1. Lowe's pulls advertising from All American Muslim under pressure from right wing nutjobs

From the right wing nutjobs:

Florida Family Association sent out a third email alert on December 6th which reported The Learning Channel's new program called All-American Muslim. All-American Muslim is propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda's clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values. The email alert encouraged supporters to send emails to the companies (including Lowes) that advertised during the December 4th and 5th episodes.

Lowe's response (same link as above):

Thank you for contacting Lowe's. We work hard to listen to our customers and respond to their concerns. Lowe's has strict guidelines that govern the placement of our advertising. Our company advertises primarily in national, network prime-time television programs and on a variety of cable outlets. Lowe's constantly reviews advertising buys to make certain they are consistent with its policy guidelines.

While we continue to advertise on various cable networks, including TLC, there are certain programs that do not meet Lowe's advertising guidelines, including the show you brought to our attention. Lowe's will no longer be advertising on that program.

2. This resulted in an outpouring of outrage via email, phone calls, and social media. Get a glimpse from the Twitter hashtag – #LowesHatesMuslims

Even Russel Simmons got in on it:

plz ask folks 2 call @Lowes at 1.800.445.6937 ask why #loweshatesmuslims …

— Russell Simmons (@UncleRUSH) December 10, 2011

Dear @Lowes, religious hatred is UN-AMERICAN >> bit.ly/vi8KOD — Russell Simmons (@UncleRUSH) December 10, 2011

3. Earlier today Lowe's released a statement on it's Facebook page to respond to complaints

Here's their statement,

It appears that we managed to step into a hotly contested debate with strong views from virtually every angle and perspective – social, political and otherwise – and we've managed to make some people very unhappy. We are sincerely sorry. We have a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion, across our workforce and our customers, and we're proud of that longstanding commitment.

Lowe's has received a significant amount of communication on this program, from every perspective possible. Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lighting rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.

We strongly support and respect the right of our customers, the community at large, and our employees to have different views. If we have made anyone question that commitment, we apologize.

Thank you for allowing us to further explain our position.

Umm… What?! 'Managed to make some people unhappy'?? Because this was controversial, they pulled their ads and essentially stand behind it?

This stance means that the initial claims made by the Florida Family Association, in the eye's of Lowe's, has credence – i.e. that a show portraying Muslims as “normal” is really a covert ploy to hide their true 'terroristic tendencies'.

They couldn't even admit clearly who they upset, as if saying the words 'Muslim community' would somehow create more negativity for them. This is evidenced by the fact that many commenters on their Facebook page had no idea what was even going on, as this was such a useless, PR-speak, statement.

Some comments from their Facebook page in response to this statement:

I'm sorry please explain to me how giving in to the fear mongering of a bunch of religious zealots is maintaining a commitment to diversity?

Your statement is a bunch of disingenuous claptrap. If you truly believe what you're saying, you should probably also pull advertising from any show that discusses any religion.

Its only a hotly contested debate if you believe that fearmongering fanatics who think Muslim Americans are undercover terrorists who want to impose clerical sharia law in America have a legitimate argument. Otherwise, its a non issue and you are simply rejecting the very premise of being a Muslim American citizen. Thats why so many people are genuinely upset and will not be comforted by your pathetic excuse. You have taken a side on this issue by withdrawing your ads.

Now bigots can have their very own place to buy plumbing fixtures. That should make it a little easier to avoid them/you. Good work, guys. See you never.

Lowes pulled their ads from a show about the lives of some Christian American citizens on the Discovery Channel because some small fundamentalist Muslim group protested. Outrageous isn't it? Wait a minute. I got that backwards. Still outrageous isn't it?

So, do you plan on pulling all your advertisements from other programs that promote a positive christian view because of crazies like westboro baptist, who represent a minority of a whole but are more well known? Great way to pull away from a show that was helping other understand a culture.

THIS IS RIDICULOUS! Would they pull advertising beacuse an irish show didn't portray drinking, an african-american show didn't portray criminals or a catholic show didn't portray molestation. Why would a show be bad for not portraying stereotypes???

4. “But I don't like All American Muslim, who cares?”

I don't want to debate the merits of the show, but let's be realistic. There's a large segment of the Muslim population that doesn't agree with this show because they feel it misrepresents Muslims, or only highlights Shia's instead of Sunni Islam, and so on.

Here's why that doesn't matter. Right wing groups spreading this propaganda don't differentiate between any of us. Sunni, shia, conservative, or liberal. As far as they're concerned, all of us are just putting on a facade to hide some ulterior terrorist motives. That is why it is important to stand up and say we're not going to put up with this bigotry.

Learn a lesson from the story of The Three Bulls

There once lived three bulls, a white bull, a black bull, and a red bull. Looking for food, a lion watched them graze together and realized he could not contend with all three. So he went to the black and red bull and made a deal with them. He told them that he was very ferocious and powerful and that if they let him eat the white bull, he would leave them in peace. The black and red bull agreed, and the lion murdered and then ate the white bull.

Time passed and the lion became hungry again. He went to the red bull and argued that he was ferocious and powerful and that if he let him eat the black bull he would leave him in peace. The red bull agreed and the lion murdered and then ate the black bull.

As time passed and the lion became hungry, he visited the red bull again. As the red bull saw death in the lions eye, as the teeth dug deep into it's neck, it shouted, “Verily I was eaten the day the white bull was eaten!”

 

Well-received by the mainstream media (and predictably denounced by Islamophobe bloggers and right-wing press), it's a much-needed, ground-breaking work. Detailed and comprehensive — though an easy read — it ties together and pinpoints exactly what's being said in the Islamophobe arena, who's being paid to say it, and who's paying them to say it.

But how well does it meet the hopeful expectations placed on it by the Muslim community?

Muslims looking for a quick-fix answer or a magic wand that will make Islamophobia go away will have to look elsewhere. There are no solutions here, but that's a good thing. By purposefully avoiding any bullet-point strategic or tactical recommendations, the report will force Muslim individuals and policy makers to shake their complacency, apply their own creative mental rigour and draw up their own strategies.

That makes it one of the most literally thought-provoking works in the contemporary Islamic discourse in recent years (and a real strength of the report).

Muslim groups in general have a mixed record on rising to meet such challenges — so it remains to be seen how well-leveraged the report will become as a resource tool — but the foundation laid down in the report is immense.

However, it's not an explicit call-to-action piece, and there's a slight down side to the report's approach as well. The hypertight focus of “Fear, Inc.” on the Islamophobia network itself leaves no room to include the Muslim relationship and response to Islamophobia, depriving the report of some potentially useful context and giving it an overtly singular tone. While this almost isolated perspective — deep and thorough as it may be — is what should spur Muslims to find creative solutions for countering Islamophobia, it also allows room for failure: While the report doesn't tell groups how to do it right, by the same token it doesn't document how they've occasionally done it wrong and inadvertently fed the Islamophobia beast. Since the report does highlight some Islamophobia network messaging points and debunks them, it only seems appropriate to examine (or at least mention) any Muslim responsibility or accountability, if applicable, in those points' development or propagation.

Glossing over the Muslim element in any Muslim-Islamophobe analysis also runs the risk of imparting a subtle, subliminal reinforcement of the “victim” mentality, which may not play well to a non-Muslim observer (and altogether a mindset for the Muslim community to avoid).

These drawbacks are minor, however, and don't diminish the report's importance and efficacy. All of it is pertinent, useful and meticulously researched.

But what does it all mean? How do Muslim individuals and organizations begin analyzing and applying this rich infomation? Are Muslims even ready for the task?

To dig a little deeper, I had a couple of very nice e-mail conversations with the tireless Wajahat Ali, lead researcher for the project (among his many diverse activities). We talked about context, racism, internal divisions, what's next for CAP, and his own personal take and observations.

• The Context of the CAP Report
• Audience of Report is mainstream, global audience
• Reaction of Anti-Muslim Bigots
• Muslim Community Response
• Root of Fear Inc. Hatred
• Post-report Scenarios

[Mustafa Stefan Dill]: Can you talk a little bit about why the Muslim community's response to the Islamophobe network wasn't really covered?

[Wajahat Ali]: The report has a tightly focused exposé on the inner-workings of the “Islamophobia network” as we have categorized and identified them. Mainly, we wanted to show how a group of seven funders have empowered a tightly connected, self-reliant and effective network of several individuals and organizations to the tune of $42.6 million over the past 10 years to manufacture fear, hysteria and hate against Muslims.

From the beginning, we realized people will ask us several questions, such as, “How come you didn't mention Europe?” Or, “How come you don't do an academic analysis of Sharia?” and so forth. Of course, the report is not an “end-all-be-all” report on Islamophobia but merely a solid foundational beginning to further explore pertinent issues.

Your question regarding the Muslim community's response to the Network is important and warrants an analysis. However, it was not the focus of this particular report.

I look forward to someone writing it up. I'd very much like to read it.

[MSD]: In the AJE piece, you said it was meant for the general population. Can you expand on that and what you hope the general public will do with this? How would you like to see this best used?

[WA]: I'm not your usual, Washington D.C., “policy wonk.” My background is primarily that of a playwright, attorney, commentator and “accidental” community activist. I told CAP from the beginning that if this report would be one of the millions of reports buried in the cocoon of Washington D.C. under the bureaucratic weight of ineffective, mass produced, policy briefs churned almost weekly by the town, then I don't want to waste my time with it.

