“We were of the most disgraced of people, and Allāh granted us honor with this Islam.  Now, whenever we seek honor in other than that which Allāh honored us with, Allāh shall disgrace us (once again).”

—'Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb

“Black people in America can never be Muslim,” he said to me as I stood next to his desk.  I stared at my teacher with an expression that must have conveyed very little of what I felt right then.  I didn't know what to say.  I studied his eyes, slightly enlarged by the thick glasses he wore.  The deep olive of his Arab complexion was nearly the same as my American brown.  We even shared the same hair texture—though my hair was covered right then.

But, even so, to an outsider looking in, he could have easily been my father. And given that he was the only Muslim teacher I had at the high school, I should have at least shared with him the commonality of “brother and sister” in Islam. But that, I knew, was impossible to this man.  He was Arab.  I was American—and “Black” at that.  He wanted to make sure I understood this impossibility.  I did.

I continued standing where I was only because I was waiting for my teacher to mention the reason he had called me to his desk.  The other students were at their seats working, some looking up curiously every now and then, wondering what it was our teacher wanted from me.  Naturally, like most students would, they imagined I'd gotten myself in trouble somehow, and they didn't want to miss the action.  I waited only because I didn't want to miss his point.

The teacher's matter-of-fact expression as he blinked back at me confused me only momentarily.  I hesitated for only a second after the realization, mostly out of respect, and I made an effort not to display disdain for my elder as I excused myself and returned to my seat.  But it was impossible for me to concentrate after that.  I was genuinely perplexed.

…

“In life,” my father told us once, “you'll meet many people who'll say al-salāmu 'alaykum, but they're not really Muslim.”  He shook his head.  “No, I don't mean they're not Muslims to Allāh.  I mean they're not living Islam.  They have no idea what this religion means.”

I thought of my Arab teacher.

“Beauty is in carrying yourself like a Muslim,” my parents would say.  “Beauty is in living Islam.”

…

I stood browsing the shelves of the modest store—“the Sooq”—adjacent to the prayer area of the Islamic center I liked to attend in suburban Washington, D.C.  I did a double take before picking up the small box.  I stared at it a moment longer, realizing my eyes hadn't been mistaken at all.  The skin-bleaching cream—manufactured in a Muslim country—did indeed say what I thought it said.

The solution to pollution.

Next to this tagline was the image of two faces, one brown (incidentally very close to my own skin tone) and the other white—the “before” and “after” of this product.  Disgusted, I returned the box to the shelf and left.

…

“And here we have a black woman,” the Muslim lecturer told the audience, his voice rising to reflect the sincerity of his message as he shared the famous ḥadīth about the black woman afflicted with seizures, a story he hoped would encourage his Muslim sisters to take ḥijāb more seriously,  “a black woman who wanted to guard her modesty.   So she asked the Prophet, ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam, to invoke Allāh so that she wouldn't become uncovered.   Sisters, this was a black woman…”

…

“My father would never let me marry a Black man,” my friend from Trinidad told me as we chatted one day.  She laughed and shook her head.  I couldn't help noticing that her skin was a much richer brown than my own.  “He told me, 'You can marry whoever you want, but don't ever marry a Black man.'”

…

“I must admit,” a sister from Somalia said after meeting me for the first time.  We were at a book event for my novels held at an Islamic convention. “I'm really surprised you're Black.”  As we talked, she apologized for her prejudice:  She had been unable to fathom that such “well-written” books could come from a Black American.  Later at the same convention, a fellow American said something similar—but in different words.  “And she's really intelligent,” he said as he introduced me to his wife.  His voice was between disbelief and awe.  I smiled as I reached out to shake the hand of a woman who studied me with a sense of uncertainty that strangely mirrored her husband's shock at my brain's capacity.  I read the question in her eyes.  Really?  Are you sure?

I could say that these experiences scarred me for life, that I went home in tears, and that these people's bigotry incited within me that horrible inferiority complex due to my “Blackness” and my utter inability to be accepted not only by “White America” but also by the “real” Muslims of the world.

But I won't.  That would be dishonest.  Truth is, I felt sorry for these people.

When I was still in high school, I would come home and recount such stories to my younger sister, and like myself at the time, she would become perplexed.  And to be really honest, we would even laugh at times—not with the quiet, hesitant giggle most appropriate for our “lowly” status, but with the thunderous throw-your-head-back laugh that makes your stomach hurt and tears sting your eyes.  This was how we dealt with much of the bigotry we witnessed in life.

