A Twitter trend that surpassed its intended purpose – and backfired a little – thanks to the English Defence League's (EDL) Tommy Robinson.

April 15, 2012, just another day in Tommy Robinson's growingly Islamicised Britain. Well, it was meant to be just another day, until the master intellectual, visionary strategist – and leader of the EDL – spotted a window of opportunity to whip up further anti-Muslim sentiments.  That night he logged into Twitter on his computer and, to his absolute consternation, observed that the homepage featured an image of a mosque.

The national hero and beacon of British liberal society that he is, he immediately tweeted, “Welcome to the Twitter homepage has a picture of a mosque, what a joke #creepingsharia”. Having an image of a supposed mosque featured on the Twitter homepage was evidence enough for this intelligent, patriotic young man, that Sharia law was indeed slowly, but surely, permeating into the mainstream. Very soon, every woman in Britain will be required by law to dress in a burka out of modesty, akin to the many EDL members who proudly cover their faces during protests.

Of course, this is someone who also tweeted, “I support Israel, so what! In fact I would go one further! I would fight to defend Israel the shining beacon in the middle east! #defendit”. Some Shining Beacon that.

This 'mosque' that Robinson was tweeting about, it later transpires, was this building which we have all seen and heard of. Of course, I will never compare my uncle with the epitome of supreme IQ that is Robinson, but the last time my uncle checked, it was not a mosque, and probably never had been in the 500 years or so of its existence. To my credit, the assumption that it may be about five centuries old was made by me, not my uncle.

On April 12, 2012, Br. Tarek Mehanna was sentenced by a federal judge to 17.5 years in prison, and so ended another example of the injustice of our government against its own citizens. Having been able to sit in on the trial and sentencing, it became clear that Tarek was being punished merely for expressing unpopular speech and for his refusal to become a government informant.

I reiterate here what has been expressed by many others: for as long as I have known Tarek, I have known him to be kind, caring, and upstanding individual. In his sentencing hearing, he gave a powerful and moving speech which made evident that no matter the charges leveled against him, he would not compromise his beliefs. His speech was so moving that it elicited loud applause and takbirs from the hundreds of supporters in attendance (many of which were not from the Muslim community).

Tarek's statement to the court has been included below. May Allah give him and his family ease and patience during this time of trial. Amin.

Detailed coverage of the proceedings of the trial can be found on the Free Tarek websites: freetarek.wordpress.com and www.freetarek.com

Read to Judge O'Toole during his sentencing on April 12th, 2012.

In the name of God, the most Gracious, the most Merciful,

Exactly four years ago this month I was finishing my work shift at a local hospital. As I was walking to my car I was approached by two federal agents. They said that I had a choice to make: I could do things the easy way, or I could do them the hard way. The “easy” way, as they explained, was that I would become an informant for the government, and if I did so I would never see the inside of a courtroom or a prison cell. As for the hard way, this is it. Here I am, having spent the majority of the four years since then in a solitary cell the size of a small closet, in which I am locked down for 23 hours each day. The FBI and these prosecutors worked very hard—and the government spent millions of tax dollars – to put me in that cell, keep me there, put me on trial, and finally to have me stand here before you today to be sentenced to even more time in a cell.

In the weeks leading up to this moment, many people have offered suggestions as to what I should say to you. Some said I should plead for mercy in hopes of a light sentence, while others suggested I would be hit hard either way. But what I want to do is just talk about myself for a few minutes.

When I refused to become an informant, the government responded by charging me with the “crime” of supporting the mujahideen fighting the occupation of Muslim countries around the world. Or as they like to call them, “terrorists.” I wasn't born in a Muslim country, though. I was born and raised right here in America and this angers many people: how is it that I can be an American and believe the things I believe, take the positions I take? Everything a man is exposed to in his environment becomes an ingredient that shapes his outlook, and I'm no different. So, in more ways than one, it's because of America that I am who I am.

When I was six, I began putting together a massive collection of comic books. Batman implanted a concept in my mind, introduced me to a paradigm as to how the world is set up: that there are oppressors, there are the oppressed, and there are those who step up to defend the oppressed. This resonated with me so much that throughout the rest of my childhood, I gravitated towards any book that reflected that paradigm – Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and I even saw an ethical dimension to The Catcher in the Rye.

By the time I began high school and took a real history class, I was learning just how real that paradigm is in the world. I learned about the Native Americans and what befell them at the hands of European settlers. I learned about how the descendents of those European settlers were in turn oppressed under the tyranny of King George III. I read about Paul Revere, Tom Paine, and how Americans began an armed insurgency against British forces – an insurgency we now celebrate as the American revolutionary war. As a kid I even went on school field trips just blocks away from where we sit now. I learned about Harriet Tubman, Nat Turner, John Brown, and the fight against slavery in this country. I learned about Emma Goldman, Eugene Debs, and the struggles of the labor unions, working class, and poor. I learned about Anne Frank, the Nazis, and how they persecuted minorities and imprisoned dissidents. I learned about Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and the civil rights struggle. I learned about Ho Chi Minh, and how the Vietnamese fought for decades to liberate themselves from one invader after another. I learned about Nelson Mandela and the fight against apartheid in South Africa. Everything I learned in those years confirmed what I was beginning to learn when I was six: that throughout history, there has been a constant struggle between the oppressed and their oppressors. With each struggle I learned about, I found myself consistently siding with the oppressed, and consistently respecting those who stepped up to defend them -regardless of nationality, regardless of religion. And I never threw my class notes away. As I stand here speaking, they are in a neat pile in my bedroom closet at home.

