Akhir88 8 hours ago in reply to Dilbert McSquibby
Being a Muslim myself and while I find the coloring book rather harmless, Sharia law is something everyone should be very wary of. My parents left Iran to escape Sharia law and the hideous implications of it. They knew it was coming long before the Shah was deposed. When you hear of women being stoned to death because of infidelity when she has been raped, that is Sharia law. Sharia law is a foul thing, it is a corruption of the teachings of Muhammad. Of course this kind of speech would get me a death sentence in about half a heart beat.
While I respect the fact that many liberals go to great lengths to be tolerant of Muslims, you must check your tolerance against the more insidious side of Islam, the one that has been corrupted, the side that Obama is so hell bent on giving weapons too. This is why the people of Egypt hate Obama, because he caters to the more radical elements of Islam, instead of reaching out to the more centrist elements. People like Tim Murphy are grossly ill-informed when it comes to Islam. Muslims have no respect for the weak willed or those who will not stand up for their beliefs.
While I am sure the God haters are lining up to spew their garbage at this moment (your not atheist, because true atheist don’t care), you have to deal with religious countries whether you like it or not. There are over 1 billion Muslims by last count, so I don’t really think they care what you think.
The moment wannabe bomber tried to blow up Wrigley Field caught on video as Lebanese immigrant is jailed for 23 years
This is the bar near Wrigley Field that would have been directly in the blast of the bomb Hassoun planted
McDonald’s pays out $700k to Muslims after falsely saying its food was halal
Two McDonald’s restaurants in Detroit advertise halal Chicken McNuggets and McChicken sandwiches
Cal Thomas commentary: Radical Islam aims to take over America
Following the hacking death of a British soldier by two alleged Islamic extremists, Prime Minister David Cameron said, “There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.”
Winston Churchill thought otherwise, but he lived in a time before political correctness ran amok, and he drew on his personal experiences serving in the Sudan and in the Crimean War.
In his 1899 book The River War, Churchill described what he witnessed in countries where Islam ruled: “ Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”
Churchill said only Christianity had sheltered Europe and were it not for that faith, “the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
Given the secular condition of modern Europe and the huge influx of radical Muslims, many of whom carry with them earthly agendas, which prime minister is more credible?
One of the men arrested in London spoke of his motivation: “The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers.”
What Westerners struggle to figure out is how to distinguish Islamists from moderate Muslims and how to recognize the true Islamist when they are taught to deceive us about their radical beliefs.
A documentary released last fall, but largely ignored, might be a useful guide. It’s called Jihad in America: The Grand Deception. The film by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, (www.granddeception.com ), exposes the tangled web of Islamic front groups in America that are backed by the radical Muslim Brotherhood.
The documentary reveals how these groups have penetrated the highest levels of American government and culture. Zuhdi Jasser, who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, says, “ Their dream is the creation of an Islamic state. … Their strategy in America is to use America’s freedom and liberties in order to achieve that dream.” The same might be said of Britain.
Douglas Farah, former West Africa bureau chief for The Washington Post says, “It doesn’t matter what we say about them. It matters tremendously what they say about themselves and to each other.”
It was what they say about themselves and about their goals that is most revealing. In the film, the late Israr Ahmed of the Islamic Society of North America says: “I find there are only two things which are open to our movements: ballot or bullet, nothing in between.”
In The Grand Deception, Amir Abdel Malik Ali of the Islamic Circle of North America, speaking at a 2003 event in Philadelphia, said, “Democracy does not equal freedom. No, we do not want to democratize Islam. We want (to) Islamize democracy.”
And Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former Muslim militant, offered, “Ultimately the Muslim Brotherhood wants to establish an Islamic state in America. They believe that Western civilization is corrupt, evil, is decadent, and they want to dismantle it.”
Former FBI special agent Robert Stauffer headed an investigation in the 1980s of Muslim Brotherhood finances, according to the film’s narrator. Stauffer discovered that the Islamic Society of North America, another Muslim Brotherhood front, located outside Plainfield, Ind., had received “Millions and millions of dollars” through its North American Islamic Trust, which, he says, “served as a financial holding company for Muslim Brotherhood-related groups.” The money, he says, was wired into the United States from Islamic countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Egypt, Malaysia and Libya.
Much of this was prior to Sept. 11, but given the existence and growth of Muslim student associations on American college campuses (the documentary says there are 40 such groups) and other Muslim organizations, the money must still be available.