Perhaps I am an exception.  I can't be sure.  But I didn't reach adulthood thinking I was less than anyone else.  I didn't shrink in the face of those deemed above me—whether Muslim or non-Muslim—and demurely accept their “superior” status.  Quite frankly, I didn't know they had one.  Yes, I knew about those suffering from a tragic sense of insecurity, which made it necessary for them to release “statistics” about others' intellectual abilities (or lack thereof) or call a student to their desk to say she couldn't be Muslim.

Or to believe, perhaps, that those who aren't Black are actually inferior.  But, alḥamdulillāh, I didn't go through any of that.

Yes, in childhood, I was mistreated—by non-Muslims mostly due to my Islam and brown skin and by Muslims mostly due to my “lack of Islam” because of my brown skin.  And yes, it hurt.  And yes, I cried from time to time.  And no, I didn't always feel confident in my Muslim headscarf and brown skin.  And, naturally, I didn't reach adulthood without insecurities (if such a thing is possible).

But, by Allāh's mercy, I also didn't reach adulthood insecure. My self-image and self-esteem centered around one thing: my Islam.  So when I picked up a “Muslim” magazine and happened upon the matrimonial section, it didn't even occur to me that I should feel slighted or offended when I read dozens of ads by men looking for “fair” wives.  I had a good laugh.  And my sister did too.

…

“I'm Whiter than You”

I flipped back to the page of Al-Jumuah Magazine I had just seen.  For a moment I just stared at the title.  I couldn't imagine what the article would be about.  If there was a turning point in my youthful naïveté, reading this article was probably it—though I was a wife and mother at the time I came across this piece.

To the author's credit, the article was well-written and reflective.  She was a White American who had accepted Islam and, due to her (apparently) being the recipient of superfluous praise for her appearance, she wished to let us know the downside of having white skin—sunburns and the like.

What was life-changing about this for me was two-fold:  that the author had been inspired to write it in the first place and, what's more, that a reputable Muslim magazine had seen value in printing it.

I sat still for quite some time.  I wasn't hurt.  I wasn't indignant.  I was…confounded.

And concerned.

…

When I was in high school, a local radio show held a citywide essay contest, and contestants were to write about the hero in their lives.  The winning piece would be read live from the Indianapolis radio station and broadcast for all the city to hear.  As I contemplated whom I would write about, many personalities crossed my mind.  Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Rosa Parks…  But in the end, I chose my father.  And, to my surprise, I won.

I stood before the microphone as the radio host looked on, and I shared with the world my honest testimony of what I felt right then—that my father was my hero in life.  It wasn't because he was a well-known community activist or because I'd grown accustomed to seeing his name in the newspaper or his face on television.  It wasn't even because he was the spiritual advisor to the famous boxer Mike Tyson.  It was because, despite the many obstacles he faced in life and despite his being a rather ordinary man, he managed to instill in me, as well as my siblings, a love for the lives that Allāh gave us.  And never once did he make me or my siblings believe that our worth (or beauty) could be measured by—or limited to—our bodies or skin.

In a word, he taught us…truth.  Today, I find it truly heartbreaking that of the more than one billion Muslims in the world, so few of them could say the same of their parents.

…

Unfortunately, in today's world, Muslims—whether “fair” or “dark,” Arab or non-Arab, Black or White—seek honor in lifestyles and values that are far removed from Islam.

“Is it honor you seek among them?  Nay, all honor is with Allāh.”

—Qur'an (Al-Nisā', 4:139)

While in truth, we should seek honor in only one lifestyle:

That of being slaves.

Not to our country, skin color, tribe, or family name.  And not even to our “victim status” as oppressed people of the world.

But to Allāh, our Creator.  Who has given us Islam.

If we don't seek honor through this religion, we will continue to live in humiliation and make utter fools of ourselves.  Not only through revealing our tragic colonial mentality in racist comments, ridiculous matrimonial ads, and bizarre articles in magazines.  But through our sullied souls when we die and meet Allāh.

For to our Creator, there is but one measure of human beauty and worth:  Being Allāh's slaves on earth.  And these superior slaves are not distinguished due to their bodies or skin.  But due to their pure hearts and righteous deeds…

And through having in their breasts not even a grain of pride when they are buried in the dirt from which they were created.

So as we take pride in the color (or lack thereof) of our fleshy dirt,

Tell me, O child of Adam…

Are you amongst these honored slaves?

Umm Zakiyyah is the internationally acclaimed author of the If I Should Speak trilogy and the novels Realities of Submission and Hearts We Lost.  To learn more about the author, visit themuslimauthor.com or join her Facebook page.