From all the historical figures I learned about, one stood out above the rest. I was impressed by many things about Malcolm X, but above all, I was fascinated by the idea of transformation, his transformation. I don't know if you've seen the movie “X” by Spike Lee, it's over three and a half hours long, and the Malcolm at the beginning is different from the Malcolm at the end. He starts off as an illiterate criminal, but ends up a husband, a father, a protective and eloquent leader for his people, a disciplined Muslim performing the Hajj in Makkah, and finally, a martyr. Malcolm's life taught me that Islam is not something inherited; it's not a culture or ethnicity. It's a way of life, a state of mind anyone can choose no matter where they come from or how they were raised. This led me to look deeper into Islam, and I was hooked. I was just a teenager, but Islam answered the question that the greatest scientific minds were clueless about, the question that drives the rich & famous to depression and suicide from being unable to answer: what is the purpose of life? Why do we exist in this Universe? But it also answered the question of how we're supposed to exist. And since there's no hierarchy or priesthood, I could directly and immediately begin digging into the texts of the Qur'an and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, to begin the journey of understanding what this was all about, the implications of Islam for me as a human being, as an individual, for the people around me, for the world; and the more I learned, the more I valued Islam like a piece of gold. This was when I was a teen, but even today, despite the pressures of the last few years, I stand here before you, and everyone else in this courtroom, as a very proud Muslim.

With that, my attention turned to what was happening to other Muslims in different parts of the world. And everywhere I looked, I saw the powers that be trying to destroy what I loved. I learned what the Soviets had done to the Muslims of Afghanistan. I learned what the Serbs had done to the Muslims of Bosnia. I learned what the Russians were doing to the Muslims of Chechnya. I learned what Israel had done in Lebanon – and what it continues to do in Palestine – with the full backing of the United States. And I learned what America itself was doing to Muslims. I learned about the Gulf War, and the depleted uranium bombs that killed thousands and caused cancer rates to skyrocket across Iraq. I learned about the American-led sanctions that prevented food, medicine, and medical equipment from entering Iraq, and how – according to the United Nations – over half a million children perished as a result. I remember a clip from a '60 Minutes' interview of Madeline Albright where she expressed her view that these dead children were “worth it.” I watched on September 11th as a group of people felt driven to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings from their outrage at the deaths of these children. I watched as America then attacked and invaded Iraq directly. I saw the effects of 'Shock & Awe' in the opening day of the invasion – the children in hospital wards with shrapnel from American missiles sticking out of their foreheads (of course, none of this was shown on CNN). I learned about the town of Haditha, where 24 Muslims – including a 76-year old man in a wheelchair, women, and even toddlers – were shot up and blown up in their bedclothes as the slept by US Marines. I learned about Abeer al-Janabi, a fourteen-year old Iraqi girl gang-raped by five American soldiers, who then shot her and her family in the head, then set fire to their corpses. I just want to point out, as you can see, Muslim women don't even show their hair to unrelated men. So try to imagine this young girl from a conservative village with her dress torn off, being sexually assaulted by not one, not two, not three, not four, but five soldiers. Even today, as I sit in my jail cell, I read about the drone strikes which continue to kill Muslims daily in places like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Just last month, we all heard about the seventeen Afghan Muslims – mostly mothers and their kids – shot to death by an American soldier, who also set fire to their corpses. These are just the stories that make it to the headlines, but one of the first concepts I learned in Islam is that of loyalty, of brotherhood – that each Muslim woman is my sister, each man is my brother, and together, we are one large body who must protect each other. In other words, I couldn't see these things beings done to my brothers & sisters – including by America – and remain neutral. My sympathy for the oppressed continued, but was now more personal, as was my respect for those defending them.

I mentioned Paul Revere – when he went on his midnight ride, it was for the purpose of warning the people that the British were marching to Lexington to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock, then on to Concord to confiscate the weapons stored there by the Minuteman. By the time they got to Concord, they found the Minuteman waiting for them, weapons in hand. They fired at the British, fought them, and beat them. From that battle came the American Revolution. There's an Arabic word to describe what those Minutemen did that day. That word is: JIHAD, and this is what my trial was about. All those videos and translations and childish bickering over 'Oh, he translated this paragraph' and 'Oh, he edited that sentence,' and all those exhibits revolved around a single issue: Muslims who were defending themselves against American soldiers doing to them exactly what the British did to America. It was made crystal clear at trial that I never, ever plotted to “kill Americans” at shopping malls or whatever the story was. The government's own witnesses contradicted this claim, and we put expert after expert up on that stand, who spent hours dissecting my every written word, who explained my beliefs. Further, when I was free, the government sent an undercover agent to prod me into one of their little “terror plots,” but I refused to participate. Mysteriously, however, the jury never heard this.