Thankfully, CAP agreed and we wrote the report for a mainstream, global audience, with grassroots communities, teachers, students, average Joes and Jibrils in mind. Many times people ignore our fellow citizens, neighbors, co-workers, partners in faith and so forth as simply the “laymen.” But real, effective power in changing minds, thoughts and hearts comes from knowledge and disseminating that knowledge to the people. The report is a fact-based, thoroughly sourced result of a six-month investigation.

We strongly believe it has the ability to expose this divisive network that preys on fear, misinformation and ignorance and convey this knowledge in a clear, easy to understand manner for the mass public to build resilience against such nonsense. So, after reading it, people will say, “We didn't know this 'anti-Sharia' threat was totally manufactured by the Network.” “What? The 'Ground Zero Mosque' was a non-issue that was deliberately hyped by the Network and transformed into an international hysteria which has subsequently threatened our national security?” “These faces I see on Fox News – this is what they've said and written about our fellow Americans who happen to be Muslim, Arab or immigrants? This is vile.”

We are confident the facts in this report will also enlighten several law enforcement officials, politicians, and funders to the true nature, intent and ideology of this Network that has promoted its bias and hate under the guise of allegedly working on national security and counter-radicalization issues.

We hope to end “Islamophobia” because it poisons the communal well of America and advances nothing but division and fear against our fellow citizens, which is utterly un-American and anti-American behavior and completely opposite to our shared values.

We hope this report is a step in steering the national discourse on these important issues towards moderation, civility and common sense.

[MSD]: One of the things I've noticed is that the rhetoric of the professional Islamophobe class gets more and more over the top for fear of profit loss when they get called out or when their arguments get eroded — witness the overall increase in vitriol since the Arab Spring, for example. The response so far to your report seems to bear out this trend. Any take or analysis on their response?

[WA]: Good observation. First and foremost, we can safely say this is a lucrative industry. Islamophobia sells, and it brings home a lot of bacon. Never forget, this is a 24-7, daily job for these people. This is how they earn their daily bread, so they will vigorously defend their dubious occupation, which is quite profitable I might add. I mean, wouldn't you if you were David Horowitz and bringing home $500,000 each year for spreading hate? Or how about the $300,000 that Gaffney pockets. Or, the $200K of Robert Spencer and Brigitte Gabriel.

They simply escalate the “crazy.” The foundation of most their arguments is meritless, so it's easy to expose it as fraudulent and laughable. If there was some shame and honesty here, they would retract their statements and issue corrections. But, an honest, forthright discussion on these important issues is not their priority. They want to continue profiting off this absurd circus they've created, which sadly has gone from fringe to mainstream in the past 10 years and threatens people, communities, families, our national discourse and even our national security.

For example, Gov. Christie of New Jersey recently appointed a thoroughly qualified and well respected attorney, Suhail Mohammad, to Superior Court. Steve Emerson, one of the leaders of the Network, responded by saying Gov. Christie has a tin ear for “radical Islam.” 2012 Presidential hopeful Rick Perry's close ties to the Ishmaeli Muslim community in Texas was revealed. Pam Geller's response? Rick Perry is obviously a pro-Sharia, fifth column president. President Obama and President Bush's administration reached out to Muslim communities – why? Because, obviously, their administration is infiltrated by radical Islam. President Obama's staffmember Valerie Jarrett gave statements at the ISNA conference a few years back, which was enough for the Network to prove that it was coddling “Radical Islam,” since ISNA, a moderate, mainstream Muslim American organization, is obviously a front and incubator for stealth jihad. Surprisingly, the same smears were not made against Evangelical leader Rick Warren, who also spoke at ISNA the same year.

The Conservative Political Action Conference — which is the annual Hall of Fame conservative meet-up featuring all-stars from the right — is accused by Frank Gaffney of being infiltrated by Radical Islam. Why? They invited Muslim American Republican Suhail Khan to speak, as well as Republican, anti-tax reformer, non-Muslim Grover Norquist — who happens to be a married to a Muslim.

So, their strategy is simply to ratchet up the crazy, the paranoia, the smears, the baseless allegations, the character assassinations, and keep feeding their base and funders' “terror” and manufactured “bogeymen” just enough to continue lining up their coffers. Since there is hardly any truth, logic, facts or substance behind their arguments, what do they care if sane, rational people attack it with facts and evidence? Again, they are exploiting fear, uncertainty, ignorance for the sake of promoting their agenda and lucrative career built upon smearing millions of Americans simply due to their faith.

[MSD]: What's been the reaction from Muslim communities to the report so far?

[WA]: The response from all communities has been overwhelmingly positive. It's really rewarding and encouraging to see this report, which is a 130 page policy report released by a think tank, go viral and spread on Facebook, Twitter, the blogosphere, and mailing lists by non-DC folk. I'm talking about students, non-academics, grassroots leaders, community leaders of other faiths and ethnicities, the mass media and so forth.

Many Muslim American communities have said, “Thank you! We've been waiting for someone to do this report for years.” They, of course, are sensitive to these issues because their communities have been attacked by these Islamophobia Network organizations and individuals for years. Now, they have facts, evidence, and the categorization and break down of the Network, along with the money trail, to truly dissect it and understand it. It seems to be an empowering, educational and hopeful report. We are proud of that.

Let's not forget this is simply a remake. Muslims are the current bogeyman. In the past, it was Jews, the Irish Catholics, gays and lesbians, and Japanese-Americans. But, eventually, Americans find their moral compass and wake up eventually smelling something rotten festering in their backyard, and we as a society decide to finally clean house. This is us collectively taking out the garbage that is the Islamophobia network and their ideology of hate.

[MSD]: You're touching on an interesting point. Is the root of the network's hatred based on religious difference or racism? For me, that's the possible elephant in the room. In general, the network seems to not target the African – American Muslim communities, who are a great example of long-standing successful American Islamic acculturation (and IMO need to be more represented in various interfaith and Islamic round tables). The network seems to focus on masaajid or leaders of Middle Eastern or South Asian background, as those racial identifiers subconsciously resonate more with the terrorists that make the news headlines.

On the other hand, hatred is hatred, and on a tactical level, does it even matter to understand their motivation?

[WA]: It's difficult to parse out each of their motivations, but I do believe some possess a deep-seated, vitriolic hate against Muslims as evidenced by their own rhetoric and actions. Brigitte Gabriel's grassroots group ACT! for America exists for no other reason than to combat and marginalize Muslims and Islam, although she accomplished her agenda under the guise of allegedly fighting radical Islam. The Anti-Defamation League reviewed this organization and disagreed, asserting she is in fact advancing an anti-Muslim, conspiratorial agenda. She has also said Arabs and Muslims have no soul. Geller and Spencer also seem to be driven by an exaggerated, irrational fear of Muslims. They have protested the construction of mosques in America, supported racist, neo-Nazi groups such as the English Defense League and notorious Islamophobes Geert Wilders. They seem threatened by any sign of Muslim – American empowerment or mainstream visibility.

Others such as Frank Gaffney and Steve Emerson need a convenient boogeyman to justify their occupation and existence to their funders. Gaffney emerges from the paranoid, Cold War mindset, in which he railed against the Soviet threat during the 80′s. Muslims were the next logical replacement for him beginning in the 90′s and especially after Sept. 11. The Tennessean reported Emerson milks money from his donors by exaggerating the threat posed by Muslims.

For others, such as Rush Limbaugh, I simply think it's good fodder for profit and entertainment. I don't think he has a deep hatred for Muslims.

There is definitely a racial component to this movement. It seems to be heavily interested in marginalizing politically active Arab-Americans. Gaffney, Pipes, Geller, Spencer and others frowned upon President Obama's outreach to Muslim communities and they are deeply against the “Arab Spring,” suggesting that this will bring forth a radical Islamist agenda that they allege has already “infiltrated” America.

However, these Islamophobes, such as David Yerushalmi and David Horowitz, also have a “colorful” history of being racist towards African-Americans. Yerushalmi has written they are a murderous race intent on killing themselves, for example. Congressman West, who is African American, has really rallied around the Islamophobia rhetoric since entering Congress. “Islam is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology, it is not a religion,” said West in August 2010 while running for office. “This radical understanding of Islam has been around since 622 AD. It is totalitarian, it is imperialistic in its designs.”

Then in January 2011, he said in a television interview that Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), an American-born convert to Islam, represents the “antithesis of the principles upon which this country was established.” A surprised Rep. Ellison responded: “Contrary to the views expressed by Congressman West, I work to represent the highest ideals of our great nation—ideals like freedom of worship and respect for all faiths, equal protection under the law as well as a civil and open public discourse.”

So, it seems the network has a lot of hate to spread around, regardless of race.

[MSD]: For me, the detailing of the grassroots strategy by ACT! for America was one of the most illuminating portions of the report. I'll be candid: the Muslim community doesn't seem to have the organizational or cultural will or leadership to mount anything near that scale to implement a counterstrategy. I think there's a number of sociocultural factors for that, but do you think such an effort is possible within the Muslim community? What are the risks?

[WA]: Muslim-Americans are not a monolith. We should not seek “unity” for sake of “unity.” It's a fallacy. It's ineffective, unrealistic and untenable. We are the most diverse religious community in America in terms of race, socio-economic background, religious differences, and so forth.

