“Muslim restaurant owners are forced to sign a document to remain open and continue selling alcohol during Ramadan”

Remember the fall of Al Andalus, Muslim Spain in 1492 and how the Muslims were progressively forced to act as Christians to hide their identity?

Well, don’t we say that Histoy repeats itself? Believe it or not but the same thing is happening today, and about 8 millions Muslims can’t pray, fast and worship Allah swt as they want.

Here is an article of the Epoch Times that details the evil plan of the Chinese Government to harrass and restrict the Muslims in they daily lives:

Chinese authorities in Xinjiang Province have issued a notice that any Uyghur cadres or workers found not eating lunch during Ramadan could lose their jobs.

It is part of the campaign of local authorities in Xinjiang, home to the Muslim Uyghur ethnic group, to force the Uyghur people to give up their religious rituals during the fasting month of Ramadan.

Ramadan is a holy month in the Islamic calendar, which begun this year on Aug. 22. It requires not eating during the daytime.

“Free lunches, tea, and coffee—that authorities are calling ‘Care from the government’ or ‘Living allowance’—are being offered in government departments and companies. But it is actually a ploy used to find out who is fasting,” said Dilxat Raxit, World Uyghur Congress spokesman, speaking to The Epoch Times.

According to Dilxat, Uyghur Communist Party cadres throughout Xinjiang had been forced to sign “letters of responsibility” promising to avoid fasting and other religious activities. They are also responsible for enforcing the policy in their assigned areas, and face punishment if anyone in these areas fasts.

For the first time, Dilxat said, the crackdown has extended to retired Communist Party members. Current cadres are required to visit them to prevent them from participating in the fast. If anyone violates the ban, local leaders will be held responsible and severely punished, he said.

Muslim restaurant owners are forced to sign a document to remain open and continue selling alcohol during Ramadan or have their licenses revoked, he said.

Uyghurs arrested during the July riots in Urumqi are also prohibited from fasting; those who insist on fasting will be force fed food and water while enduring insults for their misbehavior, he said in the interview.

Monks in mosques are forced to preach to others that fasting is a “feudal activity” and harmful to health, said Dilxat. Otherwise, their religious certification will be cancelled.

When asked about Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Hu Jintao’s recent visit to Xinjiang, Dilxat said: “Xinjiang’s situation has not yet returned to normal. Rather than asking the local Han people to respect the religion and culture of Uyghur people, Hu encouraged the use of military troops to suppress and further restrict our religious freedom. The communist regime often talks about ‘maintaining stability,’ but what they do is always different from what they say. They are actually the ones who are destroying stability.”

An Epoch Times reporter contacted the CCP’s State Ethnic Affairs Commission to see whether the restrictions claimed by Dilxat were official, or what the official stance on Ramadan was. The media contact wouldn’t speak on the subject, instead giving two numbers in Xinjiang that he said the reporter would be able to call to find out more. Both numbers were continually busy, and when the reporter called the State Ethnic Affairs Commission back, the man hung up.

The directives are communicated on official Web sites in the region, however.

Additional reporting by Matthew Robertson

Read original article in Chinese.

While you are enjoying your delicious meal during iftaars, the great nights of ibadaah in the masjids, pleas let us not forget our brothers and sisters in need, who can’t even fast and pray freely. May Allah swt give victory to the Mu’minoon and give Sabr to those suffering around the world.

(Photo courtesy: Jerry Wu/The Epoch Times)

Students at Oxford University, one of the highest ranking, and most prestigious educational establishments in the world, have begun a sit-in protest, to highlight the brutality of the occupation of Palestine, as exemplified by the recent, ferocious attack on Gaza.

Source: Oxford Occupation blog

Over the past few weeks, a number of lecture theatres around the UK have been peacefully “occupied” by students of various institutions. The participation of Oxford University makes the current total stand at eight. Each group has drafted a list of demands addressed to the administrators of their respective establishments. Some have included a call to divest from companies that support Israel, such BAE, whose supply of weapons may have directly contributed to the great and inexcusable number of civilian deaths and casualties that resulted from the latest Israeli incursion into Gaza.

A press statement released from the Oxford Occupation group today:

OXFORD UNIVERSITY STUDENTS OCCUPY BUILDING IN SOLIDARITY WITH GAZA

In the first week of term, over 80 Oxford University students have occupied the historic Bodleian building to demand that the university releases a statement condemning the attack on Gaza and cancel the lecture series at Balliol College inaugurated by Shimon Peres.

Students organised the sit in after attending an emergency meeting in Oxford organised to discuss the war on Gaza and the precarious ceasefire. Members of the University entered the Clarendon building and sat down at 1200, British time, on Thursday 22nd January. Their demands were presented to University officials.

The group represents a broad spectrum of concerned students and has the support of peace campaigners here in Oxford. They want the University Proctor to express solidarity with Palestinian academic community and condemning the attack on the educational infrastructure.

“Palestinians have the same rights as we do, including the right to education as enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. We are proud to be students at Oxford University and do not want the University to contribute in any way to the undermining of the right to education. It is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of humanity,” a spokesperson said.

Students demand that the Master of Balliol College cancel the lecture series inaugurated by Shimon Peres. The group are also demanding that Oxford University divests from arms firm BAE Systems, an arms company who supply the Israeli military.

“The fact that Oxford University invests in BAE Systems means that it is directly profiting from the collective punishment of the Palestinian people. Our University cannot be funded by unlawful military aggression. Oxford University must divest from BAE and other arms companies immediately.

Students have also issued several demands related to providing material support for Palestinian students including providing 5 fully paid scholarships for Palestinian students and resources for education in Gaza.

Numerous Oxford academics as well as the Oxford University Islamic Society, the Oxford Palestine Society, the Oxford Indian and the Oxford Pakistan societies have already signed petitions condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza.

DEMANDS IN FULL

1) Statement
Oxford University should release a statement in support of the right of Palestinians to education and its support to the Palestinian Academic community. The University should condemn in particular the attack on the Islamic University in Gaza.

2) Divestment
Oxford University currently holds investments in BAE Systems, a firm that the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (caat.org.uk) states provides weapons and ammunition for the Israeli military. This means that our university is being directly funded by the Israeli war on Gaza. Oxford University must divest from BAE and other companies which supply arms to Israel.

3) 5 fully paid scholarships for Palestinian students.
Particularly after the attack on Gaza and the ongoing hardships suffered by Palestinians, Oxford University should offer 5 fully-funded scholarships to Palestinian students as a way to contribute to greater access to education for those affected by the conflict.

4) A cancellation lecture series inaugurated by Shimon Peres
The group demands that the Master of Balliol College cancel the lecture series that was inaugurated by the Israeli President Shimon Peres. It is not appropriate to have such a lecture series in light of the attack on Gaza and the ongoing siege.

5) Resources for Education.
The Oxford University should donate resources to, and support, the University and educational infrastructure that have been bombed in Gaza.

6) Right to Peaceful Protest
Oxford University has a proud history of student activism. Students united to campaign against apartheid, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All students have a democratic right to peaceful protest and students should not be prevented from expressing their opinions by fear of reprisals.

The following are a list of blogs dedicated to coverage of the various student protests. Please click through and show your support with comments of good will:

• Birmingham Occupation
• Essex Occupation
• King’s College London Occupation
• LSE Occupation
• Oxford Occupation
• SOAS Occupation
• Sussex Occupation
• Warwick Sit In

In the News:

The Guardian: Protests over Gaza spread to eight English universities

The following are statements of African-American Imams. It’s time to let BAMs to speak for themselves inshallah!

—————–

STATEMENT OF IMAM JOHARI ABDUL-MALIK
From “Out House” to the White House!

As a black American, I was an admirer of El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz -Malcolm X (may Allah grant him peace) for many years before I finally converted to Islam over 25 years ago.  Like so many other Blacks in America and around world, I am outraged by the comments attributed to Mr. Al-Zawahiri.  Just in case Al-Zawahiri hasn’t noticed, both Malcolm X and President-elect Obama are heroes in Africa, Asia, Europe, around the world and all across America – including Black America.

