<!– Begin Social Code –

<!– AddThis Button BEGIN –

<!– –

<!– AddThis Button END –

• Tweet
• 
• 

• Tweet

A 39-year-old Muslim cab driver who served in the Iraq war says that an executive from an aviation company accused him of being a jihadist and broke his jaw in what activists are calling a hate crime.

Mohamed A. Salim told The Washington Post that Emerald Aviation President Ed Dahlberg attacked him after he picked him up at Country Club of Fairfax in Northern Virginia at around 2 a.m. on Friday. Dahlberg had been drinking and was told that he would have to finish his open beer before getting into the cab.

Salim recorded audio of the encounter on his cell phone.

Dahlberg can be heard asking Salim, who emigrated from Somalia, to define “jihad” and then lumping him in with “radical fucking Muslims blowing people up all over the world.”

“Denounce those motherfuckers now!” Dahlberg demands. “If you’re a fucking Muslim flying jets into the fucking World Trade Center then fuck you. I will slice your fucking throat right now.”

After Salim threatens to call 911, Dahlberg can be seen grabbing for the cell phone.

Salim said that Dahlberg left the cab, but then returned and broke his jaw before running into the woods.

Dahlberg was charged with misdemeanor assault and police are determining if charges should be elevated to a felony hate crime. The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on Monday said that medical records and the 11-minute cell phone recording were being used as evidence in the case.

In a statement, Dahlberg’s attorney, Demetry Pikrallidas, admitted that his client “became rather emotional as the discussion turned to jihad and 9/11, and especially heated on the subject of jihadists who want to harm America.”

Pikrallidas insisted that Dahlberg did not assault Salim.

The website for Dahlberg’s company, Emerald Aviation, was offline for four days of “scheduled maintenance” as of Wednesday afternoon. A cached copy of the website listed him as the president and said he had “20 years experience in the field of business and commercial aviation” and was known for “transparent business transactions and always effectively representing the best interests of his clients.”

Salim is a naturalized U.S. citizen and is an Army Reserve sergeant who has worked in intelligence and as a linguist. He served in Iraq and at the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

“I sacrificed for this country,” Salim told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday. “And I myself was fighting the terrorists and I’m against acts of violence. I’m not a terrorist. I’m not a jihadist. I’m American like you.”

“Whether he’s guilty of assault or not is up to a jury to decide, but the video makes it clear that the guy is a bigoted asshole,” Jalopnik’s Patrick George observed on Wednesday. “There’s no excuse for treating someone else this way.”

Watch this video from The Washington Post, broadcast April 30, 2013.

<!– Start Bottom Social Sharing Buttons –

Share this story
<!– AddThis Button BEGIN –

<!– –

<!–

–>

Article source: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/01/man-angry-over-boston-bombings-breaks-jaw-of-fcking-muslim-iraq-war-veteran/

“We need to move way from stereotypes that have been assigned to groups in our community,” Elgin Mayor David Kaptain was quoted as saying by the Daily Herald.

Muslim leaders have hosted a meeting with their neighbors of other religions to help answer their questions about Islam and Muslims.

Themed “Who Is My Muslim Neighbor?”, the event was organized by the Coalition of Elgin Religious Leaders and the Elgin Human Relations Commission.

The event brought together scores of people, including Jacki Bakker, of Carpentersville, who wanted to learn more about Islam, which is her daughter-in-law’s religion and now her son’s.

Lyn Humbrack, a member of Elgin’s First Congregational Church, also attended to verify stereotypes about Muslims.

In smaller groups, attendees like Bakker and Humbrack had the chance to learn more about Islam from representatives of the Institute of Islamic Education, a school in Elgin that draws Muslim scholars from across the country.

The event was attended by Gerald Hankerson, outreach coordinator for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Hankerson said Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world.

He noted that most Muslims living in the United States are African Americans or South Asians, while the vast majority of Arab-Americans are Christians.

The CAIR leader stressed the idea that Islam is a religion of peace.