However, there are enough numbers and money in the community that could easily be invested to create a competent, professional, transparent, grassroots organization that has a clear mission statement and clear objectives that are carried out in a methodical manner by people trained and educated to do just that.

It's not rocket science. ACT! For America used a successful playbook that co-founder Guy Rodgers developed in the 90′s with his work for Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. Not all Republicans, conservatives or those on the right agree with ACT! For America or are ACT! members, but they have a core following that is aligned by a simple issue –”countering radical Islam” — and they are thoroughly organized at empowering this base and helping them spread the message.

Muslim-American grassroots efforts hopefully will be created to spread positive messages that preach inclusivity, tolerance, respect and selfless conduct for the betterment of all communities. The key is to make sure that organization doesn't hold itself out to be “the representative” of Muslim Americans. It is simply one piece of the giant mosaic. And, again, it needs to simply have competent leadership, vision and execution. It's not impossible – it just needs some thought and careful implementation.

To think otherwise is to play in to the victim mentality.

[MSD]: Care to speculate why hasn't this happened yet? What is it in the American Muslim consciousness that prevents us from reaching out across our own diversity and successfully building those internal coalitions?

[WA]: This is a very important question that really goes to the heart of lingering, deep-seated problems afflicting our communities from within. I think generalizations should be avoided since it's far too reductive and simplistic to use terms such as “immigrant” communities vs. “indigenous/native” communities. This language is used to explain the schism between immigrant South Asian and Arab-American communities and existing African-American communities, as if this is insolvable and inherently doomed to linger for further generations.

I have faith that my generation and specifically the upcoming generation — the post-post 9-11 generation, if you will — shall transcend these differences that have existed due to ignorance, harmful assumptions, classism, lack of communication, and — let's face it — racism, by acknowledging its existence and finding proactive solutions based on mutual respect, understanding and empathy.

The “racial” divide exists. Many Muslim American communities — not all — have made the mistake of living in culturally isolated cocoons, burying our heads in the sand, sealed behind a projected bubble of illusory protection, assuming that if we ignore our problems or simply live in cultural ghettos, we will be “safe.” Obviously, this isolation has escalated problems both within the Muslim American communities and with our fellow neighbors of different faiths.

Mostly, the African-American Muslim community has borne the brunt of other Muslims' ignorance, fear and hypocritical double standards. Imagine a South Asian or Arab-American woman bringing home an African-American Muslim man as a potential husband? Thankfully, it has happening more, but we all know the horror stories that have occurred in the past. I pray we see more biracial Muslim American couples in the 21st century — it's perhaps the most healthy, productive and successful way of healing these divides for our future communities.

We also suffer from this romantic idealization of a “back in the motherland” Muslim utopia that doesn't exist, nor has ever existed. Yet the myth persists, which perpetuates a type of exclusive, exaggerated tribalism. So, we divide ourselves further along ethno-tribal lines: Punjabi Pakistani-American vs. Muhajjar Pakistani-American, or Syrian-American vs. Lebanese-American, and so forth. Again, some communities want to perserve this “identity” by living in a cultural cocoon. This is all fine and dandy, but of course, it only helps to perpetuate the divides, not heal it.

And, good ol' classism, which is prevalent in all ethnic communities, also creates tension. Those who have “achieved” the American dream feel the need to protect it by living behind gated communities. They'll go on the Bay Bridge from the East Bay straight to San Francisco but never bother to stop where “the other people” live in Oakland, which is where we need to invest our talent, resources, money and support to help up-and-coming Muslim American communties who have not tasted professional degrees, privilege or elitism.

Finally, intrafaith problems persist. There are Shia vs. Sunni divides and even multiple divides among those respective religious identities. I am a Deobandi Sunni, but I cannot break bread with you because you are Barelvi, or I am Salafi but you are Sufi, so let's engage in a mutual takfir-off and call each other a heathen and infidel, because, you know, that's the best way to resolve our differences.

I think Muslim American communities can unify on takfiring – we seem to be exceptionally talented at the craft.

There has to be a realization that there has never been nor ever wil be one model “Muslim American identity.” It's a fallacy. A pipe dream resulting from smoking too much pipe. It needs to be abandoned for sake of a more rich, healthy, realistic vision of an America that has existed before our very eyes — one that is vibrant, messy, constantly evolving and representative of the best of both America and Islam's rich diversity.

The tent of Islam in America has to widen to include all communities who claim to be Muslim. You don't have to accept their ideologies, actions or beliefs, but you have to accept their existence and their right to identify as a Muslim. That is key. Instead of closing the tent and excluding some of our best resources –i.e., our fellow Muslims — due to differences in ideology, race, or class, we need to be intelligent, compassionate, strategic and open to seeing how we share similar values and goals, despite our differences.Then we can use that as a foundation in uniting to serve God and our fellow neighbors.

[MSD]: Where does CAP go from here? What do you see as the next piece of research that needs to be done?

[WA]: I cannot speak for CAP. But, the report was intended to create a foundation for further analysis on niche issues. So I see this report as a jumping off point, a stable base which we can use to explore the similarities or differences between Islamophobia in U.S. and Europe. There is definitely a strong trans-Atlantic relationship between both Islamophobia networks and I think that hasn't fully explored in depth and detail.

[MSD]: Any general observations about that relationship, or about Islamophobia in Europe in general, that you can make yet? Any effective counter-responses there that you've noticed?

[WA]: There is a tremendous connection between the Islamophobia network in Europe and the one that has currently risen in the United States. Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer who killed 76 people (mostly youth) in August, was ideologically inspired by the Islamophobia network in America. He left behind a detailed, meticulous 1,500 page manifesto outlining his reasons for his crime and also as a “training manual” to inspire fellow perverse criminals. He mainly opposed what he calls the Islamization of Europe, multiculturalism, and Muslim immigration to Europe. He cites Robert Spencer's blog and writings more than 162 times, and he cites the Islamophobia network players more than 200 times in total. He shares their same worldview when it comes to seeing Muslims as suspects, threats, anti-”Western” and so forth.

Pam Geller and Robert Spencer, the co-founders of the hate group Stop Islamization of America, were inspired by the European group Stop Islamization of Europe, founded by a marginalized, far right, racist and fascist Islamophobe named Anders Gravers. Geller has called Danish politician Geert Wilders, perhaps the world's most notorious and well known Islamophobe, her “hero.” In turn, Wilders refers to Geller as his “hero.” Wilders has called for a ban on Muslim immigration to Europe, a ban on mosques and a ban on the Quran. Congressman Allen West of Florida refers to him as his “comrade,” and David Horowitz and Brigitte Gabriel have also praised and defended him as well. Wilders was recently invited by the grassroots organizations Tennessee Eagle Forum and TN Freedom Coalition to give a hate-filled screed against Islam and Muslims in front of 3,000 people at Cornerstone mega-church. He parroted all the fears, hysteria and misinformation about Muslims, Islam and Sharia that have been spouted by American Islamophobes. The crowd gave him a standing ovation. David Horowitz's blog condensed his speech into talking points and subsequently praised it.

Individuals have written academic pieces and investigative journalism pieces on this, but we should expect more detailed analysis similar to the CAP report exposing this transatlantic network sometime in the next year.

[MSD]: What other areas do you see needing investigation?

[WA]: I also believe a more focused analysis on the effect, or lack thereof, the Islamophobia Network has on foreign policy is warranted. Another would be the effects this type of rhetoric has on our national security.

I would also love a report to trace the similarities if any of the Islamophobia network's “fear-mongering” playbook deployed against Muslims compared to what other minorities in America have suffered in years past. My research shows the tactics to be eerily similar.

• Mohamed Elibiary is a Dallas-based Texas Muslim community leader and an Advisor to the Homeland Security Enterprise.
• While the recent report by Ackerman on FBI's “Islam training” is troubling, Elibiary provides some contextual insight
• How is the key FBI trainer, Gawthrop, viewed in FBI circles? Who is Coughlin and his relevance?
• Allaying Muslim community concerns & learning from the “Texas model”
• Elibiary's own personal experiences in dealing with the FBI

Insights about the Exposé

Earlier this week, a news story broke and achieved what rarely happens, broad-based scrutiny and indignation towards the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). In Wired Magazine, Spenser Ackerman' s article exposed FBI Counter-Terrorism training at Quantico as unprofessional and inaccurate. The training manuals were filled with information based on anti-Muslim bigotry or Islamophobia. As a liaison between the FBI and the Muslim community, I can attest that there is nothing new in Ackerman's reporting and could add volumes more to it of FBI wrongdoings; nonetheless, it has been disquieting and demoralizing for someone in my position to watch the ripple effects upon our community's psyche.

In response to this FBI anti-Muslim bigotry training story breaking, a dear friend wrote to me lamenting that “this report goes against almost everything we are working as a community to do to reach out to authorities. It's like we moderate orthodox Muslims are left out to dry, and all of our arguments that there is little to no racism and bigotry within the circles of security agencies in America against Muslims are all bogus!”

The sentiments of this influential national community leader were echoed by another community leader who summed up her community's concerns as “OMG, look at what they are doing to us?”; she continued by relating an example of how many millions were possibly spent in her hometown over the years promoting such ideas. I realize that our communities are scared and outraged but I would like to emphasize the following points as we read reports like Mr. Ackerman's:

Who is Gawthrop? - William Gawthrop, the analyst who authored most of the training in the article, is well-known and detested in many FBI circles. The reason we're seeing his work being made public is because there are agents inside the FBI trying to marginalize him and push him out. If one reads between the lines, even the article's author hints at FBI insiders assisting. These forces are trying to make Gawthrop's tactics public, as it's not easy to fire a federal employee because of all the rules involved.