The British and Americans can listen to politicians who aid and abet the advance of radical Islam, or they can heed the words of Sayyid Syeed, director of the Islamic Society of North America. Film footage shows Syeed speaking in Chicago in 2006. He said, ”Our job is to change the Constitution of America.”
The British might want to re-visit Churchill. Americans should watch the documentary.
“Muslims move into former depressed manufacturing centers, such as Detroit, Jersey City and Buffalo in the United States or Manchester in the UK, buy in cheaply, and take over the base economy, moving into the lower echelon job market, replacing existing stores with cheap family run places, essentially servicing the decline. Like bacteria attacking an already weakened part of the body politic, they move into places already suffering from a declining population and looking for some means to revitalize themselves. And initially, the rising Muslim population, which buys up property, opens new businesses and injects new energy into the city, appears to be doing just that. Except, of course, whatever they put in, they quickly take out in the form of social services expenditures. The municipalities discover that the price for their newfound Muslim population is rather high.”
“Muslim involvement in politics quickly follows with the aim of normalizing the services and standards of municipal government to their standards. Social services are used to fund more Islamic immigration and expansion. Men import multiple brides from their home country and register them as cousins. Social services cover the bills for these poor unfortunate “single mothers” who are actually in a polygamous marriage with their “cousin.” Entire areas of the city become “No-Go” Muslim areas, effectively capturing portions of a city and turning into mini-Islamic states. And these portions will of course expand and grow, displacing surrounding residents and neighborhoods. And once they have a foothold in a major regional city, they also have their boot on the region itself. By exploiting the conditions in an economically depressed area, Muslim immigration can quickly gain a much larger grip on the entire country. Even as their mosques and schools prepare the next generation to fight in every sense of the word, for an Islamic takeover, the rising presence of Islam in the country begins to move the Immigration Jihad to the next stage.”
‘ALLAHU AKBAR’: SHOCK VIDEO SHOWS MUSLIMS ALLEGEDLY ‘STONING’ CHRISTIAN PROTESTERS IN…MICHIGAN
In America, too, the question is pressing. Who speaks for Islam? The Council on American-Islamic Relations, America’s largest Muslim civil-liberties advocacy organization? Or one of the many Web-based jihadists who have stepped in to take the place of the late Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born al Qaeda recruiter?
Some refuse even to admit that this is the question on everyone’s mind. Amazingly, given the litany of Islamist attacks—from the 9/11 nightmare in America and the London bombings of July 7, 2005, to the slayings at Fort Hood in Texas in 2009, at the Boston Marathon last month and now Woolwich—some continue to deny any link between Islam and terrorism. This week, BBC political editor Nick Robinson had to apologize for saying on the air, as the news in Woolwich broke, that the men who murdered Lee Rigby were “of Muslim appearance.”
This report is extensive and very informative.
A new report from Amnesty International lashes out at “widespread discrimination” against Muslims in Europe. The report directs particular ire at laws banning Muslim veils in public spaces, and excoriates European politicians for helping to “foster a climate of hostility and suspicion against people perceived as Muslim.”
Amnesty International omits, however, all instances of discrimination initiated by Muslims against Christians and others in Europe who have taken them in, and who may well feel dismayed by what might be seen as an escalating procession of Muslim demands, threats and attacks.
The report also fails to explain why growing numbers of Europeans are increasingly skeptical about Muslim immigration; it also fails to mention that in country after country, Europeans have been going out of their way to afford Muslims special benefits, rights, privileges and provisions that do not apply to native-born Europeans, and that are establishing the Muslim population as an entitled class in European society.
The White Masjid
Have you ever wondered what America would look like under Shari’ah? The ongoing campaign to bring the US and indeed the entire world under the authority of Islam has compelled sincere Muslims to draw up realistic plans for changes that are likely to occur once all obstacles in the way of implementing the Shari’ah are removed.
One of the primary targets for immediate reconstruction in the US is the White House; originally designed by Irish architect James Hoban, this building holds significant symbolic value in representing centuries of repression under man-made law.
Unlike the British burning of Washington, one of the practical proposals for the redevelopment of the White House under Islam will be to see it converted into a flourishing mosque.
Mosques or Masjids are taken to be one of the most important buildings in Islam, acting as places of (Islamic) worship, centres of learning, places where the ill are treated and even locations where crucial decisions are made regarding domestic and international government policies; mosques also act as an opportunity for non-Muslims to learn more about Islam and even embrace this superior way of life.