His shallow attempt at dividing American Muslims from our president is an exercise in futility.  Al-Zawahiri’s comments only serve as a distraction, when we as Americans should be celebrating, we must take a detour to silence more hate speech from this group.

I am offended that this group consistently portrays Islam as a murderous and irrational religion practiced by racists and sexists.  Just as I would not portray the Ku Klux Klan as “Christian” or Hitler as “Catholic”, I can’t call the streaming absurdities of these kinds of people – “Islam”! Racism and murder are not part of Islam – Al-Zawahiri’s comments were (as usual) racist and divisive.

I was also offended at the hijacking of Malcolm X’s legacy in which Mr. Al-Zawahiri implied that Malcolm would approve of their un-Islamic murderous methods.  Malcolm X has said that he believed in the sanctity of life and the rule of law.  The Al-Qaeda gang of lawless murderers is looking to cover their bloody tracks by dragging Brother Malcolm X into their dark and musty cave of division.

In a recent speech by the Deputy-Amir of MANA (Muslim Alliance in North America) said,

“He (Malcolm X) said right here in Harlem in a rally in this very building (Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood), on July 5, 1964 “ … SO LET US TRY THE BALLOT. AND IF THE BALLOT DOESN’T WORK, WE’LL TRY SOMETHING ELSE. BUT LET US TRY THE BALLOT. AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN TRY THE BALLOT IS TO ORGANIZE AND PUT ON A CAMPAIGN THAT WILL CREATE A NEW CLIMATE.” ”

Let it be known that Black American-Muslims see Malcolm X as a martyr (shaheed in Islam). Black American Muslims did not struggle through the civil rights movement and the acceptance of Islam to go from the “back of the bus” to the “back of the camel”.  How dare this racist Al-Zawahiri use the words of Malcolm X against the legitimate aspirations of Black people.

I was offended that Al-Zawahiri throws around the term “slave” to describe blacks in the pejorative!  This man, Al-Zawahiri, does a major disservice to the cause of Islam in America.  Black Muslims in America plan to pull the sheets off the sins of Arab-style-Klansman using the cover of Islamic brotherhood to exploit our people.

While I say this, I am not racist to call myself a Muslim African-American nor does it violate the spirit Islam to refer to all African-Americans as my people.  The Prophet (as) said, ‘Oh my people…..’ this affirmation was a comment to the people of Mecca both Muslim and those of other faiths.

I recall the prophet Muhammad, (as) said there is no superiority between the Arab and the non-Arab, the White over the Black nor the Black over the White…..

The Obama victory is the culmination on centuries of struggle; lynching, torture, murderer, rape and incarceration for political and religious freedom.  Today, I refuse to be castrated by hating Al-Qaeda group hiding in a cave.

While Mr. Al-Zawahiri comments spew from his  “Out house”.  Barak Obama is an African-American and he is…… ‘In the HOUSE!!!!!’, not  a “house-negro” but a black man’s house!  African-American Muslims are also “in the house!” – U.S. House of Representatives (Muslim congressman: Keith Ellison and Andre’ Carlson) and soon to be in the Senate and one day Muslims……..in every aspect of American life.

We are proud to be Muslim and we love our country. There is no contradiction.

Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, serves as Director of Outreach for the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, VA and as Chair of Governmental Issues for the Muslim Alliance in North America. The views expressed do not reflect the official position of the forementioned organizations
————–

STATEMENT BY IMAM AL-HAJJ TALIB ‘ABDUR-RASHID
OF THE MOSQUE OF ISLAMIC BROTHERHOOD INC.  IN RESPONSE TO THE RECENT STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO AL-ZAWAHRI OF EL-QAEDA
Delivered at a Press Conference Convened at the Shabazz Center in Harlem NYC
Nov. 20, 2008

AS-SALAAMU ‘ALAIKUM. THE MOSQUE OF ISLAMIC BROTHERHOOD WAS FOUNDED FOUR DECADES AGO IN PART, AS A RESP0NSE TO THE FACT THAT IT HAD BECOME OBVIOUS THAT THE THEN EXISTING SUNNI MUSLIM COMMUNITIES LACKED KNOWLEDGE AND DISCIPLINE, AND WERE THEREBY EXPOSED TO MANIPULATION AND APPARENT USE AS A POLITICAL ARM.

THIS UNFORTUNATE SITUATION WAS RAPIDLY RESULTING IN CONFUSION, AND UN-ISLAMIC TEACHINGS WITHIN THE SUNNI MUSLIM COMMUNITIES, AND THE ALIENATION OF MANY PEOPLE WHO WANTED A TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF ISLAM. THE SINCERITY OF AFRICAN AMERICANS AND OUR PAST NAIVETÉ HAS APPARENTLY LED MODERN FORCES TO THINK THAT OUR PEOPLE CAN BE MANIPULATED , AT THIS OUTSET OF THE 21ST CENTURY.

SO LET US MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AMERICA IS, AS THE AUTHOR AND RESEARCHER SYLVIANNE DIOUF POINTS OUT, THE ONLY WESTERN COUNTRY WITH AN INDIGENOUS MUSLIM POPULATION OF AFRICAN DESCENT. NO ONE AT HOME  OR ABROAD SPEAKS FOR MUSLIM AFRICAN AMERICANS BUT THEIR OWN LEADERS.
FURTHER, OVERWHELMINGLY, AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSLIM LEADERS REJECT CALLS TO BOTH RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL EXTREMISM , PARTICULARLY WHEN SUCH CALLS ARE BASED UPON APPEALS TO EMOTION AND A PROJECTED INTERNATIONAL AGENDA DECLARED BY OTHERS, INSTEAD OF A DOMESTIC AGENDA DECLARED BY OURSELVES.

INSOFAR AS EL-HAJJ MALIK EL-SHABAZZ, POPULARLY KNOWN AS MALCOLM X IS CONCERNED (MAY ALLAH FORGIVE HIS SINS AND GRANT HIM PARADISE), WE WHO LIVE THE REALITY OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE BOTH BLACK AND MUSLIM IN AMERICA, AS OPPOSED TO JUST READING ABOUT IT – WE THE PEOPLE – KNOW WHAT EL-HAJJ MALIK TAUGHT.

HE SAID RIGHT HERE IN HARLEM IN A RALLY IN THIS VERY BUILDING , ON JULY 5, 1964 :  “ … SO LET US TRY THE BALLOT. AND IF THE BALLOT DOESN’T WORK, WE’LL TRY SOMETHING ELSE. BUT LET US TRY THE BALLOT. AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN TRY THE BALLOT IS TO ORGANIZE AND PUT ON A CAMPAIGN THAT WILL CREATE A NEW CLIMATE.

IT IS CLEAR TO US THAT THE SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN  OF PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA WAS AN ACCEPTANCE OF BROTHER MALCOLM’S CHALLENGE TO AMERICANS OF AFRICAN DESCENT TO  “TRY THE BALLOT”.

SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, AN AL-JAZEERA REPORTER WHO WAS AN ARAB ASKED ME IF I THOUGHT THAT IF HE WERE ALIVE TODAY, EL-HAJJ MALIK EL-SHABAZZ (MALCOLM X) WOULD VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA. WHEN I ANSWERED “YES”, THE REPORTER WAVED HIS HAND AND DISMISSED MY RESPONSE WITHOUT EVEN ASKING ME WHY I ANSWERED AS I DID.

WELL I PERSONALLY HAVE SPOKEN WITH SOME OF THE FEW  SURVIVING ELDERS IN THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY, WHO WERE ACTUAL AND AUTHENTIC,  CLOSE FOLLOWERS AND SUPPORTERS OF EL-HAJJ MALIK.

THEY HAVE SAID TO ME THAT THE GREAT AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSLIM LEADER WOULD HAVE BEEN PROUD OF THE DISCIPLINE AND INTEGRITY WITH WHICH THE PRESIDENT-ELECT CONDUCTED HIMSELF DURING THE CAMPAIGN. EL-HAJJ MALIK EL-SHABAZZ WOULD HAVE BEEN PROUD THEY SAY, O F PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA’S TRIUMPH OVER TREMENDOUS ODDS,  AND THE FACT THAT 97%  OF AFRICAN AMERICANS VOTED FOR OBAMA, AS WELL AS MANY, MANY WHITE, SPANISH-SPEAKING, AND OTHER AMERICANS, OF VARIOUS ETHNICITIES AND BACKGROUNDS.