Misconceptions

Drawing a distinction between religion and culture, organizers have also sought to correct misconceptions about the status of women in Islam.

“There’s this misconception that women are oppressed by the religion and that is absolutely not true,” Miriam Fadel, a teacher at Elgin Academy, said.

Fadel said Islam gives full rights to Muslim women, pointing out that current prime ministers of Bangladesh and Mali are Muslims.

He added that the oldest continually operating institution of higher learning on the planet was founded by a Muslim woman.

Fadel was speaking about Fatima al-Fihri, who founded Al-Karaouine mosque that developed into a place for religious instruction and political discussion.

The mosque was expanded later by Al-Fihri, the daughter of a wealthy Moroccan man, to teach natural sciences and become the first university in the world in the year 859.

Ahsan Syed, a graduate of Bartlett High School and student at IIE, offered better ideas to engage Muslims and stop cycles of discrimination.

“It’s true that if you want to get to know something you have to get to know the people,” Syed said.

“Any Muslim you know, knowing them at the personal level is a good place to start.”

The United States is home to a Muslim community of between six to eight million.

A recent Gallup poll had found that the majority of US Muslims are patriot and loyal to their country and are optimistic about their future.

Article source: http://www.onislam.net/english/news/americas/462782-illinois-muslims-meet-neighbors.html

It adversely impacts our global security as well.

By way of background, more than 75 percent of the world’s population resides in countries where official restrictions on religious freedom prevail. Despite laudable strides toward democratic reform, Myanmar (also referred to as Burma) is among those nations. In fact, it stands out as among the world’s 25 most populous nations with the most government restrictions on, and social hostilities due to, religion. Notably, Burmese religious hatred, bias and violence are frequently directed toward its Rohingya Muslim population.

Who are the Rohingya Muslims?

The U.N. has long characterized the Rohingya Muslims, a religious and ethnic minority community numbering approximately 1 million in Myanmar, as one of the world’s most persecuted minorities. Anti-Rohingya and anti-Muslim sentiment has long tainted the nation’s political and social spheres.

During the country’s more than 60-year military rule since 1962, the Burmese army committed numerous human rights violations, for instance, including killing, raping and torturing its Rohingya Muslim population culminating at times in mass expulsions (and a chronic refugee crises in neighboring Bangladesh).

Such deplorable human rights and humanitarian conditions is further exasperated by the Rohingya and other Muslims’ official “statelessness.” Despite the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the right to a nationality, prohibiting its arbitrary deprivation, the Burmese Citizenship Act, enacted back in 1982, codified the legal exclusion of the Rohingya denying them equal citizenship rights.

To be sure, this denial of Burmese citizenship has resulted in additional injustices and inequalities, including the group’s lack of access to identity documents, education and employment. It has also rendered group members vulnerable to arbitrary detention, forced labor and discriminatory taxation. The Burmese government has further restricted their rights to marry, own property and move freely — rights guaranteed to non-citizens as well as citizens under international law.

Unfortunately, Burmese President Thein Sein remains steadfastly opposed to repealing or amending the 1982 Citizenship Act. And the plight of the Rohingya Muslims will not improve until the law is stripped of its discriminatory provisions.

Contemporary Developments

Both government officials and fellow civilians continue to persecute the Rohingya Muslims even with the country’s current democratic transition since a nominally civilian government was ushered in by popular elections in March 2011.

Human rights violations not only include the denial of citizenship rights mentioned above, but also restrictions on religious freedom such as mosque constructions as well as religiously motivated violence.

Indeed, sectarian violence often perpetrated by members of the majority Buddhist population has most recently erupted in June 2012, October 2012, March 2013, April 2013; it persists and is spreading to previously unaffected areas of the country.

The violence has reaped devastating effects.

The communal violence has left approximately 13,000 people homeless. More than 120,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) are living in temporary shelters with limited access to food, medical care, sanitation facilities and other types of humanitarian necessities.

