are prepared to recognize all religions, that's one thing. On the other hand, if they're Saudis, who demand that we respect them while they refuse to allow Christians to worship in Saudi Arabia, that's something different," he continued.

Later in the day during a question and answer session in Aiken, S.C., Gingrich also called the Ground Zero mosque "a deliberate and willful insult to the people of the United States who suffered an attack by people who are motivated by the same thing."

"I think the time has come for us to have an honest conversation about Islamic radicalism. I don't think we should be intimidated by our political elites, and I don't think we should be intimidated by universities who have been accepting money from the Saudis and who, therefore, now have people who are apologists for the very people who want to kill us," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/18/group-blasts-gingrich-for-limiting-hires-to-muslims-who-renounce-shariah-law/#content

Video: Fla. Plot Suspect Arrested with Help of Muslim Community (CAIR)

2012-01-11T09:24:00.001-05:00

Video: CAIR-FL Rep Says Plot Suspect 'Had No Understanding of Muslim Faith'

2012-01-11T09:19:00.001-05:00

Lebanon Daily Star on Romney's advisor Walid Phares

2012-01-06T10:29:00.000-05:00

Lebanon Daily Star: The right-wing Lebanese Christian advising Romney on the Middle East
BEIRUT: With Mitt Romney’s bid to become the Republican candidate for the U.S. presidential election gaining ground with his win in the Iowa caucus, many around the world are wondering what his foreign policy would have in store should he reach the White House.

When it comes to the Middle East, alarms have been raised in some corners over his decision to appoint as his top adviser on the region Walid Phares, a leading figure in right-wing Christian militias during Lebanon’s 1975-1990 Civil War and a former adviser to Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea.

Critics have also focused on Phares' subsequent roles in the United States, where he has served as a “terrorism expert” for Fox News and the Christian Broadcasting Network. During these shows, he has warned that jihadists are the enemy, and that the U.S. must act preemptively to defeat them.

“An adviser on the Middle East should be more sensitive and neutral. Walid Phares is very extreme. He leans toward being an Islamo-phobe,” Warren David, president of the Arab-American civil rights group, the Anti-Discrimination Committee told The Daily Star. “I would think that most Lebanese Christians don’t agree with his viewpoints.”

David, who himself is a Lebanese-American Christian, adds, “Fortunately, he’s in the minority. But when you see it from one of your own it’s discouraging.”

Joseph Nehme, a spokesperson for the Lebanese Forces told The Daily Star that he remembers Phares from his days in Lebanon, describing him as “a nice person,” but declined to comment any further.

Phares has reportedly declared that Lebanese Christians were ethnically distinct from Arabs, and during the Civil War he “lectured militiamen, telling them they were part of a civilizational holy war,” according to an October investigative report by the U.S. magazine Mother Jones.

Since his arrival in the U.S. in 1990, he has reportedly been featured as a Middle East expert by the David Project, Israel’s college campus coalition; and the Israeli-linked groups Jihad Watch and Middle East Forum; he is also an associate with Israel’s Ariel Center for Policy Research and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, an organization established after 9/11, which advocates U.S. military intervention in Muslim-majority countries.

“Anyone comfortable with those associations should not be advising the president,” says Corey Saylor, National Legislative Director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who has been researching Phares’ background for about a year, ever since his appointment last February as a witness at hearings by the House Committee on Homeland Security entitled "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community's Response."

In a letter last February to Peter King, the Republican U.S. House Representative who led the hearings, CAIR stated that “Mr. Phares’s prior position in, and association with, organizations and militia groups known for carrying out massacres and systematic torture raise reasonable concerns regarding his relevance to any sober and objective hearing.”

The U.S. Muslim civil rights group is referring to his position during the Lebanese Civil War in the Lebanese Forces, the Christian militia which was implicated by Israel’s official Kahan inquiry in the 1982 massacre of civilians at the Sabra and Shatila in Beirut.

And according to CAIR’s research, in 1999 the World Lebanese Organization, founded by Phares, included among its “leading members” both “Col. Sharbel Baraket, former deputy commander of the [South Lebanese Army], and Etienne Sakr, head of the radical Guardians of the Cedars group.”

The Guardians of the Cedars’ mission statement includes restoring Lebanon’s alphabet “to its Phoenician origins after liberating it from the defacement that was caused by the Arabic language” and “cutting down the number of foreigners in Lebanon...” The South Lebanese Army were allied with Israel during the 1975-1990 Civil War.

Saylor believes that Romney’s selection of Phares shows the Republican candidate’s growing conservative leaning, possibly in an attempt to court evangelical Christian voters. He noted that when he was running in the 2008 election Romney said that he would be open to appointing a Muslim to his cabinet if elected president, the New York Times reported in November 2007.

(Saylor note: I did not have the best phone connection with the reporter authoring this story, so I do not believe the above paragraph fully reflects my statement. I was asked how I thought Romney and Phares got connected and I answered that they both move in conservative circles. I have no issue with anyone having a growing conservative leaning. The 2007 New York Times article I sent the reporter was about Romney initially saying he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet and then later revising that statement.)

“Romney, overall, has been better [than the other candidates],” Saylor says. “This is a troubling direction.”

In fact, Romney’s main competitors’ inflammatory comments about the Middle East have caused even bigger stirs.

In early December, Republican hopeful Newt Gingrich called Palestinians “an invented people.”
"Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire,” the former Georgia congressman said.

"I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs, and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places, and for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and it's tragic," he said.

Then, less than a month later, his competitor Rick Santorum went a step further by saying, “There are no Palestinians... All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land.”

The former Pennsylvania senator added that “The West Bank is part of Israel,” which won it as “part of an aggressive attack by Jordan and others” in 1967. Israel doesn’t have to give it back any more than the United States has to give New Mexico and Texas to Mexico, which were gained “through a war,” he said. This remark was criticized by media in Israel, where the current government has accepted the principle of a two-state solution.

Saylor believes that the relatively extreme views being put forth might be a case of politicians playing to their bases to win the primary before the general election, noting that in the past some candidates have said they would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a promise never fulfilled when they reach power.

“Once the process plays out, then we’ll see the real rhetoric,” he says.

[Saylor note: I was talking about the old ruling is different from running adage. But not all candidates are simply engaging in rhetoric. A speech Rick Santourm gave in 2007 shows to me that he appears to identify all Muslims as an enemy and likely envisions some form of apocalyptic civilizational conflict as the appropriate response to Al-Qaeda.]

Still, the thought Phares having a key advisory position, even at this stage, doesn’t sit well with some.

Jim Abourezk, a former Democratic senator from South Dakota, whose family hails from south Lebanon, told The Daily Star that although he believes Romney is unlikely to reach the presidency, “A right-wing Lebanese would be a disaster for Romney and a disaster for the country."

Muslim group denounces Santorum for promoting religious profiling - TheHill.com

2011-11-23T14:05:00.001-05:00

Muslim group denounces Santorum for promoting religious profiling - TheHill.com

1957: Eisenhower at Dedication of Islamic Center

2011-10-21T10:26:00.001-04:00

President Eisenhower at the dedication of an Islamic Center in Washington, DC

June 28, 1957

Eisenhower before he became president.

Mr. Ambassador, Dr. Bisar, Governors of the Islamic Center, and distinguished guests: It is a privilege to take part in this ceremony of dedication.

Meeting with you now, in front of one of the newest and most beautiful buildings in Washington, it is fitting that we re-dedicate ourselves to the peaceful progress of all men under one God.

And I should like to assure you, my Islamic friends, that under the American Constitution, under American tradition, and in American hearts, this Center, this place of worship, is just as welcome as could be a similar edifice of any other religion. Indeed, America would fight with her whole strength for your right to have here your own church and worship according to your own conscience.

This concept is indeed a part of America, and without that concept we would be something else than what we are.

The countries, which have sponsored and built this Islamic Center, have for centuries contributed to the building of civilization. With their traditions of learning and rich culture, the countries of Islam have added much to the advancement of mankind. Inspired by a sense of brotherhood, common to our inner most beliefs, we can here together reaffirm our determination to secure the foundation of a just and lasting peace.

Our country has long enjoyed a strong bond of friendship with the Islamic nations and, like all healthy relationships; this relationship must be mutually beneficial.

Civilization owes to the Islamic world some of its most important tools and achievements. From fundamental discoveries in medicine to the highest planes of astronomy, the Muslim genius has added much to the culture of all peoples. That genius has been a wellspring of science, commerce and the arts, and has provided for all of us many lessons in courage and in hospitality.

This fruitful relationship between peoples, going far back into history, becomes more important each year. Today, thousands of Americans, both private individuals and governmental officials, live and work-and grow in understanding-among the peoples of Islam.

At the same time, in our country, many from the Muslim lands-students, businessmen and representatives of states-are enjoying the benefits of experience among the people of this country. From these many personal contacts, here and abroad, I firmly believe that there will be a broader understanding and a deeper respect for the worth of all men; and a stronger resolution to work together for the good of mankind.

As I stand beneath these graceful arches, surrounded on every side by friends from far and near, I am convinced that our common goals are both right and promising. Faithful to the demands of justice and of brotherhood, each working according to the lights of his own conscience, our world must advance along the paths of peace.

Guided by this hope, I consider it a great personal and official honor to open the Islamic Center, and I offer my congratulations to its sponsors and my best wishes to all who enter into its use.

Thank you very much.

Newsweek/Daily Beast: Mitt’s Muslim Problem

2011-10-12T10:55:00.000-04:00

Newsweek/Daily Beast: Mitt’s Muslim Problem
by McKay Coppins

(Saylor note: You can read my defense of Romney after an attack on his faith here.)

After a prominent Baptist minister proclaimed last week that Mormonism is a non-Christian “cult” that would ideally disqualify adherents from the White House, Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney enjoyed a full-throated defense from people all over the political spectrum who considered the pastor’s remarks an ugly example of religious bigotry. But Romney, a practicing Mormon, may soon find himself facing allegations of intolerance from another religious minority: American Muslims.

The Daily Beast has learned that the nation’s leading Muslim advocacy group sent a letter to the Romney campaign late Tuesday calling for the ouster of the candidate’s recently appointed foreign-policy adviser, Walid Phares. In the letter, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) refers to Phares as “an associate to war crimes” and a “conspiracy theorist,” citing ties to a violent anti-Muslim militia. Scholars and leaders throughout the Islamic community are adding pressure on Romney to drop the adviser immediately. (The Romney campaign and Phares did not immediately respond to requests for comment.)

The controversy comes at an awkward time for the campaign. Hours before CAIR’s letter was sent, Romney called on primary rival Perry to “repudiate” the anti-Mormon remarks made by the Rev. Robert Jeffress, who has endorsed the Texas governor, and touted the importance of tolerant discourse. “I just don’t believe that kind of divisiveness based on religion has a place in this country,” Romney said at a New Hampshire press conference.

Yet Phares is a divisive figure in the minds of some leading U.S. Muslims. To admirers, Phares is a well-regarded scholar who has testified before the Defense and State departments, and has worked as a terrorism expert for professional news outlets such as NBC and, most recently, Fox News.

But to critics, Phares has long been a lightning rod for charges of Islamophobia and outright aggression toward Muslims. According to CAIR, Phares, who was born in Lebanon, worked as an official in the Lebanese Forces, a Christian militia that reportedly took part in “the 1982 massacre of civilian men, women, and children at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.” In 1984, another Lebanese militia with which Phares was allegedly associated rounded up a group of men for questioning and then slaughtered them with guns and grenades, according to a news report. (There is no indication that Phares was directly involved in the violence; his roles in the organizations are reported to have been administrative.)

When he emigrated to the United States in the 1990s, Phares positioned himself as an expert on Islam and Middle East relations, allying himself with conservative think tanks and appearing frequently on television. Throughout his career as a pundit, he has warned that some Muslims are plotting a secret takeover of American institutions with the end goal of imposing Sharia.

This history of inflammatory rhetoric has drawn scorn from many corners of the American Muslim community, and CAIR’s concerns were echoed by a chorus of Islamic scholars reached by The Daily Beast.

“[Phares] is hostile to Muslims and Romney has adopted an expert who is going to alienate him from a good section of the voting public,” said Ebrahim Moosa, a Duke professor of Islamic studies.
“Frankly, it is a pathetic reflection on Governor Romney to have surrounded himself with such a person for advice on the Middle East and Islam,” said Omid Safi, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill. “It would be akin to turning to [former KKK member] David Duke to get advice on race relations.”

Correy Saylor, legislative director for CAIR, is willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt and assume he was largely unaware of Phares’s past. Saylor credits Romney with showing an increased sensitivity to Islam over the years.