BY THE SAME TOKEN, JUST AS THE PRESIDENT-ELECT HIMSELF HAS SAID THAT DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING WOULD BE IN THE STREETS LEADING POOR PEOPLE RATHER THAN SITTING IN THE WHITE HOUSE WITH HIM, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS APPLIES AS WELL TO BROTHER EL-HAJJ MALIK EL-SHABAZZ/ MALCOLM X, WHO FOLLOWED THE QUR’ANIC MANDATE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH NO MATTER WHOM OR WHAT, EVEN IF IT IS AGAINST ONESELF

THAT IS WHAT OUR ELDERS HAVE SAID TO US, AND THEY ARE IN A MUCH BETTER POSITION TO MAKE SUCH DETERMINATIONS, THAN THOSE WHO WHILE THEY SHARE OUR COMMON FAITH, HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM AFRICAN AMERICANS GENERALLY, AND MUSLIM AFRICAN AMERICANS IN PARTICULAR.

EL-HAJJ MALIK EL-SHABAZZ WAS A MAN OF INTEGRITY WHO STOOD FOR JUSTICE AGAINST INJUSTICE. HE NEVER CALLED FOR ACTS OF INJUSTICE AGAINST OTHERS AS A RESPONSE TO INJUSTICE AGAINST HIS PEOPLE. HE STOOD FOR HUMAN RIGHTS,  AND THE PRINCIPLE  OF SELF-DEFENSE RECOGNIZED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED, AND WE REJECT , ACTS OF POLITICAL EXTREMISM THAT EXCEED THE BOUNDARIES OF ISLAMIC LAW, AND TAKE THE LIVES OF INNOCENT, NON-COMBATANT CIVILIANS.

SO WE SAY TO ALL WHO WOULD SEEK TO MANIPULATE US, OR MANIPULATE OTHERS AGAINST US, THAT WE KNOW OUR FULL HISTORY IN AMERICA AND WE ARE STRIVING TO UNDERSTAND THE GEO-POLITICAL COMPLEXITIES OF LIFE IN THE MODERN WORLD.  MALCOLM X STOOD FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE AND SO DO WE. WE STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH ALL PEOPLES WHO SHARE THESE IDEALS.

LASTLY, WE BELIEVE THAT BEFORE PEOPLE CRITICIZE PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA ‘S PERFORMANCE AS PRESIDENT  OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT  BOTH  PRUDENCE AND JUSTICE DEMAND THAT HE FIRST BE ALLOWED TO ACTUALLY TAKE OFFICE AND ASSUME THE POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES THEREOF, AND BEGIN TO EXERCISE THEM.

IN MIGHT BE THAT WE AS MUSLIM AFRICAN AMERICAN LEADERS WILL IN THE FUTURE BE CRITICAL OF SOME OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S DECISIONS AND ACTIONS. ALMIGHTY GOD, WHOM WE WHO ARE MUSLIMS CALL ALLAH, KNOWS BEST.

CAIR: Zawahari Does Not Speak for Muslims (in Calling Obama a House-Negro) [or for that matter anything in Islam]

I find it interesting that these murderous zealots (like Zawahari and gang) don’t have any problem using racial epithets. It is truly ironic that those who claim to sometimes be the staunchest in defending the purity of our deen are the ones who resort to using offensive race-based slurs – a violation of even the most basic teachings of manners in our religion. Where is the Islam in racism and racist terms, Dr. Doom? In fact, Islam is the cure for this disease.

Some people may argue that the words of Zawahiri are not racism, but why don’t you ask a black man that question? And even if a minority of African-Americans find it offensive, then that is sufficient to declare it unacceptable. In matters of racism, both context and the person making the statements are important. So, while it may be perfectly okay for black men to call each other the n-word, it is not okay for people outside their race to make the same comment. Some may find this hypocritical, but it is simply human psychology. Look at your own family. If someone else remarks about your kid’s bad behavior, it may rub you the wrong way, but if you do it yourself, you don’t think twice about it.

There is also an element of the fact that a black man cannot be racist about another black man, intrinsicially speaking. So, there is no question about motive (i.e. is it a joke or is it in seriousness). While if a white, Asian, etc. man makes the same color-based offensive remark about the black man (and it can go both ways), then because the former doesn’t share the skin color, you can never know what’s in his heart. And that is why it is “more” unacceptable. Sorry for going a bit lengthy on this explanation, but its an important point some people don’t get.

Back to Zawahiri then, in some sense, I am glad that he made these comments, because it reflects on the kind of person he really is, and also reflects upon his followers. Is this the kind of Muslim we want as a spokesperson for Islam? I truly hope not. I also await the day when we’ll stop taking his words or the words of other radicals so seriously. Who cares what he thinks? Why give it any credibility?

There is also an interesting nuance here. In fact, its more than interesting, its actually quite intriguing. This term “house-negro” is becoming the ever-popular term among some groups of Muslims. In fact, MM has been referred to as such by some Muslims, due to our elections coverage and a couple of posts here and there. Seems that some of these king-pin radicals, who are trying their best to hold/increase their internet recruitment of misguided individuals, seem to be keeping an eye on the blog-world! Or perhaps it’s just a simple co-incidence?

Moving on to the final different tangent, on the surface of it all, CAIR’s press-release seems quite unneeded… the average Muslim knows that Zawahari does not speak for Muslims, and we would hope that the average non-Muslim also knows. But unfortunately many non-Muslims continue to believe that such individuals speak for us.  Thus, I think it is necessary to keep saying the same, obvious things over and over again.

You see, I am learning a lot from the Islamophobes, and the right-wingers. They say something blatantly outrageous, and then about 20 blogs cross-post that same headline. By the time you search for that term, or if a reporter is in a hurry for a story on the topic, he sees this overwhelming repetition of the same thing, and the reporter goes with it. Or some other website or blog picks it up unmaliciously.

So, it is necessary for us to cross-post positive and truthful stories and repudiate the attacks, as well as proactively make our own voices heard. Next time someone searches for Zawahari and house-negro, they will come across this post, and other posts that share the condemnation. It is all a big internet battle… and our goal should be to push truth over falsehood, and to counter Islamophobic propaganda.

Following is the press-release from CAIR:

CAIR: ZAWAHRI DOES NOT SPEAK FOR MUSLIMS
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/19/08) – A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today condemned threatening rhetoric and racial slurs contained in a new video by Ayman al-Zawahri and said Al-Qaida’s second-in-command does not speak for Muslims in this country or worldwide.

SEE: Al-Qaida No. 2 Insults Obama with Racial Epithet (AP)

In a statement reacting to the new video, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said:
“As Muslims and as Americans, we will never let terrorist groups or terror leaders falsely claim to represent us or our faith. The legitimate grievances of Muslims in many areas of the world can never serve as an excuse or a justification for attacks on civilian populations. We once again repudiate Al-Qaida’s actions, rhetoric and worldview and re-state our condemnation of all forms of terrorism and religious extremism.”

SEE: CAIR’s Anti-Terrorism Campaigns

CAIR took particular offense to al-Zawahri’s use of the offensive term “house Negro” in reference to President-elect Barack Obama. “Islam rejects racism and seeks universal peace and brotherhood. We repudiate any and all use of racial slurs or insults.”

The Washington-based council recently welcomed the arrest of two teenagers who allegedly assaulted a New York Muslim of African heritage on Election Night after reportedly shouting ‘Obama’ and condemned a cross-burning on the lawn of an Obama supporter in New Jersey.
SEE: CAIR-NY Welcomes Arrests in Election Night ‘Obama’ Attack
SEE ALSO: CAIR Condemns Cross Burning on Lawn of NJ Obama Supporters

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

A group of 8 people, who believe in the fundamentalist Christian belief that the Aryan race is the superior race, engaged in an act of violent terrorism against an innocent woman. It can only be assumed this was one act of numerous incidents accumulating over the past few years of home-grown terrorists attempting to implement a fundamentalist religious doctrine on American society.