With the absence of the Shari’ah worldwide, mosques are unfortunately a far cry from their glorious past, and hence the conversion of the White House into one will undoubtedly help restore the iconic status that this building has in the Shari’ah.
The Islamic Demolition of the Statue of Liberty
One of the founding principles of the Islamic constitution is to ensure that all sovereignty and supremacy belongs solely to God; the Shari’ah is a practical manifestation of this sovereignty and supremacy because it seeks to establish His command in society.
The status of a nation subsequently does not depend on its number, strength or technological advancement, but rather how much it submits to the commands of God. When a nation seeks to be free from such commands, then ultimately it will meet its destruction.
The Statue of Liberty, designed by Frederic Bartholdi, stands on Liberty Island in New York Harbor; representing Libertas, the Roman (false) goddess of Freedom, it is symbolic of the rebellious nature of the US constitution that elevates the command of man over the command of God.
In Islam, the public veneration of idols and statues is strictly prohibited. This has forced sincere Muslims to develop realistic plans that will aid in the removal of the Statue of Liberty.
Due to the scale of the task at hand, it is highly likely that rigorous safety checks will need to be employed before the demolition of the Statue of Liberty can commence; thus as a temporary measure, it is proposed that a large burkha is used to cover the statue, thereby shielding this horrendous eye sore from public view as well as sending a strong message to its French creators.
Post demolition, it is recommended that a minaret be built as a fitting replacement, allowing the glorification of God to be proclaimed daily as well as act as a powerful reminder of the superiority of Islam over all other ways of life.
Noted Pakistani Academic Rejects the Concept that the West is Dar Al-Harb (Realm of War) for Muslims
By Mark Whittington | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Fri, Feb 24, 2012
COMMENTARY | Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing case in which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.
Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran and a convert to Islam, threw the case out in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.
The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police.
Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a “doofus.” In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin’s view, and Elbayomy the innocent. The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment.
Words almost fail.
The Washington Post recently reported on an appeals court decision to maintain an injunction to stop the implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma state constitution that bans the use of Sharia law in state courts. The excuse the court gave was that there was no documented case of Sharia law being invoked in an American court. Judge Martin would seem to have provided that example, which should provide fodder for the argument as the case goes through the federal courts.
The text of the First Amendment could not be clearer. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-” It does not say “unless somebody, especially a Muslim, is angered.” Indeed Judge Martin specifically decided to respect the establishment of a religion, in this case Islam.
That Judge Martin should be removed from the bench and severely sanctioned goes almost without saying. He clearly had no business hearing the case in the first place, since he seems to carry an emotional bias. He also needs to retake a constitutional law course. Otherwise, a real can of worms has been opened up, permitting violence against people exercising free speech.
It should be noted that another atheist, dressed as a Zombie Pope, was marching beside the Zombie Muhammad. No outraged Catholics attacked him.
WHAT IS FARRAKHAN’S NATION OF ISLAM AND WHAT DO ITS MEMBERS REALLY BELIEVE?
Mar. 7, 2013 12:02pm Billy Hallowell
Editor’s Note: This article is part of a larger series about lesser-known religions called “Understanding Faith.” Today’s subject is the Nation of Islam. In the past, we’ve covered Chrislam and Sikhism, among other faith systems.
You’ve likely heard or read about the Minister Louis Farrakhan and his fiery sermons about race, politics and Allah’s impending wrath upon America (TheBlaze has covered Farrakhan extensively). But do you know much about the Nation of Islam (NOI) — the controversial faith system that the infamous preacher leads?
Patheos, a web portal that reveres itself as the WebMD of faith and religion, defines the NOI as a, “Religious and cultural community based on Islamic concepts that evolved in the 20th century in the United States out of various black nationalist organizations.”
Despite having the word “Islam” in its title, the faith system is not what one would think. Contrary to the centuries of Islamic history that have abounded, NOI is less than 100 years old. The religion’s roots date back to the 1930s, when Wali Fared (also known as W.D. Fard) set its foundations. At the time, Fard was going door-to-door in Detroit, Mich., selling goods and telling African Americans about his theological views.
After he disappeared in 1934 and was never heard of again (the church’s official web site refers to his disappearance as a “departure”), Fard passed leadership of the group to a man named Elijah Muhammad (real name: Elijah Robert Poole), who then led the denomination from 1934 until his death in 1975. Under Muhammad, Fard was revered as “the long-awaited ‘Messiah’ of the Christians and the ‘Mahdi’ of the Muslims” — a controversial claim to say the least.