I remember the conversation just like it was yesterday. I was attending a local summer camp for Muslim families, and the sisters and I were sitting in a circle discussing the problems of the Muslim community in our state. The discussion turned to the issue of race and discrimination among Muslims.

Some of the sisters in the circle expressed how they felt that racism is alive and well among Muslims in America, and how tight-knit culture-based cliques often make them feel excluded. While most of the sisters agreed with this assessment, one sister took a different stance on the issue. From her perspective, racism among Muslims wasn’t that big of an issue, in fact she said something along the lines of “I don’t see color, we are all Muslims, Alhamdulilah”. Alhamdulilah indeed, but we can’t brush away the experiences of others, and we as Muslims in America should address this big white elephant in the room.

Allāh knows that sister's intention, but by claiming to not see color when she interacts with other Mulims, this sister may have been expressing the all-too-common phenonemon of color blind racism. Color blind racism occurs when someone disregards race or color as having an effect on a given circumstance or interaction. So, an individual who is a color blind racist tends to make statements such as the following:

*It’s not about race, it’s about culture …
*I have a lot of Black friends…
*I’m not prejudiced, but …
*I voted for Barack Obama.
*I don’t see you as Black.
*It’s not race, it depends on a person’s background …
*It’s not race, it’s economics …

The list can go on, and I’m sure many readers may personally know of color blind racists. But the point is, this form of racism exists in our communities, and too often Black Muslims (i.e. immigrant Africans, first-generation Africans, or African Americans), and convert Muslims are overwhelmingly the ones experiencing this form of racism. So, does color blind racism exist more among some group of Muslims, and not others? We don't know the answer to that. But let's try to understand if this is the case. For example, immigrant Muslims are used to insular social groups – that’s the way it used to be back home. Naturally, humans feel more comfortable and relate more towards those who are of a similar skin color, facial features, language, hair texture, and those who share similar culinary preferences. Thus, it may be difficult for Muslims that do not have immigrant backgrounds to fit in as easily. But make no mistake about it, color blind racism is a human phenomenon, not only a Muslim one.

A LOADED WORD

The term color blind racism was originally coined in the 70s, in order to describe White Americans's continued aversion to Blacks, which fell short of Jim Crow racism – the malignant form of racism in hich Whites used to terrorize and assault Blacks decades earlier. Some individuals may take issue with the word “racism” – perhaps believing it to be too strong when used to describe the the actions of fellow Muslims who could  be labeled as color blind racists. Take the example of the sister from the camp in the beginning of this article. The sister was approximately in her forties and from a immigrant Muslim group. She attends a mosque where the congregation is partially mixed, in which she is a member of the predominant culture, and she spoke well of how engaging and active her masjid community is. From this alone, we may not be able to label her a racist, and we are not in a position to judge others. However, with regards to the same masjid that the sister lauded as being inclusive, I have heard several complaints from converts and other Muslims that this mosque community is less than welcoming. So, the term color blind racism takes into consideration the reality of the situation, from different points of views, as compared to the “whitewashed” version of it, and unlike overt racism the focus is not just on the behavior.

NOSTALGIA FOR THE GOOD OLE DAYS OF ISLAM

From listening to numerous lectures by Muslim American scholars, I’ve learned that one of the roadblocks Muslim Americans face in confronting social issues is that in our minds we sanitize and mythologize the society of the Prophet (PBUH). The reality is, many of the social issues that exist now, such as alcoholism, prostitution, and drugs, all existed at that time, too. And racism is not an exception. The following is an exchange between Abu Dharr and Bilal, may Allāh be pleased with both of them:

“Abu Dharr, the leader of the tribe of Ghifar, and one who accepted Islam in its early days, narrates:

Once I was conversing with Bilal. Our conversation gave way to a dispute. Angry with him, the following insult burst from my mouth: 'You cannot comprehend this, O son of a black woman!'

As Islam expressly forbade all kinds of racial, tribal and color discrimination, Bilal was both upset and greatly angered.

Some time later, a man came and told me that the Messenger of God, upon him be peace and blessings, summoned me. I went to him immediately. He said to me:

'I have been informed that you addressed Bilal as the son of a black woman.'

I was deeply ashamed and could say nothing. God's Messenger continued his reprimand: 'This means you still retain the standards and judgements of the pre-Islamic days of ignorance. Islam has eradicated all those false standards or measures judging people by blood, fame, color or wealth. It has established that the best and most honorable of men is he who is the most pious and upright in conduct. Is it right to defame a believer just because he is black?'

Abu Dharr felt profound remorse. He went straight to Bilal's house and, putting his head on the threshold, said: 'This head will not rise from here until the blessed feet of Bilal tread on the face of foolish, impolite Abu Dharr.'