It’s also quite clear from the pictures that they are a fundamentalist group, matching the physical profile of a typical redneck Christian fundamentalist. You can see the signs indicating that they are of the hillbilly sect in particular, in the two men on the top right. Some security experts have actually said the Saudi-Wahhabi terrorists pale in comparison to the Hillbilly-American terrorist group that has been in operation for decades now but flown under the radar.

CNN has picked up the story:

(CNN) – Eight people were arrested Tuesday, one on a charge of murder, in connection with the fatal shooting of a woman at a remote Louisiana campsite during what police say was an initiation ceremony for the Ku Klux Klan.

The woman, whose identity has not been confirmed, was recruited over the Internet to join the Klan by the suspects, said Capt. George Bonnett of the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office.

The woman traveled from Oklahoma to Louisiana for the ceremony and was taken to a campsite near Sun, Louisiana, about 60 miles north of New Orleans.

On Sunday, the woman asked to be taken from the camp to a nearby town. An argument ensued, and the woman was fatally shot by the group’s leader, Bonnett said.

Some of the suspects then tried to conceal the killing by burning the woman’s personal items, he said.

Police received a tip about the killing and found the woman’s body hidden under loose brush alongside a road, Bonnett said. The suspects, most of whom were still in the woods near the campsite several miles from where the body was found, were taken into custody without incident, he said.

The group’s leader, identified as Chuck Foster, 44, was charged with second-degree murder. The others were charged with lesser crimes related to trying to conceal the killing, Bonnett said.

Authorities found weapons, several flags and six Klan uniforms in the area, he said.

Bonnett said he has not seen any Klan activity in the area in three years he has worked there. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there were seven active Klan organizations in Louisiana in 2007, the last time the civil rights law firm tracked hate groups.

None of these organizations was in the Sun area.

Now before anyone jumps down my throat, please realize the semi-satirical nature of this post (Yes, I feel the need to state the obvious).

I wonder what the reaction and coverage would be if 8 brown guys with beards had done this?

Just in time for Martin Luther King Day, the openly racist organization “Society of Americans for National Existence” – SANE – apparently has the ear of at least one elected official – Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, according to CAIR. Their press release reports that SANE head David Yerushalmi will be attending a congressional briefing on Islamic finance:

Broun recently circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter inviting fellow representatives and their staff to attend the briefing, titled “The Truth Behind Sharia/Islamic Finance,” on Thursday in the Rayburn House Office Building.

Rep. Broun’s invitation letter claims Islamic finance “violates U.S. laws” and “has supported Islamist extremists and sponsors of terrorism.” The afternoon briefing features two individuals known for their hostility to Islam and Muslims.

One of the presenters, David Yerushalmi, is the president and founder of the Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), a group that has advocated imposing prison terms for “adherence to Islam” and questions whether women and African-Americans should be allowed to vote.

It saddens me more than it angers me that a man who is openly racist is taken seriously enough to be considered a source of credible knowledge by a US congressman. Have the noble efforts of Dr. King and his followers left no legacy?

There is a reason why this question of Ahl Kitaab is important. But before I get to the punch-lines, I hope that by reading this snippet of information, we can increase our knowledge about this influential religious group in America.

On a personal note, my interaction with Mormons has been limited to a couple of people. At work, I was good friends with a Mormon manager, who I should also mention was a stellar guy. We especially got along well due to shared values: Mormons possess a strong family value system, and don’t drink alcohol (Note: they also don’t drink coffee or any other caffeine drink… amazing how my friend never looked sleepy!)

My other somewhat personal experience was with the right-wing loud-mouth radio host on Houston airwaves, Pat Gray, who was quite the obnoxious character (Bull O’Reilly wannabe). We communicated quite a bit via email and though he tried to be reasonable at times, it just wasn’t in his blood.

Of course, recently, the Mormons have been in the news quite a bit. On the negative front, we have Warren Jeffs, who heads a breakaway fundamentalist Mormon sect that still practices polygamy, and who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for being an accomplice to rape. While on a relatively positive front (from a Mormon perspective), we have Mitt Romney, who has a legitimate shot at the Presidency. Right behind Giuli-”911″-ani in what is pretty much a 2-way Republican race.

Let’s start with a brief primer on Mormons and their faith:

Basics
The official website for LDS can be found here. An opposing and compelling view by an ex-Mormon can be found here. I should add that as Muslims, we are well aware of the propaganda that “ex-Muslims” wreak, so with anything “ex”, buyer beware! As for this post, I will try to steer away from that Mormons deny or is “fuzzy he-said she-said”, in order to remain as objective as possible.

The Mormon Church or the Church of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) was founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. in the early 19th century. Smith believed that he was transmitted the “Book of Mormon”, a collection of writings and teachings of ancient prophets and followers of Jesus who lived in the Americas between 600BC and 421AD. Smith claimed that the transmittal occurred via the angel “Moroni”, and that Smith was enjoined to do the translation. Mormons believe that this translation by Joseph Smith, entitled “Book of Mormon” is another scriptural of Jesus Christ that is comparable to the Bible, which they also believe to be the word of God.

Pro-Bush, Pro-War & Not Pro-Muslim
An item of interest for Muslims: Utah, which is majority Mormon is also the biggest supporter of Bush and his foreign policies. It also seems, just anecdotally speaking, and from viewing some Mormon blogs and my own experience with the Houston radio-host, that Mormons have a particularly high level of distrust against Muslims (to the point of Islamophobia). This should not be surprising, since there is a generally good correlation between pro-Iraq-war support and anti-Muslim sentiment. Of course this is just my personal opinion based on what I stated is anecdotal data, and it may be possible that this may only be an entirely skewed opinion. I will be glad to stand corrected.

History of Racism
Interestingly, as Tariq Nelson has talked frequently about (here and here), Islamophobia seems to follow racism one way or the other. One does not have to look too hard to find that Mormonism has a troubling history in race-relations. In fact, it was one of the last “Christian” holdout to accepting blacks as full-members (the main LDS Church only recently- relatively speaking- allowed the ordination of blacks since 1979 as per Official Declaration 2).

In the early church, Smith is believed to have ordained a black man named Elijah Abel in 1836. But his successor, Brigham Young, initiated a policy denying blacks the priesthood. While this website by African-American Mormons gives a different slant to the race issue, there is no denial to the fact that blacks could not become priests until 1978. Religious “corrections” are welcome but when it takes 150 years and nearly 2 decades after the main civil rights movement, then it is indeed troubling especially when the racism comes straight from the main religious texts.

In this excellent Chicago Tribute article, the author talks about the teaching known as the “curse of Cain,” Mormon doctrine states that God marked Cain with blackness and cursed him so he would forever be persecuted. Several other teachings in the Book of Mormon speak of black skin as vile and evil and white skin as “pure and delightsome.” The scriptures imply God would darken the skin of people who fell out of his favor and lighten that of those who pleased him.

Young, in his “Journal of Discourses,” described “some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind” and connected them to Cain, saying “the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.”

And [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God; I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.” (2 Nephi 5:21, emphasis added)

More historical background from Wikipedia follows: After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., Brigham Young taught that because blacks inherited the curse of Ham and the curse of Cain, they were ineligible to be ordained to the priesthood. They were also barred from participating in the Endowment or celestial marriage, or from entering the church’s temples. Many of the references which resulted in this treatment of persons of African ancestry had their origins in the Book of Abraham. The theology and teachings contained in the Latter Day Saints Book of Abraham remain today as canonized Church Scripture, though most modern Mormons now interpret those teachings in non-racist ways

During the early civil rights movement, church president David O. McKay began loosening some of the restrictions of the ban, but kept the policy in place because the council of the twelve felt a revelation was needed to change the policy
Finally, on June 8, 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball announced that while praying with the rest of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, they had received a revelation that the racial exclusion policy was to be lifted, known as the Declaration 2.