During his 2008 presidential candidacy, Romney reportedly told supporters in a private meeting that he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet. But he later walked back that comment, and in this election cycle he has occasionally found himself defending Islam against his opponents’ intolerance. Saylor cited an early primary debate during which Herman Cain hypothesized that appointing a Muslim to his cabinet could open the door to the implementation of Sharia in the U.S. Romney dismissed the paranoid theory, insisting that “people of all faiths are welcome in this country.”

“He’s getting better,” Saylor concluded. “But this appointment is a step in the wrong direction.”

Fiqh Council of North America: On Being Faithful Muslims and Loyal Americans

2011-10-01T11:26:00.001-04:00

Resolution of the Fiqh Council of North America
Adopted in its General Body Meeting held in Virginia on September 24-25, 2011

On Being Faithful Muslims and Loyal Americans

Like other faith communities in the US and elsewhere, we see no inherent conflict between the normative values of Islam and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Contrary to erroneous perceptions and Islamophobic propaganda of political extremists from various backgrounds, the true and authentic teachings of Islam promote the sanctity of human life, dignity of all humans, and respect of human, civil and political rights. Islamic teachings uphold religious freedom and adherence to the same universal moral values which are accepted by the majority of people of all backgrounds and upon which the US Constitution was established and according to which the Bill of Rights was enunciated.

The Qur’an speaks explicitly about the imperative of just and peaceful co-existence, and the rights of legitimate self-defense against aggression and oppression that pose threats to freedom and security, provided that, a strict code of behavior is adhered to, including the protection of innocent non-combatants.

The foregoing values and teachings can be amply documented from the two primary sources of Islamic jurisprudence – the Qur’an and authentic Hadith. These values are rooted, not in political correctness or pretense, but on the universally accepted supreme objectives of Islamic Shari’ah, which is to protect religious liberty, life, reason, family and property of all. The Shari’ah, contrary to misrepresentations, is a comprehensive and broad guidance for all aspects of a Muslim’s life – spiritual, moral, social and legal. Secular legal systems in Western democracies generally share the same supreme objectives, and are generally compatible with, Islamic Shari’ah.

Likewise, the core modern democratic systems are compatible with the Islamic principles of Shura – mutual consultation and co-determination of all social affairs at all levels and in all spheres, family, community, society, state and globally.

As a body of Islamic scholars, we the members of FCNA believe that it is false and misleading to suggest there is a contradiction between being faithful Muslims committed to God (Allah) and being loyal American citizens. Islamic teachings require respect of the laws of the land where Muslims live as minorities, including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so long as there is no conflict with Muslims’ obligation for obedience to God. We do not see any such conflict with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The primacy of obedience to God is a commonly held position of many practicing Jews and Christians as well.

We believe further that as citizens of a free and democratic society, we have the same obligations and rights of all US citizens. We believe that right of dissent can only be exercised in a peaceful and lawful manner to advance the short and long term interests of our country.

The Fiqh Council of North America calls on all Muslim Americans and American citizens at large to engage in objective, peaceful and respectful dialogue at all levels and spheres of common social concerns. We call upon all Muslim Americans to be involved in solving pressing social problems, such as the challenge of poverty, discrimination, violence, health care and environmental protection. It is fully compatible with Islam for Muslims to integrate positively in the society of which they are equal citizens, without losing their identity as Muslims (just as Jews and Christians do not lose their religious identity in doing the same).

We believe that emphasis on dialogue and positive collaborative action is a far better approach than following the paths of those who thrive on hate mongering and fear propaganda. Anti-Islam, anti-Semitism and other similar forms of religious and/or political-based discrimination are all forms of racism unfit for civilized people and are betrayal of the true American as well as Islamic values.

May the pursuit of peace, justice, love, compassion, human equality and fellowship prevail in the pluralistic mosaic that is the hallmark of our nation.

Corey Saylor at Forum on Myth of 'Creeping Sharia'

2011-09-26T13:25:00.001-04:00

On Christian Asia Bibi

2011-09-21T16:34:00.002-04:00

CNS News interviewed me about Asia Bibi. See the video here.

Thomas Jefferson’s Iftar

2011-08-04T13:50:00.001-04:00

From the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State:

In 1805, Thomas Jefferson hosted what some consider the first iftar at the White House.

“Ramadan,” said President Obama at a White House iftar dinner in 2010, “is a reminder that Islam has always been a part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.”

The dinner to which the president referred took place on December 9, 1805, and Jefferson’s guest was Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, an envoy from the bey (chieftain) of Tunis who spent six months in Washington. The context of Mellimelli’s visit to the United States was a tense dispute over piracy on American merchant vessels by the Barbary states and the capture of Tunisian vessels trying to run an American blockade of Tripoli.

Mellimelli arrived during Ramadan, and Jefferson, when he invited the envoy to the president’s house, changed the meal time from the usual hour of 3:30 p.m. to “precisely at sunset” in deference to the man’s religious obligation.

Jefferson’s knowledge of Islam likely came from his legal studies of natural law. In 1765, Jefferson purchased a two-volume English translation of the Quran for his personal library, a collection that became, in 1815, the basis of the modern Library of Congress.

(This is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/iipdigital-en/index.html)

Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/inbrief/2011/07/20110729153019kram0.3508199.html#ixzz1U5GI39PI

Catholic News Service: Interfaith relations seen as both better, worse, since terror attacks

2011-08-02T12:46:00.000-04:00

From Catholic News Service:

Corey Saylor, a Muslim layman who is spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, concurred.

"Most people were introduced to the Islamic faith on Sept. 11 when planes began to fly into buildings," he said. "Media coverage has highlighted a warped version of Islam," he added. "The good guys doing the work aren't getting the coverage."

The American Muslim community, according to Saylor, is "totally indebted to people in the Christian, Jewish and other interfaith dialogues for people who have been very vocal in standing up for American principles. I don't know how long it will take us to repay that debt."

Islam, U.S. Courts and state sponsored discrimination

2011-07-11T13:53:00.001-04:00

(During the Islamic Society of North America's recent convention I was part of a panel discussing various legislative attempts to pass laws that would single out the Islamic faith for treatment different than other faiths in our country. An attendee sent the below questions were to me afterward. Muneer Awad of CAIR-Oklahoma contribute to both answers.)

Question # 1: How can the Islamic sharia be effective in any American court. (For example: is there any judge who gives a decision basing on the Islamic sharia.)

Answer #1: The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. Individuals may enter into agreements based on their faith. Such practices are reasonably common. However, any such agreement must comply with U.S. law. So if I choose to finance my house with a sharia-compliant company, the resulting contract must be within the boundaries of standing law.

Here are some examples of how Islamic principles can come into play in a US court:

Agreements and Contracts
Judges may be asked to enforce the terms of an agreement, or the terms of an arbitration decision, that was based on Islam/Sharia. Consider the numerous documents Muslims agree to that are based on our faith:

Enforce the terms of a will
Enforce the terms of a divorce or marriage contract
Enforce the terms of Islamic financing agreement
Enforce terms of an arbitration agreement that compels mosque employees to take grievances with regards to mosque governance to a local Islamic shura council before taking legal action.

The Constitution does not necessarily cover such issues, but like all agreements, can never violate the constitution.

Victims of Discrimination

In a discrimination case, a Muslim must introduce evidence of his or her religiously held beliefs. If Islamic principles are banned in certain courts, then

How can I introduce evidence to a judge about the nature of hijab?
How can I introduce evidence to allow a judge to balance between my beard and my work?
How can I introduce evidence to allow a judge to consider my need for halal food in the cafeteria?

Question #2: How will these new bills affect the Muslims?

Answer #2: Depends on the form the final law takes, each state is considering their own version. Essentially, though, such laws could result in state-enforced discrimination against Muslims.

Let me examine two:

Oklahoma’s amendment to its state constitution would ban courts from considering sharia or international law. This means if your marriage contract contains a Mahr, the court could not act on it during a legal dispute such as divorce. If your will is based on Islamic principles such as instructions for being buried facing Mecca, the court could not consider it. Similarly, since a sharia-compliant loan is based on Islamic principles, a judge would be compelled to rule it inadmissible in court proceedings.

The Tennessee bill said, “’Sharia’ means the set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts whichare said to emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet Mohammed…” and “Any rule, precept, instruction, or edict arising directly from the extant rulings of any of the authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence of Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Ja’afariya, or Salafi, as those terms are used by sharia adherents, is prima facie sharia without any further evidentiary showing…”

It then said two or more people practicing sharia would be in violation of the law. Since the above definition encompasses all of Islam the bill would have made it illegal to practice Islam in the state of Tennessee. Fortunately, the bill did not pass.

See here for some more information.

CAIR’s executive director in Oklahoma, who filed the lawsuit that has so far successfully challenged the anti-Muslim amendment to that state’s constitution, adds this to my answer to the second question:

I would include the fact that Islam, and Islam alone is the target. If we acknowledge, as many legal experts have already, that these amendments are unnecessary then we must acknowledge that the only goal is to target American Muslims. These amendments will permanently label Muslims as a threat to the state.

If we listen to any of the rallies behind these amendments, or the words of supporters and authors of these amendments, then we understand that these amendments are rooted in Anti-Muslim bigotry, and will serve the purpose of supporting Anti-Muslim bigotry.

Bar Faith Minorities from Running for President?

2011-07-07T11:53:00.004-04:00

(Over at CNN, producer Jay Kernis published an interview with Tricia Erickson who asserts, "an indoctrinated Mormon should never be elected as President of the United States of America." Erickson also implies that Muslims should also be barred from running. Kernis kindly added my thoughts to the discussion. My response to Erickson's position is below.)

Tricia Erickson’s arguments sound remarkably like anti-Catholic attacks directed at John Kennedy during the 1960 presidential campaign. Many remember him as among the better president’s to ever serve our nation. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the law of the land, says, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public Trust under the United States.”

Romney and other candidates for public office should win or lose based on the solutions they offer to the issues confronting all Americans.

Thank God followers of minority faiths, such as Muslims like me, have the wisdom of the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution to protect us from people like Tricia Erickson, who seem to think a person’s choice of a faith other than hers should relegate them to second-class citizen status.

CNN: "Corey Saylor: Concern that Islamophobia is trending toward the mainstream in the U.S."

2011-06-23T18:29:00.000-04:00

Corey Saylor: Concern that Islamophobia is trending toward the mainstream in the U.S.

ONLY ON THE BLOG: Answering today’s five OFF-SET questions is Corey Saylor, National Legislative Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

On Thursday, June 23, 2011 CAIR and the University of California Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender is releasing the first-of-its-kind annual report on the growth of Islamophobia in the United States during 2009 – 2010. The report is titled, “Same Hate, New Target.” How do CAIR and the Berkeley Center for Race and Gender define “Islamophobia?”

Islamophobia is close-minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims.

It is not appropriate to label all, or even the majority of those, who question Islam and Muslims as Islamophobes. Most are simply misinformed about the Islamic faith.

When I talk about Islamophobes, I am speaking about people whose words or actions indicate that they rigidly view Islam as monolithic, static, authoritarian and primitive compared with the West. Such people view all Muslims as manipulative and devious. It is the kind of classic intolerant attitudes we have seen directed at any number of minorities in the past.

According to those interviewed for the report, on a scale from 1 (best situation for Muslims) to 10 (worst possible situation for Muslims), Islamophobia in America stands at 6.4. What is your interpretation of that standing? How Islamophobic is the United States?

I am concerned that Islamophobia is trending toward the mainstream, but to date our nation’s commitment to pluralistic values has kept that from happening. The revulsion expressed by most Americans in August and early September 2010 over a proposed Quran burning in Florida is evidence of that fact.

Polls consistently show that a sizable number of Americans hold prejudiced views toward Muslims. For instance, in late November 2010, the Public Research Institute found that 45 percent of Americans agree that Islam is at odds with American values.

A TIME magazine poll released in August 2010 found, “Twenty-eight percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Nearly one-third of the country thinks adherents of Islam should be barred from running for President….”

This spring, as numerous states sought to pass legislation that in many cases would have resulted in government sanctioned discrimination against Muslims we came close to mainstream acceptance of Islamophobia.

Fortunately, Muslims and other supporters of the Constitution’s protection of free religious exercise pushed back against these bills and excepting Oklahoma, nothing of significance passed.Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment, passed last fall that targets Muslims is on hold after a Federal judge ruled that it likely violates the Constitution.

The report spotlights individuals, groups and institutions for pushing back against Islamophobic trends. Among others, you name New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Rachel Maddow. What did these people do to deserve recognition?

Generally, they acted in line with the values we all learned in civics classes in school. They refused to smear an entire group based on the actions of a few aberrant individuals. They used their public platforms to remind people, often with humor, that Americans judge people on individual merit, not based on crass stereotypes.