Minister Louis Farrakhan speaks during the Saviours’ Day annual convention at the U.I.C. Pavilion in Chicago, Sunday, Feb. 24, 2013. Credit: AP
Under Muhammad, some of the denomination’s most controversial ideas were manifested. He maintained that he was Allah’s prophet. Additionally, contentious ideas about whites commenced during his decades in NOI leadership. Later, though, his son, Warith Deen Muhammad, attempted to de-radicalize the group, bringing it back to a more mainstream version of Islam. Discontented with this decision, Farrakhan broke away to create the fiery branch that continues to captivate headlines.
Beliefnet provides this contentious history in more detail:
Elijah Muhammad taught that American blacks, a group that includes all people of color, were descended from the ancient tribe of Shabazz that had originally settled the holy city of Mecca, and that blacks and whites can share no real community. Malcolm X was his closest collaborator until a quarrel between the two men in 1964. Malcolm X then went on a pilgrimage to Mecca, where he saw people of every race worshiping side by side, and he became convinced of the hopelessness of racism.
He returned to the United States and founded the Organization of Afro-American Unity, which preached black nationalism but not black separatism. He was shot and killed while speaking to a large gathering in New York City in 1965. After Elijah Muhammad’s death in 1975, his son Warith Deen Muhammad radically transformed the Black Muslim movement, opening it to whites and renaming it the American Muslim Mission. In 1979, Louis Farrakhan broke away from the Mission, establishing the more radical Nation of Islam, which restricts membership to blacks and advocates a separate black social structure.
As Beliefnet notes, NOI’s focus is on the advancement and sustainability of non-whites. Considering Farrakhan’s sermons, which range from curious to troubling, this notion of an ethnic or race-based theology is evident. The faith leader and others in the nation often demonize Caucasians, referring to them as “the enemy” and decrying their mere existence.
Farrakhan has repeatedly said that the human race was originally black and that whites are, as Beliefnet notes, an “aberration.” Rather than preaching a message of unification, NOI calls for segregation and separatism. On the group’s web site, the denomination is clear that it wishes for African Americans to live separately from whites.
“We want our people in America whose parents or grandparents were descendants from slaves, to be allowed to establish a separate state or territory of their own — either on this continent or elsewhere. We believe that our former slave masters are obligated to provide such land and that the area must be fertile and minerally rich. We believe that our former slave masters are obligated to maintain and supply our needs in this separate territory for the next 20 to 25 years–until we are able to produce and supply our own needs.
Since we cannot get along with them in peace and equality, after giving them 400 years of our sweat and blood and receiving in return some of the worst treatment human beings have ever experienced, we believe our contributions to this land and the suffering forced upon us by white America, justifies our demand for complete separation in a state or territory of our own.”
Farrakhan and other leaders have maintained that whites were created by a renegade black scientist known as Yacub (some claim he is known as Jacob in the Bible). The church’s message has essentially been rooted in the notion that blacks are superior to their white counterparts, while regularly condemning whites and placing a major focus upon the horrific treatment African Americans once received in the U.S.
When NOI began, its members were implored to follow strict rules. In addition to being prevented from eating pork, they could not smoke or drink. Their clothing was conservative in nature and they were also forbidden from marrying outside of the race (something that still seems to be a rule of sorts, based on the NOI web site).
Beliefnet also contends that leaders within the movement once told members to avoid the draft, as the military was seen as a tool of white oppression. The group, as seen by Farrakhan’s continued visibility, has been successful.
“By turning racist ideas around to oppose whites, the movement has attracted many adherents and has had particularly good success in converting prisoners, criminals, and drug users,”Beliefnet notes. “Black Muslims have financed the construction of mosques, schools, apartment complexes, stores, and farms.”
Beliefnet’s chart showing the differences between Nation of Islam and traditional Islamic belief. (Photo Credit: Beliefnet)
Widely seen by other Muslims as an outside movement, the NOI, headquartered in Chicago, Ill. (Mosque Maryam), has brought itself more in line with mainstream Islam of late. Fasting for Ramadan and Friday prayers (rather than Sunday) are just two of the changes that were purportedly made to sync the denomination up with Muslim tradition.