So, this trial was not about my position on Muslims killing American civilians. It was about my position on Americans killing Muslim civilians, which is that Muslims should defend their lands from foreign invaders – Soviets, Americans, or Martians. This is what I believe. It's what I've always believed, and what I will always believe. This is not terrorism, and it's not extremism. it's the simple logic of self-defense. It's what the arrows on that seal above your head represent: defense of the homeland. So, I disagree with my lawyers when they say that you don't have to agree with my beliefs – no. Anyone with commonsense and humanity has no choice but to agree with me. If someone breaks into your home to rob you and harm your family, logic dictates that you do whatever it takes to expel that invader from your home. But when that home is a Muslim land, and that invader is the US military, for some reason the standards suddenly change. Common sense is renamed “terrorism” and the people defending themselves against those who come to kill them from across the ocean become “the terrorists” who are “killing Americans.” The mentality that America was victimized with when British soldiers walked these streets 2 ½ centuries ago is the same mentality Muslims are victimized by as American soldiers walk their streets today. It's the mentality of colonialism. When Sgt. Bales shot those Afghans to death last month, all of the focus in the media was on him—his life, his stress, his PTSD, the mortgage on his home—as if he was the victim. Very little sympathy was expressed for the people he actually killed, as if they're not real, they're not humans. Unfortunately, this mentality trickles down to everyone in society, whether or not they realize it. Even with my lawyers, it took nearly two years of discussing, explaining, and clarifying before they were finally able to think outside the box and at least ostensibly accept the logic in what I was saying. Two years! If it took that long for people so intelligent, whose job it is to defend me, to de-program themselves, then to throw me in front of a randomly selected jury under the premise that they're my “impartial peers,” I mean, come on. I wasn't tried before a jury of my peers because with the mentality gripping America today, I have no peers. Counting on this fact, the government prosecuted me – not because they needed to, but simply because they could.

I learned one more thing in history class: America has historically supported the most unjust policies against its minorities – practices that were even protected by the law – only to look back later and ask: 'what were we thinking?' Slavery, Jim Crow, the internment of the Japanese during World War II – each was widely accepted by American society, each was defended by the Supreme Court. But as time passed and America changed, both people and courts looked back and asked 'What were we thinking?' Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by the South African government, and given a life sentence. But time passed, the world changed, they realized how oppressive their policies were, that it was not he who was the terrorist, and they released him from prison. He even became president. So, everything is subjective – even this whole business of “terrorism” and who is a “terrorist.” It all depends on the time and place and who the superpower happens to be at the moment.

In your eyes, I'm a terrorist, I'm the only one standing here in an orange jumpsuit and it's perfectly reasonable that I be standing here in an orange jumpsuit. But one day, America will change and people will recognize this day for what it is. They will look at how hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed and maimed by the US military in foreign countries, yet somehow I'm the one going to prison for “conspiring to kill and maim” in those countries – because I support the Mujahidin defending those people. They will look back on how the government spent millions of dollars to imprison me as a “terrorist,” yet if we were to somehow bring Abeer al-Janabi back to life in the moment she was being gang-raped by your soldiers, to put her on that witness stand and ask her who the “terrorists” are, she sure wouldn't be pointing at me.

The government says that I was obsessed with violence, obsessed with “killing Americans.” But, as a Muslim living in these times, I can think of a lie no more ironic.

-Tarek Mehanna

4/12/12

“Almost 1400 years after the Prophet Muhammad first articulated God's law –the Sharī'ah- its earthly interpreters are still arguing over what it means. Hardliners reduce it to amputations, veiling, holy war and stoning. Others say that it is humanity's only guarantee of a just society. In Heaven On Earth, the criminal barrister and prizewinning writer, Sadakat Kadri, sets out to see who is right.”

A compelling enough introduction in the blurb of Sadakat Kadri's latest literary endeavour, Heaven On Earth – A Journey Through Sharī'a Law.

Muslim-born Kadri, a human rights barrister in the UK, has published two acclaimed titles previously; The Trial: A History, from Socrates to O.J. Simpson, a historical narrative on Western criminal jurisprudence, and a travel-guide to the city of Prague. An impressive portfolio, and possibly even one that licenses him to publish a tirelessly-researched documentation of the history of Sharī'ah and its application and relevance to modern times.

A travel guide on Prague followed by a chronological account of criminal law in the West.  What was it that got you thinking 'Sharī'ah' as your next literary undertaking?

Honestly, I had contemplated writing this for a few years before I actually got around to it, but what probably really got the ball rolling were the bombings in July of 2005 of the London public transport network. The event in itself and the sentiment that followed.

Those murders were plotted and carried out by people who claimed to have acted under the banner of Islam, and of course this sparked a convoluted public and media debate on the tenets of Islamic legislation in the West – and has even dragged itself into Western courtrooms today.

And admittedly my curiosity, like most others, was also roused by the same 'hot-button' topics almost always associated with any mention of Sharī'ah; i.e. corporal punishment, public stoning, concept of jihād, etc.

Among all that noise I realized that no one seemed to be countering this cynicism, and those that did attempt to clarify the rulings of Sharī'ah didn't seem to have much ammunition with which to work.

For as I've mentioned in the prologue: “Fiery preachers and random Muslim youths were making all sorts of bellicose assertions about 'the shari'a'. People who wanted to be angry with them were assuming that the Sharī'a meant what they said. Noise, rather than information, was rushing to fill a void, while critical questions were going not only unanswered, but unasked.”

Tell us about Heaven On Earth.

Heaven On Earth is an historical narrative segmented into two; the first part is a look at 1400 years of Islamic history, starting from the first revelations and ends at the current state of Islam post 9/11, and the surge of hard line extremism as an effect of the events of the past 40-60 years.

In the second part of the book, I've segued by introducing the idea of change to modernity, take for instance the issues of criminal justice in relation to contemporary relevance, also detailing the much-debated topics of apostasy and tolerance.

I chose to highlight issues of 'jihād' and the publicly-perceived zero-tolerance to blasphemy, in order to counter the preconceived notion that this is fundamentally expected.  It wouldn't be fair to evade some topics and focus on the safer ones.