You also name some people who promoted Islamophobia: Pamela Geller and Stop the Islamization of America; Robert Spencer and Jihad watch; Newt Gingrich and others? What did they do?

In the case of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who co-founded the organization Stop the Islamization of America, both the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups in America, have issued their own concerns about the discriminatory nature of their rhetoric and actions.

Generally, those who promoted Islamophobia poisoned our public discourse, appealing to fear and stereotypes. They promoted conspiracy theories such as the idea that Muslims are here to remove the Constitution or that our faith compels us to wage endless war against America. They are the new face of the old hate that targeted other minorities throughout our nation’s past.

Recently, a group of GOP presidential candidates met in New Hampshire in a debate carried by CNN. Did you hear what you consider Islamophobic remarks during the debate?

Herman Cain reiterated his position that he would treat Muslims differently than members of other faiths. Cain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich echoed far-right hysteria about 'sharia' replacing the Constitution.

Since the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land, there is no question of any other body of law replacing it. People who choose to have disputes resolved using the traditions of their faith should have the right to do so as long as such agreements comply with American law.

CAIR was encouraged by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's response to other candidates' fear mongering about Sharia, or Islamic principles, replacing the Constitution. Romney seemed to dismiss that scenario, and reaffirmed that "people of all faiths are welcome in this country."

Given that the United States is approaching the tenth anniversary of 9/11 – and the connection in some minds between terrorism and Islam – what does the study recommend to tackle the growth of anti-Muslim prejudice?

For this report, we focused on making recommendations to American Muslims, as we recognize that the primary burden of pushing back against anti-Muslim attitudes falls on our shoulders.

The core recommendation is get out and interact with your neighbors, get involved in local improvement programs, get involved in local politics. Our research shows that when people get to know Muslims as individuals it breaks the stereotypes.

On Piers Morgan Tonight on Afghanistan Murders (Friday, 4/01/2011)

2011-04-04T15:25:00.000-04:00

This is PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT.

(MUSIC)

MORGAN: Good evening.

A day of deadly violence across the Middle East today.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)

MORGAN: Libya despite talk of a possible cease-fire, battles are still raging. Gadhafi's heavily armed forces outnumber rebels by about 10 to one. And there's still no sign of the fighting ending any time soon.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)

MORGAN: And in Syria, at least seven people are dead and dozens injured after attacks by government troops on demonstrators. We'll have the latest from CNN's Nic Robertson and Mohammed Jamjoom.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, at least 12 people are dead after an attack on a U.N. building. The attacks sparked by protests against the burning of a Koran by a Florida pastor last month.

President Obama spoke out today condemning the violence.

And now, I want to bring in Corey Saylor, the director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Corey Saylor, terrible scenes in Mazar-e-Sharif. Do you condemn them?

COREY SAYLOR, COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS: Absolute tragedy, Piers. And we condemn it utterly.

MORGAN: To bring viewers up to speed with the Florida pastor Terry Jones. There was an initial incident with him in which he said he would burn the Koran and then didn't. But a few days ago, he then conducted a trial of the Koran. It was found guilty apparently, and he and his fellow church members in Florida burned one copy of the Koran. And it's that that sparked what happened today in Afghanistan.

Pretty serious repercussions for what many are saying was an act of pure bigoted idiocy.

SAYLOR: Well, Terry Jones deserves to be ignored 100 percent. And by no means does what he did allow anyone within the faith of Islam to go out and hurt other people. And that should be condemned utterly.

I mean, Muslims -- Muslims, the example is Prophet Mohammed. There's a famous story that every Muslim knows, Prophet Mohammed went to a city called Ta'if, he preached, he was chased out of the city by people throwing rocks at him. When he got out of the town, he was bleeding profusely. And angel came to him and essentially offered him to have the town destroyed. And he said, no.

That's the example right there. Part of the explanation that he gave, I'm paraphrasing here, is we don't know what these people's descendants are going to be like.

So, when he was abused, he met it with patience and tolerance. And I would advise my brothers and sisters around the world to remember that example. Patience and tolerance is how we meet bigots like Terry Jones.

MORGAN: Given that context, was it sensible of the various imams and mullahs who called for a day of anger and protests of the Koran burning -- was that sensible? Was it right? Would you condemn them for calling for those protests?

SAYLOR: I think unfortunately it's going to put more fuel on the fire that was already lit today. And we just simply don't need any more of that. What we need is what we saw immediately after when Terry Jones burned the Koran last week. He was met with absolute silence. Nobody paid any attention to him. And that is what he deserves.

He certainly does not deserve any more attention. And, certainly, no one is doing the religion of Islam a service by calling for a day of rage.

MORGAN: Where will this end, do you think, Corey?

SAYLOR: Well, unfortunately, think all too often extremists on both sides, the violent extremists that did the attack today, the extremists down in Florida, Terry Jones, control this conversation. And what has to happen is that those in the center who want a reasonable conversation have to continue to assert ourselves strongly. We don't accept what Terry Jones does. We don't accept anything like what happened in Afghanistan today.

And those of us that are leaders have to remind the people who follow us about the teachings of our own faiths. Jesus did not teach violence. Prophet Mohammed did not teach to respond to these things like violence. And that message has to be made clearly in unison with representatives of all face.

MORGAN: It would be helpful if Terry Jones realizes there are consequences to acts of a kind of idiocy that he's been perpetrating the last week.

Corey Saylor, thank you very much.

SAYLOR: Thank you.

Rep. Peter King Should Apologize to Muslim 9/11 Victim's Mother

2011-04-04T15:22:00.000-04:00

By Corey Saylor

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) should personally apologize to Talat Hamdani, whose son Mohammed was killed as he responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack.

This week, in an interview opposing a hearing on protecting American Muslim civil rights, King told Fox News that the hearing advances, “the myth that somehow Muslims are the victim of September 11.”

Congressman, all Americans, Muslims included, were the victims of the 9/11 terror attack. As Al-Qaeda was murdering our fellow citizens, they also murdered at least 32 Muslims.

Mohammed Salman Hamdani, was a part-time ambulance driver and a police cadet. After witnessing the attack, he ran to assist victims. His remains were identified six months later; his medical bag was found next to his body.

Rep. King knows Hamdani’s story because Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) read it aloud during a recent hearing King held. If Rep. Ellison’s tears during the hearing were not enough to move King’s conscience, maybe a reminder the Hamdani was honored in Title 1, Section 102 of the USA Patriot Act, which King voted for, might be.

Al-Qaeda, not Islam, murdered Americans on 9/11. They did not care about their victim’s faith. Every American was a target.

Al-Qaeda has continued to slaughter Muslims since 9/11. After reviewing a 2009 report titled Deadly Vanguards: A Study of Al-Qaida’s Violence Against Muslims, Ralph Peters, wrote in New York Post, “Al-Qaeda does one thing extremely well: killing Muslims.”

President Obama echoed this conclusion at a White House Ramadan fastbreaking reception in 2010 when he noted, “In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion — and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.”

Mr. King, it is time to find your sense of shame and apologize, sir.

Muslim Civil Rights Group Opposed to Radical Extremism Hearings

2011-03-08T15:03:00.001-05:00

Update: The interviewer felt that my concern over the threat of white supremacists was not relevant to today's environment. They just arrested a white supremacist for attempting to blow up a parade on Martin Luther King Day. All violent extremism need to be examined and focused on.

Saylor: Rep. Peter King can do some real damage with congressional Muslim hearings

2011-03-06T08:41:00.000-05:00

Saylor: Rep. Peter King can do some real damage with congressional Muslim hearings

As published in The Statesman
Saturday, March 5, 2011

Rep. Peter King's fumblings around his planned hearings on Muslim "radicalization" may one day raise amused eyebrows. However, since he is positioned to do some real damage, his inept handling of the hearings raises nothing but alarm.

As chairman of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, King announced his hearings by reciting his allegation that "over 80 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by radical imams." In January, he said he will "stand-by" that number.

When asked, King points to no authoritative source for his 80 percent allegation.

Instead he cites a speech given at the U.S. Department of State in the late 1990s by Hisham Kabbani, a figure who is unknown to most U.S. Muslims.

One man's opinion. Kabbani to this day does not respond to inquiries about his source for this allegation.

A person in King's position should seek higher quality evidence than one person's unsubstantiated allegation. Such lax "one person's opinion" standards led to bad things during the Salem witch trials and the McCarthy hearings.

(King, by the way, also believes "there are too many mosques in America.")

Next, Politico reported that according to King, Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a potential witness at the hearing.

During the course of a single 2007 interview with Reason Magazine Ali said, "I think that we are at war with Islam" and called for Islam to be "defeated." Later in the interview, Ali suggested that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to allow for discrimination against Muslims.

Once such facts became public, Ali was dropped.

Most recently, a National Review article -- posted on the House Homeland Security Committee's website so presumably King felt it was accurate -- announced that Walid Phares was a planned witness for the hearings.

Phares is a former official with a Christian militia implicated, by Israel's official Kahan inquiry and other sources, in the 1982 massacre of civilian men, women and children at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon.

In the late 1990s, leading members of Phares' World Lebanese Organization included the deputy commander of a group known for systematically torturing prisoners. Another leading member headed a militia known for atrocities during the Lebanese civil war.

Once such facts became public, Phares was dropped as well. Even after learning of Phares' past associations, King issued a statement saying he will rely on Phares "for his advice and counsel as these hearings go forward."

King could have saved himself, his committee and his party a lot of embarrassment by doing a basic internet search on either of these extreme individuals. Even more embarrassment could have been saved by checking the factual basis of any allegations before casually tossing them out in public.

The threat of violent extremism, from whatever source, to our nation is a profoundly serious issue.

However, King's baseless allegations and extremist witnesses raise reasonable questions about the credibility of the hearings as a force to oppose the threat.

It is time for House Speaker Boehner and other Republicans to rein King in. King's fumbling is not only embarrassing, but distracts from a serious issue.

Corey Saylor is national legislative director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Contact him at csaylor@cair.com.

Interview with Fox's Bill Hemmer on King Hearings

2011-02-09T17:22:00.000-05:00

Here is the video.

BILL HEMMER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Congressman Peter King now, new chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee responding to critics of his plans for hearings from the -- on the threat from Islamic terrorism in America.

He's a New York Republican. He said this last hour here in AMERICA'S NEWSROOM with Martha. Roll this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PETER KING, R-N.Y., HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE: My goal, first of all, is to make it known and make the public aware and to begin a public debate on the fact that al Qaeda is actively recruiting within the Muslim community.

This isn't just me saying this. There's Attorney General Eric Holder, a very liberal attorney general, by the way, said just about five weeks ago that he can't sleep at night because of the number of young Muslim men who have been radicalized to take up arms against their country. These are American citizens. People living here, legally in this country, are taking up arms against their country.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

HEMMER: All right. So Peter King is not backing down.

Corey Saylor is with CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
And sir, good morning to you.

SAYLOR: Good morning, Bill.

HEMMER: Peter King, you heard it. He said his goal is to make the public aware that al Qaeda is working to recruit Americans. What's wrong with that? Trying to figure that out.

COREY SAYLOR, COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS: Well, he's actually changing his talking points. How he started off -- and you can go back and check his interview with Bill O'Reilly -- is saying that 85 percent of American Muslim leadership in this country is an enemy living amongst us. And even yesterday he acknowledged to FOX News that that number comes from one individual who'd never provided any documentation to back it up.

And that's where my real concern comes. I have facts -- Rand Corporation, Congressional Research Service, Duke University -- that offer contradictory evidence to what Congressman King is saying.

HEMMER: And part of the reason you hold these hearings --

SAYLOR: And yet he wants to keep throwing out --

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: Part of the reason you hold these hearings is to figure out what the facts are. Are you denying that al Qaeda is not recruiting Americans?

SAYLOR: Well, I think any attempt by anyone to recruit Americans, even one individual, is something to be concerned about. But, again, if these hearings were going to be sober and objective I wouldn't have a concern.

HEMMER: Well, they haven't happened yet.

SAYLOR: Hang on, Bill. Hang on, Bill.

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: They might be. Go to his point about Muslim --

SAYLOR: They might not be, Bill. And that's the point.

HEMMER: Yes. Are -- King is worried about Muslim leaders not speaking out about the issue. Are Muslim leaders and mosques across America holding back?

SAYLOR: Once again, King has said there are too many mosques in America. He recently implied that -- that Muslims may not be Americans on a radio show. I can show you in these reports that I'm holding up, instances in which Muslim leadership have cooperated with law enforcement, have reported people of concern, and yet Congressman King does not want to acknowledge that.

HEMMER: I understand that. But again that's why you hold --

SAYLOR: He continues to advance allegations that have no substance.