The Coughlin Factor - I would encourage concerned citizens to study the case of Rtd. Major Stephen Coughlin, who gave his inaccurate understanding of Hanafi, Malaki and Shafi Fiqh as true foundations of terrorism to the Joint Military Chiefs of Staff themselves before having his contract retired and pushed out of the Pentagon.

• For full disclosure, I did not play any role at DOD concerning Coughlin, but did fly up to the Freedom and Justice Foundation office years ago with well-known scholars like Dr. Waleed Basyouni to deeply analyze the arguments in Coughlin's Master's thesis on this topic. I shared that research with some FBI and Homeland Security Intelligence Enterprise allies back then.
• What Coughlin and Gawthrop type analysts are essentially arguing to National Security officials is that violent extremism is a product of religious (theological, not identity) “radicalization” and not sociological, psychological or political. People like Robert Spencer on the outside try to perform the role of echo chamber in order to mainstream such analysis and provide it with a base inside the political system.
• I believe as Coughlin's career was ended, so will Gawthrop's and other less infamous full-time analysts inside the National Security enterprise, due to many factors about our country's resilient value system and scientific inquiry appetite that these individuals hardly understand.

What is the solution? - As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the solution on a national level is not top down but requires that we work city by city and state by state to reorient the system. Even with the portions of my bio I elected to share below, someone in my position very infrequently travels to the White House or engages with the National Security Council Staff on these issues. The real work that needs to be done is at the local city and state levels.  Federalism is a powerful concept, and American Muslim advocacy strategies have yet to be leveraged effectively.

The Tipping Point - When a community working with its local law enforcement partners gets relations at a regional FBI field office to the tipping point, then you'll see local FBI officials push back to HQ and the intelligence community on the ideas that Gawthrop and co. promote. You will also see the top FBI official in a city put out clear messaging to local police executives of what is the true relationship with the local Muslim community, contrary to what politicians like Peter King might message on a FOX opinion show. Accurate and beneficial counter-terrorism law enforcement training will replace bigoted, for-profit, alarmist nonsense that undermines local security by disenfranchising American Muslims allied in countering violent extremism.

Look for good FBI agents - Just like there are bridge burners like Gawthrop, I also know of FBI agents who, out of their own pockets, buy proper Islamic books for office libraries, read Bukhāri and Muslim, and confer with community-based allies about training materials HQ instructors have taught them at Quantico.

The bottom line is that we live in a democracy, and, just as we have in this country civilian oversight of the military, we also have civilian oversight of Intelligence, Counter Terrorism and Homeland Security systems. The challenge for the Muslim community has always been simply: how do we “step up our game” and become civic leaders of society around these topics? Or as Mahdi Bray used to say in community fundraisers I attended growing up, raising our children to become “headlights” and not just “taillights”.

Muslim Community Concerns

Sitting one day in a government meeting at DHS-HQ last year, I recall in a briefing we were receiving from a national polling agency on the public's attitude towards various law enforcement agencies that American Muslims generally had a 60% confidence level in the FBI. The numbers broke down a little less for African-American Muslims than other segments of the community but that certainly is expected given the well documented historical experiences there. It has been a long time since I've witnessed a media report resonate across so many segments of Muslim communities as this Ackerman report, so we'll have to wait to see if it produces a long-lasting impact upon the Muslim community's confidence in the bureau.

Those of us who, while informed by the past, are constantly looking forward might then wonder, so what next? How does one size the scale of this problem of inaccurate counter terrorism training at the FBI and across the wider law enforcement community? How does this problem get fixed? How much impact on national security policy development do Islamophobia's promoters really have and which forces can one strengthen to counter and marginalize them?

The reality is that a dissertation can be written about each of these questions, but considering the points mentioned above can help distinguish reality from perception. As Muslims, we know, more than any other segment of society, that the public does not get an accurate understanding of Islam and Muslim issues simply through the media and that personal contact is the more accurate conveyor of reality. Similarly, what's good for the goose is good for the gander in this case, and so replacing FBI for Muslim in the preceding sentence is similarly accurate.

One must engage with the FBI across its various enterprise elements (ex. local Agent, support staff, Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), supervisors, Special Agents in Charge (SAC), national security branch Asst. SACs Head Quarters Intelligence Analysts, HQ Section Chiefs, Office of Public Affairs (OPA), CT Division, Directorate of Intelligence, Asst. Directors, Exec. Asst. Directors, the Director, previous Directors, retired FBI personnel, FBI whistle blowers, Overseas FBI Legal Attaché Officers, other elements across the National Security Enterprise that engage with various parts of the FBI, etc.) to get an accurate temperature of the organization's policies, attitudes and “culture”.

Learning from the Texas Model

Several hundred Texas Muslim community leaders from each city across the Lone Star State were present at a conference our foundation organized on Homeland Security inside the Texas State Capitol on September 10, 2004. I told them it simply boils down to “Your Rights as Americans, Your Duties as American Muslims.” Yes, surveys show we're patriotic and the majority of us are supportive of law enforcement, but who amongst us wants to have our kids waiting for the FBI to figure out all the Muslim world's complexities all on its own?

In Texas (Dallas & Houston), our community charted a third way over the past decade, not with the National Security hawks who scrutinize every benign social development amongst Muslims globally and not with the big government types who would forsake civil liberties in pursuit of domestic security. We didn't have to throw national community groups or other law-abiding American Muslim leaders under the bus to solve these problems as sell-out Muslims do, but we also didn't elect to sit behind our keyboards and complain that we have no power to act because that's not our deen either.

In Dallas and Houston, where 90% of the Texas Muslim community lives, there are many strong relationships between local Muslim community leaders across dozens of masajid, Islamic schools and local community groups and multiple FBI Special Agents, Joint Terrorism Task Force Supervisors, and Special Agents in Charge & Asst. SACs

National Muslim groups, like CAIR and Muslim Advocates, have issued their press releases and called upon elements within the Department of Justice and FBI to conduct their investigations, so these groups are already taking care of the top-down solution method our community has been employing since the early 90s. We can, in our various cities, enhance these efforts by expanding the grassroots work happening at the city and state levels that the Texas Muslim community has begun to become recognized for at the national level as the “Third Way” model of building a Centrist Environment. For these are the problems that no President can truly solve on his own.

There are 56 FBI field offices, 16 of which in major American cities have 60-70% of the FBI's counter terrorism personnel, about 400 small town resident agency (RA) offices and a handful of agents in LegAt offices in US Embassies oversees. There are way more of us then there are of them, so let's love them with the self-confidence that our religion teaches us that God doesn't put a burden upon a people who can't carry it. I'm not saying to 'move on, nothing to see here' in Mr. Ackerman's work, but instead let's get to work because there's nothing “new” here to anyone already working extensively on these challenges.

My Personal Experience

On Thursday, September 8^th FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III personally handed me the Louis E. Peters Memorial Service Award for 2011 in front of an audience of over five hundred retired Directors (ie. Judge William Webster who was Director of not just the FBI but also the CIA), a couple of dozen national security and law enforcement VIPs and several hundred retired FBI officials.

The Peters Award is the highest honor awarded annually to a civilian by the FBI whose assistance was invaluable in a major investigation. This year signified the first time it was given to someone working in the Homegrown Violent Extremism sphere that the American Muslim community has been struggling with post 9/11.

It was a closed-door ceremony in a banquet hall without media, a bit like the scene in the movie Charlie Wilson's War where the CIA gives him their highest civilian award for all he did to help remove the Soviets from Afghanistan. Two of the cases, in which I played the unique role of having one hand stretched out to the FBI and the other hand stretched out to local Muslim community leadership across multiple cities, were shared.

In both of these cases, like others, involved my being the trusted diplomat in two worlds who from my vantage point are married at the hip for the foreseeable future. Both the FBI and the American Muslim community are riding in the same boat, and should God forbid another disaster like 9/11 befall our country, neither party will be able to save its skin from the wrath of the American people by throwing the other party under the bus.

In the introduction explaining why I was receiving the award, Lester Davis as the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI stated that “For the past eight years he has been working closely with the FBI and the Muslim community to create a relationship built on trust and respect. Never once has Mr. Elibiary requested any compensation or recognition for his efforts. The work he has undertaken to spot, identify and address radicalization in the United States cannot be understated.”

The FBI continued on their website press release by further stating that “Mr. Elibiary, of Dallas, Texas, was selected as a result of his extraordinary contributions to specific cases in support of the FBI's counterterrorism mission. He has also been a consensus builder between the national Islamic community and the numerous agencies dedicated to the prevention of terrorism.”

One thing I stated in my speech to that audience is that while “the last decades have witnessed a transformation of our FBI into the global intelligence led crown jewel in our nation's security architecture, with such awesome power comes awesome responsibility also of the bureau as the guardian of our civil, democratic fabric.”

In private, I further relayed to the Director that our community is willing and able to help FBI-HQ address homegrown violent extremism challenges more effectively but that in the meantime, we will continue to work at the grassroots level to help build up relationships with field offices. The message was clear and constructive, so as long as we act like empowered citizens and continue then more positive changes are inevitable, God willing.