Of course, the splinter “fundamentalist” LDS group continues to stand by its racism. In 2005, the Intelligence Report published the following statements made by Warren Jeffs, President of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:

“The black race is the people through which the devil has always been able to bring evil unto the earth.”
“Today you can see a black man with a white woman, et cetera. A great evil has happened on this land because the devil knows that if all the people have Negro blood, there will be nobody worthy to have the priesthood.”
“If you marry a person who has connections with a Negro, you would become cursed.”

Persecution, Yet…

Mormons have themselves faced persecution in this country. See here. And the founder, Joseph Smith, was killed in a mob rampage.

This is what I find interesting. That these people who themselves bore the pains of bigotry and discrimination have the wherewithal to turn around and go after blacks (in the past), and Muslims (during current times). I also find some parallels to this and the Israeli state-terrorism in the occupied terrorities. In how Israelis, many of whom were affected by the human tragedy of the holocaust in one way or the other, would now turn around and impose apartheid and discrimination on another people (the Palestinians of course).

Polygamy
With regards to polygamy, mainstream Mormons renounced the practice in 1890, about half a century after its founding. This led to schisms within the movement, with certain “fundamentalists” splitting off and continuing the practice of polygamy and hence, Warren Jeffs.

We should note though that polygamy as allowed in Islam and the polygamy of Mormons is starkly different, specifically in the restrictions and regulations that the former places on plural marriages. While Islam limits a man to 4 wives, IF he can take care of them equally, “fundamentalist” or original Mormonism had no such restrictions. Furthermore, in Mormonism (as opposed to Islam where this is explicitly forbidden) a man cannot join two women who share blood ties, i.e. two sisters, a mother/sister, a woman and her aunt, etc. in marriage. Thus, a man could essentially marry 5 sisters if the opportunity presented itself.

An interesting book that claims to be an inside view of Mormonism can be found on google here. The book is aptly entitled: “Tell it All”: the Story of a Life’s Experience in Mormonism: An Autobiography by T. B. H. Stenhouse. Skip to page 468-469, and the author describes the situation of two sisters in a marriage, a widow and her child, and other “interesting” situations. In my research online, I could not find any specific regulations placing any restrictions and regulations around polygamy as practiced in the “original” Mormonism, in other words in the instructions of Joseph Smith.

The Question of Ahl-Kitaab?

Coming back to the central question of this post: are Mormons ahl-kitaab? And I hate to disappoint readers, but I am not in a position to give a conclusive answer on this, but I will provide a synopsis/background that will permit the question to be asked of the people of knowledge.

As a Muslim, I am hard-pressed to pass judgments as to the “authenticity” of the Mormon faith. However, the question of whether Mormons are really “ahl-kitaab” (people of the book) is more than an academic exercise and is important for Muslims to know. What are some practical ramifications? The two that come to mind immediately are: Can a Muslim man marry a Mormon woman? And can Muslims eat of meat slaughtered by Mormons? And by extension, for those who believe that one can eat meat in America (“ahl-kitaab” nation), then what about Utah, where the majority are Mormons?

So, let’s start off by asking: how do other Christians view Mormons? It seems that many Christians continue to use the word “cult” when it comes to the Mormons (I heard this myself on NPR). Beyond the laymen, if one were to examine the official positions of the majority of Christian sects, then the answer is that Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christians. As a side note, Romney has been advised not to equate Christianity with Mormonism to avoid increasing “tensions” with “mainstream” Christians. This article details the deep, irreconcible theological differences and points the following statements from other Chrisitian sects:

• The Lutheran Church–”together with the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States, does not regard the Mormon church as a Christian church”.
• The Presbytarian Church– “Mormonism is a new and emerging religious tradition distinct from the historic apostolic tradition of the Christian Church, of which Presbyterians are a part.”
• Roman Catholic Church– John Paul II to the question: “Whether the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.” The Response: Negative.
• Southern Baptist Convention (link opens up PDF document): There is definitely no love lost from the largest Baptist organization, the Southern Baptist Conversion, which frequently uses the word cult to describe Mormons, as in this press release.
• United Methodist Church: As United Methodists we agree with their assessment that the LDS Church is not a part of the historic, apostolic tradition of the Christian faith.

Furthermore, I do find some parallels to the Mormon movement among the Muslims. So, Qadiyanis form the perfect correlary to Mormons with respect to their place and claims to their respective larger circles of religions. In both cases, someone after the “actual Message or Messenger” claimed to possess knowledge previously hidden. In both cases, the new material delivered by the founders is to be assumed as being the word of God. And in both cases, the vast majority of Muslims and Christians disapprove of the “new religions”. If there is one issue of nearly universal ijma’a (consensus) among Muslims is that Qadiyanis are not Muslims. And in this, there is little ideological or sectarian differences in this regard, from Shias to Sunnis. It seems that a similar parallel holds among mainstream Christian sects regarding Mormons and their claimed Christianity.

Also, for instance, Bahais accept the Quran, Bible, and other religious texts, but are not considered Muslims (and Bahais are more than happy not to be labeled such). They are ALSO not ahl kitaab. So, Muslims are not allowed to marry or eat (the meat) from among the Qadiyanis or the Bahais.

If we do some simple qiyaas, it would seem that Mormons with a “new religion” distinct from the “old Christianity” would be similarly excluded from Ahl Kitaab. At least, looking at it from a very simplistic point of view…Hopefully some brothers and sisters with access to scholarly point of view can provide some clarifications. Until that clarification comes though, it would be safe to say to best avoid the situations that are considerations of dealing with the “ahl-kitaab” (food, marriage, etc.).

In conclusion, I should add that the question of Ahl Kitaab should not in any way preclude cooperation or other interfaith initiatives with Mormons. The only “Muslim” issue it affects is the fiqh related to Ahl Kitaab (marriage, meat, etc. as I mentioned), not our interactions with Mormons. In the pluralist society that we live in, our treatment of and attitudes towards other Americans cannot and should not be based on the religions of our fellow citizens. Wallahualam.

What would you expect will happen when inSANE reports effect one or two average Joe 12-packs (doesn’t need many lunatics to cause a lot of harm, we all know that)? A brick:

UPDATE 4 from Tariq: Some lunatic apparently inspired by slander posted by Mr Gaubatz threw stones through the window at Dar Al Hijrah last night. Also some idiot who apparently reads their trash called me a “sh*tskin” in the comments last night that I deleted afterwards.

Coming soon to a Masjid near you: the inSANE terrorists. How are they terrorists? Because their goal is two-fold: (1) Terrorize Americans about the Muslim ‘bogeyman’, and (2) Terrorize Muslims in America by spying on them, harrasing them, and by slandering them. See their press-release here.

A team of seasoned intelligence and counter-terrorism experts and Islamic scholars (Arabs, Christians and Jews), many fluent in Arabic, Urdu, and Farsi, will visit America’s 2,300-plus mosques and associated day schools and collect information that includes statements by their leaders, the literature they use, the level of orthodoxy in prayer and discussion.

I thought it would be a good idea for Muslims and those who are not, to know more about these inSANE folks and about their ‘mission’, so if one pops up virtually on your blog or physically at your Masjid (to spy) or Church/Synagogue (to recruit), he should get the royal treatment (basically ignore him and show him out of the door or at least keep a watchful eye on him to prevent him from bothering the attendees; don’t provide him with any information that he can misconstrue and build slander upon). Pictures of two of main people can be seen below… if anyone comes across Snodgrass’s picture, please do let us know:

From their own Mission Statement, they are white supremacists:

America was the handiwork of faithful Christians, mostly men, and almost entirely white, who ventured from Europe to create a nation in their image of a country existing as free men under G-d.

In other articles, they continue the emphasis on white supremacy, black inferiority and murderous nature:

There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote. You might not agree or like the idea but this country’s founders, otherwise held in the highest esteem for their understanding of human nature and its affect on political society, certainly took it seriously. Why is that? Were they so flawed in their political reckonings that they manhandled the most important aspect of a free society – the vote? If the vote counts for so much in a free and liberal democracy as we “know” it today, why did they limit the vote so dramatically?