Bilal responded: 'That face deserves to be kissed, not trodden upon,' and forgave Abu Dharr.”

JUST SAY SALAM

Despite the gains that have been made in race relations in this country, race is a touchy conversation for many Americans to engage in. The terminology used by color blind racists exists because individuals don’t want to be seen as being racist, and they try to deflect this characterization through semantics (i.e. “I’m not not racist, but…;” “I have alot of Black friends,” etc). For Muslims, we know that all actions are based on intentions. One of the first steps we can do to overcome color blind racism in our communities is to purify our intentions when we interact with individuals from a racial group different than ours. All too often I hear from many Muslims that when they greet some Muslims with salam, it is not returned. Although it may seem like a trivial step in combating racism, in returning salam, you are facilitating peace and brotherhood, and acknowledging other Muslims first and foremost as your sister or brother in religion. Thus, saying and returning salam helps reaffirim to yourself the good intentions of brotherhood and sisterhood and signals to others that you embrace them.

There are countless ways of diffusing color blind racism in our communities, and I invite readers to share experiences and ideas. As Muslims living in a country in which overt and covert racism still exists, we need to have this conversation amongst ourselves. We often hear from politicians and pundits that Americans need to engage in a national dialogue about race. One thing that easily slips from our minds is that the Prophet (PBUH) was a revolutionary man, and that through the revelation of the Quran, he was an agent of societal change, targeting acts of discrimination, as illustrated by the hadith involving Bilal and Abu Dhar. We Muslims have a great religion of racial and class inclusivity to be proud of; lets uphold those standards in our daily interactions.

References:

“Colour-Blind Racism”. ABAGOND. (2011).  http://abagond.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/colour-blind-racism/

By Robert Fisk

Why didn’t Aafia Siddiqui's family report her missing in 2003, asks Robert Fisk.

ISLAMABAD: Dr Shams Hassan Faruqi sits amid his rocks and geological records, shakes his bearded head and stares at me. “I strongly doubt if the children are alive,” he says. “Probably, they have expired.” He says this in a strange way, mournful but resigned, yet somehow he seems oddly unmoved. As a witness, supposedly, to the mysterious 2008 re-appearance of Aafia Siddiqui – the “most wanted woman in the world”, according to former US attorney general John Ashcroft – I guess this 73-year-old Pakistani geologist is used to the limelight. But the children, I ask him again. What happened to the children?

Dr Faruqi is Aafia Siddiqui’s uncle and he produces a photograph of his niece at the age of 13, picnicking in the Margalla hills above Islamabad, a smiling girl in a yellow shalwar khameez, half-leaning against a tree. She does not look like the stuff of which Al-Qaeda operatives are made. Yet she is now a semi-icon in Pakistan, a country which may well have been involved in her original kidnapping and which now oh-so-desperately wants her back from an American prison. Her children, weirdly, disconcertingly, have been forgotten.

Aafia Siddiqui’s story is now as famous in Pakistan as it is notorious in a New York City courtroom where her trial for trying to kill an American soldier in the Afghan city of Ghazni in 2008 – she was convicted this month and faces a minimum of 20 years in prison on just one of the charges against her – is regarded as a symbol of American injustice. “Shame on America,” posters scream in all of Pakistan’s major cities. She is known as the “grey lady of Bagram”, supposedly tortured for five years in America’s cruel Afghan prison. President Asif Ali Zardari has asked American envoy Richard Holbrooke to repatriate Siddiqui under the Pakistan-US prisoner exchange scheme, while the Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has dubbed her a “daughter of the nation”. Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif promises to demand her release. But none of them mention the children. Ahmed, Sulieman and Maryam are their names.

Ahmed was returned to Pakistan from Afghanistan in 2008, but Dr Faruqi tells me he doesn’t believe for a moment that it is Aafia Siddiqui’s son. “He came here to stay with me, but he said he didn’t know Aafia until he was taken to Ghazni. He said to me: ‘I was in the big earthquake in Afghanistan and my brothers and sisters were killed in their home while I was out fetching water – that’s what saved my life.’ He told me that after the earthquake, he was put in an orphanage in Kabul. He was shown a photograph of my niece Aafia and said he did not know this lady, that he had never seen her before. Then he was taken to Ghazni and told to sit next to this woman – my niece. The boy is intelligent. He is simple. He is honest.”