HEMMER: That's why you hold a hearing and he told Martha last hour that he would allow law enforcement to testify during these hearings, do we'll take him at his word. But back to my two questions. Is al Qaeda recruiting in America, yes or no?

SAYLOR: Absolutely. We know that. But what you have to do is make sure we have a sober and objective understanding of that. Not Congressman King's lashing out --

HEMMER: OK. It's a yes. Now do you believe --

SAYLOR: People with pitch forks, 85 percent, which he cannot substantiate, and American Muslims may not be Americans. In his view. Eighty-five percent of the leadership is not cooperating. That's just absolutely unsubstantiated.

HEMMER: So, Mr. Saylor, yes -- but you just said, you know, al Qaeda is recruiting in America and we have examples. A kid drives from Denver, Colorado, into New York, to bomb the city. And you could go on many from there. On Muslim leaders --

SAYLOR: And we have --

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: Are Muslim leaders in America --

SAYLOR: Sure.

HEMMER: -- saying enough to help their fellow Americans to stop this before one of these guys is successful?

SAYLOR: Well, let me just give you a couple -- personal examples, Bill. In 2006 I went to Baghdad to appeal for the release of a journalist who had been kidnapped. More recently some families came to us from Virginia, told us about their concerns, about some of their family members, and we connected them with the FBI.

But also, keep in mind, in 2008 our Los Angeles office reported somebody of concern to the FBI. A year later that person turned out to be an FBI informant.

HEMMER: Wow.

SAYLOR: So I'm convinced that our community is doing the right thing.

HEMMER: OK. And that -- I think that's good.

SAYLOR: I'm not convinced of -- hang on. What I'm not convinced of is the fact that Peter King is going to hold sober and objective hearings based on statements like there are too many mosques in America.

HEMMER: OK. I got it. Corey Saylor, thank you for coming in today. That's why they hold hearings. We will watch it very closely and while it happens or after we'll bring you back on and get you to respond again. OK. Appreciate you coming on.

SAYLOR: Thanks so much, Bill and Martha.

HEMMER: Thank you, out of Washington.

February 9, 2011

Islamophobia and Beyond, 1/15/2011

2011-01-31T09:50:00.000-05:00

Part one of a multi-part video. Many thanks to civil rights lawyer and executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee Shahid Buttar, essayist and playwrite Wajahat Ali, Foreign Policy in Focus contributor Fouad Pervez, and vice president and editor of ThinkProgress at the Center for American Progress Faiz Shakir.

Constitutionally-Informed Cooperation with Law Enforcement (also known as trust, but verify)

2011-01-18T17:16:00.002-05:00

Video: CAIR Rep Discusses King's Plan to Target Muslims (O'Reilly Factor)

2011-01-16T21:09:00.001-05:00

Prayers for a Swift Receovery

2010-12-30T15:09:00.000-05:00

[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.

Excerpt: Muslim nonprofits struggle with media portrayals

2010-12-09T18:00:00.000-05:00

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.”

‘False' patriots whipping up anti-Muslim sentiment

2010-12-08T13:02:00.000-05:00

(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.

Elibiary: Muslims Can be Patriots, Too

2010-11-15T10:30:00.000-05:00

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.

North American Muslims Stand for Free Speech

2010-10-04T08:55:00.003-04:00

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.

Islamophobia and Critical Race Theory

2010-10-01T15:34:00.001-04:00

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.

Saylor's Recent Media Appearances

2010-09-14T19:46:00.009-04:00

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.

The Swiftbombing Dilemma

2010-05-26T09:40:00.002-04:00

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.

John Adams and Lawyers Working Terrorism Cases

2010-03-05T09:45:00.010-05:00

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.

Is America a Christian Nation?

2010-02-16T16:26:00.005-05:00

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.

Advancing Bigotry on Capitol Hill

2010-01-29T10:29:00.007-05:00

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:

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 Republicans John 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."

Another Fox News Appearance Discussing Security

2010-01-08T10:57:00.006-05:00

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

2010-01-08T10:44:00.001-05:00

I recently appeared on Fox News to discuss the racial profiling as a technique to enhance security:

CAIR Warns Against Profiling

Response to ADL in Boston Globe

2010-01-06T09:50:00.001-05:00

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

Government Relations for Young People

2010-01-04T16:56:00.005-05:00

U.S. Muslim Organization Calls on Iran to Release Journalist

2009-04-10T10:00:00.002-04:00

CAIR seeks 'gesture of reconciliation' from Iranian government

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 4/9/09) - A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization today called on the government of Iran to release American journalist Roxana Saberi.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) delivered a letter calling for Saberi's release to the Iranian Interests Section, located in the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington, D.C. Saberi was detained in January and has reportedly been charged with espionage.

SEE: Clinton Calls for Iran to Release American Reporter Charged With Spying (NY Times)

In the letter, CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad wrote in part:

“In the spirit of shared faith and international peace and stability, and with the desire to increase constructive interactions between our two nations, we respectfully request that Iran release Roxana Saberi and allow her to return to her family in the United States.

“America and Iran now have an opportunity to re-engage in a non-confrontational manner. This new approach is much more likely to achieve the desired result of dialogue based on mutual interests and mutual respect than past policies of hostility and mistrust.

“We recognize the serious nature of the issues that seem to hinder an improved relationship between our two nations. We ask Iran to take this opportunity to make a gesture of reconciliation that will help create an atmosphere in which those issues may be addressed in a positive manner.

“The American Muslim community again offers its support for any initiatives that may help build bridges of understanding and decrease the potential for international conflict or instability.”

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties and advocacy organization, has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

FBI director questioned about Muslim relations

2009-04-01T10:36:00.000-04:00

FBI director questioned about Muslim relations
By IFN Staff

ANAHEIM, Calif. – The controversy over reports of an FBI informant infiltrating southern California mosques and the FBI’s overall conduct toward American Muslims were subjects of a Senate hearing last month, generating vague answers from FBI Director Robert Mueller and generating even more concern in a community already feeling fearful and unfairly targeted in a post-9/11 era. In the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing held on Capitol Hill, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) was tough on Mueller.

“Can you determine and report to this committee whether mosques have been entered by FBI agents or informants without disclosing their identities under the authority of the attorney general guidelines and, if so, how many?” Feingold asked.

“I will say that we do not focus on institutions, we focus on individuals. And I will say generally if there is evidence or information as to individual or individuals undertaking illegal activities in religious institutions, with appropriate high-level approval, we would undertake investigative activities, regardless of the religion,” Mueller responded in part.

Mueller, in regurgitating the domestic intelligence and investigative agency’s standard line, in fact contradicted claims of Craig Monteilh, an Orange County man who has publicly revealed how he was trained to “infiltrate” area mosques – from West Covina to Mission Viejo – to spy on unsuspecting worshippers, for almost a year.

Monteilh’s accounts prompted Muslim community leaders and groups to question the true intention behind the FBI’s partnership with U.S. Muslims.

A highlight of the Senate testimony was a reference to the American Muslim Taskforce statement, released March 17. That statement was part of a nationally-coordinated campaign by Muslims to decisively respond to the FBI’s aggressive tactics.

In the statement, the coalition of national Muslim organizations said they are considering severing outreach ties and public relations work with the FBI unless the agency revamps its “McCarthy-era tactics” that unfairly target the Muslim community, its mosques and institutions.

The AMT statement led Sen. Feingold to ask Mueller if he thought the new attorney general guidelines (implemented Dec. 1, 2008) are helping or hurting the FBI’s relationship with the U.S. Muslim community and in light of the AMT statement, how he planned to improve that relationship.

To that, Mueller responded: “Expectation is that our relationships are as good now as before the guidelines…”

Last December, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, under the auspices of the Bush Administration, approved guidelines for the FBI that lower the threshold for conducting investigations, allow for informants to spy on people without probable cause, and further permit the FBI to take into account a person’s religion and ethnic background as factors to open an investigation – essentially making lawful racial and religious profiling.

The extensive AMT statement describes the contributions of the American Muslim community and outlines how the FBI’s sending in agent provocateurs to incite worshippers undermined relations between the agency and Muslims.

“Through civil rights advocacy, civic and political engagement, and the promotion of dialogue with interfaith leaders and law enforcement agencies, Muslim Americans continue to be a positive and stabilizing force in keeping our nation safe and secure from acts of violence and foreign threats … Yet recent incidents targeting American Muslims lead us to consider suspending ongoing outreach efforts with the FBI … Bias and faulty premises dominated post-9/11 law enforcement analysis of the Muslim community and the threat assessment to national security. The waning days of the previous administration witnessed a flourishing of anti-Muslim activity … These McCarthy-era tactics are detrimental to a free society.”

Major Muslim organizations – the American Muslim Alliance, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslim American Society - Freedom, Islamic Circle of North America, Muslim Student Association-National, MSA West, more than 30 other mosques and Muslim groups – have endorsed the AMT statement.

Additionally, more than 50 activists and well-respected academics – including John Esposito, Ali Mazrui, and Hatem Bazian – have signed on to the AMT statement.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Society of North America, which did not sign on to AMT’s statement, have nonetheless called for accountability of the FBI’s actions while maintaining open lines of communication.

“Federal law enforcement cannot establish trust with American Muslim communities through meetings and townhall forums, while at the same time sending paid informants who instigate violent rhetoric in mosques. This mere act stigmatizes American mosques and casts a shadow of doubt and distrust between American Muslims and their neighbors,” a Feb. 25 MPAC statement said.

MPAC Executive Director Salam Al-Marayati later stated about MPAC‘s continued outreach ties to the FBI: “We believe that we have to keep our place at the table in this discourse.”

ISNA, in a news release, stated: “ISNA believes that communications with law enforcement agencies should remain open and it is not in favor of ending contacts with the FBI.”

AMT Chairman Agha Saeed, however, said the AMT’s effort is not a campaign of disengagement.

“It is instead designed to truly engage top Justice Department officials on these critical issues,” Saeed said. “It is also designed to help restore respect and equal rights for American Muslims after eight years of being treated as suspects rather than partners.”

The two distinct and, to an extent, conflicting approaches as to whether to continue outreach with the FBI have led some in the Muslim community to question whether a less than united stance will impact Muslims’ ability to hold the agency responsible and therefore, force it to correct its wrongdoings against a community constantly viewed as suspect.

Faisal Qazi, a neurologist and longtime activist in southern California, wrote an open letter to Muslim leaders.

“If a Muslim leader of any of our national groups supporting full maintenance of engagement is to be detained today, these groups would inevitably no longer stay on the table for continued so-called engagement,” wrote Qazi. “Therefore, the question is where do you draw the line? The line for grassroots movements is drawn when an average individual such as (Ahmad) Niazi is affected or in solidarity for all those families who have been harassed by recent intrusions but for others, the threshold may be much higher.”

On the subject of engagement with the FBI, the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California – an umbrella organization of more than 70 mosques and Islamic centers – polled Muslims in March.

In the poll, 78 percent of respondents said American Muslims should have “no relationship at all [with the FBI] until they stop unfairly targeting” Muslims or “end outreach relationship and limit communication to ‘as needed.’” The remaining 22 percent said Muslims should maintain an ongoing relationship with the FBI, “no matter what.” In February, the ISCSC and many other southern California Muslim groups suspended their outreach work with FBI’s Los Angeles office.

For the past two months, the issue of FBI informants at mosques has captured national and international media spotlight, prompted by the FBI’s Feb. 20 arrest of Niazi, a 34-year-old U.S. citizen, on charges of immigration fraud.
Niazi, in 2007, was one of the first worshippers at the Islamic Center of Irvine to report Monteilh, who had made violent statements against America and intimated to worshippers that he had access to explosives.

Monteilh was promptly reported to the Irvine Police Department and the Los Angeles FBI office at that time. In 2008, Niazi further reported to CAIR-Los Angeles Area that he was asked by an FBI agent to become an informant, otherwise his life would be made “a living hell.” It was later confirmed that Monteilh was a convicted felon who was recruited and paid by the FBI to infiltrate mosques and spy on worshippers.

The Orange County Register wrote a biting editorial on Monteilh’s “fishing expeditions.”

“Everyone understands the need for legitimate undercover activities in response to credible evidence. But we cannot fathom the justification for fishing expeditions and entrapment. Nationwide, some of the supposed terrorist ‘plots’ the FBI has claimed to have foiled have simply been cases of entrapment involving Muslims without the intent or wherewithal or to pull off any attacks. Infiltrating mosques without evidence of crime is an affront to the First Amendment.”

Both Mueller and FBI spokesman John Miller say the agency values its partnership with Muslims.

“Limiting honest dialogue, especially when complex issues are on the table, is generally not an effective advocacy strategy,” Miller said in a written release.

However, Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR-LA and an AMT member, disagrees.