And what did you discover on a personal level in those 3 years of researching for the book? Did you only find more fuel for the fire, or the contrary?

I travelled quite extensively for this book, from the madrassas in Pakistan to places of worship in Iran. I spoke to teachers of Islam, shaykhs and muftis, human rights activists and both Sunni and Shi'a clerics – in order to get as extensive a sample, and as balanced a documentation.

One thing I was very impressed with was the level of debate, healthy debate, I was on the receiving end of. Everyone I spoke to was willing to speak and they were all very courteous to me. I'd have arguments with them on a particular issue, and they'd argue back. We'd walk away disagreeing but understood that this was all part of the process.

The entire experience was as much a journey for me as it is one for the reader. It truly is a shame that the public is drawn to the negative sensational perception of Sharī'ah being depicted in Western media. No one wants to hear what moderate clerics implementing Sharī'ah rightfully have to say, preferring instead to headline unbiased fatāwa. You realize how nonsensical it is to reduce Islam and Sharī'ah to issues of jihād and amputations when it is far from being just about criminal rulings. On the contrary, the majority of it constitutes everyday morals and conduct; simple etiquettes like using the right hand to eat/drink with, and the festivities entailed for the 'Īd al-Fiṭr for example.

Armed with what I had learned myself after having completed my research, I wanted even more to humanize it to the readers; not just as a bunch of rules, but a collection of wisdoms encompassing civilizations and that which requires an understanding of  Islamic history. It is unfortunate that even people who do read into the history, forget to include context.

The argument shouldn't ever be whether the Shari'ah in itself is right or wrong, but if the interpretation of it is correct or not.

Do you believe you've achieved what you first intended on delivering?

My intention all along has been to clarify any ambiguities attached to Sharī'ah law, hoping to open the dialogue and engage debate.

I do want to influence opinion, but don't want to claim I have all the answers. I feel it's more important to have a discussion about this, instead of making our own assumptions, or even avoiding the topic completely. For there are extreme opinions on either side, but let's agree on some fundamentals based on historical facts to apply in context. Muslims themselves should be having this discussion.

Yet all the time I was perfectly aware that I wasn't writing for just one audience. This book should reach out to the liberal Muslims, and to those with anti-Muslim sentiment. And also be read in all the places I've researched from, not just the West.

This was material that had to be written very gently, and while I made the effort to portray both sides of the story, maintaining a balance, but not to a point that there was no stand taken. I wanted to provide a sympathetic voice without being too judgemental nor away from an opinion.

I don't consider myself an ambassador of Sharī'ah and Islam, nor do I claim to be a spokesperson for anyone. I have just written what I consider a well-researched book.

What has been the general response to the book so far?

To be honest I expected a lot of criticism, but surprisingly the response has been mostly positive. Of course I have had the odd accusation or two of being a 'crazy extremist' and 'Muslim apologist' but that right there is a sure-fire sign of an author's success, right? [laughs]

In tune with recent outcry on the incorporation of Sharī'ah legislation in American/British courts, why do you think most Western governments are so afraid of/averse to Sharī'ah?

I genuinely believe that the debate on Sharī'ah has now just been reduced to a fantastic way of whipping up political support. It seems a growing trend with most politicians who aren't armed with a good enough argument, to distract from themselves by highlighting the 'horrors' of Shari'ah law and promising its eradication as part of their campaigns.

My personal stance on the issue (read Sadakat's piece on the same in the London Review of Books) is not to say that Sharī'ah should be independent from British law, but that Muslims shouldn't be the only community prevented from taking their argument to the tribunal.

Sadakat Kadri was interviewed at the Emirates Airlines Festival of Literature held in Dubai, UAE earlier this month. He was one of many invited guest authors, and will soon be visiting the US as part of his book tour.

Princeton University professor and political philosopher Robert P. George has recently become a target of controversy, accused by some of being anti-Muslim. The critics have cited only the report Fear Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America by Wajahat Ali which draws attention to the role of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in making grants to some vehement (and, in my view, misguided) critics of Islam and of leading Muslim organizations. George serves as one of eleven members on the Board of the Bradley Foundation. Some have inferred from this that George himself must be hostile to Islam and to Muslims. Based on this, Islamophobia Today has even gone so far as to sponsor a petition opposing the recent appointment of George to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF).

However, on closer examination, this inference about George is significantly mistaken. His record shows public support for respectful, informed engagement of Muslims in our society today and building partnerships with Muslims to promote public welfare on issues of shared concern. Moreover, George has, in fact, repeatedly and consistently raised his voice in defense of Islam and the rights of Muslims, and he has courageously challenged other conservatives when they have unfairly attacked the Muslim faith or its adherents.

For example, in June of 2011, when then-presidential candidate Herman Cain said that, if elected, he would permit Muslims to serve in his administration only after exacting from them a “loyalty proof” higher than that which would be required of members of other faiths, George rebuked Cain, calling his comments “wrong, foolish, and unacceptable.” They are, George said, “disrespectful of Muslims, the vast majority of whom in our country are, as Cain himself seems to acknowledge, loyal, honorable citizens; and it is incompatible with a sound understanding of religious freedom (and with the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution's no-religious-tests clause).

Repeatedly, George, drawing on the teachings of Catholicism, has reminded his fellow Catholics of the official teaching of Catholicism on Islam, promulgated at the Second Vatican Council in 1965

The Church has a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God's plan, to whose faith Muslims link their own. Although not acknowledging Jesus as God, they revere him as a prophet; his virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly invoke. Further, they await the Day of Judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. For this reason they highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer, almsgiving, and fasting.