All such mysteries require a “story-so-far”. It goes like this. Aafia Siddiqui, a 38-year-old neuroscientist, an MIT alumna and Brandeis university PhD, disappeared after leaving her sister’s home for Karachi airport in 2003, taking Ahmed, Sulieman and Maryam with her. The Americans say she was a leading Al-Qaeda operative. So does her ex-husband. She had re-married Ammar al-Baluchi, currently in Guantanamo Bay, a cousin of Ramzi Yousef who was convicted for the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing. Not, you might, say, a healthy curriculum vitae in the West’s obsessive “war on terror”. In 2004, the UN identified her as an Al-Qaeda operative.

But released inmates from the notorious American prison at Bagram near Kabul– where torture is commonplace and at least three prisoners have been murdered – have stated that there was a woman held there, a woman whose nightly screams prompted them to go on hunger strike. She was dubbed the “grey lady of Bagram”. At her New York trial, Siddiqui demanded that Jewish members of the jury be dismissed, she fired her own defence lawyers who said she had become unbalanced after torture; Siddiqui blurted out that she had been tortured in secret prisons before her arrest. “If you were in a secret prison … where children were murdered…” she said.

And so to the town of Ghazni, south of Kabul. It was here that Afghan police stopped her in 2008, carrying a handbag which supposedly contained details of chemical weapons and radiological agents, notes on mass casualty attacks on US targets and maps of Ghazni. American soldiers and FBI agents were summoned to question her and arrived in Ghazni without realising that Siddiqui was in the same room, sitting behind a curtain. According to their evidence, she managed to take one of their M-4 assault rifles and opened fire. She missed but was cut down by two bullets from a 9mm pistol fired by one of the soldiers. Hence the charges. Hence the conviction.

She wasn’t helped by an alleged statement by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – the man who supposedly planned 9/11 and who is the uncle of her second husband, Ammar al-Baluchi – who claimed that Aafia Siddiqui was a senior Al-Qaeda agent. But then, he’d just been waterboarded 183 times in a month – which hardly makes his evidence, to use a phrase, water-tight.

The questions are obvious. What on earth was a Pakistani American with a Brandeis degree doing in Ghazni with a handbag containing American targets? And why, if her family was so fearful for her, didn’t they report her missing in 2003, go to the press and tell the story of the children? Ahmed – son of Siddiqui or Afghan orphan, depending on your point of view – is now staying with Siddiqui’s sister, Fauzia, in Karachi; but she refuses to let him talk to journalists. The Americans have shown no interest in him – even less in the other two, younger children. Why not?

It’s odd, to say the least, that Dr Faruqi also maintains that in 2008 – before the Ghazni incident – Aafia Siddiqui turned up at his home in the suburbs of Islamabad. “She was wearing a burqa and got out of the car, just outside here,” he says, pointing to the tree-lined street outside his office window. “I only caught sight of her once, and I said ‘You have changed your nose’. But it was her. We talked about the past, her memories, it was her voice. She said the ISI (the Inter-Services Intelligence) had let her come here. She wanted to get away, to go back to Afghanistan where she said the Taliban would protect her. She said that since her arrest, she knew nothing of her children. Someone told her they had been sent to Australia.”

More questions. If Siddiqui was a “ghost prisoner” in Afghanistan, how come she turned up at Dr Faruqi’s home in Islamabad? Why would she wear an Afghan “burqa” in the cosmopolitan capital of her own country? Why did she not talk more about her children? Why could she not show her face to her own uncle? Did she really come to Islamabad?

Fauzia Siddiqui is now touring Pakistan to publicise her sister’s “unfair” trial, her torture at the hands of Americans. Most of the Pakistan press have taken up her story with little critical attention to the allegations against her. She has become a proto-martyr, a martyr-in-being; if her story is comprehensible, it requires a willing suspension of disbelief. But America’s constant protestations of ignorance about her whereabouts before 2008 have an unhappy ring about them.

And the children? Rarely written about in Pakistan, they, too, in a sense, were “disappeared” from the story – until the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, paid an uneasy visit to Pakistan this week and, according to Fauzia, told the Interior minister, Rehman Malik, that “the children of Aafia Siddiqui will be sent home soon”. Was Karzai referring to the other two children? Or to all three, including the “real” Ahmed? And if Aafia’s two/three children are in Afghanistan, where have they been kept? In an orphanage? In a prison? And who kept them? The Afghans? The Americans?

Dawn/The Independent News Service

“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 Allāh 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 Allāh swt give victory to the Mu'minoon and give Sabr to those suffering around the world.

(Photo courtesy: Jerry Wu/The Epoch Times)

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

—————–

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 Allāh 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 Allāh 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 Allāh, KNOWS BEST.

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?

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?

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.