Muslim Heretics Conference

Islam is not the Enemy
By Dr. Elias Akleh

The Western power elite, especially American (military industries, security agencies, financial institutions, and oil corporations) always need a public enemy in order to maintain their grip on political and economical systems to manipulate nations and to generate huge profits. They always create new enemies by stressing differences between groups of people and inciting hatred among them.

With the collapse of communist Soviet Union, enemy number one for the last few generations, the power elite lost a lot of “businesses” in the forms of military manufacturing and security services. One example of this is the economy of the state of California, which suffered greatly because it is based mainly on military industry. A new enemy was needed to re-boost these industries. The attacks of 911 were orchestrated and Al-Qaeda was accused of the act. The needed new public enemy was thus created.

Al-Qaeda, the base in Arabic, was established, armed, and financed by Texan CIA operative Charlie Wilson to fight the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. After liberating Afghanistan the Talibans started destroying the opium crops and replacing them with wheat. Wall Street used to rake huge financial profits from Afghanistan’s opium money laundering. Taliban leaders were brought to Washington to be persuaded to halt the destruction of opium industry. But they rejected all Wall Street proposals making themselves an enemy of international bankers and financial institutions. After the invasion of Afghanistan, war lords were established and the opium industry was quadrupled.

To keep the military industry cranking there was a need to widen the conflict. The Western power elites and their mouthpiece media took the fact that Al-Qaeda leaders were mainly Islamic and associated the terror accusation to Islam. Thus Islamic terror and Islamic terrorist groups became new terminologies used to brainwash the populace. This relatively small Islamic Al-Qaeda group was inflated to become the new super global power, richer and more powerful than the rest of the global super powers. It was portrayed as a global threat used to justify any government’s oppression of dissenting groups, who could be labeled as terrorists. 

Political clergy joined in the act of demonizing Islam. Pastors of televangelist Zionist Christians and Christians United for Israel such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Michael Savage and Rod Parsley routinely attack Islam and the Prophet Mohammad during their ceremonies. They describe Prophet Mohammad as a terrorist, a heathen, follower of Satan, and womanizer among others. Islam is described as a false religion, anti-Christ, terrorist, undemocratic, violent, suppressive, satanic, and culture of death. The term Islamofascism was created and equated with Communism and Fascism. The “mad Muslim Mullahs” have become the ghoul of the West. First there was Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini, then Libyan Moamar Ghaddafi, then Mohammad Adid of Somalia, then Osama Bin Laden, and then Iraqi Saddam Hussein. Lately we have Iranian Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Lebanese Hezbollah, and Palestinian Hamas.   

Those American so-called Christian pastors are aggressively inciting hatred and enmity against Muslims with the attitude of “Our way is God’s way and if you don’t accept our beliefs then we will kill you in the name of God.” They are advocating the murder of all “heathen” Muslims, the destruction of their cities, the nuking of their holy places, and the “conversion of all Muslims to Christianity to become human beings” like what happened in Spain in 1492, after the 800 years of Reconquista wars, when defeated Muslims and Jews of Spain were ordered to convert to Christianity or face persecution.

Such pastors are poisoning the psyche of their naïve followers with warring themes such as “America as a bastion against Islam”, “America’s historical conflict with Islam”, “Cleansing the Holy Land from all Muslim heathens”, “Crusading holy wars”, and “Islam: the greatest religious enemy of our (American) civilization”. It seems that these pastors do not prescribe to a God of love and peace, but to a god of war and destruction. Apparently, theirs is a criminal god with a religion of death.

What makes them more dangerous is that many politicians in the American administration, and even the defeated presidential candidate John McCain supported by his Republican party, proclaim these pastors as “spiritual guides”, “great leaders of America”, and “moral compass of America”.

On top of all those, we see the Zionist Israeli terrorist state claiming that the most ruthless enemy of the world is Islam, calling the religion “enemy of civilization”, “ oppressor of women”, “hater of peace”, “opponent to democracy”, “terrorist Jihadis”, and “foe of humanity”. In an attempt to cover their terror and to justify ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs, the Israelis claim that they are the victims of global Islamic terror, and are the spearhead of morality and evolution, who are courageously fighting this Islamic ghoul to save the rest of the civilized world.

Unfortunately the average American person of the street in general, and even many who consider themselves educated and with critical thinking, who are panting heavily in their attempt to acquire the loaf of bread for their families, who worry about paying the bills; taxes, mortgages, insurance and many others, do not have the interest nor enough energy to seek the truth. The majority of them collapse on the couch at the end of the day, passively watching their TV sets, and taking in the meta-messages sent to their unconscious by puppet politicians and false clergy. Through repetition lies become realities.

Albert Einstein once said: “Condemnation without investigation is the highest ignorance.” So let us do a little investigation. Let us refer to the holy texts(1) themselves rather than just listen to the misleading, hate-evoking, warmongering and poisoning words of the political clergy, special interest politicians, and their media mouth piece.

Islam is a wide spread religion in many different cultures and traditions. Islam is a religion and not a culture. Almost one third of the world populations are Muslims. There are hundreds of thousands of volumes written about Islam. Reading some of these volumes we discover that the Islamic prophet was a humble and an ascetic man. He did not live in luxurious homes, rather in a very humble one like any other citizen. He did not own gold and silver rather he was poor. He did not wear silky and colorful clothes, but had only one rough garment. He did not stuff his stomach with fatty rich meals, but mostly rice and milk. Those, who accuse Prophet Muhammad of being a womanizer, should read the Old Testament to learn about womanizing prophets; Abraham and Moses had multiple wives, Jacob married two sisters Rachel and Leah and their maids Bilhah and Zilbah. Solomon had a hundred wives (that is a real womanizer).

Mohammad was not incestuous unlike Abraham, who married his sister, or Lot, who impregnated his two daughters, or Judah who slept with his daughter-in-law Tamar. He did not cause the death of a person to steal his wife like David, who, although having many wives, caused the death of Uriah the Hittite to steal his wife Bathsheba. One needs only to read the Old Testament to learn of more similar stories. It should be known that Mohammad’s wives were given to him in political marriages as a sign of tribal loyalty.  

Preaching monotheism and acknowledging all previous prophets starting from Adam down to Jesus, Mohammad attracted the attention of Jewish Arabs (many Arabs adopted Judaism) of the city of Yathrib in Hijaz (present day Saudi Arabia). After listening to his Islamic teachings the Jews of Yathrib considered Mohammad their awaiting Messiah. They invited him to live in their city and changed its name to Al Medina Al Munawwarah (the enlightened city). Losing political power and revenue the Jewish Pharisees plotted with Mohammad’s enemies against him, but were defeated. The treachery of the Jews was documented in Islamic literature, and has been falsely misinterpreted as Islamic hatred to Judaism rather than to its political Rabbis.