In every advocacy strategy employed there are foundational assumptions. Though not an activist pre-9/11, nor belonging to a national community organization, I convened a few dozen community leaders at a Dallas hotel about a year after 9/11 to lay out my own foundational assumptions on how “the system” was working and the beginning of a road map for us as Texas Muslims on how we'd address governmental challenges. Over the years, traveling coast-to-coast visiting with all kinds of Muslim community leaders I've learned to appreciate the wisdom behind federalism even more.

As the FBI's own press release highlights, I elected after 9/11 to perform a consensus building role, whether across government security agencies or the national Islamic community. Just like there are good Muslims and bad Muslims, there are good FBI and bad FBI. What the average American Muslim needs to understand is that, while our post 9/11 relationship might have been securitized with our fellow countrymen due to factors beyond our control, if we step up our game and learn how to identify the good FBI, ally with them and stay the course, then it's a simple “we win and they [anti-Muslim Bigots] lose”.

As a father, I asked myself years ago: do I want to pass on these challenges to my kid's generation or do I want them to get a better position in America's bright future? Each one of us has to answer that question for ourselves, get busy working in our cities to engage deeper with the FBI and win this marathon of reorienting America's National Security Enterprise, or we can sit on our hands, complain and hope by some miracle the politicians will fix it for us.

Mohamed Elibiary is a Dallas-based Texas Muslim community leader and an Advisor to the Homeland Security Enterprise. He has served for multiple years on the Training Advisory Board of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), and was appointed by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) in October 2010 after his earlier service on the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group helping craft the department and broader law enforcement community's framework to addressing Homegrown Violent Extremism (HVE). Mohamed has testified on Homeland Security matters before both the Texas State Legislature and the US Congress (“Working with Communities to Disrupt Terror Plots” – March 2010). He works as a private consultant at Lone Star Intelligence, LLC and speaks often on Homeland Security, Counter Terrorism and Community Partnership matters at law enforcement conferences. Mohamed has assisted multiple offices at the Dept. of Justice to advance Community Oriented Policing methodologies and the Building Communities of Trust (BCOT) Initiative. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) in a report to Congress highlighted how in the previous administration Mohamed assisted the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment (PM-ISE) to crafter landmark civil liberties protecting guidelines for the Nationwide Suspicious Activities Reporting Initiative (NSI). These landmark federal guidelines for Fusion Centers were expanded upon by a broad-based coalition of faith-based civic groups and DPS and passed by the Texas State Legislature in 2011 as Law enacted through the Texas Fusion Center Policy Council (TFCPC).

A project costing hundreds of thousands of dollars titled “Shari'a and Violence in American Mosques” is being hyped as an “important study” by a lawyer, David Yerushalmi, who the ADL describes as one who has “a record of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black bigotry.”

The study has been strongly criticized by liberal organizations but seized upon by conservative publications, such as FrontPage Magazine and National Review Online, “as proof that Islam constitutes a grave threat to national security. Writing in National Review Online, Andrew McCarthy said the results proved that, “what we wishfully call 'radicalism' is in fact the Islamic mainstream.”

What Is The Study About?

Wearing what they said were “Shari'a adherent” disguises, researchers looked for empirical evidence between Islamic practices i.e. hijab, gender segregation, straightening of the lines, the length of the imam's beard and the existence of (what he terms) violence-prone materials in the 100 masjids surveyed. According to the study, only 3 aspects were found statistically significant. Remarkably, they also observed that the 12 imams who wore the watch on the right hand were right handed.

Gaubatz (director of the project) described these as markers for gauging whether and to what extent a mosque should be seen as extremist. Each of these attributes “comes from Shari'a,” he said.

How ridiculous is this conjecture, but what is more disheartening is that people are taking this seriously. This playing on shallow stereotypes diverts our attention from really seeking out those who do fall in the trap of radicalization and domestic terrorists like David Burget.

Not found 'significant' were whether or not the imam wore a thawb and the presence of modern hijab vs. traditional hijab (phew). It didn't take long for the leap from this study to headlines like “Study: 3 in 4 U.S. mosques preach anti-West extremism” to take place. On one hand his study claims that we are being radicalized by 'Islamists' and on the other hand he says Shari'a itself is radical. As the “nation's foremost non-Muslim expert on Islam,” which one is it?

You can read the study here. An adherence to Shari'a is termed Salafist ideology in the study, which begs the question: for Muslims who do not follow that ideology, do they not attend mosques? Do they not grow their beards?  Do they not wear watches? Are they not Shari'a compliant? Riyadh us Saliheen is one of the seven texts being tarnished as 'severe material' in calling to violent jihad without reservations. The study also uses al-Misri's Umdat al-Salik as another example of a 'violent' book – it's a shame for someone to have done such an expensive study of Islam in America and not know which books are read by which ideologies. The study mentions that wearing of hijab by girl's ages 5-12 is 'Shari'a-adherent' behavior, which shows how much the researchers know about Islam.   

And how exactly were the imams inciting violence in the mosques? Were they giving khutbahs? NO! Were they urging worshipers in talks or study circles to go out and kill non-Muslims? NO! This was a conclusion of the study (which is not being advertised), that despite having “violent text” (their words) in the mosques, there was no indication of actually urging the joining of terrorist organizations or gathering of money to fund terrorist organizations.

So what did the Imams do? They answered a question.

Following the prayer service, the surveyor asked the following question: “Do you recommend the study of: (a) only the Qur'an and/or Sunna; (b) Tafsir Ibn Kathir; (c) Fiqh as-Sunna; (e) Reliance of the Traveller; or (f) the works of Qutb, such as Milestones, and Maududi, such as The Meaning of the Qur'an?”

If the imam or lay leader recommended studying any of the materials mentioned above except the Qur'an and/or Sunna then they were termed as Moderate to SEVERELY violent – leaving an “Ominous Jihadist Footprint” or leading to hyper yellow journalism i.e. Big Peace: “81% Of US Mosques Promote Jihad.”

Who is David Yerushalmi?

He contends that African-Americans are a “relatively murderous race killing itself.” Read his post with context yourself just to make sure that we aren't jumping to conclusions. What do Americans expect from a racist xenophobe like him? MuslimMatters first wrote abut David Yerushalmi and his non-profit SANE in 2007. His views sound more radical than any Shari'a he is vilifying.

He has close ties to the likes of Pamela Geller; “he is her personal attorney. He incorporated the non-profit entity under which she and Robert Spencer produce their blogs.  This in turn allows David Horowitz to plow funds into their enterprise that have been given on a tax-deductible basis.  Yerushalmi is also representing her in a $10 million defamation lawsuit brought by the family of Rifqa Bary, a teenage girl torn from her Muslim-American family by Christian evangelicals who inveigled her into converting to Christianity and running away from their home while still a minor.” He claims to be an expert on Islamic law. Click here to read more about his views. He said his interest in Islamic law began with the Sept. 11 attacks when he was living in Ma'ale Adumim, a large Jewish settlement in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

He was behind the Stop the Madrassa campaign that got Debbi AlMontaser fired from her job as the principal of the Khalil Gibran Academy; he filed a lawsuit which was dismissed, and he appealed and lost.

I read more about this 'study' in this post by Paul Berger in the oldest Jewish newspaper in the US, The Forward. From the perspective of other Jews, what do they have to say about this man?

In a telephone interview with the Forward, Yerushalmi, 55, said that the motivation behind Islamic extremism could not be explained by socioeconomic, political or cultural factors. “The one common denominator,” he said, “was Sharia.” It is too soon to judge the impact of this latest study, but  The Southern Poverty Law Center included him in a recent list of the country's leading Islamophobes, and the Anti-Defamation League has cited his “anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black bigotry.” In his telephone interview, Yerushalmi denied these charges. He said that he had defended black and Muslim clients pro bono and that the real target of his advocacy is liberalism.

The study concludes that non-Shari'a centric mosques may provide a foundation for reformed Islam which can integrate into a western 'liberal' citizenship, but according to his own words, Yerushalmi's real target of advocacy is “liberalism.” Is this not a duplicity in his words? This makes me believe that the real objective is to reform Islam.

Anti-Islam Activism

Paul Berger notes that “one of the most striking aspects of Yerushalmi's activism against Shari'a law has been his ability to edge his ideas into the mainstream.” With the death of Osama, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a crushed economy and a debt crisis like none the United States has ever faced, the bogeyman is Shari'a. Yerushalmi has sugar coated his biases, making it sound very acceptable to the masses. Women's rights, children's rights – but what is the real agenda?

His legislation has drawn opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union as well as from Catholic bishops and Jewish groups but “he did not believe that court cases involving Jewish or canon law would be affected by the statutes because they are unlikely to involve violations of constitutional rights.” The case that he quotes for the rights of women suffering under Shari'a law used to give a verdict in the US is the same argument that could be applied to Jewish Law. From Judaism 101, according to the Talmud, only the husband can initiate a divorce, and the wife cannot prevent him from divorcing her.