“The problem is that many in the Muslim community no longer feel confident that the FBI is pursuing an honest dialogue with the Muslim community,” Ayloush said. “This was the result of confirmed reports that, while the Muslim community engaged in honest partnership building and dialogue with the FBI for eight years, the FBI was paying convicted felons to ‘infiltrate’ mosques to radicalize Muslim youths and instigate talks about terrorism action. Integrity and honesty are the foundation of any relationship.”

Last year, the FBI privately ended formal relations with the offices of CAIR, the largest Muslim civil rights group in the country. FBI officials never informed CAIR representatives of the reasons behind their decision but recently said, in writing, that they want to limit “any formally constructed partnerships between CAIR and the FBI” based on concerns relating “to a number of distinct narrow issues specific to CAIR and its national leadership.”

The AMT statement points to the “unindicted co-conspirator” designation given to 300 Muslim individuals and groups, including CAIR, in the trial of Holy Land Foundation charity as a possible reason. The move was illegal and seen as politically-oriented and criminalizing the Muslim community.

CAIR has called the FBI allegations a “campaign of smears and misinformation.”

“It is not surprising that we would be targeted in a purely political move by those in the previous administration who sought to prevent us from defending the civil rights of American Muslims,” said CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, in a statement.

CAIR officials also said the organization has regularly advocated engagement, based on mutual respect, with law enforcement and the FBI, sponsoring diversity trainings, joint workshops and town halls with FBI agents, and assisting with investigations.

American Muslims and the FBI now walk a rocky course while seeking a balance between national security and the protection of civil liberties. Muslims will continue to report any suspicious activity or threats to law enforcement, the AMT statement says.

Muslim leaders observe that the fate of American Muslims mirrors that of other minorities who they say were intimidated by government forces and stripped of their humanity yet continued to stand up and eventually gained respect and their true place in society.

Said the OC Register editorial: “The FBI’s activities have led a consortium of Muslim groups to ‘consider suspending ongoing outreach efforts with the FBI.’ We can hardly blame them. Perhaps the Obama administration will rethink this counterproductive and un-American strategy.”

Responding to the Killing of Aasiya Hassan

2009-02-17T10:22:00.002-05:00

(According to the Constitution everyone, no matter how horrific the crime of which he or she may be accused, is entitled to presumption of innocence and a fair trial. If convicted, the individual should then receive a sentence from a judge appropriate to the crime that was committed. That said, the imam's words below bear reflection.)

RESPONDING TO THE KILLING OF AASIYA HASSAN: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE LEADERS OF AMERICAN MUSLIM COMMUNITIES

By Imam Mohamed Hagmagid Ali
Executive Director, ADAMS Center
Vice-President, The Islamic Society of North America

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is saddened and shocked by the news of the loss of one of our respected sisters, Aasiya Hassan whose life was taken violently. To God we belong and to Him we return (Qur’an 2:156). We pray that she find peace in God’s infinite Mercy, and our prayers and sympathies are with sister Aasiya’s family. Our prayers are also with the Muslim community of Buffalo who have been devastated by the loss of their beloved sister and the shocking nature of this incident.

This is a wake up call to all of us, that violence against women is real and can not be ignored. It must be addressed collectively by every member of our community. Several times each day in America, a woman is abused or assaulted. Domestic violence is a behavior that knows no boundaries of religion, race, ethnicity, or social status. Domestic violence occurs in every community. The Muslim community is not exempt from this issue. We, the Muslim community, need to take a strong stand against domestic violence. Unfortunately, some of us ignore such problems in our community, wanting to think that it does not occur among Muslims or we downgrade its seriousness.

I call upon my fellow imams and community leaders to never second-guess a woman who comes to us indicating that she feels her life to be in danger. We should provide support and help to protect the victims of domestic violence by providing for them a safe place and inform them of their rights as well as refer them to social service providers in our areas.

Marriage is a relationship that should be based on love, mutual respect and kindness. No one who experiences a marriage that is built on these principles would pretend that their life is in danger. We must respond to all complaints or reports of abuse as genuine and we must take appropriate and immediate action to ensure the victim’s safety, as well as the safety of any children that may be involved.

Women who seek divorce from their spouses because of physical abuse should get full support from the community and should not be viewed as someone who has brought shame to herself or her family. The shame is on the person who committed the act of violence or abuse. Our community needs to take a strong stand against abusive spouses. We should not make it easy for people who are known to abuse to remarry if they have already victimized someone. We should support people who work against domestic violence in our community, whether they are educators, social service providers, community leaders, or other professionals.

Our community needs to take strong stand against abusive spouses and we should not make it easy for them to remarry if they chose a path of abusive behavior. We should support people who work against domestic violence in our community, whether they are educators or social service providers. As Allah says in the Qur’an: “O ye who believe! Stand firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you swerve, and if you distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do” (4:136).

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never hit a women or child in his life. The purpose of marriage is to bring peace and tranquility between two people, not fear, intimidation, belittling, controlling, or demonizing. Allah the All-Mighty says in the Qur’an: “Among His signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are signs for those who reflect” (30:21),

We must make it a priority to teach our young men in the community what it means to be a good husband and what the role the husband has as a protector of his family. The husband is not one who terrorizes or does harm and jeopardizes the safety of his family. At the same time, we must teach our young women not to accept abuse in any way, and to come forward if abuse occurs in the marriage. They must feel that they are able to inform those who are in authority and feel comfortable confiding in the imams and social workers of our communities.

Community and family members should support a woman in her decision to leave a home where her life is threatened and provide shelter and safety for her. No imam, mosque leader or social worker should suggest that she return to such a relationship and to be patient if she feels the relationship is abusive. Rather they should help and empower her to stand up for her rights and to be able to make the decision of protecting herself against her abuser without feeling she has done something wrong, regardless of the status of the abuser in the community.

A man’s position in the community should not affect the imam’s decision to help a woman in need. Many disasters that take place in our community could have been prevented if those being abused were heard. Domestic violence is not a private matter. Any one who abuses their spouse should know that their business becomes the business of the community and it is our responsibility to do something about it. She needs to tell someone and seek advice and protection.

Community leaders should also be aware that those who isolate their spouses are more likely to also be physically abusive, as isolation is in its own way a form of abuse. Some of the abusers use the abuse itself to silence the women, by telling her “If you tell people I abused you, think how people will see you, a well-known person being abused. You should keep it private.”

Therefore, to our sisters, we say: your honor is to live a dignified life, not to put on the face that others want to see. The way that we measure the best people among us in the community is to see how they treat their families. It is not about how much money one makes, or how much involvement they have in the community, or the name they make for themselves. Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) said, “The best among you are those who are best to their families.”

It was a comfort for me to see a group of imams in our local community, as well as in the MANA conference signing a declaration promising to eradicate domestic violence in our community. Healthy marriages should be part of a curriculum within our youth programs, MSA conferences, and seminars as well as part of our adult programs in our masajid and in our khutbahs.

The Islamic Society of North America has done many training workshops for imams on combating domestic violence, as has the Islamic Social Service Associate and Peaceful Families Project. Organizations, such as FAITH Social Services in Herndon, Virginia, serve survivors of domestic violence. All of these organizations can serve as resources for those who seek to know more about the issues of domestic violence.

Faith Trust Institute, one of the largest interfaith organizations, with Peaceful Families Project, has produced a DVD in which many scholars come together to address this issue. I call on my fellow imams and social workers to use this DVD for training others on the issues of domestic violence. (For information, go to the website: http://www.faithtrustinstitute.org/). For more information, or to access resources and materials about domestic violence, please visit www.peacefulfamilies.org.

In conclusion, Allah says in the Qur’an “O my son! Establish regular prayer, enjoin what is just, and forbid what is wrong; and bear with patient constancy whatever betide thee; for this is firmness (of purpose) in (the conduct of) affairs” (31:17). Let us pray that Allah will help us to stand for what is right and leave what is evil and to promote healthy marriages and peaceful family environments. Let us work together to prevent domestic violence and abuse and especially, violence against women.

Fact Sheet: Gaza Crisis

2009-01-02T16:35:00.002-05:00

The Issue

On June 19, 2008, an Egyptian negotiated cease-fire between the Palestinians and Israelis went into effect. The cease-fire was violated by both sides throughout its term. While any violation is problematic, only Israel’s resulted in the loss of life.

“An Egyptian official involved with the negotiations said that there was little hope for the ceasefire. ‘The truce has been active for 15 days, and for nearly half that time there have been violations by both sides.”(1) (Times of London, 7/05/2008)

Israel conducted a bombing attack in the Gaza Strip on July 25.(2)

CNN’s Rick Sanchez: “The date Israel broke the truce agreement was November 4th, when it killed five Palestinians fighters. On November 5th, another Israeli attack killed seven Palestinian fighters while on November 6th, yet again the Israeli army killed a Palestinian farmer. All of the Israeli killings were carried out in the Gaza Strip…”(3) (CNN, 12/31/2008)

“Why now? Two reasons: the expiration of the Israeli-Gazan cease-fire on December 19 and the Israeli national election coming up on February 10.” (U.S News & World Report, 12/30/2008)

The European Union (EU), Russia, the UN Secretary-General, the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and other international bodies are all urging Israel to end its attacks. Middle East envoy Tony Blair deplored the "tragic of loss of life,” while French President Nicolas Sarkozy condemned Israel’s “disproportionate use of force.” EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the Israeli attacks were "inflicting an unacceptable toll on Palestinian civilians and will only worsen the humanitarian crisis as well as complicate the search for a peaceful solution.”

According to the United Nations, in the four day period from the onset of Israeli bombing on 12/27 until 12/30 at least 62 noncombatant women and children were killed in Gaza and four Israeli civilians were killed. (LA Times, 12/30/2008) This disparity in civilian casualties is typical for the conflict. Unfortunately, all parties in the Middle East conflict have committed violence against civilians. We unequivocally condemn all of these actions. (4)

Reasons to Support an Immediate Cease-fire

AMERICA BEING SEEN AS A FORCE IN BRINGING A DURABLE RESOLUTION TO THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT HURTS ANTI-AMERICAN EXTREMISTS.
* If our nation takes a leading role in guiding the Israelis and Palestinians to finalizing a just and lasting peace, this will deprive Al-Qaeda and other anti-American forces of a tool they use to bring people into their murderous mindset: the allegation that Americans do not care about Palestinian suffering.
* Israel is using U.S.-supplied weapons of war against civilian targets in violation of U.S. and international law. The U.S. Arms Export Control Act mandates that American weapons must be used for defensive purposes and not for human rights violations. No nation should be above the law.

GAZANS MUST BE OFFERED A FUTURE THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE AN ENDLESS BLOCKADE WHILE WATCHING THEIR CHILDREN WITHER FROM IMPROPER MEDICAL CARE, NUTRITION AND POOR EDUCATION
* Israel controls access to and egress from the Gaza Strip, effectively giving it total control over the area. “Gazans can’t turn on the lights, get tap water, buy enough food, or earn a living without Israel’s consent,” Joe Stork, acting director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division in January 2008.(5) “The UN World Food Program reported shortages of meat, wheat flour and frozen food. Between January 14 and 20, the humanitarian and commercial foods entering Gaza totaled only 31 percent of basic food needs.”(6) “Israel’s decision to limit fuel, and potentially electricity, to Gaza in retaliation for rocket attacks violates a basic principle of international humanitarian law, which prohibits a government with effective control over a territory from attacking or withholding objects that are essential to the survival of the civilian population, Human Rights Watch said. It also violates Israel’s duty as the occupying power to safeguard the health and welfare of the population under occupation.”(7)

* The United Nations reports ”(t)he UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) voiced deep concern over the impact of the current violence on youngsters and urged all parties to abide by their international legal obligation to ensure that children are protected and receive essential humanitarian supplies and support. Over half of the population in Gaza are children.”(8)

* Israel surrounded Gaza with a fence in 1994, more than a decade ago. Gazans have only seen their situation deteriorate over the last 14 years.

UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, ISRAEL IS AN OCCUPYING POWER. AMERICANS HAVE ALWAYS RESPECTED THE RIGHT OF AN OCCUPIED PEOPLE TO RESIST THE OCCUPATION, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF LAWS AND UNIVERSAL ETHICS GOVERNING CONFLICTS, AND TO ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT THAT TO THEM WILL “SEEM MOST LIKELY TO EFFECT THEIR SAFETY AND HAPPINESS.”(9)

* As recently as June 3, 2008, Secretary of State Rice spoke of ending “…the occupation that began in 1967….” when speaking to attendees of an American Israel Public Affairs Committee banquet.

* Israel has the fifth most powerful military in the world. Gazans have no air force, air defenses, navy or tanks.