Responsible Burmese officials and security forces — who have refused to protect the Rohingya Muslims at critical moments, participated in the persecution and obstructed access to humanitarian aid — have not been subject to prosecution. Not surprisingly, a general climate of impunity prevails as Rohingya Muslims continue to endure brutal police repression, forced conscription to perform labor, arbitrary detention, beatings, killings and mistreatment.

Why Should We Care?

Last year, we re-designated Myanmar as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) under the International Religious Freedom Act because of related pervasive violations. During President Thein Sein’s visit on Monday, he must understand that the status quo arguably threatens our global security.

Recent evidence from Georgetown University suggests that state restrictions on religious freedom may contribute to violent extremism. Such repression, as described above, may radicalize targeted religious communities and/or enhance the violent message of militants abroad. While I am an ardent supporter of nonviolence even in the face of legitimate political and other grievances, it is difficult to ignore the implications here.

Burmese officials who arbitrarily arrest, detain, beat, injure and kill Rohingya Muslims may enhance the appeal of those advocating a more violent response to government repression — perhaps within the country but also well beyond. Indeed, media outlets around the world, including segments of the Muslim and Arab world, have already begun reporting on the plight of the Rohingya Muslims in Burma.

Conversely, Georgetown’s research findings suggest that enhanced religious freedom may help “moderate, contain, counteract, or prevent the origin or spread” of violent religious extremism.

Through broader U.S. engagement, communication and dialogue — such as Monday’s momentous White House meeting — President Thein Sein must come to understand the underlying significance of religious freedom to enhanced global security. He must understand that continued Burmese persecution of the minority faith community may contribute to violent extremism by inadvertently promoting its appeal.

Further, violent extremists elsewhere will manipulate those incidents of persecution to serve a more nefarious, violent narrative to recruit others to their abhorrent cause. The implications are far-reaching.

What We Should Do

Notably, the U.S. has expended more than $24 million in humanitarian aid to help address the suffering in Myanmar. But in the current climate of fiscal austerity, such levels of financial aid, even for humanitarian purposes, cannot be reasonably sustained.

Moreover, sanctions have proven grossly ineffective largely because of the willingness of other countries in the region to continue trading with Myanmar for their own economic and other strategic self-interest.

Potential solutions? What if we attempted to address the underlying causes of the communal strife and violence.

As an initial, necessary measure the Burmese should eliminate the discriminatory provisions of the 1982 Citizenship Act rendering the Rohingya Muslims “stateless.” Statelessness deprives the Rohingya of equal protection under the law and facilitates additional injustices, thus contributing to increased likelihood of sectarian and other destabilizing conflict.

Burmese officials should adopt pluralism as an ideal model allowing for greater inclusivity of all of its religious and ethnic minorities. Formal inclusion of the Rohingya and other Muslims into the public and political spheres provides a nonviolent means to making a meaningful contribution to society thereby contributing to our global security.

Moreover, the sociological consequence of religious pluralism is a general recognition and acceptance of all faiths practiced by diverse groups. Arguably, this represents an ideal model for a diverse country like Myanmar.

It is significant to note that while there does not appear to be any current evidence of violent radicalization among the Rohingya or other Muslims in Myanmar, guarding against the phenomenon (there and abroad) is a critical consideration in light of the continuing Global War on Terror (GWOT).

By protecting religious freedom and conferring citizenship rights upon the Rohingya, the Burmese will continue its effective transition toward democracy. Unfortunately, the persistent waves of violence otherwise threaten to undermine its progress as well as global security. President Thein Sein should walk away from Monday’s meeting at the White House with that realization.