In addition to referencing the Koran during his sermons, NOI reveres a number of other texts. Fard’s “The Secret Ritual of the Nation of Islam” and “Teaching for the Lost Found Nation of Islam in a Mathematical Way” — two booklets that he wrote before his disappearance — serve as guidance for members, among other texts.
A media outlet called Final Call also serves as a newspaper and online web site, offering members news and information through an NOI lens. As far as the Bible goes, the church believes that it must be interpreted so that alleged falsehoods that are presented in it can be corrected.
“We believe in the truth of the Bible, but we believe that it has been tampered with and must be reinterpreted so that mankind will not be snared by the falsehoods that have been added to it,” the NOI web site proclaims.
It’s difficult to pin down the number of adherents in NOI. A U.S.-centric faith, the majority of believers reside within the nation’s borders. While Beliefnet estimates that there are 100,000 people who embrace Farrakhan’s controversial theology, Patheos reports that the number is somewhere between 10,000 and 70,000, but calls that wide range “disputed.”
You can read all of the NOI’s “wants” and “beliefs” on the group’s web site. From a request that African Americans be exempt from taxes to a push for the release of Muslims held in federal prisons, the list is extensive.
Global Muslim report reveals opposition to suicide bombing in US
Pew report based 38,000 interviews showed Muslims in US more opposed to suicide bombs than Muslims in other countries
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Become a fan
1 hour ago ( 2:34 AM)
It has everything to do with religion when that religion openly advocates killing people who insult it, defy it, or simply because someone chooses a different faith..
Thanks to Dewts for posting this.
Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
Police arrest 4 linked to Muslim ‘vigilante’ video
Imam speaks out against Muslim ‘vigilantes’
East London group that hounds people on the streets are branded ‘complete bigots
Islamic extremists set up Sharia law controlled zones in British cities
Saudi Islamic Scholar Muhammad Musa Al-Sharif: The Day Is Coming When Islam Will Rule the World Again
Muhammad Musa Al-Sharif: “These events are paving the way for a greater thing to come. They are paving the way for a great Islam that is coming with force, because the world is in need of leadership. The current leadership – communism, capitalism, and so on – has gone bankrupt. Only Islam is left to lead the world. The Prophet Muhammad foretold this clearly in several hadiths. Islamic leadership is coming whether people like it or not. Therefore, we must become soldiers of this emerging leadership. […]
“We believe in the principle that Islam is suitable for any time or place. In addition, this religion was put to the test, so to speak, and it established an empire, which was magnificent in its power and greatness, as well in the compassion it displayed towards the world, and in its best possible leadership of humanity.
“When after the 16th century, the Islamic nation was removed from power – having been struck by all those tragedies – and others took over the leadership of mankind, we witnessed the worst possible results: oppression, global tyranny, arrogance, and despotism. The only thing that the sheiks, preachers, and scholars are demanding is that Islam rule the world once again.” [...]
After September 11th, a friend in London said to me she couldn’t stand all the America-needs-to-ask-itself stuff because she used to work at a rape crisis centre and she’d heard this blame-the-victim routine a thousand times before. America was asking for it: like those Norwegian women, it was being “provocative.” My friend thought the multiculti apologists were treating America as a metaphorical rape victim. But, even so, it comes as a surprise to realize they do exactly the same to actual rape victims. After the O.J. verdict, it was noted by some feminists that “race trumped gender.” What we’ve seen since September 11th is that multiculturalism trumps everything. Its grip on the imagination of the Western elites is unshakeable. Even President Bush, in the month after September 11th, felt obliged to line up a series of photo-ops so he could declare that “Islam is peace” while surrounded by representatives of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization which objected, on the grounds of “ethnic and religious stereotyping,” to the prosecution of two men in Chicago for the “honour killing” of their female cousin.
On this “Islam is peace” business, Bassam Tibi, a Muslim professor at Goettingen University in Germany, gave a helpful speech a few months back: “Both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms these mean different things to each of them,” he said. “The word ‘peace,’ for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam — or ‘House of Islam’ — to the entire world. This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought.” Only when the entire world is a Dar al-Islam will it be a Dar a-Salam, or “House of Peace.”
On the face of it, that sounds ridiculous. The “Muslim world” — the arc stretching from North Africa through South Asia — is economically, militarily, scientifically and artistically irrelevant. But, looked at through the prism of Norwegian rape or French crime, the idea of a Dar al-Islam doesn’t sound so ridiculous. The “code of silence” that surrounds rape in tightly knit Muslim families is, so to speak, amplified by the broader “code of silence” surrounding multicultural issues in the West. If all cultures are of equal value, how do you point out any defects?
Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | February 19, 2011 5:34 PM | Report abuse
Racial profiling by law enforcement is poisoning Muslim Americans’ trust
By using ‘community outreach’ to spy on citizens, counter-terror agencies are wrecking their most valuable asset: good will
Sahar Aziz guardian.co.uk Tuesday 21 February 2012 11.50 EST
In the same week, a Moroccan 29-year-old man was caught attempting to bomb the Capitol in a government-led terrorism sting operation and the NYPD was caught systemically spying on Muslim students at Yale, the University of Pennsylvania, Rutgers, and other universities on the US east coast. These two seemingly distinct events epitomize the fundamental flaws in the government’s counterterrorism policies.
On the one hand, the government, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, has expended significant resources to conduct “meetings with Muslim across the nation. On the other hand, while Muslims are lured into trusting their government, they are systematically spied on, investigated, and sometimes prosecuted.
Millions of dollars are spent flying bureaucrats from various federal agencies to meet and greet Muslim leaders, most of whom are male, in an attempt to earn their trust. In those meetings, local and state law enforcement is invited to build long-term relationships with the Muslim communities in their jurisdictions. On the face of it, the meetings appear to be a good-faith effort to demystify Muslims and counter false stereotypes of Muslims as terrorists. In practice, the objectives are more duplicitous.
In a blatant violation of their trust, local and federal agencies are recording these community outreach meetings , as well as the names and personal information of the attendees. Even Muslim imams who have been engaging with the government for years have found themselves under investigation. Community outreach meetings appear nothing more than a tool within a broader fishing expedition of Muslim communities nationwide. The strategy is that if there is no evidence of terrorism, then the government must go out there and create it through community outreach meetings that set the groundwork for sting operations.
In doing so, the government is alienating its most important ally, the Muslim community, which has been the most effective counter-terrorism tool the government has.
As witnessed in recent reports of the NYPD’s long-term surveillance program, this information gathering is part of a much broader surveillance scheme targeting community leaders, Muslim students, and any other Muslim with the misfortune of interacting with an undercover agent or informant. Without any evidence of criminal activity, informants infiltrated Muslim student organizations at Yale, Rutgers, and other universities. The undercover agents attended student meetings, academic conferences, and participated in field trips. The attendees’ names and conversations became the basis of personal files in intelligence databases and subsequent investigations.
Meanwhile, the government admits that, “lone wolf” terrorists are currently the primary threat of homegrown terrorism in the United States. Despite the conclusions of a , recent report by the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security (pdf) that terrorism committed by Muslims in America is declining, the government is focused solely on Muslims. To be sure, religious profiling is the least of the government’s concern, especially during an election year when politicians earn political capital by Muslim-bashing.
Herein lies the paradox.
Assuming the government’s conclusions are correct, lone wolf terrorists are very difficult to detect because they do not have co-conspirators or networks of support. They are often mentally unstable individuals at the margins of society. To the extent that the lone wolf terrorists who are Muslim seek to recruit other Muslims, they risk detection. This is explains the government’s appetite for community engagement in hopes that Muslims will report such interactions.
But can we reasonably expect Americans who are themselves collectively targets of surveillance and suspicion to trust the very agencies spying on them? One need only study the experiences of African Americans systematically harassed, investigated, and prosecuted by police. The result is an understandable distrust of law enforcement – so much so that young African-American men go out of their way to avoid any contact with the police. Rather than view law enforcement agencies as protectors, they are viewed as persecutors. So long as the police engage in systemic racial profiling and attendant criminal punishments, community outreach is futile , as well as disingenuous.
Thus, American Muslims face a palpable dilemma. If they report suspicions about terrorism, they invite government scrutiny into their lives and are likely to become targets of informants, investigations and surveillance (if they are not already). This entails very serious risks to their liberty. If they avoid interacting with law enforcement to protect their civil liberties, however, they are accused of condoning terrorism and disloyalty.
Like any other Americans, American Muslims report terrorism about which they have knowledge. But revelations about the NYPD’s surveillance program, coupled with proven surveillance of community outreach meetings, make one thing clear: no good deed goes unpunished for Muslims in America.
What kind of people have we become?
Churchill would be dismayed by modern Britain’s capitulation to jackboot egalitarians, says Jeff Randall.