It is hypocritical to say the least when an orthodox Jew who believes in the Torah and the Jewish Shari'a, the 'Halacha', and who believes in the authority of religious law and code of conduct would let his extreme prejudice lead him to go to such extents as to deter followers of another faith from following religious code. Is he going to also do a 'conclusive' study of temples and synagogues and the connection between wearing of to the kippa (yarmulke), discussing mitzvahs about the Amalekites, teachings of R. Shimon ben Yochai, let alone the readings of the Torat Hamelech? As New York Times reporter Andrea Ellliot writes,

The more tangible effect of the movement, opponents say, is the spread of an alarmist message about Islam — the same kind of rhetoric that appears to have influenced Anders Behring Breivik, the suspect in the deadly dual attacks in Norway on July 22. The anti-Shariah campaign, they say, appears to be an end in itself, aimed at keeping Muslims on the margins of American life.

Dear Dean of Comedy,

Asalaam Alaikum,

I am a fan, so please take my comments as constructive criticism, inshā'Allāh, a conversation starter for American Muslim activists to examine our messages, strategies and tactics.

In response to your piece on CNN, I would like to make the following points:

Point #1 – Please do not add fuel to a fire: “Not only is Cain's policy regarding American Muslims morally wrong and illegal, how would it work from a practical standpoint? How could he tell if a person is Muslim? Job applicants could lie about their religion in order to have a chance at a job, especially in this tough economy.” – A major smear against our community is the “taqqiya” (lying to or deceiving of non-Muslims to get the upper hand over them) concept. It has been used so effectively with some segments of the population that they will not accept anything a Muslims says or does. The above quote actually will read to those folks as “see, I told you them Muzlims will lie to get what they want!”

Point #2 – Muslims should consider ourselves equal to anyone and everyone else: With regards to your analysis of Romney and McCain in 2007, McCain also said that cabinet level appointments should be based on merit and qualifications alone. This is a very American standard and one that Muslims should adopt so that we are not putting ourselves on the path to entitlement thinking. In 2007, Romney said that the American Muslim population was not significant enough to warrant a cabinet level appointment. So while Romney's position has moved in a more just direction, Muslims should continue to focus on producing some of the best educated and most successful members of society. That is what we have done and what we must continue to do to determine our long-term success. The path Romney described in 2007 is one of a special interest group.

Point #3 – Islam & Muslim are not terms that equal to a race. Muslim diversity must be promoted: While I love the Reagan quote you used to close the article, the way you structured your piece conflates the very different forms of bigotry that Reagan saw fit to list as separate threats. Yes, the fact of the matter is that Herman Cain is against Muslims as a group. Yes, the majority of the American Civil Rights movement is one of racial tension. While anti-Semitism provides a middle ground, Muslims do not have a single racial, ethnic  or cultural background which makes the defamation we face much closer to the founding fathers concerns over religious persecution.

American Muslims are as diverse as America itself so what better way to respond to the so-called “constitutionalists” than to show them how they are going against the Framers of the Constitution desires for our nation?

We are not a race and should be very careful of using racial analogies to frame our modern issues. Want proof? Look to the same Gingrich statements you paraphrase in your piece. Gingrich makes ridiculous analogies between Islam, Communism and Nazism. Silly arguments like this can only be made if Muslims are allowing ourselves to be seen as a monolith. Racializing Islam sets the stage for the artificial analogy between Muslims and Nazis and Communists because the rich diversity of our Ummah is ignored and we are then seen as a tribe rather than a religion. The argument has become that by virtue of simply being Muslim (if seen as a monolith) we have joined a totalitarian doctrine. Our diversity of thought, diversity of religious interpretation along with the greater Muslim community's richness of spanning vast ethnic divides can all be seen with suspicion rather than the admiration it rightfully merits.

Point #4 – Good work on not using tired, problematic terminology: I applaud you for not using the term Islamophobia, which re-enforces the problems I list in point 3. The use of the term ultimately leads to the logical conclusion of Huntington's the clash of civilizations theory. When we say that fear of Muslims is Islamophobia, non-Muslims can be made to believe that Islam itself is the problem. This is because we did not address the fear. It does not matter if the fear is misplaced, it only matters that it exists. By simply telling someone who is terrified of small spaces that they are claustrophobic, I have not given them any therapy, I gave their fear a label. As someone not suffering from claustrophobia, it may give me a sense of satisfaction to know a term that describes the condition, but did it help me deal with the claustrophobe?

This open letter is nothing more than an opportunity to discuss some key strategic and tactical issues. I did in fact really appreciate your piece and applaud your effort. Thank you for a great opportunity to examine how we see ourselves and how we challenge anti-Muslim defamation. Thanks for making us laugh and by all means keep destroying stereotypes with humor!

JazakAllahu Khairan,

Iesa Galloway

By Makiko Segawa

SNA (Tokyo) — Readers of Japanese newspapers in recent months would have difficulty avoiding the term fuhyo higai, which means something like “damage caused by rumors.” This term is now deeply associated with the people of Fukushima Prefecture who have suffered a number of blows to their economic prosperity as an indirect result of the nuclear disaster. But could not the term fuhyo higai be applied with equal relevance to the condition of parts of the Muslim community of Japan?

The livelihoods of some Japan-based Muslims have been negatively impacted by the leak last October of the internal documents of the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department which alleged that the Muslim community was a potential source of “homegrown terrorism” and even identified particular individuals as probable terrorists.

It is in response to this episode of fuhyo higai that fourteen Japan-based Muslims, including some of Japanese nationality, filed last Monday a lawsuit against the Tokyo metropolitan and national government, claiming that police anti-terrorism investigations were conducted in an illegitimate fashion that abused their human rights.

The plaintiffs are requesting a total 154 million yen―or 11 million yen each―in compensation.  The leaked documents contained very specific information about a number of Muslim individuals, including passport numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, names of their family members, and all sorts of other sensitive personal information.

The documents made clear that some of these individuals were secretly investigated at the request of the FBI, implying that US counter-terrorism policies had provided the motivation for the Japanese police to put some foreign residents and even Japanese citizens under surveillance.  Kazuyuki Azusawa, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, observes, “The police are at anytime capable of accessing personal banking accounts for investigations without judicial warrants.”

According to Azusawa, the police have identified and maintain a database on about 98% of the Muslims who reside in Japan, meaning that one’s religious identity alone is being used as a marker for deciding which people are potential terrorists in Japanese society.

For those individuals whose personal information was leaked last October, the “damage” of being fuhyo higai is more than theoretical.

Azusawa reveals that one Muslim was dismissed from the company he had worked for after the leaked documents declared him a terrorist suspect. Another man who owns a small business suffered a major drop in the number of his customers.

Moreover, Azusawa indicates that many of them are now unable to go back to their mother countries since they are afraid that intelligence agencies abroad may take seriously the allegations found in Japanese police documents.

Both the plaintiffs and their lawyers note that the Metropolitan Police Department has not apologized for any aspect of their investigations, nor the damage it may have done to innocent people.  The SNA contacted the Metropolitan Police Department for their comments on the case, but the spokesman said only that he could not discuss any matter that was under litigation.  Not all observers are dissatisfied with the police activities.

Kenjiro Kato, a military analyst, told the SNA: “I do not think police investigation was inhuman when compared to what goes on in Islamic countries where forced labor and torture are being conducted. Japan is one of the most comfortable states for Muslims to live in and there is little bias toward them.” Kato also revealed the interesting fact that a police acquaintance told him in 2005 that they were following Muslims from a certain Tokyo area mosque, not because they really believed there were terrorist suspects at the location, but only as a training exercise to brush up their professional skills in trailing people unnoticed.

Whatever the truth may be―that the police are seriously worried about terrorism, or whether they are merely cooperating with FBI requests, or whether they just want to slink around in the shadows and practice how to follow people―the damage they have done to some Muslim individuals appears to be real, and it raises questions about the police use of state power within Japanese society.

Makiko Segawa is a staff writer at the Shingetsu News Agency.

Shingetsu News Agency

Members of the mosque reported two men smashed in a window at Madrasae Islamia in the 6600 block of Bintliff Drive and then doused a room with gasoline before setting the fire.

Surveillance video shows men sneaking onto the property around 3:30 a.m. Saturday. The video shows them covering their faces, as if they know there are cameras.

Two to three minutes later, they are seen getting into into a white or silver four-door car driven by another person.

Carpets were burned and there was still evidence of the smoke and flames on Sunday.

Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un. This is indeed very saddening to hear. Alḥamdulillāh, the news reports that the damage from the fire was limited and that someone was there to alert the fire department before it went out of control.

I believe any of our brothers and sisters who live or have lived in the Houston area can attest to just how special Madrasae Islamia is to the Houston Muslim community. Having lived in Houston myself for a few years, this masjid holds a special place in my heart. Besides being renowned as Houston's very own Hafiz factory (the graduates of which are recruited to lead tarawih prayers across the nation), it also holds historic significance being one of the older, more established masajid in the area. I still remember all the times we would purposely make the 20 minute drive to this masjid to hear Hafiz Iqbal's recitation. We ask that our readers remember them and the entire Muslim community in their duas.

MuslimMatters blogger, Hebah Ahmed, went head to head with prominent commentator Mona Eltahawy on the issue of the face-veil (niqab) ban in France on CNN. Even while getting far less speaking time, Hebah pretty much pwned (excuse the lingo) Mona. Hebah's confident and composed appearance surely won the day against a somewhat shrill Mona. This happens when you argue reason (Hebah) against pure emotion (Mona). There are many lessons that all Muslims, regardless of  view on niqab, can learn from Hebah's TV appearance: composure, succinctness, drawing out themes and buzz-words that average audience will latch onto, etc. Also, you can't discount the importance of sounding more American than the other (yes that includes accent)! It was refreshing to watch a Muslim woman making her own case for what she believes (or not), instead of some talking-head.