Loading Slideshow

• Muslim Rohingya women sit inside a tent at Mansi Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camp in Sittwe on May 14, 2013. Boats carrying scores of Rohingya Muslims fleeing a cyclone have capsized off Myanmar’s coast, the UN said on May 14, heightening fears over the storm which threatens camps for tens of thousands of displaced people. (STR/AFP/Getty Images)

• A Muslim Rohingya man prays in front of a temporary relief camp in a school in Thetkaepyin village, on the outskirts of Sittwe on May 17, 2013. Bangladesh and Myanmar cleaned up after a killer cyclone wrecked thousands of homes, relieved that the damage was not much worse after the storm weakened as it made landfall. (Soe Than WIN/AFP/Getty Images)

• A Muslim Rohingya woman waits for a truck to move back to her temporary relief camp in the village of Thetkaepyin on the outskirts of Sittwe on May 17, 2013. Bangladesh and Myanmar cleaned up on May 17 after a killer cyclone wrecked thousands of homes, relieved that the damage was not much worse after the storm weakened as it made landfall. At least 40 people were either killed by Cyclone Mahasen or while trying to flee its impact, including 25 Muslim Rohingya whose bodies washed up on the shores of Bangladesh after their boat capsized while sailing from Myanmar. (Soe Than WIN/AFP/Getty Images)

• Muslim Rohingya families unload their belongings from a truck as they return back to a camp for iternally displaced people in the village of Mansi on the outskirts of Sittwe on May 17, 2013 following their evacuation from the site. Bangladesh and Myanmar cleaned up on May 17 after a killer cyclone wrecked thousands of homes, relieved that the damage was not much worse after the storm weakened as it made landfall. At least 40 people were either killed by Cyclone Mahasen or while trying to flee its impact, including 25 Muslim Rohingya whose bodies washed up on the shores of Bangladesh after their boat capsized while sailing from Myanmar. (Soe Than WIN/AFP/Getty Images)

• Muslim Rohingya carry their belongings as they arrive back to a camp for iternally displaced people in the village of Mansi on the outskirts of Sittwe on May 17, 2013. Bangladesh and Myanmar cleaned up on May 17 after a killer cyclone wrecked thousands of homes, relieved that the damage was not much worse after the storm weakened as it made landfall. At least 40 people were either killed by Cyclone Mahasen or while trying to flee its impact, including 25 Muslim Rohingya whose bodies washed up on the shores of Bangladesh after their boat capsized while sailing from Myanmar. (Soe Than WIN/AFP/Getty Images)

• A Muslim Rohingya woman prepares her kitchen after arriving back to a camp for iternally displaced people in the village of Mansi on the outskirts of Sittwe on May 17, 2013. Bangladesh and Myanmar cleaned up on May 17 after a killer cyclone wrecked thousands of homes, relieved that the damage was not much worse after the storm weakened as it made landfall. At least 40 people were either killed by Cyclone Mahasen or while trying to flee its impact, including 25 Muslim Rohingya whose bodies washed up on the shores of Bangladesh after their boat capsized while sailing from Myanmar. (Soe Than WIN/AFP/Getty Images)

• A Muslim Rohingya family sits outside their temporary relief camp in a school in Thetkaepyin village on the outskirts of Sittwe on May 17, 2013. Bangladesh and Myanmar cleaned up after a killer cyclone wrecked thousands of homes, relieved that the damage was not much worse after the storm weakened as it made landfall. (Soe Than WIN/AFP/Getty Images)

• A Muslim Rohingya family waits for a truck to move back to their temporary relief camp in the village of Thetkaepyin on the outskirts of Sittwe on May 17, 2013. Bangladesh and Myanmar cleaned up after a killer cyclone wrecked thousands of homes, relieved that the damage was not much worse after the storm weakened as it made landfall. (Soe Than WIN/AFP/Getty Images)

• A Muslim Rohingya woman collected rice supplies at a temporary relief camp in a school in Thetkaepyin village on the outskirts of Sittwe on May 17, 2013. Bangladesh and Myanmar cleaned up after a killer cyclone wrecked thousands of homes, relieved that the damage was not much worse after the storm weakened as it made landfall. (Soe Than WIN/AFP/Getty Images)