Is there something unique about the Black American (or, at least the Black New Yorker) that leads him to murder so disproportionately and to most often kill and victimize his own? Do we see patterns of Black culture that arise out of Africa and the wanton murder of blacks by blacks there? Why have the colonized blacks of the African continent, after having acquired their freedom and independence, so willingly slaughtered their own and live in despicable disease and squalor despite a land of enormous riches while Indians of the Indian sub-continent have successfully moved from British rule to democracy and relative civility even in a country that still maintains social inequalities as a fact of their culture?

They reject party rule and democracy:

So at its core, SANE is dedicated to the rejection of democracy and party rule

They reject immigration from those that don’t fit the “bill” i.e. non-whites, non-Jews and non-Christians:

….allowing only those immigrants whose culture and commitment to America’s national existence will bring greater prosperity and strength to our country.

They reject multiculturalism:

A rejection of the Open Society agenda and Multiculturalism.

According to their “A SANE Act to Deal with the Islamic Threat to America’s National Existence (SADITANE)” (don’t they love moronic monikers):

[4] It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.
[5] The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation or Umma.
[6] The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Muslims are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation.
[7] No Muslim shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America.

Colonel Thomas Snodgrass, U.S.A.F. (retired), SANE Director of Military Affairs (what military affairs?? how about Director of Terrorizing Muslims in America Affairs) maintains that America is in a ‘just’ war against Islam. He implies that there cannot be a real distinction made between civilians and non-civilians in this ‘just war’, and that nuclear weapons would be a good option:

Discrimination between combatants and non-combatants in the War Against Islam and its Jihadists requires the same kind of analysis as the criteria of proportionality. In other words, Just War doctrine cannot be applied in some Judeo-Christian vacuum when we confront an enemy operating wholly outside of that context.

Furthermore, as World War II era Americans accepted this reality and went on with the war approving whatever was necessary because “no prisoners” and “fire/nuclear bombing” were essential to quickly end an unjust Japanese-initiated war, so too Americans must now accept that all weapons and targets are justly within the “engagement” for US war fighters in this existential war against Islamic Jihad.

Of course, the Colonel is savoring at the possibility of war with Iran (he likens it to a football game; also see the cartoon that is attached to the opinion piece, typical of racist hate-mongers):

War is much like a football game where momentum can be a determining factor. Knocking Iran out of the world Jihad currently underway would have a devastating effect.

Additionally, administering defeat to Iran would have the effect of putting Syria on notice that their continued logistical support of Islamic Jihadists in Iraq will no longer be tolerated.

inSANE folks see the Islamic bogeyman in violent incidents across America, further proving their lunacy:

“The Salt Lake City Murders: A Jihad?” and “Suicide & Islam: The connection to the slayings at Virginia Tech“

Since the Muslims are the prime target of this group, they have devoted a complete sub-group for the purpose of terrorizing Muslims called ‘Mapping Shariah in America: Knowing Your Enemy’ with its own website.

We have already heard about their first slanderous project at Dar-al-Hijrah from Tariq (see below). Their team for this project is the same as the inSANE team. This is not surprising since the modus operandi of many fringe organizations is to create many names and many groups to impress upon gullible people that they are really significant in numbers and resources. The ‘undercover’ assignment was posted at the neocon hate-machine Washington Times, in their Insight magazine, targeting Dar-al-Hijrah, and supervised by ‘Mapping Shariah’ director, David Gaubatz. David is the same cuckoo who believes that he was led by Iraqis to Saddam’s invisible WMDs (only right-wing neocon newspapers such as NY Sun and WT paid any attention to him). To prove it, see picture below where David is being led by an Iraqi to the WMD in his backyard!

inSANE is linked with IASPS, an Israel-loving (the name is even listed in Hebrew) right-wing political think tank. inSANE’s founder, David Yerushalmi, is actively engaged with IASPS, boasting as being a ‘leading financial contributor’ and Chairman for over five years. David is an orthodox Jew who riles against ACLU’s anti-Christianity and secular Jewish support in this article, and how Jews and Christians need to come together against the common enemy: Islam.

The other organizations that inSANE links to are Global Defense Group, which by reading their mission statement, seems to be just another shadow group for inSANE: anti-immigration, xenophobic, Islamophobic and pro-war. Another group that inSANE recommends is ‘Thinking Catholic Strategic Center’, which is similarly opposed to Islam and is pro-Jewish (an anamoly for staunchly orthodox Roman Catholic organization). The Center proposes that “We need to, not just limit, but completely stop, all Moslem immigration into this country.”

Do only Muslims need to be concerned? No! Rather, all reasonable and fair-minded Americans need to be concerned. For instance, the group is committed to forming a Judeo-Christian theocracy in America. The IASPS-SANE Project Proposal has the following objected stated among its goals:

To challenge the very basis of university education, founded as it is on the science-humanities divide, which is another way of expressing in pedagogical form the science-democracy obversion. To build a new cadre of seriously minded Jewish and Christian political activists and policy specialists operating from the ground of a Judeo-Christian worldview and true American national existence.

It is anti-ACLU or anti any other organization that tries to protect citizens from government’s usurping powers:

The ACLU has drawn first blood in ACLU v. NSA. If left to the ACLU and the courts, it could likely be the last blood.

David Yerushalmi rails against libertarians, who he accuses of opposing ‘national existence’, which in his language means the preservation of the ‘white Christian fraternity’ (interestingly, he is Jewish, so he must suppose that the WASP culture now must be WASJC):

Why do libertarians like The Wall Street Journal editors oppose immigration reform? Why do they incessantly promote Open Borders? Why do they shudder when Peter Brimelow and Pat Buchanan speak about the importance of preserving the white Christian fraternity which binds this People as a nation? Because unlike what they tell themselves and the world, they oppose nation-states on principle.

Does this make libertarians unpatriotic? As libertarians, yes. That no one who loves his nation can abide libertarianism, including those who lay claim to the title libertarian, just explains why it is they are so conflicted and confused.

Insisting on the wackiest of allegations in ‘political cartoons’, including with respect to Democrat candidates and on race relations. Here is a sample: Agreeing with nutty Lisa Benson that Osama would support Obama

There is so much more trash on these websites that it would take pages upon pages to lay all of it out. But, hopefully the readers have gotten the point. Organizations such as this are a cancer for the American society, a cancer that if it spreads will engage the country in racial, religious and civil discord. We cannot let these enemies of society, enemies of reason and enemies of good-will set the agenda for our societies. They have to be defeated along intellectual lines. All people of good morals and human ethics should come together to make such organizations worthless, as they truly deserve to be.

For Muslims, be warned… be on the watch for the people below. Be especially weary about strangers lurking around the Masjid, new converts showing ‘great zeal’ and asking all the ’shariah, jihad, qitaal’ questions. Know that whatever you say, the context will be stripped off, exaggerations will be added and you will become the center of slander and libelous attacks. If you recognize these folks or one of their foot-soldiers, politely show them the door. Don’t try to engage in discussions with them because they do not recognize or understand reason. When they see you, they see an enemy and their hatred has already consumed their reason, and will consume your reputation. Don’t become a victim! You have been warned! And please let others in your community know as well. I do also hope that some fair-minded laywer(s) will sue this group for the slander about Dar-al-Hijrah for starters. It will be a good way to stop them in their heels.