OUR UNCRITICAL SUPPORT FOR A BELLIGERENT ISRAEL MAY ADD ADDITIONAL STRESS TO THE ECONOMY AS CONSUMERS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD AND BEYOND HOLD AMERICA RESPONSIBLE AND BEGIN TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM OUR PRODUCTS.

IF THE UNITED STATES WISHES TO ACT AS AN HONEST BROKER OF PEACE, IT IS NECESSARY THAT WE RECOGNIZE THE FOLLOWING BASIC POINTS:
* Palestinians live under apartheid-like conditions.
* Collective punishment is always counterproductive.
* U.S. spokespersons should avoid rhetorical double standard that allows Palestinian civilians to be killed without protest. Additionally, the widespread perception that American officials parrot the Israeli line compromises our nation’s ability to act as fair negotiators.

1) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4272883.ece, accessed 12/30/2008

2) http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Israeli-Airstrikes-On-Gaza-Key-events-in-2008/Article/200812415194562?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15194562_Israeli_Airstrikes_On_Gaza%3A_Key_events_in_2008, accessed 1/02/2009

3) http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0812/31/cnr.07.html, accessed 1/02/2009

4) http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gaza31-2008dec31,0,3840243.story, accessed 12/30/2008

5) http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/01/25/israelgaza-israeli-blockade-unlawful-despite-gaza-border-breach, accessed 12/31/2008

6) Same source as #4.

7) Same source as #4.

8) http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29436&Cr=&Cr1=, accessed 12/30/2008

9) The quote is from the Declaration of Independence

Some Welcome Hate

2008-12-01T10:34:00.001-05:00

[An excerpt from a german blog post noting that extremists are angered by our recent condemnation of Ayman Al-Zawahiri. These are people I do not mind upsetting.]

“In related news, Zawahiri’s audio statement also appears to have created a palpable, tense confrontation between Al-Qaida and a significant cross-section of African-American Muslims. Several U.S.-based Muslim organizations immediately held press conferences or issued statements to strongly criticize al-Zawahiri and his manipulation of the words of the late Malcolm X. Conversely, these conferences and statements of response have not gone over well within the jihadi community, with some Arabic-speaking commentators issuing angry rants about the apparent treachery of American Muslims, including specifically the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).”

"I Will Go to My School Even if They Kill Me."

2008-11-18T11:34:00.009-05:00

(To conceive of the idea of using a water pistol to spray acid in the face of a girl seeking an education is pure evil. No adjective is appropriate to describe actually carrying out such a deed. I’ve previously posted my thoughts on how antithetical to Islam the notion of preventing girls—or anyone for that matter—from getting a good education is. However, while the perpetrators display the worst of humanity, the young lady in this article displays one of the best. Corey)

The AFP reports, “An Afghan teenager -- whose face was burned in an acid attack by suspected Islamic extremists -- vowed on Saturday to continue going to school even if it put her life in danger.

“Men on motorbikes used a water pistol to spray acid into the faces of Shamsia and around dozen other girls as they arrived at school wearing all-covering burqas in the southern city of Kandahar on Wednesday.

“Shamsia, 17, was the most badly wounded and had some acid enter her eyes. She was transferred to a military hospital in Kabul where she was visited Saturday by other schoolgirls, accompanied by media.

"’I will go to my school even if they kill me," she told reporters. "My message for the enemies is that if they do this 100 times, I am still going to continue my studies.’"

Colin Powell's Encouraging Words

2008-10-20T09:05:00.008-04:00

During his endorsement of Sen. Obama, former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell made several points that I found encouraging:

Referring to attempts to link people to terrorism, Powell said, “And I’ve also been disappointed frankly by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign has, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that’s been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign, but Mr. McCain says he’s a washed out terrorist—well, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that because of this very, very limited relationship, that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, now Mr. Obama is tainted. What they’re trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings, and I think that’s inappropriate.”

I cannot think how many times this tactic of finding some six degrees of separation link and using it to discredit someone. It was certainly done to Mazen Asbahi.

Referring to American Muslims Powell said, ""I'm also troubled by...what members of the party say, and is permitted to be said, such things as, ‘Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well, the correct answer is, 'He is not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian.' But the really right answer is, 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer's 'No, that's not America.'

Powell continued, "Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

"I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture, at the tail end of this photo essay, was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave, and as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards, purple heart, bronze star, showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death, he was 20 years old, and then at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have a Star of David, it had a crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Ushad Sultan Khan. And he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11. And he waited until he could go serve his country, and he gave his life."

USA Today: Group reports less anti-Muslim violence, but more profiling

2008-09-26T10:29:00.002-04:00

Ashley Gipson, Religion News Service, 9/25/08
As published in USA Today

WASHINGTON — Anti-Muslim discrimination reached an all-time high in 2007, according to a report released Wednesday by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

The District of Columbia and just nine other states account for 80% of the civil rights complaints. California leads with one in five complaints, followed by Washington, D.C., and Illinois. The prime factors for discrimination are an individual's ethnicity, religion or "Muslim name," according the report.

The report said incidents of due-process issues, physical violence, denials of service or access, and verbal harassment decreased last year, but passenger profiling reports increased by 340%. Claims of workplace discrimination increased by 18%, the report said.

The council recently got involved in a case of religious accommodation for workers at JBS Swift & Co. meatpacking plants, and has produced a pamphlet entitled "An Employer's Guide to Islamic Religious Practices" for distribution.

Corey Saylor, CAIR's national legislative director and author of the report, said the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes — defined as any crime against property or person where the victim is selected because of a perceived faith — decreased in 2007.

"We are cautiously optimistic," said Saylor. "We hope the wave of anti-Muslim hate crimes we've seen through the years is starting to level off."

Given the results of this year's report, Saylor recommended asking elected officials and other public officials to condemn anti-Muslim bias.

"When authority figures are sending positive messages about Islam," he said, "we find that people are less inclined to go out and commit anti-Muslim discrimination."

Bush on Islam

2008-09-18T11:01:00.002-04:00

"During Ramadan, we are reminded of Islam's long and distinguished history. Throughout the centuries, the Islamic world has been home to great centers of learning and culture. Muslim thinkers and scientists have advanced the frontiers of human knowledge. People of all faiths have benefited from the achievements of Muslims in fields from philosophy and poetry to mathematics and medicine."
-President George Bush, speaking at the 2008 White House Iftaar Dinner, 9/17/2008

Mourning Imam W. Deen Mohammed

2008-09-10T12:07:00.002-04:00

Statement on the Passing of Imam W. Deen Mohammed, leader of the largest Muslim
Movement in America (Chicago, IL, 9/09/08)
[Saylor note: Distributed by a member of Imam Mohammed's family who is also a friend of mine.]

The leader of the largest constituent of Muslims in America, Imam W. Deen Mohammed, son of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad leader of the Nation of Islam, passed away today, he would turn 75 in October.

In 1975 he succeeded his father, leader of the Nation of Islam opening the movement to all races. He was a public servant who stood up against racial oppression, and worked continuously for peace, unity, and reconciliation. He maintained his father's legacy of economic and political empowerment for the Muslim community.

His passing today was confirmed in a statement released by the late leader's family, "Imam W. Deen Mohammed a follower of Prophet Muhammad - on him be peace- and Muslim leader passed away today at his home in Markham, IL. He trusted and he believed in the One G-d the Creator of all systems of Knowledge. We ask that you pray for our father and leader." - The Family of Imam W. Deen Mohammed

AFP: US mega-mosques: Muslim tradition with US convenience

2008-09-05T17:22:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON (AFP, 9/04/2008) — As Islam makes inroads in the United States, American Muslims are setting up mega-mosques that combine religious tradition with typical American convenience.

Modelled on the huge, non-Catholic churches that offer their congregations of at least 2,000 members several different sites for worship, US mega-mosques have become a necessity in some places.

"Frequently, we have buildings designed for the Friday prayer, which is the largest, for 1,000 people and you have 2,000 to 3,000 show up," said Corey Saylor of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

To accommodate the overflow, which also results in traffic jams when prayer is over, US Muslim congregations have set up satellite places of worship, again following the lead of the Christian mega-churches.

That is just one way in which US mega-mosques are decidedly American.

They also offer worshippers a progressive form of Islam, in line with the profile and desires of many Muslim Americans.

While more than two-thirds of Muslim Americans are immigrants, mainly from the Middle East, they are also "decidedly mainstream in their outlook, values and attitudes," a report published last year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life said.

They have embraced what is often called the Protestant work ethic and believe, as do many Americans, that hard work pays off.

And Muslim Americans reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in western European countries, the Pew report said.
One mega-mosque in Virginia even rents space from a synagogue.

"This mosque, this branch, is part of a synagogue. Where have you seen that, a synagogue and a mosque? It's a completely American experience," Muslim prayer leader Mohamed Magid said.

That "completely American experience" is particularly attractive to young Muslim Americans, who like the way religious traditions and US efficiency and convenience are married in their places of worship.

In a message to Muslims around the world on the eve of the holy month of Ramadan, US President George W. Bush singled out for praise "the men and women of the Muslim community for their contributions to America."

"Your love of family, and gratitude to God have strengthened the moral fabric of our country," Bush said.

"Our nation is stronger and more hopeful because of the generosity, talents, and compassion of our Muslim citizens," he said.

During Ramadan, which in the United States started on September 1, according to calculations by the Islamic Society of North America, observant Muslims eat a light pre-dawn meal and fast until sunset, a practice aimed at fostering self-discipline, sacrifice and empathy for the poor.

Mosques tend to be heavily frequented during Ramadan, with some remaining open 24 hours a day.

Stupid is as Stupid Believes Hysterical Internet Rumor

2008-09-05T08:27:00.004-04:00

["Stupid is as Stupid Does" is yet another anti-Muslim e-mail circulating the internet. It pushes a vision of sterotyping, profiling and Obama is a Muslim. You can find it with you nearest search engine. Normally, I disregard such message, but this was was forwarded to me, with concern, by a family member so I felt obligated to write a response.]

The kind of casual stereotyping in the “Stupid Is As Stupid Does” is troubling at best, bigoted at worst.

If I were to base even an iota of my vote on “Stupid Is As Stupid Does” then maybe I should report to the nearest government office and insist that they revoke the privilege due to my intellectual apathy, indifference and undernourishment. (See why Thomas Jefferson agrees with me below.)

Basic American values reject profiling. In America, the idea of profiling people based on race, religion or ethnicity got thrown out when the clause “…three fifths of all other Persons." (a reference to slaves) was sliced from the U.S. Constitution in 1865.

If our basic values and the Constitution are not enough for you, the Department of Justice, President Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft also reject profiling.

Unfortunately, it is easy to assemble a list of violent radicals from almost any background.

Not one of us would conclude that Americans are somehow more inclined to violence and terrorism than others because of the relatively recent acts of the following individuals:
*Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City, 1995)
*Terry Nichols (Oklahoma City, 1995)
*Eric Rudolf (Olympic Park bomber, Atlanta 1996, grew up in the Christian Identity movement)
*Ted Kaczynski (The Unabomber)
*Sean Gillespie (convicted in 2005 for firebombing an Oklahoma synagogue)
*Buford Furrow “went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish day-care center in Southern California.” (Washington Post, 6/05/2005)

The post-9/11 anthrax case that recently garnered a new flurry of media coverage does not point to a Muslim. We all, regrettably, know the name of the town of Columbine. The rape camps where primarily Bosnian Muslim women--at least 20,000 of them-- were violated in the early 1990’s were crafted by Serbians.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, in its “Terrorism 2002-2005” report concludes, “Eight of the 14 recorded terrorist preventions stemmed from right-wing extremism, and included disruptions to plotting by individuals involved with the militia, white supremacist, constitutionalist and tax protestor, and anti-abortion movements.”

Voting for or against any candidate for public office must be a matter of objective study of character, positions and experience.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "A democratic society depends upon an informed and educated citizenry."

“Stupid is as Stupid Does” fails the “informed and educated” test, rather it fits Jefferson’s more dire concern: "The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."

Republish: How St. Valentine Led Me to Islam

2008-08-20T12:56:00.002-04:00

[Saylor's note: Originally distributed February 14, 2008.]

How St. Valentine Led Me to Islam
By Corey Saylor

Twenty years ago today I gave a girl a Valentine's Day card. Her name was misspelled. We were high school seniors.

I was a mere month out of drug rehab, where I was placed due to a daily concoction of marijuana, alcohol, LSD, PCP and other chemicals.

During the previous four years, I had developed a bad habit of breaking into cars and generally taking other people's things. A former girlfriend had carved my initials into her wrist with a razor blade and then cut the veins. She lived. On more than one occasion I had woken covered in my own blood, urine and vomit with no clue where I was or what had led me there.