For evidence of our self-inflicted abasement, look no further than this month’s ruling from Europe’s Court of Human Rights that Abu Qatada, a radical Islamist preacher, regarded as one of al-Qaeda’s main inspirational leaders in Europe, cannot be deported from Britain to his native Jordan because his trial there might have contained evidence obtained by torture.
Hate preacher Abu Qatada will cost us £5m-a-year… that’s 100 times the cost of keeping him in jail
Islamophobia is America’s real enemy
The hysterical campaign to stigmatise US Muslims poses a far greater threat than radicalisation to America’s civic union
Daisy Khan guardian.co.uk, Thursday 9 February 2012 16.30 EST
A report released this week has at last confirmed what we Muslim Americans have long known to be true: the threat posed to US national security by the radicalisation of its Muslim community is minuscule.
The study, by the Triangle Centre on Terrorism and Homeland Security, found that only 20 Muslim Americans were charged with violent crimes related to terrorism in 2011, and of the 14,000 homicides recorded in the United States in that year, not one was committed by a Muslim extremist.
We are thrilled that an objective, comprehensive investigation has revealed that only a tiny percentage of American Muslims support violent acts. However, we remain concerned that the greater danger to America’s civic union comes from an increasingly organised campaign that portrays all Muslims as potential terrorists and traitors.
Yes, there may be some Muslims who resort to violence; but it’s clear that these individuals signify nothing more than a statistical aberration, and are no more representative of the Muslim community as a whole than Timothy McVeigh, Jared Lee Loughner, or Anders Behring Breivik represent Christianity.
In recent years a network of politically motivated special interests has emerged that is determined to stigmatise and marginalise Muslims in all areas of American public life. After the Cordoba Initiative’s proposal to build an Islamic community centre near Ground Zero were distorted into a manufactured controversy by one such group, we were called “stealth jihadists” and “wolves in sheep’s clothing”. One person even claimed: “They seem like nice people now, but they will probably turn into extremists in 10, 15, or 20 years.”
What began as the work of fringe groups with racist ideologies has moved into the mainstream. The Islamophobic film The Third Jihad was played continuously between training sessions for new recruits to New York’s police. The film-makers were linked to an organised movement with a budget of more than $40m and sophisticated lobbying efforts in all 50 states.
Republican congressman Peter King – even as opponents questioned his own ties to IRA and Catholic terrorism in Ireland – convened a series of congressional hearings on the radicalisation of American Muslims that can only be described as a witch hunt. And on the campaign trail, Republican presidential candidates from Herman Cain to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have used their platform to demonise American Muslims and question our loyalty to our country.
It was not always this way. Following the 9/11 attacks President Bush, at the Islamic Centre of Washington, said: “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam … When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world … America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country.”
Our allies in the interfaith and civil rights communities are working to counteract the fabricated opposition to Islam that is gaining strength in America today. In response to King’s hearings, a coalition of 150 interfaith organisations sponsored a rally proclaiming ”Today I am a Muslim too“. It is the Brennan Centre for Justice at New York University that took a lead in exposing the New York City Police Department’s missteps with regards to the Muslim community.
We know that the bulk of the American public recognises the truth of Islamic moderation and tolerance. The hysterical invective may be well-funded, but it does not capture the heart of the nation. By standing tall together we will overcome those who spread hate and suspicion and return respect and trust to their rightful place at the centre of American political and civic life.
Extremist preachers now radicalising young Muslims in private homes, says senior Government security adviser
Extremist preachers are turning their backs on mosques and using private homes to radicalise young Muslims into becoming terrorists, according to one of Britain’s top security advisers.
Oakton High grad guilty in terror case is cited in report on future of Islamist extremism
Zachary Adam Chesser, the 22-year-old Oakton High School graduate who converted to Islam as a teen and pleaded guilty last year to terrorism-related charges, represents the future of online Islamist radicalization, according to a report to be released Monday by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
…A gifted student who was, according to the report, briefly a Buddhist, Chesser converted to Islam in high school after dating a Muslim girl. But his radicalization appears to have taken place almost completely over the Internet, where he found like-minded people after local Islamic leaders disagreed with his views.
35 radicals trained for terrorism at British mosques, Guantanamo files reveal
WikiLeaks: how Britain ‘became a haven for migrant extremists’
When Finsbury Park mosque opened nearly 20 years ago it was intended to be a centre for peaceful worship, feted by the Prince of Wales and seen as an emblem of multi-cultural Britain.
Islam in America