Well done Hebah, we are all proud of you! Dear readers, pls do take a moment to leave a kind word if you agree with us on Hebah's performance (regardless of your stance on her argument).

Click here to view the embedded video.

TRANSCRIPT

SPITZER: Debates over integrating devout Muslims into society are not unique to the United States. Effective today it is illegal to wear a burqa in France or a niqab like this. A Muslim veil that reveals only the eyes.

The new law drew protest and confusion on the streets of Paris. Two women stepping out in their niqabs and drawing the crowd were arrested for staging an unauthorized protest.

The French government has called the veils, and I quote, “a new form of enslavement,” and, quote, “not acceptable on its soil.”

Many Muslims are enraged but not all. I am joined by Hebah Ahmed, a writer for the blog, Muslim Matters, who's against the ban. She's in Albuquerque. And Mona Eltahawy, a columnist on Arab and Muslim issues who wants to see the ban extended everywhere. She's joining me from Washington.

Welcome to you both.

HEBAH AHMED, BLOGGER, MUSLIMMATTERS.ORG: Thank you.

SPITZER: Let me begin by — if I might, by quoting the President Sarkozy of France in his justification for the law. It's kind of a remarkable statement. He says, and I quote — this is the president of France. “The burqa is not a religious symbol. It's a sign of enslavement of debaseness. I want to say this solemnly. The burqa will not be welcomed on the territory of the French republic. We cannot accept in our country women imprisoned behind a mask, deprived of all social life of their identity.”

So, Mona, let me start with you. You want to extend this ban across the world. Do you agree with President Sarkozy that merely because somebody wants to dress like this, they choose to dress like this, they shouldn't be permitted to do so?

MONA ELTAHAWY, COLUMNIST ON MUSLIM ISSUES: You know, Eliot, I detest Nicolas Sarkozy. I consider him right wing and racist but I also detest the niqab and I detest the face veil. And I say this as a Muslim woman.

I think that it represents an ideology that does not believe in Muslim women's rights to do anything but choose to cover her face. And I find that — I believe that the niqab dangerously equates piety with the disappearance of women and so I support banning it everywhere because I don't — it's not in the Koran, it's not an obligation for a Muslim woman to cover her face, and my talk with you now with you seeing my face is going to be very different than if I were sitting here with my face covered.

I believe that the human face is central to communication.

SPITZER: OK, Mona, the only thing I would observe and I want to give Hebah a chance to jump in of course but I heard you used single personal pronoun I many times. I have no doubt you believe that, but why should your belief ban other people from wearing what they want to wear. That's what I don't get.

Hebah, explain to me why you think the ban is a bad idea.

AHMED: I think that it's a bad idea because I think it's yet another example of men telling women how to dress, how to live their life. It's another way to try to control women. And to take it to a government level and to try to legislate the way that a woman dresses is not just wrong and against human rights, but it really violates the whole basis that the democracy in democratic countries are based.

This is a free choice. This is something that I choose to wear. I disagree that it's some right-wing ideology. It is something that is permitted in Islam. I have a masters degree in mechanical engineering and I'm free to do whatever I want, and this is choice that want to make. And just because somebody doesn't accept my interpretation of Islam or personally like it doesn't mean that we can use laws to violate people's freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

SPITZER: Hebah, let me just ask you this. When you go to the airport, you understand they're going to be obligations, they're going to have to check you for security like they check all the rest. When you get a driver's license, they take a picture with or without your veil on? AHMED: Absolutely. I want everyone to know that as a Muslim woman, as a Muslim in America, I am just as concerned about safety and security as everybody else. And I have no problem whatsoever accommodating any security issues that come about. When I enter a bank, when I go to the airport, when I go to the DMV, I show my face and actually in Islam we are required to show our identity when we're in a court system giving testimony. This is absolutely something that is essential for the security and identification of people, but it doesn't mean that I should be banned completely from what I choose to do.

SPITZER: OK, Mona, let me jump in here. There are lots of type of dress that I look at and I don't like them. I think they're degrading. I think they're oppressive. You know, a lots of things that I see teenagers wearing that, you know, I'm now viewed as old- fashioned by my kids perhaps. I don't go around saying we should pass a law banning it. Isn't that fundamentally violative (ph) of the First Amendment? What possible reason can there be legally to say to somebody you can't dress the way you want to dress.

MONA ELTAHAWY, COLUMNIST ON MUSLIM ISSUES: Actually, Eliot, the government does tell people how they can and can't dress all the time. You cannot walk outside naked. There are many states here in the U.S. where three or more people cannot be together in public wearing a face mask. So the government actually does legislate over our wardrobe, but everybody conveniently forgets that.

I would like to ask Hebah, you know, once I'm done talking, if she works. Because we've been on media shows together where we've been on opposite ends of this argument and I know from what she said before that once she started covering her face, she stopped working. So my argument is — and this is not just about “I.” I understand the point that you were making earlier, Eliot. Feminist groups, many women's rights group have made the point that what the niqab goes in a society, especially for Muslim women is that it creates a spectrum where that is the pinnacle of piety and that is the good Muslim woman and so, of course, it has — it affects me.

In France, where this ban is going in effect, Muslim women's rights group there support it because they find that Muslim women who live in the French housing projects have been put under tremendous pressure by the Muslim right wing to give into the niqab, and when they speak out they are told it's basically become these political pawns.

SPITZER: But, Mona –

ELTAHAWY: That's why I said I oppose Sarkozy but I oppose this on women because what choice do women have besides covering their face. This ideology doesn't recognize Muslim women's rights.

SPITZER: Mona, I just have to push you on one thing here. There are certain prohibitions on the way people dress, or you mentioned nudity that don't dress that are in fact imposed upon us by law but none of them that I'm aware relates to a specific religion and says if you are a devout member of a religion you cannot dress in a way that you are obligated to to practice your religion, your choice of faith. Can you think of any example like that? Because I can think of a thousand other laws if this were upheld that suddenly we would limit all sorts of things that people do for their religious beliefs because we don't agree with it. Wouldn't that be a very dangerous thing to do?

ELTAHAWY: See, this is I think where these right-wing interpretations of religion get a free pass because everybody says well, it's my religious obligation, it's my religious right do this. Let's look really at what we're talking about here. We're talking about the disappearance of women justified in the name of them becoming closer to God. So the closer you want to become to God, the more — the less of you, the more you disappear.

SPITZER: But, Mona –

AHMED: I don't feel that I have disappeared at all.

SPITZER: One at a time.

AHMED: I totally disagree.

SPITZER: Guys, one at a time. Hebah, jump in. Tell us, does anybody forced you to do this? Is this something you're doing with your own free will?

AHMED: Nobody has — nobody has forced me do this and I really have to disagree with the statistics that Mona is trying to put forth because studies have shown that there are only 2,000 women in France that wear the niqab. The majority of them are converts who converted to Islam and are voluntarily choosing to do it. This is my choice. Nobody can force me to take it off. I would not take it off even if you paid me to do it. And the fact of the matter is that there's never — I have never met a single Muslim woman in all of my travels around the world that is being forced to wear it. She — I understand Mona does not like it and does not want to wear it personally. But she keeps talking about her own feelings about it and she wants to use the law to support it. If she wants diversity and Islamic belief, then she has to accept my version just like she wants me to accept hers.

SPITZER: Mona, let me ask you this question. Do you have any evidence to support your statement that women are forced to wear this? And let me ask you this. If women are being forced to do something they don't want to do, there is recourse other than banning this entire motive dress that has chosen as we just heard from Hebah by people who do choose to wear it of their own free will.

ELTAHAWY: Well, you know, I lived in Saudi Arabia. I have a sense that she's traveled the world and she's never met a woman who has been forced to wear it. I lived in Saudi Arabia where millions of women are forced to cover their face. But now that the argument will be, well, that's in Saudi Arabia not in France. What choice does a woman have when she's told she will burn in hell if she doesn't cover every inch of her body? What kind of a choice is that? So, of course, she's going to convert to this ideology. AHMED: I've never heard that. I've never heard anybody say that.

ELTAHAWY: But the women who convert to this ideology who are then told that this is how to be a good Muslim woman, to be close to God, to avoid hellfire, is there really a choice in that? And I believe when you have a law like this, you know, I told you I detest Sarkozy. I consider him racist, but I will not sacrifice Muslim women's rights in order to uphold the Muslim right wing which I believe is misogynist. With a law like that, a woman can tell her husband or any male relative who is forcing her to dress like this, the law says I don't have to dress like this.

SPITZER: Mona — Mona, let's not deal with Saudi Arabia, different customs, different laws. We have the First Amendment.

AHMED: Thank you.

SPITZER: I was talking about France. I was talking about France.

SPITZER: Mona, wait, hold on one second. In the United States, we have the First Amendment that gives people the right to practice religion as they wish. Do you not think that a law in the United States that would ban this form of dress would violate the First Amendment, permission to practice religion as each individual sees fit?