George and Shaykh Hamza Yusuf have collaborated repeatedly, and along the way established a relationship of tremendous mutual respect and friendship. These two men of extraordinary faith and a caliber of intellect attained by few, have found in each other a peer. The two men have plainly been influenced by each other's writings, and they speak of each other in glowing terms. Twice they have conducted major public dialogues on the importance of Islamic-Christian understanding and cooperation, one at Princeton and one at Georgetown, as captured here on video. At George's invitation, Shaykh Hamza has been a featured speaker at Princeton University's annual interfaith Respect Life Sunday service. Also at George's invitation, Shaykh Hamza contributed to a Witherspoon Institute forum on the “Social Costs of Pornography” and a book by the same name.

Shaykh Hamza has written of George:

Robert George, to me, represents what is best in the conservative movement. He is a scholar who loves the Western tradition and is committed to a higher set of values than what is presented today as morality. He is also a wonderfully modest man, despite his remarkable intellect and knowledge, and represents real Catholic ethical commitment. He is genuinely dismayed by the attacks of certain segments of the conservative Christian right on Islam. As a devout Catholic, he understands how religion is threatened today by the profoundly secular mindset that has taken over. However, he also recognizes that just as the great faith of St. Augustine and St. Aquinas is today misrepresented in the press as a religion infested with pedophiles, so too, the great faith of our saints, Imam al-Ghazali and Fakhar al-Din al-Razi, is being misrepresented as a religion rooted in terror that produces violent followers thirsting after the blood of infidels.

At Princeton University George has also helped to arrange for other Muslims, such as Abdullah Saeed, Suzy Ismail, and Ed Husain, to speak on campus. In his Princeton University courses on civil liberties George has invited Muslim clergy such as Imam Hamad Chebli of the Islamic Center of Central Jersey to speak to students on the tenets of Islam.  “Many non-Muslim students have misguided notions of what Islam actually teaches about issues such as religious freedom,” George has observed.  “I want to make sure they hear the truth about Islam from persons who speak with authority from within the faith.” Earlier this year at the university George published a series of interviews with Princeton faculty, representing different traditions of faith in the campus newspaper under the title “Keeping Faith.” His first interview in the series was with the Palestinian-American Muslim scholar Dr. Amaney Jamal of Princeton's Department of Politics. George's respect for Islam and esteem for his Muslim colleague shines through.

In 2009 George supported establishment of a new Islam and Civil Society Project (of which I am the Director) at the Witherspoon Institute in order to seek greater understanding of Islam and find ways to partner with Muslims on issues of shared concern such as supporting marriage and religious freedom, and he has remained a tremendous supporter of this project since its founding. The Islam and Civil Society Project has run an annual seminar on Islam since then, with the upcoming 2012 seminar focused on, “The Quran in the Modern World,” including speakers Dr. Abdullah Saeed, Dr. Mahan Mirza, and Asma Uddin. Articles I have published in my work while Director of this Islam and Civil Society Project are available here.

As a matter of full-disclosure, and as a point of pride, I should note that as George's colleague at the Witherspoon Institute I have had the pleasure of working with him in many important causes, including the defense of the rights of Muslims. We have spoken out together against anti-Islamic opposition, to construction of mosques in American cities and against the Florida Family Association's (FFA) boycott of sponsors of the television reality show “All American Muslim.” In a letter to the President of the FFA, we wrote that the vast majority of our Muslim fellow citizens “are good people and good Americans. They share our fundamental moral values and our commitments to democratic institutions and civil and religious liberty. They do not promote hatred of Christians and Jews and have no desire to establish an Islamic theocracy. They are as appalled as we are at the rhetoric and conduct of those of their religion who do promote hatred and who seek to undermine democratic freedoms.” We went on:

It is fundamentally unjust to tar all or most Muslims with the brush of extremism; and, as Christians and Americans, we must never countenance injustice. Moreover, effectively countering the threats posed by genuine extremists requires us to welcome, as friends and allies, Muslims who share our opposition to radicalism and violence, who value their American citizenship and American freedom just as we do, and who contribute constructively to their communities and the larger society. When we treat our Muslim fellow citizens justly, and when we welcome them as partners in our efforts on behalf of life, liberty, and human dignity, we are being true both to our Christian faith and to our American heritage

The New York Times calls George “our nation's most influential conservative Christian thinker.” Another profile of George calls him a, “Conservative Heavyweight.” To be sure, the public expression of these sentiments by a figure as important as Robert George in the American conservative movement is particularly important, and even risky to George himself, at a time when the American conservative movement is, sadly, riddled with activists espousing anti-Muslim perspectives. Indeed, as a result of expressing his support for Muslims and the rights of Muslims as fellow Americans, George has come in for his share of abuse from anti-Muslim extremists. (For example, one letter he and I received from an American in response to one of our joint articles about Muslims featured a stamp on the envelope, “Mecca delenda est,” Latin for “Mecca must be destroyed,” and the letter went on from there.) In spite of all this he has stood his ground.

Yet what about George's position on the Bradley Foundation board? Is it inconsistent with his advocacy of the rights of Muslims and his work for Christian-Muslim cooperation? The Bradley Board discussions are confidential and, says George, “what I have to say about Bradley grants and grantees I will say to them and my colleagues on the Bradley board.” Frankly I am glad that he is part of the Bradley Board. He can have more influence by participating inside than by protesting from outside, and having so prominent a defender of Muslim rights, and of Islam as a faith, in such a visible place of honor and influence in the conservative movement sends a clear message to other conservatives that they need not, and should not, view Islam with contempt or regard their Muslim fellow citizens with suspicion.