David Gaubatz:

For easier reading, the analysis will be split betwen three posts. Please read background and first 2 parts in order to better digest the information in this post:

• Previous: Muslim Americans- Pew Survey & the Media Twist (Background, Update #1 and #2)
• Next: Analysis of Muslim Population in America- Methodology, Criticism and Other Sources. Update #4

Update-3:Religious Beliefs/Sects, Identity/Assimilation, Challenges, Political Values and Foreign Policies

Religious Beliefs/Sects

• As far as ‘religious beliefs’, 60% of Muslims stated they prayed daily, YET only 40% attended the mosque at least once a week. Sadly, his 40% figure represents less than church participation by US Christians. This is an important number to keep in mind when we look at the Muslim population question. Why this is sad is because Muslims do not only have one service per week, rather they have 35 services a week. So, we have 35 opportunities in the week to state an affirmative to the question, yet 60% of Muslims reported in the negative. I also wonder how it is that 60% prayed daily, yet 60% did not attend Jumuah (Friday) prayers?
• One encouraging piece of news was that nearly 40% Muslims reported praying 5 times a day, which is also equivalent to the number of people attending mosque at least once a week. So, there seems to be a very stark line of practice between three groups of Muslims: one that prays 5-times and attends the mosque at least weekly and the other 20% that prays only sometimes, and the balance 40% that is a mixture of ‘never-pray’, ‘eid-pray’, etc.
  • There is another important facet to this result: Muslim activists and dai’s (callers to Islam) have a long way to go in basic dawah to Muslims to practice the 5 pillars of Islam. This reaffirms the need for establishing priorities, to stop engaging in petty polemics about differences in details of the beliefs, and instead work on bringing people to engage in basic worship. Once at least 90% of people start attending just Jumuah prayers, I am sure we could then move on to discuss the details inshallah!
• As for specific religious beliefs, Sunnis make up 50% of the sample, Shias 16% and some other (who??) 22%. Obviously this 22% group is highly confused because if you can’t decide whether you are a Shia or Sunni, you probably don’t know much about your religion. Interestingly, only 7% of NBMs identified themselves as Shia, furthermore only 2% of African-Americans did so. Out of the converts, only 6% identified themselves as Shias. Obviously, converts are paying more attention to beliefs than FOBs who just follow the religion of their parents in many instances.
• Contrary to what many Americans believe, under 20% converted to Islam for marriage or family reasons. Nearly 60% converted for the religious beliefs. Consequently NBMs (45%), especially African Americans (54%) attend the mosque at least weekly. As for Pakistanis, lo and behold, there is still hope with 57% of Pakistanis attending the mosque at least once a week. On the flip side, only 7% Iranians take the time to do it; yeah, big surprise there. High-five to the converts and Pakistanis!
• Here’s another shocker: only 86% believed that Quran is the word of God. Pew writers consider this as a sign of ‘traditionalism’. If they had asked Muslims, they would tell Pew that this is a sign of mere ‘Islam’. Right away we can see that 14% of the Pew respondents were not even Muslims.

Identity/Assimilation/Community

• A plurality (43%) wants Muslim immigrants to adopt ‘American customs and ways of life’. One could look at this question two ways, and the answer would be radically different: you could think of it as adopting the culture that is not forbidden in Islam, because all culture is ‘halal’ until proven ‘haram’. On the other hand, one may look at this question as adopting like as in a big melting pot: your life on interest and debt, girl-friends, etc., etc. – the entire package. As one can see, the answer would be very different depending on context.
• Nearly 30% think of themselves as Americans first, 50% as Muslims first. Based on the ‘religious’ beliefs discussion, if there are nearly 60% Muslims who don’t even pray Jumuah, then seeing half of them identifying as Americans first is not surprising. In fact, this correlation was stated in the report, with 60% of Muslims who go the mosque at least once weekly identify themselves as Muslims first, Americans second. While only 36% of those who don’t go to the mosque at all identify themselves as Muslims first. There is also hope in this stat for Muslim activists. The fact that half of those who don’t go to the mosque still identify themselves as Muslims before Americans shows a real spark of deen in their heart, which implies they have a lot of potential to be good, practicing Muslims.
• Muslims are about as happy with their lives as the general public, though 10% less immigrants are happy compared to NBMs. Kind of makes sense, doesn’t it? I mean if you immigrate to any country, there are always difficulties in making the transition. The interesting stat. on happiness that was that 90% of youth (under 30) are happy, dropping to 74% of 30+yrs. Well, if uncles would only stop politicking in the Masjid, their happiness would greatly increase. Muslims are also about equally pleased with their communities as the general public. Common-sense dictates a lack of satisfaction with the direction that the country is heading under the Bush theocracy. 54% are unhappy, but surprisingly that is still 7% less than the general public. So, we are no less pessimistic than the average person.
• Over 70% Muslims believe that hard work will yield good results and success, 7% higher than the general public. But within this group there is a striking difference between African-Americans (AA) and the rest of the Muslims (immigrants and non-AA NBMs): 56% and 74% respectively. AA Muslims like their non-Muslim counterparts (at 59% for the same answer) among the AA community are not very optimistic about hard-work and its resulting in success. I don’t find this particularly surprising. A nation that has been enslaved and repressed (as in the case of AA), only recently released to its full potential, will take a long time to heal and stop the cycle of poverty. That is why I am a strong proponent of affirmative action and social-action programs for uplifting AA communities. Becoming Muslim is only a return to religious roots, but it does not imply a change in social well-being.

Challenges & Problems

• As mentioned, more than half the Muslims believe that life is harder as a Muslim since 9/11. Those with advanced post-grad degrees, incomes above $100k, high religious commitment agree most with this. The religious correlation makes sense, but why the highly-educated & high-income correlation? My guess is that this group is more in touch with the news, with what’s going on, perhaps more active with Muslim organizations such as CAIR, higher travel frequency (which is the biggest bane for Muslims).
• US Muslims consequently believe that discrimination, prejudice, stereotyping are some of the biggest problems facing them. Most Muslims believe that they are being singled out for surveillance and monitoring. Dah! You would be foolish to believe otherwise. Nearly every Muslim has himself been visited by the Feds or knows of at least one and usually many fellow Muslims who have had Feds over for tea at their home or workplace.
• A very interesting side by side analysis of American Muslims and African Americans regarding ‘encounters with intolerance’ yields very similar results. Nearly a third of Muslims mentioned this encounter, while 46% AA faced it. The results are most skewed towards being worse for AA in police profiling. Please note that Muslims don’t wear the label “Muslim” on their backs, yet to have 33% face such encounters is mind-boggling. The point is that many Muslims may escape this attention because they may not ‘look’ it, so the results could have been much worse. As Sh. Yasir Fazaqa once mentioned, that as a black Muslim, he has to face the ‘double-whammy’!

Political Views

• Ok, drum-roll please. All our hearsay and anecdotal evidence regarding Muslims turning Democratic are in fact true, based on the survey. Over 60% now lean Democratic, only 11% Republican and 26% neither. If one were to parse the 26%, even assuming a 50% split, you are talking about nearly a 75% Democratic lean. This is getting close the African-American slant towards Democrats, which is nearly 80-90%. Could there be a correlation between the treatment that Muslims and AA face and their leaning towards Democrats? Based on personal experience and my own perceptions, I would say this correlation is probably 75% true as well.
• · Muslims favor big governments (closer to Democratic platform— makes sense). A lot of this bigger government idea is related to providing more services, especially for the poor. This compassion is part and parcel of the Muslim belief, with the poor-due (Zakat) equivalent to 2.5% of total wealth, one of the Muslim’s five pillars of faith.
• · Most FOBs (60%) want mosques to stay out of politics (I guess they had enough of it back in their motherlands) though they do not mind Masjid politics one bit! On the flip-side, 70% of NBMs want mosques to express political views. My gut-feeling on this one is that FOBs are more afraid to speak their mind in the Masjid because of some fear of being dragged in the fish-net… also they may not be used to freedoms of speech granted to all citizens. While NBMs, many of them converts may be used to seeing their churches get involved and having less reservations in voicing their opinions.
• Over 60% of Muslims in the sample were registered to vote, compared to 13% higher in the general public sample. Under 50% of under 29 yrs of age were registered. The lesson? There is a lot of opportunity to ‘get the vote out’ and increase Muslim participation in the political arena, i.e. if of course they agree with the concept. If they don’t, don’t bother and move on to the one who does. There are plenty who are not motivated by any religious belief not to participate, but are just lazy.