The girl, who I had known since the tenth grade but not really interacted with, had her own history. She was from Afghanistan. She was in Kabul, the capitol city, when the Soviets invaded. She went to school one day to find a whole new set of teachers, who idolized communism. She threw rocks at occupiers and had assault weapons pointed her way. Her core memory of her family's escape from the war is looking at her longtime nanny running after their car begging for a chance to say goodbye. For security, her parents had told no one of their plan.

She responded to my card with a book on Islam, her faith. I tossed it aside with a comment about religion being for weak people.

When I later read the book I found it appealing. Islam's approach to life, essentially do your daily prayers then go live your life and try to make the world brighter was pragmatic and simple.

I embraced Islam two years later.

I went alone to her parents to ask their permission to marry her. During the dinner- an intimidating setting of her mother, father and me-I was served lasagna (not expected Muslim world dish) with superheated cheese in the center. I managed not to spit it out as it inflicted second degree burns on the inside of my mouth.

My culinary heroics worked and I received their blessing.

We had a religious marriage ceremony while we were still in our teens. Shortly after the ceremony, her father had me in their backyard digging a ditch with a pickax in the cold. He was illustrating the consequences of anything less than my best when it came to his daughter.

My wife’s first encounter with my world involved meeting a friend of mine whose father had just been angrily ramming this friends head into the family ceiling. The stream of cursing was impressive. The idea of a father inflicting that kind of abuse on a child was totally alien to my wife. It was common among my friends.

One of my first encounters with her world was at a dinner party in her parent’s home. Men and women were in separate rooms. I saw the men eating while my mother-in-law and a couple other women cooked. I drew my own conclusions and vocally refused to eat until the women did. I was taken aside and made to understand that the women had already eaten.

Giving her that card has opened me up to a number of such assumption changing encounters.

I have been told go back to your country, on the assumption that any Muslim must be a foreigner. I have been complemented on my excellent English, following the same assumption. My life has been threatened, on the assumption that as a Muslim I must have had advance notice of the 9/11 attacks.

I have been identified for extra security screening because of who I was traveling with, on the assumption that someone who looks foreign is more likely to be a threat than white Americans such as Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bombing), Terry Nichols (Oklahoma City bombing) or Eric Rudolf (Olympic Park and abortion clinic bomber).

Embracing Islam probably saved my life; I had a rather wide range of unreasonably self-destructive behaviors that faded under the faiths message of respect for life. Certainly it made me a better citizen, if you do not count speeding, I am law-abiding. I no longer steal. I no longer abuse people. I do work I believe serves the public good.

That is not the image of the Muslim convert you get on television these days.

Today, I will give my wife the exact card I gave her twenty years ago, misspelled name and all. This time, I am Muslim and not asking her to be my Valentine. I am expressing my appreciation that in response to that very card she helped me to a faith that gave me back my life.

Republish: Eight Points for Political Empowerment of American Muslims

2008-08-20T12:51:00.004-04:00

[Saylor's note: Originally distributed in January 2008.]

Eight Points for Political Empowerment of American Muslims
"Peace hath her victories No less renown'd than war."- John Milton
By Corey Saylor

The model of advocacy used by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) connects the vigilance and expertise of paid professionals with the energy of a volunteer community. Thanks to God Almighty, CAIR's method of unified action has a record of results.

"... (T)he Council on American-Islamic Relations has emerged as a vigilant force against discrimination against Muslims."
(Source: East Valley Tribune, 1/19/2008)

"It was overwhelming, their support."
-Host Gator Co. President Brent Oxley after CAIR supporters "swamped" the web host with "literally thousands" of complaints about Right Wing Howler, a blog whose author expressed support for the sentiment "...we need to kill all Muslim kids. Starting now." The web site was shut down.
(Source: St. Petersburg Times, 12/20/2006)

"Already fighting on behalf of American Muslims is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, as it is commonly known. The organization...has developed a reputation for being something of a pit bull in protecting the civil rights of Muslims."
(Source: The Indianapolis Star, 9/04/2005)

This advocacy model encourages Muslims to use the system to stand for their rights, values and to inject their voice into our national political dialogue.

Point 1: Hold Fast to Your Faith
Do not compromise your ideals. Hold fast to your values. Good civic works involves compromise, but know and adhere to your moral and ethical "red lines."

Point 2: Prove that You Can do the "Heavy Lifting"
Each local community should prove to its neighbors that it can turn out Muslims to interfaith banquets, political rallies on issues of mutual concern and on Election Day. This is action. People respect it.

Point 3: Form More PACs, Connect these PACS
A Political Action Committee (PAC) is a group organized to elect or defeat public officials or to oppose legislation or policy. America's Muslims will benefit from forming more PACs that can participate in local and national elections. While these PACs should have the independence to act as they choose, a coordinating body that can help connect the organizations to share best practices and, when wanted, assist in paralleling work on issues of national concern will be empowering.

Point 4: Insist That Elected Officials Do More Than Simply Show Up
Friendships are welcome and beneficial. However, your bottom line with elected officials must be a track record of action - votes, hearings, public statements - in support of your issues. Substantive support for your issues is more important than face time, number of visits to a mosque or something done a long time ago. Civic work is about making things better for you and your neighbors. This can range from negotiating a less expensive trash collection contract to opposing warrantless eavesdropping. If everyone is smiling at the meetings, but the trash still sits uncollected on the corner, you have not achieved your purpose.

Point 5: Connect with a National Muslim Organization of Your Choice; Support Local and National Muslim Public Affairs Organizations Financially
Our growing institutions are understaffed. Consider giving them more financial support. Your contributions should be tied to the organization providing you with professional service, results and incorporating you into a unified body of activists.

Point 6: Don't Expect an Immediate Place at the Table; Don't Accept a Permanent Seat Away From it
When you are new it is perfectly reasonable for others to "sound you out." They will see if you deliver on promises. They will frequently hold back to ensure that partnering with you will generally reflect well on them and help advance the issues they advocate. However, once you have accommodated this then you have the right to be part of the policy making process.

Point 7: Pursue a Career in Public Affairs
Our community needs more journalists, people working on Capitol Hill, in state government or any number of other places of civic service. Try volunteering for a political campaign.

Point 8: Seek Mentors
Japanese Americans have an experience that in many ways directly parallels ours: they were blamed for an attack on this nation. The civil rights movement is immensely important to understand effective advocacy and draw inspiration. The list is endless. Seek to learn from those who have succeeded already; it cuts the learning curve immensely.

Republish: Time for a Home Front Surge?

2008-08-20T12:46:00.005-04:00

[Saylor's note: Originally distributed prior to the 2008 Presidential election's primaries.]

Time for a Home Front Surge?
An American Muslim asks presidential candidates: How will you wield your greatest asset, the American people, in our conflict against extremism?
By Corey Saylor

In 1941 Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the mind behind the Pearl Harbor surprise attack, was asked about the course of a possible Japan-U.S. conflict. He replied: "I shall run wild considerably for the first six months or a year but I have utterly no confidence for the second and third years."

Responding to Japan's Pearl Harbor attack President Franklin Roosevelt, in his famous "date which will live in infamy" speech the day after the attack, said, "No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory."

In August, 1996, Osama bin Laden showed considerably less respect when outlining his thoughts for an Al-Qaeda-U.S. conflict. Referring to a 1993 firefight in Mogadishu, Somalia, he said: ".you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal."

Bin Laden followed his taunts with attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the U.S.S. Cole and, another date which will live in infamy, September 11.

Responding to the 9/11 attack President George Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, said to the nation, "Americans are asking, 'What is expected of us?' I ask you to live your lives and hug your children."

This response is not working, this is not the second or third year-it is the sixth. Bin Laden still runs wild. The righteous might of the American people was channeled into "living your lives."

Bush's recommendation unfairly places the burden of winning the struggle against extremism primarily on the shoulders of our military and their families. Finding the struggle less of a burden are several corporations which profit greatly from armed conflict.

So here is a simple, yet unaddressed question to those who wish to lead us: what will you do to better tap the time, treasure and talent of your greatest asset in the war against extremism? Is it time for a home front surge?

Thinking About Gaza

2008-08-20T10:32:00.004-04:00

[Saylor’s note: I have asserted many times my belief that America playing a lead, balanced role in solving the Israel-Palestine conflict is vital to our national security. It is far to easy for Al-Qaeda and other anti-American forces to point at the Enormous suffering of average Palestinians and then try to exploit the very natural human response from any person of conscience to their own nefarious ends. Read the below opinion and decide for yourself if the situation in Gaza helps or hurts America’s cause.]

Gaza's shocking devastation
A Canadian Jew's visit to the territory left him ashamed by what he saw
By Harry Shannon, Special to the Hamilton Spectator
Aug 14, 2008

I had expected conditions in Gaza to be bad, but I was still shocked at the devastation when I went there in July.

Last month my companion and I entered Gaza at the Erez crossing through a modern building reminiscent of an airport terminal. After questioning by the Israeli border police, we left the building and had a kilometre walk to pick up transportation.

It was as if we had travelled to another planet. The sandy track is surrounded by the blown-up remnants of Gaza's former industrial district. Rubble stretching for hundreds of metres lines the route.

Even on the main road through Gaza, driving is a slalom course around potholes. The air reeks of burnt oil and stale food from exhaust fumes (cars rely on used cooking oil for fuel.)

There are not many cars on the road, anyway. Donkey carts are common.
Despite the 35 C temperatures, drivers don't use air conditioning in cars so they can save fuel.

Every so often, the smell of sewage fills the air. Lack of treatment facilities means that much of it is dumped raw into the Mediterranean.

We went first to a children's hospital on the edge of Gaza City. The hospital director and doctors described the conditions. Of 100 beds, 40 were occupied by children with bacterial meningitis, an extremely serious disease.

There's a shortage of basic medicines and supplies, even simple things such as alcohol swabs.

The hospital has three ventilators; only one is working. Israel won't let in spare parts for the others.

The working machine is for a "hopeless case" who can't be taken off. Meanwhile, patients who could benefit have no working machine.

There are many cases of malnutrition -- for example, children nearly a year old weighing 3 kilograms (6.6 pounds). Their families can't afford the special formula they need to improve.

Because of lack of equipment and qualified personnel, there is no radiotherapy and limited chemotherapy in Gaza.

Treatment for many conditions can only be obtained in Israel. Physicians for Human Rights -- Israel reports that, despite the ceasefire in the last few weeks, emergency medical cases are still refused entry into Israel, where they could have life-saving treatment. PHR has documented many cases of people dying before they are treated.

Indeed the proportion of patients denied exit from Gaza for treatment has increased since last year.

PHR will soon release a report on "medical extortion." Some sick Palestinians are interrogated at the Erez crossing and asked to become informants or collaborators as a condition of permission to leave Gaza for medical treatment.

After leaving the hospital, we travelled to the southern end of Gaza. We stopped at the Rafah crossing, the border with Egypt. It was closed, as it is most of the time.

A cluster of people were waiting, hoping against hope that they would be allowed to cross. Egypt is under pressure from both Israel and the U.S. not to open the border, and in any event, they do not want large numbers of refugees to flood in.

We drove into the city of Rafah, which has come under bombardment by the Israeli military. A huge number of buildings have been severely damaged or completely destroyed.

For street after street, barely any building is untouched. Makeshift shacks of corrugated metal and cloth sheets are now homes for those who have lost their housing.

We returned north along the coast road. The beauty of the sea view contrasted sharply with the rest of what we had seen.

After passing the Ash-Shati refugee camp, we went by modern hotels. They wait in vain for customers. The Gazan economy, devastated by Israel's border controls, continues to languish.

My sister and her husband are Orthodox Jews living near Tel Aviv. They are outraged at Israel's behaviour, especially the restrictions on sick patients needing to leave Gaza. My brother-in-law, a former chair of family medicine at Tel Aviv University and a specialist in medical ethics, has complained publicly about this.

As a Jew, I, too, am ashamed and disgusted at what is happening. Yes, Israel needs security. But what is happening goes far beyond security needs.
Israel's actions amount to collective punishment, forbidden under international law.

I am ashamed that the Harper government has tilted toward unconditional support for Israel against the Palestinians.

The current policy is unconscionable, as anyone who visits Gaza can see only too well.

Harry Shannon is a professor of clinical epidemiology and bio- statistics at McMaster University, and a member of Independent Jewish Voices. He lives in Dundas.

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

As an addition, here is an excerpt from an article written by my former colleague, Arsalan Iftikhar. It matches my own sense of the current state of affairs in Gaza:

I have condemned the knuckleheads of Hamas for targeting innocent civilians and
not laying down their arms (a la The Irish Republican Army) to highlight the
moral impurity of Israel's occupation. Instead, their own moral impurity is transparent as we sadly watch these knuckleheads and the crooks of Fatah resorting to bloody fratricide where each throw another off high-rise buildings causing bloody mayhem on the streets of Gaza, whilst their poor women and children go hungry.