Islam, in its core, is a peaceful religion. The word “Islam” means total surrender to God’s will. Sufism, a life dedication to meditation and praying to recognize God, is the ultimate form of Islam. Muslims believe in all the prophets starting with Adam down to Noah, to Abraham, to Moses, and all the way to Jesus Christ and talk about all of them venerably unlike the Old Testament that describe many of these prophets as womanizers, incestuous, murderers, and warmongers. One needs only read the Qur’an to realize this fact. Every chapter (Surat) in the Qur’an talks about these prophets and some are dedicated to their names such as Surat Ibrahim, Surat Joseph, Surat Meriam, Surat Prophets and many others. Muslims consider Islamic creed as an extension of the creeds of all the previous pre-Islamic prophets. Islam recognizes the “People of the Book” and their scriptures (Surat Imran 3, Surat Al-Ma’idah 47-51, Surat An’am 154 and many others). Qur’an states that their God and our God is the same (Surat Spider 46).

Contrary to the claims of politicians and political clergy, Muslims do not strive to forcibly convert people to their religion. Islam respects, and calls all Muslims to respect, true Jews and Christians calling them “people of the book”. Islam states “no coercion in religion”. Only through dialogue religion can be spread (Surat Spider 46). Islam considers true Jewish God, Christian God and Muslim God as one and same God. On the other hand we read in Judaic Hilchoth Melachim, c.viii, 4 that Talmud commands the Jews to convert the heathens to Judaism by the power of the sword and to murder all who refuse and to take away their children. 

Unlike political Judaism that describes Virgin Mary as a whore (Sanhedrin 106a and Shabbath 104b) Islam reveres Jesus’ mother, Virgin Mary, and dedicates a long chapter in the Qur’an with her name; Surat Miriam. Unlike Judaic false Rabbis, who hate and insult Jesus Christ, Islam recognizes Him as a divine messenger (Surat Imran 45, Surat Women 170). Muslims venerate Jesus and call him “The Word of God”, “Logos”, “Messiah the prophet” and a “Messenger of God” (Surat Imran 35, Surat Al-Ma’idah 47,49 & 78, Surat Cow 87 among many others). False Rabbis, especially Orthodox Jewish Hasidic Lubavitch group, insult Christ and describe him as a sorcerer, sexually immoral, a dangerous prophet, and call for his murder according to their god’s commands. (www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm ).

In the Judaic Avodat Kochavim, Maimonides stated that “It is a mitzvah (religious duty) to murder Jesus and his followers, and all non-Jews”. Moses Maimonide, a rabbinic law codifier and philosopher in Jewish history, wrote the “Mishneh Torah”, considered the Second Torah, in which he taught that Christians and Muslims should be murdered when Talmudists are dominant over gentiles (Avodat Kochavim, chapter 10). Avodah Zarah 17a states that Christians are allied with hell, and Christianity is worse than incest. Going to prostitutes is the same as becoming a Christian. Shabbat 116a states “The books of Christians may not be saved from a fire, but must be burnt in their place”. The Israelis followed this commandment to the letter when they burned hundreds of Bibles in Occupied Palestine on March 23rd, 1980, and again on May 20th, 2008 (Assoc. Press 5/20/2008 & Israeli Maariv newspaper). Jewish Israeli hatred of Jesus is expressed in the Jewish anti-Gospel “Toledoth Eshu”, revived and reprinted by the biggest Israeli tabloid Yedioth Aharnoth in 2000. Jews referred to Jesus by the name of “Yeshu” meaning “Perish his name”.

The status of women under Islam is one of the most intentionally misrepresented and falsely exaggerated issues by Western politicians and their political clergy cronies. Islam had liberated women long before women’s liberation movements in the West even began. I had lived in Islamic, Israeli and American societies, and have found higher percentage of Israeli and American women being abused, enslaved and victimized under the flag of so called Western women liberation movements, freedom and democracy. Women prostitution slave-trade, in its many forms, is very common within these two societies. One needs only to watch televised news and reads local newspapers to recognize this fact. 

Islam respects and cherishes women as mothers, wives, daughters and sisters and grants them all human and legal rights. Mohammad’s wife was a very successful business woman. The Qur’an dedicates a long chapter for women (Surat Women). Islam stopped female infanticide, gives women the right to inherit parents, husband and siblings, assigns married women dowry and divorced women alimony and child support, forbids arranged marriages and gives women the right to refuse marriage (Surat Nur 23), and gives women freedom to become contributing members to society in every form. Muslim women in all Islamic countries, even the most economically impoverished, are involved in every aspect of life even though some of these countries barely provide such chances for men themselves. One needs to watch televised broadcasts and listen to radio stations of these Islamic countries to recognize the contributions of Muslim women to media, art, music, social services, politics, education, business, finance and industry.

The West points to the veil, a fashion of Muslim women’s head dress, as some kind of a proof of Islamic retardation. Unlike many Western women, who wear provocative clothing exposing their sexual body parts, Islam requires men and women to dress conservatively in respect for their bodies, and it happened that the veil was a common dress at the time. This dress requirement is common to the three religions, where we find fundamentalist Christian women and nuns covering all parts of their body, and fundamentalist Jewish women having to wear a hair piece to cover their hair (Shulchan Aruch 2:153:8 and Mishnah Berurah 75:13) . Although a gradually disappearing fashion, as we could tell by watching Muslim televised broadcasts, the veil is still a sign of religious practice. Unfortunately, to incite hatred, politicians use the media to show the exceptions to the rules that exist into every religion and not just in Islam. 

Women’s status in Islamic Qur’an is a whole lot better than theirs in non-Islamic holy books. Judaic “holy” texts consider women impure and filthy. There is a Judaic obsession with women’s menstrual blood and the shades of its color, and consider it very toxic. There are numerous strict rules that menstruating women have to observe, including segregation from community, or face divine punishment (see Halachos of Niddah – Laws of Menstruation in the Shulchan Aruch: Yoreh De’ah 14a). Since women are considered impure, it is forbidden to teach them the Law (BT Kiddushin 29b), and they are not allowed to write a Torah scroll or read the Torah because it is a disgrace to the congregation (Berakhot 24a and BT Gittin 45b). Because rabbinic sages regard Jewish women as “sacks of excrements” (Shabbat 152b), and “meat from a butcher shop” (Nedarim 20b) they are banned until today from Talmud study. 

Texts such as BT Sanhedrin 54b and 69b allow homosexuality, child molestation, incest and sodomy with a child under 9 years old. It is permissible to sexually molest a 3 years old girl as documented in “Classic Guide to Jewish Law” V.2, P 1023 (Metsudah Publication, 1996) and in BT Ketubot 11b. Maimonide agreed to this law. 

Hasidim women are considered the most oppressed women in the world. It is a common knowledge that arranged marriages are common practice among the ultra-Orthodox Jews. In the Hassidic village of New Square, NY the community’s top rabbinical court published, in July 2005, a document prohibiting their women from driving cars, and their girls from riding bicycles. It also states that men and women must always walk on different sides of the streets. 

Orthodox Judaic women are segregated in synagogues in what is known as “ezrat nashim” section, and on buses they have to sit in the back of the bus, much like the Negro women in the old segregated American South. On November 24th, 2006  Miriam Shear, an American Israeli woman, was kicked in the face and violently beaten by ultra-Orthodox (Haredi/Hasidic) men for refusing to move to the rear of an Israeli Egged bus in Jerusalem ( Haaretz Dec. 17, 2006). Similarly, Iris Yoffe, an Israeli student, although sitting in the women’s section of the bus, faces all kinds of abuse from ultra-Orthodox Jews because she wears trousers, June 15, 2008 (www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1417054320080115).