Someone like Robert George who enjoys enormous prestige and influence in the conservative movement could easily remain quiet in the face of anti-Muslim hostility. He has little to gain personally by speaking out, and more than a little to lose. Liberals don't like him because of his strong support for the pro-life cause and for traditional marriage. By publicly and forcefully speaking up for the rights of Muslims, he risks alienating the friends and supporters he does have, who are mainly on the right. Having had the pleasure and honor of working with him for several years, I have seen that he runs that risk because he truly believes that as a Christian he has a duty to defend the rights of those whom he never hesitates to call his “Muslim brothers and sisters”.  His appointment to USCIRF brings to this Commission a man with deep understanding of and commitment to religious freedom, who approaches his work with a strong, principled posture of fairness and respect for all religious believers. And as his track record shows, “all” for George includes Muslims.

Jennifer S. Bryson, Ph.D., is Director of the Islam and Civil Society Project at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, NJ.

Israel's nervousness and isolation is best indicated by the attempts to counter this movement. It has organized massive public relation campaigns, initiated events such as Israel Peace Week and has sent out delegations on speaking tours all over the world. Condemnation of IAW pour in from right-wing politicians and media outlets continue to brand the event as a hate fest which is rooted in misinformation and anti-Semitism.

All this comes at a time when informed commentators agree that Israel implements a system of apartheid. A recent report by the United Nations concluded that Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories 'exhibit features of colonialism and apartheid'. B'Tasleem, Israel's leading human rights organization, published in its report Land Grab that Israel 'has created a system of legally sanctioned separation based on discrimination that has, perhaps, no parallel any where in the world since the apartheid regime of South Africa'. The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa also concluded in its legal study that Israel is guilty of apartheid crimes.

Why use apartheid?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a multi-faceted one. At the core of it lies an illegal occupation coupled with innumerable human rights violations, war crimes, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, colonialism and apartheid. Solidarity activists of the past largely focused their struggle around ending the occupation, human rights violations and state-sponsored terrorism.

Focusing on the apartheid nature of the occupation represents a newer strategy in the movement, and perhaps the most effective one to date. This is a dimension of the conflict which was ignored largely in the past; partially because it is something which has developed overtime. It is the aspect of the conflict which affects Palestinians everyday.  Apartheid is a term which stirs strong emotions in the Western psyche; by exposing Israel as a perpetrator of this crime one has a much higher chance of changing public opinion towards the Zionist state. This has also allowed activists to structure their strategies in a similar fashion to the anti-apartheid movement of the 1980's. The apartheid policies of South Africa ended shortly after US withdrew its support for the regime. By forcing our governments to change their unequivocal support of Israel, we have the greatest chance of aiding an end to the conflict.

Israeli Apartheid Week is a unique (and proud!) Canadian contribution to the Palestinian solidarity movement. It started off in 2005 at the University of Toronto by a group of dedicated student activists. It was shortly followed by the BDS Call (Boycotts, Divestments, Sanctions) made by 170 Palestinian civil societies. Through lectures, protests, concerts and film screenings, this week is dedicated to raising awareness about the atrocities being committed against the Palestinian people. It also focuses on measures that can be employed by average citizens to help end Israeli apartheid. The event is now organized on university campuses in over a 100 cities across the globe.

Success of the anti-apartheid movement for South Africa was rooted in educating the public about this inhumane system. Given the lack of knowledge about this issue amongst the masses and to emulate former movement, this series will seek to inform people about what apartheid is, why it applies to Israel and how we can help fight it.

Next Post: What is Apartheid?

by Prof. Marshall Breger

Similarities between Judaism and Islam are easy to see. Both are monotheistic religions for whom the Lord is One. Both are religions based on revelation. In both, law is central, and personal and social existence is governed by a divinely ordained legal system.

There are also many obvious parallels between Judaism's legal system, known as halacha, and the Islamic legal order of sharia. Both purport to instruct us in how to attend to every aspect of one's life: one's getting up and one's going out, one's sexual practice and one's business practices. For some adherents of each, religious law also dictates political life, such as for whom to vote.
Despite this kinship, there are those in the Jewish community who would condemn Islam and sharia, arguing that, unlike Judaism, Islam is not worthy of the protections of American law.

David Yerushalmi, author of a model law banning sharia, argues that sharia differs from halacha because of its different “threat matrix.” Sharia, he tells us, requires faithful Muslims to impose Islamic law on the world “violently,” and its adherents should be charged with sedition against the United States. Rabbi Jon Hausman, a self-styled “warrior rabbi” from Massachusetts, tells us that in Judaism, unlike Islam, the law of the state is the law (in Aramaic, dina d'malchuta dina) so you don't have to worry about such religious “imperialism.”

These commentators' understanding of both sharia and halacha is markedly defective.

1. As Hausman surely knows, the reach of dina d'malchuta dina is debated among rabbinic commentators. Some limit the application of the Jewish legal system to property issues, others extend it to apply to all secular law that does not violate Jewish law. In any case, Hausman's suggestion that halacha is a personal legal system—not relevant to civic life and politics—neglects both Jewish history and halacha itself. In Baghdad during the Middle Ages and in Poland during the time of the Council of the Four Lands, from the 16th to the 18th centuries, for instance, Jewish communities had their own courts, and Jewish law was enforced by secular authorities. And even today, thousands of Jews in both the United States and Israel look to rabbinic courts and halacha to resolve all manner of civil disputes.