Furthermore, targeting a 9 year-old child in a Sbarro pizzeria is always wrong, period. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I have condemned the knuckleheads of Israel's government. Like our own American right-wing, the Likudnik extremists have completely monopolized the sociopolitical discourse from the majority of peace-loving Israelis. Even American conservative grand-daddy Robert Novak
recently echoed Nelson Mandela's sentiment by calling the situation 'worse than apartheid' in
The Washington Post. I doubt that anyone would dare call Robert Novak an 'Anti-Semite' or that Nelson Mandela lacks moral authority to designate anything as 'apartheid'; especially since his 27-year imprisonment effectively introduced the term to our human collective.

Emerson Lawyers Up, Part 2

2008-08-15T17:07:00.000-04:00

A few days after I sent my letter to Steven Emerson, the “anti-terrorism” expert with a history of getting it wrong detailed in my previous post, I received a letter from his lawyer, Mr. James Lake of Thomas & Locicero.

We definitely agree that Emerson is entitled to his opinion. Mr. Lake is also respectful, which I personally appreciate.

After that, though, we diverge.

Lake writes, “Mr. Emerson correctly quoted your observation that Osama bin Laden ‘sought to exploit legitimate Muslim grievances.’ Use of the word ‘legitimate’ clearly indicated you believe the ‘grievances’ Bin Laden sought to exploit were valid.”

Lake does not address my actual concern: that Emerson then goes on to characterize my recognition of such grievances as “a rationalization of the violent attacks against the U.S.”

I’m not alone in recognizing that Bin Laden uses legitimate grievances in the Muslim world to further his twisted and un-Islamic agenda. The entities whose opinions parallel mine--the 9/11 Commission, White House and Department of State—certainly cannot be accused of rationalizing violent attacks against the U.S.

No wonder Emerson lawyered up the second I challenged him.

The Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, aka the 9/11 Commission Report, notes, “[Bin Laden] also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world…. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.”

This reality also gets an indirect nod in September 2002’s National Security Strategy of the United States, which can be viewed on the web site of the White House, when it reads: “In many regions, legitimate grievances prevent the emergence of a lasting peace. Such grievances deserve to be, and must be, addressed within a political process. But no cause justifies terror.”

Also, the U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism 2006, in a discussion about breaking apart Al-Qaeda, notes, “Disaggregation [Saylor’s note: to separate into its component parts] breaks the links in the chain that exploit ordinary people’s grievances and manipulates them into becoming terrorists. It seeks to provide those who are already radicalized with a way out and to create pathways for alienated groups to redress their legitimate grievances without joining the terrorist network.”

Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations on May 10, 2006, Former Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, and close associate of President Bush, Karen Hughes said, “We must do the same for terrorism and make the notion of killing oneself in order to kill others a matter of shame - never honor. Decent people throughout the world must be of one voice in clearly stating that no grievance, no matter how legitimate --- and there are many legitimate grievances in the world - but none of them can ever justify the targeting and killing of innocents.

To deny that many in the Muslim world feel that America’s Israel-biased role in the Israel-Palestine conflict is a legitimate grievance simply proves that the 1991 New York Times Book Review author who said that Emerson’s work was "marred by factual errors...that betray an unfamiliarity with the Middle East and a pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias" was—and remains--right on the money.

Recognizing these legitimate grievances as such does not weaken us or justify attacks upon our nation or citizens. As the National Security Strategy says, “… no cause justifies terror.”

However, by recognizing these grievances we present ourselves with the opportunity of working to fix the problem. Thus, we could deprive Al-Qaeda and other anti-American forces of one tool they use to recruit people to their mindset.

I think that would be a good thing.

Emerson Lawyers Up, Part 1

2008-08-15T12:04:00.001-04:00

Steven Emerson is a self-proclaimed “terror-expert.”

As far back as 1991, The New York Times Book Review characterized his research and conclusions as being "marred by factual errors...that betray an unfamiliarity with the Middle East and a pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias." (New York Times, 5/19/91)

After the 1995 terror attack in Oklahoma City led by Timothy McVeigh—not a Muslim--Emerson concluded, “It was Islamic extremists who mounted this attack.” (CNBC’s Riviera Live, 4/19/1995)

Yet another false assertion Emerson made in 1998 resulted in him being compelled to pay California journalist Reese Erlich $3,000 and issue a statement characterizing his own “statement” as “incorrect.”

With that history, it was no surprise that when Emerson mentioned me recently on Capitol Hill, he drew a conclusion that was way, way off mark.

Here is the letter a sent to him, which contains his quote about me:

Mr. Emerson:

I am writing to request that you correct a serious factual error in your July 31, 2008, testimony before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade.

While you are entitled to your opinion, characterizing my statement to Ambassador Hughes as “a rationalization of the violent attacks against the U.S.” is a creative leap rivaling the imagination of the greatest authors of fiction.

In reality, I concur fully with the August 2005 anti-terror fatwa endorsed by CAIR and many other Muslims groups, which reads in part: “Targeting civilians’ life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram – or forbidden - and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not ‘martyrs...’ Further, I concur with an October 4, 2003 CAIR news release that describes a suicide bombing in a Haifa restaurant that killed at least 19 people, including three children as “particularly loathsome.”

On pg. 25 of your testimony, you assert: “Saylor stated that Bin Laden ‘sought to exploit legitimate Muslim grievances.’ [Ambassador Karen] Hughes did not challenge Saylor’s rationalization of the violent attacks against the U.S. by referring to the motivations of blood thirsty terrorists as ‘legitimate Muslim grievances.’ The only way these Muslim grievances could be considered ‘legitimate’ would be if one equated the failure of the U.S. to become a Muslim country as ‘legitimate.’”

Callously inserting such patently false allegations into your testimony diminishes the integrity of the record of the U.S. Congress.

It is well known that Al-Qaeda and other anti-American forces exploit Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory to further their own twisted and un-Islamic agenda. As recently as June 3, 2008, Secretary of State Rice acknowledged the occupation when speaking to attendees of an American Israel Public Affairs Committee banquet, stating: “…the only responsible policy is to work with decent Palestinians who want and should be able to end the occupation that began in 1967….”

It is also well-established that many in the Muslim world perceive America’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as favoring Israel.

My assertion, which I believe to be fully in America’s national security interest, is that, if our nation takes a leading role in guiding the Israelis and Palestinians to finalizing a just and lasting peace, this will deprive Al-Qaeda and other anti-American forces of a tool they use to bring people into their murderous mindset: the allegation that Americans do not care about Palestinian suffering.

The last line of your above quoted testimony statement is obscure, but seems to question my allegiance to my nation and its Constitution.

I refer you to an op-ed I authored for July 4, 2005 in which I wrote:

“I and many other Americans are deeply disturbed by events in Iraq, by reports of torture and desecration of the Quran in Guantanamo Bay, by Patriot Act abuses, by the rising tide of anti-Muslim rhetoric in our society, and by domestic and international policies that seem to create more problems than they solve.

“But my love for America is not diminished because it is sometimes flawed. I love my nation because, despite its flaws, the majority of its people remain committed to tolerance and respect for one another, whatever their faith or viewpoint.

“After the 9/11 attacks, my neighbors could have turned their anger on me as a Muslim. They did not. They came to me and offered both support and their horror that someone would twist my faith in such an evil manner.

“But of greatest inspiration to me are the words written in 1998 by a Muslim 10th grader living in California. Following the attack on the USS Cole, he wrote a letter to Osama bin Laden. In that letter he wrote: ‘If you are keen to murder Americans, kill us before you kill non-Muslim Americans. Bomb our mosques and Islamic Centers. We are Americans as much as others.’”

Your prompt action in issuing a public retraction and apology on this issue is appreciated. I am BCC’ing appropriate congressional staff to ensure that they are aware of your error.

Sincerely,

Corey P. Saylor

The Taliban and Educating the Future

2008-08-15T10:38:00.001-04:00

Yesterday, a piece titled “Militancy Spills Over into Pakistan’s Swat Valley” was aired on National Public Radio.

This particular line in the report stood out to me: “Nearly 100 girls' schools have been torched by the Taliban in the same period.”

While there is much criminal about the Taliban, this act of keeping girls uneducated is particularly vile and out of line with Islam.

The Prophet said: "Indeed are you not all guardians? And each of you is responsible for your flocks. So the leader who is in authority over the people is a guardian, and he is responsible for his flock, and a man is guardian over the members of his house, and he is responsible for his flock, and the woman is a guardian over the members of her husband's household and his children, and she is responsible for them... "(Sahih Bukhari and Muslim)

This responsibility for children is part of why a mother is three times more important than a father. When asked who was most important in a family the Prophet said "Your mother, next your mother, next your mother, and then your father." (Sunan of Abu-Dawood) He also said that paradise is at your mother’s feet. The Quran, Islam's revealed text, states: "And revere the wombs that bore you, for God is ever watchful over you." (4:1)

So the Taliban’s vision is to keep the primary guardian of the children, a person three times more important than a father, uneducated.

One wonders how they intend to keep their society going when their children are being brought up by illiterate guardians.

"Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim,” said Prophet Muhammad. The first revealed word of the Quran is “Read.”

Educating girls, not burning their schools, must be a Muslim’s priority. I look forward to the day the Taliban is a badly written footnote in a history textbook being read by the woman who cured cancer.

Detroit Free Press: Amendment to bill could serve terrorists' interest

2008-08-14T12:54:00.002-04:00

Amendment to bill could serve terrorists' interest
By Corey Saylor
[As published in the Detroit Free Press on 8/01/2008.]

U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, recently attached an amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act that may unintentionally legitimize Al Qaeda and other anti-American forces.

Passed by a vote of 249-180, Hoekstra's amendment says that "none of the funds ... appropriated by this Act may be used to prohibit or discourage the use of the words or phrases 'jihadist,' 'jihad,' 'Islamo-fascism,' 'caliphate,' 'Islamist,' or 'Islamic terrorist' by or within the intelligence community or the Federal Government."

This amendment needs to be removed.

Many experts, including the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, find it misguided, and Hoekstra's arguments for it unsupported.
In January, the Department of Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties published a guide called "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims," and in March, the National Counterterrorism Center produced a similar publication called "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication."

According to these recommendations, by using phrases such as "Islamic terrorism," U.S. officials may be "unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesman (sic) for ordinary Muslims." The report also urges "caution in using terms such as 'jihadist,' 'Islamist,' and 'holy warrior' as grandiose descriptions," to avoid associating acts of violence or terrorism with religious concepts.

On the House floor, Hoekstra bitterly complained that "the National Counterterrorism Center, and the Department of Homeland Security have issued memos imposing speech codes."

The DHS document actually "outlines recommendations," and the NCTC document says its suggestions are "not binding."

Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, who chairs the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote a letter to other members of Congress opposing Hoekstra's amendment, saying, "These are precisely the terms that Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders use routinely to describe their actions against the United States. We should not let them define this debate and claim a false mantle of legitimacy."

So this argument is not, as Hoekstra asserts, about creating "speech police" or "the politically correct politicization of our nation's intelligence community." It's about having America's spokespeople and soldiers smartly use language that defines Al Qaeda and other groups as thugs and criminals. This is done not because we worry about offending sensitivities, but because it serves the strategic purpose of isolating extremists and removing the false cloak of religiosity that they use to justify their barbarism.

COREY SAYLOR is national legislative director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil liberties organization. He may be contacted at: csaylor@cair.com.
********************************

Two additional points that were edited to save space:

*A May 23, 2006 National Defense University paper written by Dr. Douglas E. Streusand and LTC Harry D. Tunnell concurs says, “Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad thus indicates that we recognize their doctrines and actions as being in the path of God…”

*The Department of the Army’s counterinsurgency field manual supports considering how our words and actions impact the goals we are trying to accomplish noting that “cultural awareness” is an “important competency.” It then goes on to say, “Effective small-unit leaders adapt to new situations, realizing their words and actions may be interpreted differently in different cultures.”

One additional point I learned after I wrote the op-ed:

*"How Terrorist Groups End" a paper published by RAND corporation on July 28, 2008 recommends: "Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors."

Another Update:
* Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in September of 2007 former CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid: “I mean, even adding the word Islamic extremism, or qualifying it to Sunni Islamic extremism, or qualifying it further to Sunni Islamic extermism as exemplified by government such as Bin Laden, all make it very, very difficult because the battle of words is meaningful, especially in the Middle East to people. And so, I do think, and I had a chance to get to know many of the regional leaders out there. They clearly understand that we, collectively, are fighting a problem that they don’t want to win, that we don’t want to win. The problem that we have to face is how do we work together to keep this problem from becoming mainstream.”

The video is available here and on C-Span’s website.