The claim that Islam is a terrorist religion of death is a great sin. The Qur’an states that war is the most hated act to God (Surat Imran 216), but since war is inevitable and is forced onto Muslims then they have to defend themselves (Surat Imran 195). Prophet Mohammad forbade Muslim soldiers from killing civilians; children, women, elderly, and non-combatant. He forbade them from torching homes, from cutting trees, from poisoning water wells and from burning crops. He ordered them to take good care of prisoners, and to release them if they could not care for them. The Islamic call for “Jihad” is greatly misunderstood and distorted concept. Jihad for God means exerting mental efforts against bodily desires through meditation and prayer (Sufism) in order to recognize God. One should realize that for at least the last 300 hundred years none of the Islamic countries had attacked any Western Christian country. The opposite is true. The Western Christian countries have been attacking and destroying the Islamic world. Under the guise of war against global terror, and the lies of spreading freedom and democracy the Western armies are daily massacring  Muslims in Africa (Somalia & Sudan), in the Middle East (Palestine, Lebanon & Iraq), and in Southeast Asia (Afghanistan & Pakistan)

Judaic prophets and Rabbis have done the exact opposite. According their god’s wish they ordered ancient Israelite, and present-day Israelis, to kill all their enemies including children, women, and elderly, to kill all their farm animals, to burn and demolish their homes, to poison their water-wells, to cut their fruit trees and to wipe off all their towns and villages. Samuel, the god’s chosen Israelite prophet, had ordered king Saul, upon god’s request, to attack Amalek, “… kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (Samuel I 15:2-9). The Old Testament is full of such incidents where Israelite prophets ordered their people to commit genocide. Even Moses, the giver of the Law “Thou shalt not kill” had ordered his people to annihilate Goyims and take their land.

Such terrorism and genocide is considered a religious duty in the Judaic texts. Moses Maimonide’s Mishnah Torah chapter 10 p.184 considers these atrocities a “Mitzvah” : a religious duty. He decreed that any non-Jewish nation “… not subject to our jurisdiction (tahat yadeinu) will be the target of Jewish Holy War” (Hilkhot Melakhim 8:9-10, 10:11. also see Gerald J. Blidstein, “Holy War in Maimonide’s Law”, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press 1991).  Rabbi Simon ben Yachai, highly revered by both Khazar and Sephardic Jews, encouraged such genocide in his Soferim 15, Rule 10 stating that “… even the best of the gentiles should all be killed”. Yosef Obadia, Israeli chief Rabbi, calls on Israeli army and all settlers to kill all Palestinians because they are just cockroaches. 

Such “Mitzvahs” are conducted daily by the terrorist Israeli army, whose snipers target innocent defenseless Palestinian children. The Israeli army and Israeli extremist settlers attack Palestinian civilians, demolishing and burning their cities and homes, poisoning their water-wells, burning their crops, cutting down thousands-years-old olive and fruit trees, killing their farm animals, razing their fertile soil, and imprisoning their whole communities within a high cement wall. The genocidal crimes (Mitzvahs) of the Israelis are numerous to count here.

The Palestinians, with its Muslim majority, backed by the neighboring Arab countries, also with their Muslim majority, sought peaceful solutions with Israel. They accepted the illegal existence of terrorist Israel on 78% of Palestine in order to establish a Palestinian state on the remaining 22%, and to live peacefully side by side with Israel. But the successive Israeli governments had ignored all Arab peace offers and continue with their holy genocidal plan driven by their Talmudic right and Halakhic duty to kill gentiles.

Zionist Israeli Rabbis, shamelessly, tour the Western World, advocating such genocide. In 1994 Baruch Goldstein murdered 40 Muslim Palestinian worshippers while kneeling in prayer in the Al-Ibrahimi Mosque. After his death Israelis built a shrine for him in the colony of Keryat Arba’ and called him a saint. Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsbergh went out on a lecture tour in Canada and US breaching such mass murder of Goyims as a “mystical technique” for the attainment of ecstasy and “personal experience of the divine”. 

These examples are just a drop of an ocean. It is not the Islamic holy Qur’an, but the Judaic “holy texts” that call for terrorism, genocide, oppression and destruction; a holy war against all non-Jews based on prejudiced god with divine racist ideology of “God’s chosen people in God’s promised land”. It is not the Islamic madrassas (schools) but the Judaic Yeshivas (Talmudic Academies) that teach racism, terrorism, genocide, and a religion of death to disillusioned Israeli students.

Michael Hoffman II, “Judaism’s Strange Gods” [Independent History & Research, Idaho, US, 200] 

Michael Hoffman II, “Judaism Discovered” [Independent History & Research, Idaho, US. 2008]

Elias Akleh a contributing editor to MWC, is an Arab writer from a Palestinian descent born in the town of Beit Jala. His family was first evicted from Haifa after the “Nakba” of 1948, then from Beit Jala after the “Nakseh” of 1967. He lives now in the US, and publishes his articles on the web in both English and Arabic.http://mwcnews.net/eliasakleh

MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - Islam is not the Enemy

By Alexander Cockburn

This article appeared in the July 21, 2008 edition of The Nation.

July 1, 2008

• This story has been corrected to reflect an error in the original version. In fact, Sami Al-Arian was not found guilty of any charge, but subsequently signed a plea agreement in which he plead guilty to one charge of providing nonviolent services to people associated with a designated terrorist organization.

There are few prospects in the justice system so grimly awful as when the feds decide never to let go. Rebuffed in their persecutions of some target by juries, or by contrary judges, they shift ground, betray solemn agreements, dream up new stratagems to exhaust their victims, drive them into bankruptcy, despair and even to suicide. They have all the money and all the time in the world. Sixteen months ago I wrote here about the appalling vendetta conducted by the Justice Department against Sami Al-Arian, a professor from Florida who had the book thrown at him in 2003 by Attorney General John Ashcroft. As I described it then, Dr. Al-Arian was charged in a bloated terrorism and conspiracy case and spent two and a half years in prison, in solitary confinement.

In December 2005, despite the efforts of a blatantly biased judge, a jury acquitted Dr. Al-Arian of the most serious charges. Dr. Al-Arian’s lawyers urged him to plead guilty to a watered-down version of one relatively minor offense to put an end to his ordeal and the suffering of his family. A central aspect of the plea agreement was an understanding that Dr. Al-Arian would not be subject to further prosecution or called to cooperate with the government on any matter. The plea agreement signed with Florida prosecutors explicitly protected him from cooperating in any additional cases. The government recommended the shortest possible sentence, no more than time served.

But then, almost certainly after a visit to the local federal prosecutors in Tampa by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the feds double-crossed him on the plea agreement, and he was thrown back into prison. The biased judge handed down the maximum sentence, which meant a further eleven months of incarceration before release and deportation slated for April 2007. Then Dr. Al-Arian passed into the malign orbit of prosecutors in Virginia, notably assistant federal prosecutor Gordon Kromberg. The Justice Department’s plan was to set up Dr. Al-Arian in a perjury trap, compelling him to testify before a grand jury investigating an Islamic think tank called the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) in a case completely unrelated to his. The institute has been the target of a six-year witch hunt by Kromberg.