While clearly some Muslims do view sharia as a hegemonic political force, the vast majority of Muslims, especially those living in the West, view sharia no differently from the way Jews view the halachic system: as an overarching guide to ordering one's life. Muslim jurists have always drawn on sharia to mandate that fellow Muslims obey the laws of the land in matters that sharia does not prohibit. In numerous instances (see Koran 5:11), Muslims are told to “honor their contracts” and so to honor the “social contract” represented by the law of the land. The Fiqh Council of North America, the leading interpreter of Islamic law in the United States, ruled as recently as September 2011 that “there is no inherent conflict between the normative values of Islam and the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

2. Daniel Pipes recounts in a 2009 article an incident in England when the Indian Muslim owner of an old age home near Manchester proposed to switch to serving only halal food in the facility. After residents complained, the owner retracted the policy. To Pipes, the owner's desire to remove pork from the menu, even though apparently not implemented, is proof that Islam wishes to impose itself on all around it. But is this drive for “imperium” the only explanation?

Indeed, Jewish law would have great sympathy for the position taken by the Indian entrepreneur. Though there are gray areas, Jewish law generally holds that one cannot benefit (or profit) from the sale of mixed milk and meat products. The legal compendium the Shulhan Aruch forbids Jews from selling non-kosher products on a regular basis (Yoreh De'ah 117.1). And anyone who has read Daphne Barak-Erez's 2007 monograph Outlawed Pigs: Law, Religion, and Culture in Israel will appreciate the difficulties of commerce in pork products (or “white meat” as it is politely called) in Israel.

3. Critics of Islam make much of the Shiite legal doctrine of taqquia and the related concept of kitman, which allow one to dissemble or evade by misdirection in order to save a life or community from imminent destruction (see Koran 16:106). For these critics, the takeaway is that Muslims lie when it is in their interest, so we cannot trust their promises or make treaties with them.
But numerous Koranic references tell the believer to “mix not the truth with falsehood nor conceal the truth when you know what it is” (2:42). And further, “Conceal not [the truth]; for whomever conceals it is burdened with sin” (2:283).

Again, we must look to Jewish law analogues. Even the Chofetz Chaim, the rabbinic scholar most associated with truth-telling, allows “white lies” when they will produce social and interpersonal peace. (No threat of imminent destruction is required.) Maimonides allows one to lie about one's religion to save one's own life. And does anyone remember the Marranos?

My point is not to analyze the nuances of halacha, let alone sharia, but rather to underscore the inconsistency of attacking Islam for activities that Jewish law and practice would also permit, or even require.

These broadside attacks on sharia are reminiscent of Jewish polemical literature after the rise of Islam in the seventh and eighth centuries designed to show Judaism as superior. Later scholars such as the Meiri, though, moved on from polemics to classify Islam as a monotheistic religion close to Judaism. While there are certainly fundamentalist interpretations of Islam that we rightfully find dangerous and deplorable, it is time that Jews in America go beyond “gotcha” polemics and stop treating sharia and Islam as illegitimate expressions of man's search for the divine.

Marshall Breger is a professor of law at Catholic University.

Mindanao, Philippines was recently hit by Typhoon Sendong (Washi), the deadliest cyclone to hit the country in the last 12 years. More than 1200 people died, drowning as the main cause of death. Tens of thousands of families were affected and displaced. Floods carrying logs, rocks and mud from the mountains damaged homes, cars and infrastructure. Since the storm struck in the middle of the night and there was no flood warning system, the population was unprepared resulting in a great deal of damage and a high death toll.

Later about a month after the disaster, people are still recovering in evacuation centers and there is ongoing reconstruction and relief work. As delegates of Amal Foundation of Malaysia providing assistance and community service, we had the opportunity to learn about and see the condition of the Muslim communities in Mindanao, at first hand. We collaborated with the Bangsamoro Development Agency (BDA), an organization that has been mandated to determine, lead and manage relief, rehabilitation and development programs in the conflict-affected areas of Mindanao. We focused primarily on Muslims because extending help and supplying aid directly to them is crucial, since Muslims are often excluded from the official government's listing of victims. Also, as brothers and sisters in faith, it is our collective responsibility to assist them with their problems.

Allāh says in the Qurʾān:

“The believers, both men and women, are awlia (helpers, supporters, allies) to each other…” [Al-Tawbah, 71]

The Prophet also said:

“Whoever relieves a calamity that has struck a believer in this world, Allāh will relieve for him one of the calamities of the day of Judgment, and whoever makes things easy for a person in trouble, Allāh will make his matters easy in this life and in the hereafter, and whoever shields the faults of a Muslim, Allāh will shield his faults in this world and the hereafter, and Allāh will help and support his servant as long as he is helping and supporting his brother” [Sahih Muslim]

“The most beloved people to Allāh are those who help and benefit others the most, and the most beloved actions to Allāh , is pleasure and happiness that you cause to enter the heart of a Muslim, or to solve one of his problems, or to pay off his debt, or to prevent him from being hungry, and working to help my Muslim brother is more beloved to me than making I'tikaf in this masjid for a month, and whoever controls his anger, Allah will conceal his faults, and whoever controls his ill feelings, Allāh will fill his heart with contentment on the day of Judgment, and whoever strives to help fulfill a need for his Muslim brother, Allāh will make his feet steadfast on the day of Judgment, and bad manners ruin good deeds just like vinegar ruins honey.” [Sahih Al-Jami' - Graded sound by Sheikh Al-Albani]

History of Muslims in Philippines

Indeed, it is true when it is said that history is written by the victors. During our brief stay, we learned about the other side of history and came to understand the long and gory struggle of our welcoming hosts.