Foreign Policy / Extremism

• Muslim views on US foreign policy is not surprising: 75% disagree with the Iraq war, about 50% with the Afghanistan war. What is interesting is that FOBs are less anti-war than NBMs. For Iraq, it is 85% vs. 70% (NBMs vs. FOBs), for Afghanistan, it is even more striking: 65% vs. 40% (NBMs vs. FOBs). I cannot really make much sense of the difference on this one. Similarly, a greater majority of NBMs believe that the war on terror is baloney (71%) vs. FOBs (49%) for an average of 55%. The average is similar to doubts expressed by Pakistanis in Pakistan (59%), in Jordan (52%) and other Muslim countries.
• Interestingly, 40% of Muslims believe the ‘official’ 9/11 story. 28% don’t really buy it, though 18% of these 28% doubters claim that they just don’t know. So, at the outset, it may seem that Muslim are conspiracy-theorists, but only 7% believe US government’s role and only 1% in Jewish/Israeli role. So, all the Muslim pundits ranting against the supposed Muslim conspiracy theory addiction: time to get off your high horse and face the facts. This sort of mentality is rare, and probably very similar to the perception held by the general public (in terms of percents). In fact American Muslims believe the ‘official’ story much more than Muslims in Europe and Muslim countries.
• A majority of Muslims are concerned with the rise of Islamic extremism around the globe. This is understandable if the one feels that extremism is rising because of repressive Muslim governments or because of ill-thought foreign policies by the West. US Muslims were less concerned about Islamic extremism in US (36%), while 46% of the general public is concerned about it. Although the American public AND the Muslims need to be more concerned about the rise of theocracy in this country in the form of Christian extremism and its influence on the government (because they are the sizeable majority here) than Islamic extremism.
• Most Muslims believe that a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict can be reached (61%). This is in line with the views of the general public surprisingly, and at odds with most Muslims around the globe (in Western and Muslim countries). Also, college-educated Muslims tend to favor this view more than those that are not.

I was asked to write about the victory of Nicolas Sarkozy in the recent French presidential election. Not knowing too much about French politics, I was hesitant, and therefore decided to read Monsieur Sarkozy’s recent book Testimony: France in the Twenty-First Century (en anglais). For someone who is not well versed in French politics, it is a bit dangerous to get my information from this type of source. If Sarkozy has any competence as a politician, which he certainly does, this book should convince me that he is France’s noblest son and greatest hope. Yet as an American, I am somewhat familiar with this genre of writing—the politician’s self-promotional book that proves his ideas are more than slogans. Likewise, in this case, I am less sensitive to Sarkozy’s patriotic musings. Obama makes me weepy when he talks about baseball and civil rights. Sankozy has no such access to my emotions. Hopefully, this ill-informed objectivity will make my thoughts on the subject worthwhile.

As a Muslim, I am troubled by the status of my co-religionists in France. The 2005 riots in the Paris banlieues and elsewhere illustrate the deep frustration felt by immigrant communities. As Interior Minister, Sarkozy’s reaction to the riots was criticized by many as brutal and even racist. At a wider level, I also wonder whether France has really atoned for its brutal colonial past, much of which involved the Muslim world. Does its current relationship with Algeria and Tunisia, for instance, really reflect a commitment to liberty and human rights? And of course there is the banning of hijab in French schools, a truly disgraceful policy for a nation that claims to protect individual freedom. In addition to the “Muslim issues,” it is also useful to consider Sarkozy in a broader context. What sort of political trend does he represent? What is his grand vision of government? How does he perceive the United States and his European neighbors? These are all important questions.

As a first impression, Sarkozy appears as one of the rare individuals who can rise above petty politics and provide true leadership. And of course, this is exactly the message he intends to convey. His promises of straight talk and honesty are reminiscent of John McCain. He raises the banner of “hope” like Barack Obama. The big disclaimer, of course, is that I don’t really know what lies behind Sarkozy. What does he actually represent? He acknowledges the importance of building upon one’s political base, but what exactly does that mean in France? The readers of this post are invited to enlighten me.

It is clear that Sarkozy wishes to push France in a fiscally conservative direction. That said, even if he succeeded on every front, France would still retain a much stronger “social safety net” than anything we have ever seen in America. Sarkozy wants to cut the fat from social programs, to promote work instead of dependence, and to remove barriers to entrepreneurship and personal ambition. One of his most controversial proposals—to lengthen the state-mandated 35-hour work-week—strikes an American as comical. Most Americans will not feel much pity if the French have to work 40 hours or more per week. Although Sarkozy represents the right-wing of French politics, his fiscal plans appear quite moderate (even wise) from this side of the Atlantic.

Sarkozy believes in active, aggressive policy-making and chastises his colleagues for deeming some challenges as beyond political control. He favors a creative engagement and strategic embrace of globalization, focusing on key French industries that can compete internationally. As former Interior Minister, Sarkozy has built a reputation for toughness on crime. He boasts of cracking down on sex offenders, a move most reasonable people would applaud. His approach to crime also includes efforts to curb immigration and the aforementioned riot suppression in 2005.

As an American, I cannot help but agree with Sarkozy’s effort to jump start the French economy and dismantle, or at least revitalize, the burdensome socialist bureaucracy built up over decades. These are policies that impact Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and therefore deserve our attention. Nevertheless, they are not my primary concern.When Sarkozy was elected, I heard three major concerns voiced by fellow Muslims—his strong support for Israel, his opposition to Turkey joining the European Union, and his overall policies toward French Muslims and Muslim immigrants. Concerning the first issue, Sarkozy does indeed offer unambiguous words of support for Israel. Yet he also refers to the “non-negotiable right of Palestinians to have an independent state.” He condemns Hizbullah for instigating the tragic war of summer, 2006, but also cautions Israel on its disproportionate response. Sarkozy seems well within the mainstream of international politics on this issue.

Sarkozy unapologetically asserts that Turkey is not part of Europe, and considers its majority Muslim population to be inconsistent with European identity. This is troubling, though personally I’m not sure why Turkey wants to join the European Union, or whether such a move would ultimately serve Islam. Again, readers are invited to enlighten me. In reference to foreign policy, it is also worth noting that Sarkozy voices open concern for the “tragedy in Chechnya” and opposes much of U.S. policy in Iraq.

My greatest concern with Sarkozy is his approach to French Muslims and Muslim immigrants. Just as we view Sarkozy’s economic plans against the backdrop of the French social safety net, we also must examine his domestic policies in the context of shameless nationalism and cultural bigotry. My understanding of French society is that the right and left are equally hostile to Muslims. As I was preparing this article, I met a French professor who viewed Sarkozy’s election as the downfall of France. She assured me that the rich would get richer, and that Sarkozy would cozy up to Bush. Personally, I think Sarkozy is too shrewd to court a discredited American president who is eagerly being shown the door. He certainly will reach out to whoever is elected in 2008. But as a Muslim, I cannot accept the knee-jerk French leftist reaction to Sarkozy’s election. Based on his writing (again with all necessary disclaimers), I do not consider him the ideal leader, but he may offer more promise to the Muslim community than any alternative.

Sarkozy favors the integration of all ethnic and religious groups as full citizens of the French Republic. As part of this agenda, he advocates a culturally appropriate affirmative action program to promote social mobility for Arabs, Africans, and other immigrant communities. He praises the success of affirmative action in the United States, a view that progressive Americans would certainly welcome. Sarkozy has at times engaged the Muslim community in France, and supported establishing the French Council of the Muslim Religion. I was also interested to know that Sarkozy opposed banning the hijab in French schools. Despite his personal distaste for the hijab, he once condemned the legal ban as “secular fundamentalism.” And as part of his vision for a new France, Sarkozy states, “in this country, individuals will be entitled to hold their beliefs and to practice religion without being labeled bigots or terrorists.” This all seems to bode well for Muslims.

The major question for French Muslims, and Muslims in the West, is to maintain our beliefs and practices while contributing fully to the wider society. Neither isolation nor assimilation is an acceptable option. The situation in the banlieues is unacceptable and unsustainable. Sarkozy recognizes this. However, French Muslims cannot be expected to drink wine, wear mini-skirts, and eat pork along with their non-Muslim compatriots.

As I mentioned earlier, my primary source for this article is Sarkozy’s book. In a previous post, I challenged American Muslims to look beyond political rhetoric, to understand the deeper interests and forces that politicians truly represent. If I need a taste of my own medicine, I welcome your prescriptions.