On November 16, 2006, dragged up to Virginia, Dr. Al-Arian was brought before a grand jury and placed in civil contempt for refusing to testify–because the actual intent of the subpoena was the attempt to trap him. When the grand jury’s term expired, Kromberg promptly empaneled a new one. Dr. Al-Arian was again subpoenaed and again refused to testify. Shunted among prisons in Atlanta and Petersburg and Alexandria, Virginia, Dr. Al-Arian endured hunger strikes and maltreatment from guards.

Even with the additional time served, Dr. Al-Arian’s sentence ended on April 6 of this year. He was then taken into the custody of immigration authorities, who were making preparations for his deportation. On June 26 the Justice Department elected to plunge Dr. Al-Arian and his family into fresh torments, thus prolonging the slow-moving auto-da-fé of the past five years. A new federal indictment charges Dr. Al-Arian with two counts of criminal contempt, relating to the efforts by Virginia prosecutors to bring him before a grand jury investigating other Muslim organizations. Dr. Al-Arian faces additional prison time if convicted. Criminal contempt in the American legal system has no maximum penalty.

“This indictment proves that the government was never interested in any information that Dr. Al-Arian has on the IIIT matter,” said his attorney, Professor Jonathan Turley, who has represented Dr. Al-Arian since April 2007. “They have indicted him despite the fact that the prosecutors admitted that he is a minor witness in the IIIT investigation, and he has already given two detailed statements under oath to the government and offered to take a polygraph examination to prove that he has given true information about his knowledge of IIIT. Dr. Al-Arian has addressed every document cited by the government as the reason for his being called before the grand jury. He has shown that he has no incriminating information to offer against either IIIT or its officers.”

On June 30, Dr. Al-Arian was arraigned before US District Judge Leonie Brinkema for the Eastern District of Columbia, but Dr. Al-Arian did not enter a plea, as Turley stated they were not prepared to do so. The court then entered a plea of not guilty and scheduled a trial to begin August 13. According to a statement issued by Turley, the government is further seeking to indict Dr. Al-Arian for the period during which he was under civil contempt confinement. Thus, after holding him for a year, the government now seeks to punish him for the same period of the confinement.

Why the continued efforts to destroy Dr. Al-Arian? He’s just one more object lesson to the world of what can happen to a Muslim–a Palestinian–who tried with some success to combat ignorance and prejudice in the Middle Eastern debate and who established his innocence to a jury on the grave charges the government spent millions to sustain in that Florida court. His assailants in the Justice Department have probably anticipated with relish that Dr. Al-Arian would succumb to malnutrition and illness in one of the holes into which he has been flung. They were mistaken. Sustained by his family, capable attorneys and vast sympathy across the world, Dr. Al-Arian has stayed in the ring with his fearsome and vindictive persecutors. Every word of support and encouragement is important to Dr. Al-Arian and his family. Send such words to tampabayjustice@yahoo.com.

(Thanks to Nation intern Sousan Hammad for pulling together developments in Dr. Al-Arian’s case.)

The Persecution of Sami Al-Arian

The Rise of Apocalyptic Islam

Causes and Implications

by Jean-Pierre Filiu & Mehdi Khalaji
17-Nov-2008

On October 29, 2008, Jean-Pierre Filiu and Mehdi Khalaji addressed a Policy Forum luncheon at The Washington Institute. Mr. Filiu, a former French diplomat and ministerial advisor, currently serves as a visiting professor at Georgetown University. Mehdi Khalaji is a senior fellow at The Washington Institute. The following is a rapporteur’s summary of their remarks.

Jean-Pierre Filiu
Washing across the Islamic world is a growing wave of grim and gory literature predicting the aher al-zaman, the Arabic concept for apocalypse that literally translates as the “end of time.” This genre is both ancient and modern, as it revisits historic Islamic narratives and incorporates newer, non-Islamic elements. Three trends of apocalypticism have emerged from this literature, making it difficult to assess the implications for foreign policymaking.

Both Sunni and Shiite Islam contain traditional narratives about the end of days. In the Sunni narrative, Jesus returns to fight the anti-Christ in Damascus, defeats him in Lud, and leads the army of the faithful at the end of time. In the predominant Shiite narrative, the occulted twelfth imam, also referred to as the “Hidden Imam” or Mahdi, will appear in Mecca and lead the Mahdi’s Army, defeating the unbelievers. In contrast to these old narratives, the current wave of apocalyptic literature draws heavily from non-Islamic sources. This heterogeneous genre follows the approach of its founder, a minor Egyptian journalist whose 1986 book The Anti-Christ incorporated Biblical revelations, Nostradamus’s prophesies, anti-Semitic propaganda, and Protestant evangelicalism.

As the majority of its readership does not interpret apocalypticism literally, the genre’s rise does not represent an immediate political threat. Instead, apocalyptic literature is a coping mechanism for day-to-day frustration. It helps “compensate” for the current economic and social crises by associating them with the foretold decline of Islam before the end of days. Without motivating the reader to any particular action, it promises retribution against the perceived evildoers and a post-apocalyptic recompense: the rise of Islam, justice, and peace.

Despite the predominance of apolitical apocalypticism, two smaller trends use this same propaganda for political gain. “Apocalyptic opportunism” is embodied by militia leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and Hassan Nasrallah. These leaders lack strong religious credentials and may not be Mahdists themselves, but they use this literature to challenge established religious authority and reach out to the Mahdists for political support. Although more commonly affiliated with Shiite Islam today, this opportunist use of apocalypticism has been a characteristic of both Sunni and Shiite insurgencies in the past.

The third trend, “apocalyptic vertigo,” poses the most direct political threat, as it employs apocalyptic literature to support violence. It is visible at the margins of al-Qaeda, especially in the agendas of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Abu Musab al-Suri, whose publication, The Call for a Global Islamic Resistance, includes a hundred-page apocalyptic tract. The most cohesive and clearly apocalyptic movement is the Ansaar al-Mahdi militia in Iraq. Their leader, Sheikh al-Yamani, claims to be the vanguard of the Mahdi and has demanded allegiance from Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad. Even after losing its strongest supporters in a 2007 bloodbath in Najaf, Ansaar al-Mahdi remains a serious threat. The mutual rejection of these two movements and Ansaar al-Mahdi’s extreme anti-Iranian stance diminish the likelihood that a combined apocalyptic movement will form.

Mehdi Khalaji
Ahmadinezhad is responsible for much of the rise in the apocalyptic trend’s popularity and visibility in Iran. Prior to his election, Iranians knew very little of Ahmadinezhad’s religious mindset, and he never mentioned Mahdism during his campaign. After taking office, however, he began supporting institutes working with the apocalyptic ideology and included prayers for the return of the Hidden Imam at the beginning of every speech. Still, Ahmadinezhad’s apocalypticism is a greater threat to the religious establishment of Iran than to the West or Israel.