The arrival of Islam in the Malay-Indonesia archipelago and the Southern Philippines dates back to the late 13^th and early 14^th centuries when Arab merchants and missionaries brought Islam to Southeast Asia through the development of trade and trade routes. In the Southern Philippines, the core of the Muslim communities was developed when Muslim missionaries and traders married the local population and produced Muslim descendants. It was later that Muslim political figures arrived and introduced Islamic political, educational and religious institutions.

The Sulu Sultanate was established around 1450, and Muslim influence spread northward, reaching the island of Luzon. In fact, when the Spanish colonialists arrived, they were astonished to find a strong Muslim presence when they just had expelled the Moors from Spain after 800 years of conflict. Due to their similarity to the Moors, the Spaniards called them Moros, which today has become the name of preference when speaking of the Muslims in the Philippines. The Spaniards took over most of Luzon and Visayas and converted the population into Christianity.

The Sultanate was already 71 years old when the Spanish colonialists invaded the Moro territories in 1521. Due to the Spanish colonial policy of subjugating and Christianizing the Moros, there was fierce resistance and wars broke out in opposition to fight the Spanish attempts to establish dominance over Mindanao and Sulu. Having failed to conquer the Moros, the Spaniards signed them over to the Americans in the 1898 Treaty of Paris. Later, the Americans signed them over to the Filipinos when the Philippines gained independence in 1946. However, the American regime managed to abolish the sultanate as a political institution through a brutal war, and imposed their socio-cultural, economic and political institutions on Moro societies.

After independence, the Philippine government encouraged the landless non-Muslims of Luzon and Visayas to settle in Mindanao to resolve rural instability. This resulted in tension due to competition for land, and, as a result, the most productive agricultural land was taken over by the settlers. However, although Mindanao contributed significantly to the national treasury, only small ventures were planned for development in there, especially in the Muslim areas.  This systematic marginalization caused resentment among the Moros, which eventually turned into open rebellion. Consequently, influenced by a series of incidents, in particular the Jabidah massacre in 1968 where at least 28 young Muslim recruits of the Philippine army were killed by their superiors, they were convinced that armed struggle was the only way to attain self-determination.

After the evolution of political resurgences, fragmentation, clashes, ceasefires and peace talks, negotiations are now being pursued, in order to discuss the establishment of a Bangsamoro sub-state, a far cry from its original demand of independence. Although they were previously granted autonomy in 13 Muslim majority provinces, and the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was devised, discontentment resumed, as it was only autonomy in name, but not in practice.

During my trip, I came to realize that the response of some to this series of events is natural. It fits the frustration-aggression theory by Ted Gurr who argued that frustration does not necessarily lead to violence, but when deprivation is prolonged and sharply felt, it often results in anger and eventually violence.

I am not advocating violence but it is inevitable for separatist movements to rise when their aim is to attain the determination to retain control of their own culture, language and territory and not to be manipulated by foreigners and elites who deprive them of their rights.

I still remember their last remark as we were saying goodbye:

May Allāh grant them victory and we pray that we will see the fruit of their struggle in the near future insha'Allāh.

Related Video:

February 20, 2012

Message from Yale University President- Richard Levin

I am writing to state, in the strongest possible terms, that police surveillance based on religion, nationality, or peacefully expressed political opinions is antithetical to the values of Yale, the academic community, and the United States. Also I want to make sure our community knows that the Yale Police Department has not participated in any monitoring by the NYPD and was entirely unaware of NYPD activities until the recent news reports.

Read rest here

As news breaks out about the New York Police Department surveillances of Muslim Students across the East Coast, Rutgers University Muslim Alumni Association has been active in engaging in dialogue with the Rutgers Administration to ensure the safety of all students and faculty members as well as launching a “Know Your Rights” campaign for the student body on the campuses to make sure that student safety is not compromised and that the university remains a safe place for students to share their views. Rutgers University is the state university of New Jersey and the largest institution of higher learning in the state.

Can you spare a khutbah tomorrow to bring awareness to the case of the innocent and oppressed people of Syria, Homs and Baba Amr?

Here are some talking points:

1-How Muslims should be like one strong structure helping each other.
2-The obligation of Muwala' (assisting and sympathizing)
3-The role of the Muslims in helping the oppressed.
4-The virtue of shafa'ah- interceding for the week with those who have the power.
5-The responsibility to enjoin good and forbid evil.
6-The Messenger of Allah and his example in supporting the week.
7-The concern of the Prophet for the Ummah.
8-The du'a of the Prophet for the oppressed.
9-Bring examples from the sahaba and history of Islam.

Action items:

1-Make thorough dua' for Syria and Homs.
2-Do dua' nawazil in the fard salat or in public qiyam.
3-Encourage donation for the help of Syria.
4-Encourage people to write and blog about it.
5-Help college students to bring this case to their campus.
6-Call people to speak to politicians.
7-Encourage people to contact Russian and Chinese embassies to condemn their support to the oppressive regime of Syria.
8-Show passion in condemning this greatest injustice.
9-Speak about it regularly in the masjid.

My dear Imam and Khateeb, by the time you read this perhaps another 10 more innocent lives have already perished in Syria.
Do your part. Take an action. Tomorrow.