ELTAHAWY: Well, this comes back to religion again. Everything is allowed, just because someone says it's their religious belief. You know, what I think –

SPITZER: No, no, no, Mona — I'm going to jump in. Hold on one second. It's banned or permitted until there is some compelling state interest on the other side, but it's got to be an overwhelming interest. What is the overwhelming interest that would justify us in banning a type of dress that people choose as a result of their religion?

ELTAHAWY: Well, all the reasons I just gave you but I will repeat. I believe that this is genuinely harmful to Muslim women because it creates this pinnacle of piety in which a Muslim woman is told, this is the closest that you can get to God and she's disappeared. I'm no longer here. You don't even know who I am. The face is central to communication.

SPITZER: Right.

ELTAHAWY: And not just that, it objectifies women.

SPITZER: Mona, Mona.

ELTAHAWY: The pinnacle of objectification.

SPITZER: Look, I agree with much of what you're saying but not as the matter of law. You know, you get the last word. You haven't gotten a fair time in this one. Give it the best 15 seconds you've got.

AHMED: Thank you. Basically, I want people to know that when I choose to cover this way it's because I am fighting against a systematic oppression against women in which women's bodies are being sexualized and objectified. This is a different perspective and a different form of empowerment in which I think when I'm in public, my sexuality is in my control and people have to deal with my brain and who I really am and not judge me by my body. And if we want to really talk about the oppressive situation of women, let's talk about all the eating disorders, all of the plastic surgery, all of the unhealthy diets that are being done, all in the name of having the perfect body. To me, this is liberating and this is empowering. Mona keeps saying I believe, I believe, I believe, well, we don't make laws based on what Mona believes or what anybody believes.

SPITZER: All right. Guys, well –

AHMED: It's based on whether or not –

SPITZER: This is clearly not an issue we're going to resolve in the will resolve in the next 10 seconds. I want to thank you both. Hebah Ahmed and Mona Eltahawy, clearly a passionate and important debate.

AHMED: Thank you.

With Islamophobia being in the newspapers on almost a daily basis, Sayeeda Warsi’s speech at Leicester University has resulted in providing more fuel to the media as well as questions about David Cameron’s choice of Cabinet Minister for his new government.

Sayeeda Warsi has been lauded for becoming the first British Muslim Cabinet Minister. Since her appointment in government she has been fairly outspoken about the place of religion in politics. Whilst her past attempts have appeared to be bold, this seems to have been her most brazen attempt at trying to bring the recently bigoted attitude of everyday British people to the fore.

As a British Muslim myself, I’m not quite sure what to make of her speech. Naturally, newspapers have pulled everything out of context and I, for one, am not surprised. However, I was incredibly perplexed to see a blog article by one of Britain’s right-wing newspapers, The Telegraph, actually praising her for her speech. Bear in mind that The Telegraph is not known to be the most Muslim-friendly newspaper. In fact I have found it to be anything but friendly towards Muslims, and usually one of the first newspapers at the newsagent’s to have some sort of shock-inducing, Muslim-related headline.

Warsi’s speech can be read in full at her website, and of course she makes some very good points. I agree that I have seen a slow progression of a bigoted attitude towards Muslims. I remember once collecting for Charity Week with another sister a few years ago at university and observing the countenance of a woman as she walked pass reading my t-shirt. As soon as she saw the word ‘Islamic’, the expression on her face turned into one of horror and disgust as she walked away from us even faster than she was at the time. Whenever I look back on that, I think about WHY she did that. Conspiracy theories aside, events such 9/11, 7/7 and other incidents have not helped the situation. But I have observed the declining change in British attitudes towards Muslims over the past 10 years and I hold the media’s constant scrutiny of us, accountable.

The latter part of the Telegraph’s blog article by Peter Oborne only proves that gross distortion of minor incidents have not just pulled the actions of Muslims completely out of context, but also displays the depths to which the media stoops to get a ‘scoop’. The mention of politically correct journalists being proud to be ‘Islamophobic’ is, at the very least, abhorrent and at its worst, reminiscent of Nazism. And we all know what that leads to.

I’m disappointed that in Sayeeda Warsi speaking the truth in such a bold way has resulted in a negative reaction, but then I’m not surprised. History has proven to us that those who speak home truths against oppression, no matter how harsh they may be, will always be heavily scrutinised. However, these same people tend to leave a legacy behind. I do not doubt Sayeeda’s intentions, but it could be that her desire to create a change may result in daring actions and subsequently, a desire to leave behind a legacy. And is there anything wrong with that? I just hope that her potential desire doesn’t lead to potentially disastrous and reckless actions in the future.

Coming back to Sayeeda Warsi’s speech, I am not here to judge her actions as a Muslim, but as a politician whose speech could impact my life and the lives of those around me, both Muslim and non-Muslim. At best, I hope that most people will take the time out to read her speech in full and take her words on board, but I also know that, realistically, few people will do that and will prefer to live in their bigoted, Islamophobically-charged lives, reading the Daily Mail and The Telegraph. After all, who really wants to think for themselves when the media is doing it for them?

Cross-posted with “Faith in Memphis“

Two Tennessee legislators have proposed what amounts to a ban on the Islamic system of ethical, spiritual and legal teachings known as shariah.The authors of the bill incorrectly define shariah as a system of legal, political, military and religious laws that calls its followers to overthrow the United States’ government through brutal force, acts of terrorism, and ‘holy war’ (i.e., jihad), in order to establish itself as the sole political and religious power in the world.

Sounds pretty frightening, doesn’t it? If I did not know any better, I would be the first to jump on the bandwagon and support any effort to ban such a nefarious system, not just in Tennessee but all across my country.

But there is just one major problem: the ‘shariah’ that this bill defines is a shariah that I don’t recognize, nor do the millions of American Muslims who proudly claim allegiance to this country, nor does the recognized body of Muslim scholars formally trained in the study of shariah.

I have dedicated my life to the study of Islamic law. I want to correct the basic premise upon which this proposed bill is based.

The word ‘shariah’ literally means ‘path,’ and for all Muslims, the shariah is a set of ethics and laws they believe will lead them to God’s mercy.

The bulk of the shariah, approximately 70 percent, deals with rituals of worship. For example, the shariah tells me that I should regularly take time out of my day to remember God. It advises me to give charity, and instructs me that a percentage of my earnings and savings should be dedicated for the poor.

The shariah instructs me how to fast every year in order to cultivate patience and to feel unity with those who are less fortunate. It asks me to commemorate the faith of the Prophet Abraham by visiting the house of worship that he built in Mecca, and details the rituals that I should perform during this pilgrimage.

Approximately 25 percent of the shariah deals with dietary restrictions and personal economic and family laws. Just like kosher laws for Jews, Muslims have their own laws in the shariah that regulate the way animals should be slaughtered, taking into consideration respect for their lives and feelings.

Family law in the shariah requires Muslims to follow religious customs when marrying or divorcing. For example, a husband is obliged to gift his wife a monetary gift at the time of marriage and is also obliged to pay an additional amount in the case of divorce. The shariah also prohibits Muslims from dealing in usurious transactions. All of these laws, far from opposing the laws of the land, are in fact protected by our U.S. Constitution.

It is true that some laws of the shariah are intended for application at a national level, and include punishments for murder and theft. These laws make up a portion of the remaining five percent of the shariah.

However, these laws are intended to be applied in a system of government that derives its rules from Islam.

But much of the Shariah is not codified and is instead based on interpretation. So even in a hypothetical Islamic state — and that’s the only kind there is — various jurists and theologians will have different understandings and interpretations of shariah in any given situation, much like American judges will differ over the intent and understanding of the Constitution.

Such a hypothetical system of Islamic government is not being championed by American Muslims. In fact, it is highly debatable whether such a system even exists anywhere in the world, including Iran.

Even more importantly, the Constitution of my homeland — the United States of America — mandates the separation of church and state. My fellow American Muslims and I understand, appreciate and fully support that mandate.

The proposed bill purports to protect those who choose to peacefully practice Islam in their lives. Unfortunately, the proposed bill also makes the word “shariah” synonymous with the word “terrorist”. That likeness is grossly inaccurate and runs against the very values that shape the American landscape.

One of the fundamental principles that makes this country so different from others – and hence so great – is the religious freedoms guaranteed by our Founding Fathers through the Constitution. It was an idea they considered so sacrosanct that they enshrined it in the Bill of Rights.

I cherish this freedom. The claim that those who desire to follow the shariah actually harbor a secret desire to overthrow the Constitution and supplant it with shariah law is outlandish.

The ‘shariah’ that the proposed bill tries to ban is not based upon Islamic tenets, is not desired by American Muslims, and is absolutely prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. The value added by this bill is, therefore, null, but the fear and stigma it creates is potentially dangerous and divisive.

History has taught us what fear-mongering does to a civil society.

The Nazis could not have succeeded in their goal if they had not instituted an active campaign of instilling paranoia and fomenting an intense hatred against minority groups in Germany.

In this great land of ours, a hundred thousand Japanese Americans were interned because of irrational fears about internal threats to America. I cannot help but think that the current climate of fear against Muslims reeks of the McCarthy Hearings of the 1950s. Do we really want to go down this route again?

American Muslims, like all people of faith, are working to navigate their way of life into the American framework. No reputable Muslim group in America is calling for overthrowing the U.S. government or establishing some sort of Islamic government.

What we are asking for is what all Americans of faith ask for: that we be allowed to live under the laws of the land and according to the tenets of our faith. To deny us this right is not just unconstitutional, it is anti-American.