The apocalypticism of Ahmadinezhad and his close circle is distinct from the narratives of traditional religious authority. Ahmadinezhad’s primary influence is Ahmad Fardid, an Iranian philosopher who attempted to reconcile Islamic concepts with Martin Heidegger’s philosophy. Some of the hardliners in Ahmadinezhad’s group are direct transfers from Fardid’s circle, while others are German-educated intellectuals and activists with connections to the neo-Nazis. This group rejects outright the authority of traditional clerics and does not include any prominent clerics among its ranks. However, as university graduates who are ignorant of the methods of Quranic interpretation and exegesis, they rarely express their radical apocalypticism publicly.

With the failure of Islamic ideology to respond to social needs, apocalyptic ideology appealed to Iranians. Suffering from economic, social, cultural, and political crises, religion became the people’s only refuge. After thirty years of revolution, many Iranians were tired of the Islam associated with the clerics and the government. Instead, they sought a simple, ritual version. Apocalypticism became a form of political resistance.

This context explains the recent popularity of religious sites such as Jamkaran Mosque near Qom. A hundred years after the Hidden Imam appeared in a dream and ordered it built, it remained a simple one-room mosque. With the rise of Mahdism in the last decade, however, it has become very important. A reported 16 million Iranians visited it last year, even more popular than the Imam Ridha shrine in Mashhad, the mosque of the eighth imam. During the same period, the number of people claiming association with the Hidden Imam has increased, signaling both widespread social frustration and a desire to capitalize off of these feelings. Before Ahmadinezhad’s presidency, contact with the Hidden Imam was personal and private; now, it has become socio-political and public.

Ahmadinezhad’s rejection of clerical authority and the rise of a new apocalypticism prompted a strong response from Shiite clerics and Iranian politicians. Former Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami, prominent cleric Dr. Hassan Rowhani, former Speaker of the Majlis Akbar Nouri, and others have rejected this popular apocalypticism as dangerous and non-Islamic. Two months ago, Supreme Leader Khamenei condemned these trends, citing the prohibition on claiming credit or benefiting from contact with the Hidden Imam. Khamenei follows the anti-apocalypticism of the Iranian Revolution, which rejected the need to wait for the Mahdi before establishing an Islamic government. His attitude toward Ahmadinezhad is complicated; he wants to maintain executive control and pacify the clerics, but he cannot allow Ahmadinezhad to collapse. The “sky of Iranian politics should [only] have one star,” but political instability would harm the Islamic Republic’s reputation.

Despite Ahmadinezhad’s threats, Iranian apocalypticism should not be of major concern to foreign policymakers. Ordinary Iranians are largely unaware of the Mahdist trends in Iraq, so it is improbable that a concerted apocalyptic effort will form. Ahmadinezhad’s increasing radicalism and disastrous economic policies have eroded his popularity and political power. Artists and intellectuals despise him for controlling the cultural machinery, and the Majlis has started to interfere with his political appointments. Apocalyptic political trends are in decline, and even Ahmadinezhad has tried to disassociate himself from these trends and deny his previous statements.

This rapporteur’s summary was prepared by Larisa Baste. View this PolicyWatch on our website.

The Rise of Apocalyptic Islam | Iranian.com

By Mahvish Rukhsana Khan • November 10, 2008

Last Tuesday night, we the people, redeemed the notion that America is more than a great country, but also a raw and innate idealism—a dream—that thrives within us all. It expands beyond “the land of opportunity” and speaks to our innate sense of justice and equality; that men and women should only be judged on their merits, not their skin color or religious faith.

Yes, there is much mess of the past decade that needs an urgent clean-up: we have shameful institutions like Guantanamo Bay, secret prisons littered across the planet, codified torture and an economy in shambles. But in the moments following the election of the first African-American president, when millions of united Americans of all colors, ages, and religious beliefs cried and celebrated Barack Obama, the latent American idealism within us emerged reinvigorated, that despite our shortcomings—everything had become possible once again.
As a Muslim born and raised in America, Barack Obama’s election has allowed a renewed trust that the religious barriers and appalling vilification faced by America’s 8 million law-abiding and peaceful and Muslims will too subside.

With the divisive name-calling and hurtful anti-Islamic jeers, this election has been a tough one for Muslims. Sadly, the main stream media stood idle as heinous slurs linking Muslims with terrorism and anti-Americanism were flung.
No one batted an eye when the Republican supporters suggested that Obama secretly followed the teachings of the Qu’ran, as if it were an al-Qaeda training manual, or when he was sneeringly referred to as Barack Hussien Obama. How un-American to suggest that people like me are somehow not as patriotic or trustworthy as the Christian or Jewish friends I grew up with. Attacks on either of latter faiths would have been met with severe and appropriate reprisal.

The result was an outpouring of American Muslim support for Obama. The American Muslim Task Force on Civil Rights and Elections reported that of more than 600 Muslims polled from more than 10 states, a whopping 89 percent voted for Obama. Just 2 percent of American Muslims gave their vote to McCain.
And Last Tuesday night, when the votes were in and the results were announced, America was at its best again—brimming with hope and possibility; the very qualities that drove my Pashtun parents—and all American immigrants throughout history—to leave their homes in other countries and seek a new idealism and way of life in the United States; the very qualities that make me proud to be an American.

Mahvish Rukhsana Khan is an American lawyer and author of the critically acclaimed memoir, “My Guantanamo Diary”.

New hope in Obama | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press

Muslim- and Arab-Americans Poised to Make a Difference in Battleground States

By Delinda C. Hanley

Some of the 50 Muslim-American delegates and alternates at the Democratic National Convention (Staff photo D. Hanley).

THE DEMOCRATIC National Convention in Denver, Colorado opened with a huge interfaith gathering on Aug. 24, featuring remarks and readings by rabbis, imams, ministers and community leaders. This was the first time a celebration of this nature has been part of a Democratic National Convention, and it was symbolic of the party’s intentions to bring multiple communities together under its “big tent.”

Dr. Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, observed to a huge audience at the convention center’s interfaith event that when she has traveled abroad since the 9/11 attacks she frequently is asked, “How are Muslims doing in America?”

The professor, who teaches at the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, said her response is, “There are problems, but I will tell you this is the best place in the world to practice our faith.” That’s because, the Canadian-born Muslim convert explained, Americans defend religious diversity: “Christians and Jews have stood up for my community every day.”

According to the Muslim Americans in attendance, not a single Islamaphobic word was uttered at the DNC, from beginning to end. Time and again in Denver, Arab- and Muslim-Americans said they believed that Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama would be president for all Americans.

In the past, Muslim Americans—who, like Hispanic Americans, place great importance on strict family values—have tended to vote conservatively. In recent years, however, the hard-line stances many Republicans have taken on immigration, civil rights, health care, education, the economy, and foreign policy have driven many conservative Arab- and Muslim-Americans away from the party.

Among the variety of caucuses which met at the Democratic National Convention was, for the first time, the American Muslim Democratic Caucus, which sponsored an Aug. 25 luncheon to honor the more than 50 Muslim delegates from 20 states. Organizers emphasized the growing political influence of American Muslims and gave reporters a crash course in politics before the lunch even started. Dr. Inayat Lalani, communications director for the Caucus, spelled it out in no uncertain terms: “The media talk about the Latino vote and the black vote,” the retired surgeon said. “You analyze the women’s vote, and the blue-collar vote. Then there’s the senior citizen vote, and the under-30s vote. But you never mention the impact of the Muslim-American vote. That is politics of exclusion—and exclusion, my friends, is un-American.”

Another organizer, Sarwat Husain, president of the Texas Democratic Caucus, told reporters that, as a result of conversions and immigration, Islam is the fastest growing religion in America today. Not only is Islam the second largest religion in the U.S., she added, but Muslims are a highly educated, affluent community. There are from 7 to 8 million Muslims living in the U.S., with close to 3 million registered voters—many of them concentrated in the six battleground states. “There are also thousands of Muslims serving in our Armed Forces, and our bodies are coming back in bags like other Americans,” Husain concluded. “Here’s a message for our leaders—don’t think you can ignore our vote. The Muslim vote counts.”

An Eloquent Congressman

Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) (Staff photo D. Hanley).

Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), who in 2006 became the first Muslim American elected to Congress, spoke passionately at the luncheon about the need for Muslims, as well as other minority groups, to increase their political involvement by voting, participating in local politics, and running for political office. “America, our great country, needs the Muslim community,” said Ellison, who was sworn into office using a Qur’an once owned by Thomas Jefferson—proving, as he said, that there is nothing un-American about Islam.

Warning Muslims that they cannot afford to be captured by any one political party, Ellison said that, instead, every political party, every candidate for office, should be coming to Muslims for their political support. Turning the discussion to civil liberties and justice for every religion and race, Congressman Ellison added, “When you are challenged, you can get bitter, or you can get better.”

By getting involved, minority groups challenge the government to make things better for all Americans, he pointed out. “Voting is critically important. It is the kindergarten of politics,” he noted. Without going to kindergarten you cannot move up. But you cannot finish kindergarten and say, ‘I’m done, I’m educated.’ We are just getting started when we vote.”

Ellison stressed the importance of local grassroots politics and encouraged both young and old alike to work in government, including on local school boards. He also called upon Muslims to improve their community from within, and to include more women at meetings. “Our faith is not sexist but some of our practitioners are,” Ellison said. “Men of all faiths are infected with sexism. Muslims don’t have a monopoly on the problem.

“Some day I’m going to walk out of a room if there are no sisters in it,” he warned.

Ellison introduced André Carson (D-IN), as another Muslim “who proves I’m no fluke.” Along with subsequent speakers, Carson, who won a House seat in a March 2008 special election, addressed charges that Senator Obama has purposely steered clear of Muslims. “We all hope that one day Barack Obama will step up to a microphone and say, ‘I’m a little rusty but Salaam Aleykum’ (Peace be with you),” Carson said. “Muslims have been in America since the beginning and we should be proud.”

Eddy Bernice Johnson (D-TX), who also is African American but is not a Muslim, said that when she introduced the first international Ramadan resolution three years ago, she couldn’t get it out of the rules committee. “Last year, it came to the floor with three major sponsors,” she said, to thunderous applause. “We all need to work together against racial profiling and celebrate diversity.“

Obama has been pressed to say he isn’t Muslim, Johnson noted, asking, “What difference would it make?” There will be much more dirt to come, she warned. “Every excuse will be played instead of admitting it’s just racism. I never thought I’d live to see the day when I had the opportunity to vote for an African-American president. It couldn’t have happened without a diverse America.”

Next to speak was Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi, whom the Obama campaign appointed volunteer national coordinator for Muslim-American affairs on July 26, but who voluntarily stepped down on Aug. 6, after a Wall Street Journal article quoted nonsense from an Internet publication tying him to a “fundamentalist” imam. He didn’t want to become another distraction for voters, Asbahi explained. Now, however, he admitted, there are three people liaisoning with the Jewish community and no one working with theirs. While the Obama campaign has had some hiccups in its outreach to Muslims, it’s moving past that, he added. “You will have a seat at the table in an Obama administration,” Asbahi said. “I’m still 110 percent behind Senator Obama. I hope you will be, too.”

Joshua Dubois, national director of religious affairs for the Obama campaign, began his remarks by saying, “Peace be upon you.” Obama’s faith grounds him, Dubois said, and the senator believes all faiths should engage in the public square. Assuring listeners that Obama recognizes the contributions of Muslims, Dubois went on to address Muslims’ gripes about perceived slights. On the July 15 “Larry King Show,” he pointed out, Obama once and for all debunked rumors that he was Muslim and discussed the offensive New Yorker magazine cover, remarking that it is not a smear to be called a Muslim.

“You know, this is actually an insult against Muslim Americans,” Obama said, “something that we don’t spend a lot of time talking about. And sometimes I’ve been derelict in pointing that out. You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things. And for this to be used as sort of an insult or to raise suspicions about me I think is unfortunate. And it’s not what America is all about.”

In June two Muslim women from Detroit wearing hijab were told by Obama campaign workers that they could not sit behind Obama and in the line of TV cameras. Obama personally called to apologize, Dubois reminded listeners, but people are purposefully distorting that incident and saying Obama is not engaging with Muslims. In fact, one of those women in hijab is now a top field organizer in Michigan, Dubois said.

Next to address the Muslim Democratic Caucus was Justin Rockefeller, 29, youngest son of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and co-founder of the non-partisan GenerationEngage, which aims to draw young voters into the political process. “Democracy should be a dialogue, not a monologue,” Rockefeller said, adding that young Muslim Americans have much to do. He told a story about catching a cab soon after 9/11 and noticing the cabbie’s sign which said, “I’m a Sikh, not a Muslim. Please don’t hurt me.” Rockefeller had to pause a moment to contain his emotions, then concluded with great feeling: “America is better than that.”

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the first African American to hold that office, and the third black governor in U.S. history, said that Obama’s is the most diverse campaign in history. “We are a stronger party and nation when we make room for the talents of every community. This is a once-in-a-generation nominee. Barack Obama can help us find our way back to each other.”

Dr. James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), which has advocated civic and political empowerment of Americans of Arab descent since 1985, also spoke. “At 3 a.m. when the phone rings, I want the smart guy who understands the complexities in the world to answer the phone,” Zogby quipped. “John McCain the tough guy should stay asleep.

“We have to put Obama over the top,” he urged listeners. “When he wins we all win. We’ve suffered as a country for eight years,” Zogby concluded. “He’s not just the lesser of two evils. We’ve never had as good a candidate since I can remember.”

Washington Report staff did not attend the Republican National Convention (although the magazine was distributed in both Denver and Minneapolis). While we cannot, therefore, provide a first-hand report on Muslim- and Arab-American discussions (or arrests) on the other side of the aisle, we are proud to report that there were superb AAI and American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT) events hosted at both conventions, just as there have been for years.

This publication has long understood that Muslim- and Arab-American voters are a key demographic in several battleground states, including Michigan, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. Their votes and views matter. It’s past time for America’s politicians and mainstream media to take them seriously as voters and pay close attention to their concerns.

Muslim- and Arab-Americans Poised to Make a Difference in Battleground States

By Zakariya Dehlawi
November 13, 2008

Given that Islam prides itself on sticking to authenticated traditions and texts, change isn’t really a sought after ideal. We believe the central beliefs and values of Islam have been unaltered for almost a millennia and a half.

Naturally, the understanding and implementation of certain Islamic laws have been applied differently, depending on context and culture, but this flexibility has been inherent since the earliest inception of Islam. Depending on who you ask, there either has been too much flexibility, or not enough.

The discussion of change, specifically reform, is a contentious issue. I offer you my humble untrained opinion and apologize for any mistakes, which are mine, while any benefit is by God’s mercy.

In order to understand Islamic progression, we need to understand the roots of Islamic jurisprudence. Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon him, received verses from God which were memorized and recorded as the Quran. The Quran is considered the complete and unalterable holy book for Muslims. Muhammad (peace be upon him) was an exemplary human being, who received divine inspiration and guidance. His actions and sayings were recorded and transmitted and came to be known as hadith. The Quran and hadith form the basis of Islamic belief, as well as Islamic law.

The Quran and hadith aren’t cookbooks. There isn’t any explicit recipe on what it takes to be a Muslim; rather, the ingredients are sprinkled liberally throughout (This cooking analogy is making me glad Thanksgiving is soon). The point being, the Quran and hadith rarely issue explicit commandments. Instead, they offer a basis that is often open to interpretation. Throughout the centuries scholars have primarily performed this interpretation. Via scholarly debates and discourse a diverse legal literature emerged. But despite this diversity, every argument is still based on Quranic or hadith principles.

The scholars and their discourse continue to this day, drawing upon the writings of earlier scholars, as well as forming their own opinions. The discourse has adapted as science has progressed and Islam has spread all over the world. The issues discussed range from the mundane, like whether kangaroos are permissible to eat, to the serious, like what is the role of DNA evidence in a Muslim judicial system.

Some people and groups perpetuate an idea that Islam needs to undergo a reformation, often alluding to Martin Luther’s reformation of Christianity.

Writers such as Irshad Manji, or organizations like Muslims Against Sharia, cite that female inequality and violence found in Muslim societies today is inherent to current day Islam and can only be solved by changing it.

They fail to recognize that the societal ills that plague Muslim communities are, for the most part, socioeconomic problems or inappropriate cultural applications and understanding of Islam.

Islam doesn’t require a broad reformation because the framework for Islam creates a space for discussing practices. This framework grants legitimacy to contrary views and allows them to be evaluated against strict scholarly standards.

The tenets of Islam are unchanging, but its relevance in everyday practice is constantly reassessed.

Reach columnist Zakariya Dehlawi at opinion@dailyuw.com.

What would you change about your religion?: Islam - The Daily of the University of Washington

DHAKA (AFP) — Rashed Ahmed paints the fiery eyes of a python on to a giant piece of white cloth in the grounds of Dhaka University, as a huge crowd of painters, actors and writers cheer the fine arts student on.

Each of those gathered then has a tilt at drawing their own symbols, leaving a personal mark indicative of the Bangladeshi cultural heritage they say hardline Muslims are determined to destroy.

“The python is the symbol of radical Islamists,” says Ahmed. “It has started devouring our rich culture. Unless we can collectively stop it, the survival of our arts, sculptures, writings and dramas will be at stake.”

Large groups of Bangladeshi artists — including film-makers, singers and writers — began daily protests last month after authorities removed two newly commissioned sculptures of local folk singers erected outside Dhaka’s airport.

A group of Muslim hardliners calling themselves the Anti-Statues Resistance Committee complained that the sculptures were idols, which are strictly forbidden in Islam, and threatened to attack the artwork with power tools.

Buoyed by their removal, hardline Islamists are now demanding that the government erect a minaret honouring Muslim pilgrims at the same airport site.

One of the group’s leaders Mufti Fazlul Haq Amini, a former MP, says that he will “demolish all statues” if his party wins the December 18 parliamentary elections.

This is not the first time extremists have targeted people in the arts in Muslim-majority but officially secular Bangladesh. In 1994, feminist writer Taslima Nasreen fled the country after she was accused of blasphemy.

Another respected writer, Humayun Azad, died in 2004 after he was attacked with machetes at a book fair by suspected Islamists.

According to leading intellectual and English literature professor Sirajul Islam Chowdhury, the removal of the sculptures capped the state’s growing acquiescence with extremist groups.

Last year, a satirical magazine published by the country’s largest media group was closed down and its editor apologised after it printed a cartoon of prophet Mohammed.

The military-backed government also backed down from a policy to ensure equal property rights to women amid angry protests by Muslim clerics that the move would override Islamic law.

“Bangladeshi people are religious but they have always been tolerant,” he said, referring to the country’s rich heritage in the arts and music.

“Islam has in past few years increasingly been used as a political tool here.”

He said cultural activists had no choice but to launch protests as “successive governments have become indifferent to radical Islamists’ attacks on arts, culture and writers.”

The artist whose work is at the centre of the airport row, Mrinal Haq, says the commission had turned into one of his most dangerous jobs, with some of the hardliners trying to “cut them down with grinders and pull them down with ropes.”

“They became so hostile that it became increasingly dangerous and risky to work there. I’ve done a lot of works, including the city’s largest sculpture,” said Haq, one of the country’s best-known sculptors.

“But never have I faced such bigotry.”

AFP: Bangladeshi artists under attack from Muslim hardliners

With demonstrations banned Saudi activists launch online home-based hunger strike
The group calls for a reform of the legal system, changes to the constitution and the release of 11 reformers held in prison without trial. Students and intellectuals join the protest campaign via Facebook.
Riyadh (AsiaNews/Agencies) – A group of Saudi activists began a rare public hunger strike on Thursday 6 November, demanding reforms to the judiciary and drawing attention to the issue of detention without trial of 11 political reformists. Since public protests are banned in Saudi Arabia they have opted instead to hold their strike in their homes. The 65 men and women protesters plan to continue the strike today.

Mohammad Al Qah’tani, one of the 13 activists who called for the protest, said “we don’t want a confrontation with security forces,” for this reason they chose to go on a hunger strike at home.

The activists sent a letter to the government demanding the release of political prisoners, the improvement of prison conditions and a reform to the legal system, but failed to get a response.

“We used all legal means to make our voice heard, but we were ignored,” said Al Qah’tani, a college professor.

He added that that the protest will not turn to the streets because we “don’t want to have problems with security forces that would not lead to any results.”

The leaders of the virtual revolt posted a statement on the social networking site Facebook, an online community frequented especially by the young, announcing the strike and urging other Saudis to join the political struggle. So far writers, lawyers and college students have joined in.

Human rights activist Matrook Al Faleh is among the 11 political prisoners. He was detained in May for advocating constitutional reforms and an end to the inhuman conditions in prison. Along with him, ten other activists were jailed in Jeddah in 2007.

SAUDI ARABIA With demonstrations banned Saudi activists launch online home-based hunger strike - Asia News

This year’s campaign contained ample evidence of distrust and very little resistance to this discrimination.

By ALLIE SHAH

 

Sifting through the mountain of campaign literature stuffed into my mailbox this fall, only one piece stood out. It was a flier urging me to vote for Barack Obama, but instead of describing his qualifications and vision, it offered answers to “legitimate questions” I may have had about Obama’s religion.

Questions such as “Is he a Muslim?” and “Why is his middle name Hussein?” topped the list. Rest assured, the flier seemed to suggest as it informed me that Obama is in fact a Christian, that he regularly attends church and that he was named after his father.

I shook my head in disbelief. It was yet another example of Islamophobia in action during this presidential election season. It was also a reminder to me and to American Muslims everywhere, that we still have a long way to go before we are accepted as regular Americans and our glass ceiling is shattered. As a nation, even as we are finally starting to heal our racial wounds, we are opening new ones over faith.

Other religions have aroused curiosity and even concern during presidential races throughout history. John F. Kennedy faced pointed questions about his Catholic faith when he ran for president. Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith also was scrutinized during his candidacy.

Only Islam, however, became the subject of hateful and pervasive innuendo during this year’s campaign. Merely suggesting Obama has associations with Islam and Muslims became an effective and widely accepted smear tactic. Always lurking just beneath the surface of those attacks was a deep-seated mistrust of Muslims and a belief that Muslims are not Americans.

I guess Muslim is the new Red.

Early on in the election cycle, e-mail rumors circulated by Obama’s opponents warned voters that the Democratic frontrunner was secretly a Muslim. That Obama rhymes with Osama also was mentioned repeatedly, as if his name made him unfit for the White House. Unofficial campaign slogans such as “McCain, not Hussein,” added to the fearful and hateful rhetoric prevalent throughout the 2008 campaign.

Perhaps the most powerful sign that we are living in a time when the fear of Muslims is rampant came from the Obama camp. A Michigan woman and Obama supporter, who happened to be Muslim, showed up at one of his appearances. She was wearing a head scarf and was standing on stage, behind the podium, where Obama was supposed to speak. A campaign staffer spotted her and moved her to a less conspicuous place. Obama later apologized for his staff member’s gaffe, but the evidence that his campaign was worried about being associated with Muslims was undeniable.

Another revelatory moment came at a McCain rally in Lakeville, when a bewildered woman made that infamous statement that she doesn’t trust Obama “because he’s an Arab.” Never mind the fact that most Arabs actually are Christians. It was clear from the tone in her voice that distrust and fear of the other were at the heart of her concerns.

No one had the audacity to condemn the anti-Muslim sentiment sweeping across the land and throughout the campaigns until Colin Powell spoke out on “Meet the Press.”

“Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?” he asked. “The answer is ‘no.’ 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.”

The lack of outcry is the most troubling part of all. Obama’s defenders were quick to point out that he was not a Muslim, but they stopped short of adding that even if he were one, who cares?

Obama’s election as the first African-American president is a sign that our collective sense of what it means to be an American is broadening. Let’s hope that the rhetoric of future campaigns will acknowledge the many Muslims who contribute to our great country and who are proud to call it home.

Allie Shah is a reporter for the Star Tribune.

Allie Shah: American Muslims get country’s cold shoulder

Paul Sancya / AP

CAMPAIGN 2008

Islam and Obama

American Muslims overwhelmingly voted Democratic.

By Lorraine Ali | NEWSWEEK

Published Nov 7, 2008

• For the past few months, not a day went by without the words “Muslim” and “Obama” being mentioned in the same sentence. From the divisive shouts and jeers at McCain rallies to the Op-Ed pages of The New York Times to an interview with Colin Powell on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Muslims—or at least the mention of them—have been more prevalent this campaign year than “Joe the Plumber.”

But beyond the use of the term Muslim as a pejorative, and accusations by the far right that Obama was himself a secret follower of the Quran, what did real Muslim-Americans think of the Chicago senator? And how did they vote? The American Muslim Task Force on Civil Rights and Elections released a poll today of over 600 Muslims from more than 10 states, including Florida and Pennsylvania, and it revealed that 89 percent of respondents voted for Obama, while only 2 percent voted for McCain. It also indicated that 95 percent of Muslims polled cast a ballot in this year’s presidential election—the highest turnout in a U.S. election ever—and 14 percent of those were first-time voters. The Gallup Center for Muslim studies estimates that U.S. Muslims favored Obama in greater numbers than did Hispanics (67 percent of whom voted for Obama) and nearly matched that of African-Americans, 93 percent of whom voted for Obama. More than two thirds who were polled said the economy was the most important issue affecting their decision on Nov. 4th, while 16 percent said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan informed their vote—numbers that put Muslims roughly on a par with the general population.

Many Muslim Americans also changed their party affiliations for this election. The country’s Muslim population, estimated at between 7 to 8 million, has traditionally voted along conservative, Republican lines. Today, more than two thirds of American Muslims polled say they consider themselves to be Democrats, while only 4 percent see themselves as Republicans (29 percent identified themselves as Independents.) The shift began in 2004—in part because of the GOP’s mishandling of civil liberties, from wiretapping American citizens to detaining Muslims in the United States and Guantanamo without trial, and because of the war in Iraq. This year, many more were drawn into the Democratic party by Obama himself. Muslims across the country were captivated by the senator’s promise of unity and hope. On the Muslim-Americans for Obama Web site (Mafo2008.com), their mission statement includes the following: “That we support Barack Obama because, among other reasons, he rejects the politics of fear, challenging our nation to embrace its collective identity, where each American has a stake in the success and well-being of every American.”

“All the Muslim Americans I know were excited and electrified by him,” says Salman Ahmed, the New York-based guitarist and singer of the Pakistani-American rock band Junoon. He’s dedicated several recent concerts to getting the vote out for Obama. “It was not like ‘Good, Obama gets the Muslim world.’ It was ‘Oh my God! Here’s a guy who understands the world, us, America.’ Voting for him was a no brainer.”

But many Muslims kept their presidential preference a secret in the months leading up to Super Tuesday, fearing that an endorsement from them might in fact work against Obama. After all, this was an election year in which the word “Muslim” was used as shorthand to connote anti-American leanings and a hidden love of terrorism. A recent study by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a media watchdog group, found that the mainstream press didn’t do enough to challenge the election-year smears of Islam by such conservative talk show hosts as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, or counter accusations that Obama was “one of them” by detractors such as “Obama Nation” author Jerome Corsi. “We are the bogeyman now,” joked a secular Muslim woman last month during a conversation regarding Obama (she preferred to remain anonymous). “Yes, I want to shout my endorsement of him from the rooftops, but I do not want to mess up any chance of Obama becoming the next president. How crazy is this position we’ve been put in?”

But the ploy to connect Obama to a demonized Islam may have backfired. Weeks before the election, a nonprofit group which calls itself the Clarion Fund sent out an anti-Muslim DVD titled “Obsession” in Sunday papers across America; copies were also mailed to various voters in swing states. The DVD paired images of Nazis with images of Muslims, over and over and over again. Its arrival on the eve of the election was clearly intended to scare voters into supporting McCain, turning them against the candidate whose middle name happens to be “Hussein.” “It was intended to be a way of linking Obama to Islam, but it backfired when a lot of people began saying wait, what’s going on?” says Jen’nan Read, a professor of sociology at Duke University. “It not only mobilized many Muslim-American voters, but brought out other undecided voters in support of Obama rather than McCain.”

American Muslims Overwhelmingly Backed Obama | Newsweek Politics | Newsweek.com