• A Muslim Rohingya family travels in a truck to their temporary relief camp in the village of Thetkaepyin on the outskirts of Sittwe on May 17, 2013. Bangladesh and Myanmar cleaned up after a killer cyclone wrecked thousands of homes, relieved that the damage was not much worse after the storm weakened as it made landfall. (Soe Than WIN/AFP/Getty Images)

• A Rohingya Muslim child receives a pack of food as local authority removes them to a dentention center in Banda Aceh on April 8, 2013, after stranded on remote island Pulo Aceh. Indonesian police on April 7 detained 80 Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar on a remote island off Sumatra after they had got lost attempting to reach Malaysia, an official said. It was the latest boatload of Rohingya to arrive on the shores of Indonesia, as thousands flee Myanmar after tensions between Muslims and Buddhists exploded in their home state of Rakhine last year. (CHAIDEER MAHYUDDIN/AFP/Getty Images)

• In this photograph taken on March 2, 2013, ethnic Rohingya refugees who were among two boatloads of asylum-seekers carrying 184 people from Myanmar rescued by Indonesian fishermen on February 26 and 28, 2013 off the waters of Sumatra island read a Quran at the immigration quarantine center in Langsa district in Aceh province. Indonesia is expecting an influx of Rohingya as Thai authorities crack down on Rohingya refugees entering their country. The UN considers the Rohingya, a stateless Muslim ethnic group, one of the most persecuted minorities in the world, and Myanmar views its roughly 800,000 Rohingya as illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, denying them citizenship. Buddhist-Muslim unrest in the western Myanmar state of Rakhine has left at least 180 people dead and more than 110,000 displaced since June 2012. (CHAIDEER MAHYUDDIN/AFP/Getty Images)

• A Rohingya man peers into a makeshift mosque as families crowd a tented camp November 25, 2012 on the outskirts of Sittwe, Myanmar. An estimated 111,000 people were displaced by sectarian violence in June and October affecting mostly the ethnic Rohingya people who are now living in crowded IDP camps racially segregated from the Rakhine Buddhists in order to maintain stability. Around 89 lives were lost during a week of violence in October, the worst in decades. As of 2012, 800,000 Rohingya live in Myanmar. According to the UN, they are one of the most persecuted minorities in the world. (Photo by Paula Bronstein/Getty Images)

• In this photo taken on Sept. 8, 2012, Muslims gather during a visit by a delegation of American diplomats including U.S. Ambassador to Myanmar Derek Mitchell, unseen, at a refugee camp in Sittwe, Rakhine State, western Myanmar. Three-and-a-half months after some of the bloodiest clashes in a generation between Myanmar’s ethnic Rakhine Buddhists and stateless Muslims known as Rohingya left the western town of Sittwe in flames, nobody is quite sure when -or even if- the Rohingya will be allowed to resume the lives they once lived here. (AP Photo/Khin Maung Win)

• In this photograph taken on March 2, 2013, an ethnic Rohingya refugee who was among two boatloads of asylum-seekers carrying 184 people from Myanmar rescued by Indonesian fishermen on February 26 and 28, 2013 off the waters of Sumatra island stands by the window of an immigration quarantine center in Langsa district in Aceh province. Indonesia is expecting an influx of Rohingya as Thai authorities crack down on Rohingya refugees entering their country. The UN considers the Rohingya, a stateless Muslim ethnic group, one of the most persecuted minorities in the world, and Myanmar views its roughly 800,000 Rohingya as illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, denying them citizenship. Buddhist-Muslim unrest in the western Myanmar state of Rakhine has left at least 180 people dead and more than 110,000 displaced since June 2012. AFP PHOTO / CHAIDEER MAHYUDDIN (Photo credit should read CHAIDEER MAHYUDDIN/AFP/Getty Images)

• Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, center, listens to Muslim refugees as he visits Kaynipyin camp in Pauktaw in Rakhine State, western Myanmar, Monday, Jan. 7, 2013, Rakhine is the state where sectarian violence between Muslim Rohingya and Rakhine Buddhists killed about 200 people and left at least 110,000 displaced, the vast majority of them Muslims late last year. (AP Photo/Khin Maung Win)

• Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, top seated third right, accompanied by Myanmar Border Affair Minister Lt. General Thein Htay, top seated second right, meets Muslim refugees as he visits Satmalay camp in Pauktaw in Rakhine State, western Myanmar, Monday, Jan. 7, 2013. Rakhine is the state where sectarian violence between Muslim Rohingya and Rakhine Buddhists killed about 200 people and left at least 110,000 displaced, the vast majority of them Muslims late last year. (AP Photo/Khin Maung Win)

Follow Engy Abdelkader on Twitter:

www.twitter.com/EAbdelkaderESQ

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/engy-abdelkader/who-are-the-rohingya-muslims-and-why-should-we-care_b_3213369.html

An event held Sunday at Elgin Community College brought a roomful of people earnestly searching for answers about the religion nearly one in four people on the planet claim as their own. “Who Is My Muslim Neighbor?” was organized by the Coalition of Elgin Religious Leaders and the Elgin Human Relations Commission.

The goal was to foster tolerance by broadening the community’s understanding of Islam.

“We need to move way from stereotypes that have been assigned to groups in our community,” said Elgin Mayor David Kaptain at the beginning of the event. He challenged local Muslims to branch out and involve themselves in wider community events and he commended the religious leaders for working together and setting an example for others.

In an overview of Islam and its followers, Gerald Hankerson, outreach coordinator for the Council on American Islamic Relations, said Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world. He pointed to population research that shows most Muslims living in the United States are African Americans or South Asians, while the vast majority of Arab-Americans are Christian. He stressed the idea that Islam is a religion of peace.

Miriam Fadel, a teacher at Elgin Academy, spoke about influential women in Islamic history, drawing a distinction between religion and culture when it comes to repression. The current prime ministers of Bangladesh and Mali are Muslim, as is the president of Kosovo, Fadel said, adding that the oldest continually operating institution of higher learning on the planet was founded by a Muslim woman.

“There’s this misconception that women are oppressed by the religion and that is absolutely not true,” Fadel said.

In smaller groups, attendees like Bakker and Humbrack had the chance to learn more about Islam from representatives of the Institute of Islamic Education, a school in Elgin that draws Islamic scholars from across the country. Ahsan Syed, a graduate of Bartlett High School and student at IIE, responded to questions about how to engage Muslims and stop cycles of discrimination.

“It’s true that if you want to get to know something you have to get to know the people,” Syed said. “Any Muslim you know, knowing them at the personal level is a good place to start.”

Article source: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130519/news/705199809/

Aside from Khanna’s insight, one statement particularly puzzled me greatly. “Why am I talking about Europe, China, and the United States? What about Russia, what about India, what about Islam… what about all those other powers?” Initially, I thought it must have been an error. The speaker must surely realise that Islam is a religion, not a political entity with a definable ‘geopolitical marketplace.’ But it was not an error, or more accurately, it was a deliberate error. Khanna went on to explain that Islam doesn’t have ‘that kind of coherence’ that allows it to spread its power and influence, unlike the dominant other powers which he highlighted. According to that odd logic, Islam and Brazil were discussed in a similar context.

This sort of twisted reasoning has flourished as an academic discipline-turned-industry since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Sure, it existed prior to this date, but its ‘experts’ and their then few think-tanks were largely placed within a decidedly pro-Israel, Zionist and right-wing political orthodoxy. In the last decade or so, the relatively specialised business multiplied and became mainstream wisdom. Its numerous ‘experts’ – who are more like intellectual purveyors – became well-known faces in American news networks. Their once ‘politically incorrect’ depiction of Arabs, Muslims and the non-western world at large, became acceptable views which were then translated into actual policies used for invading countries, torturing prisoners and flushing Holy Qurans down toilets.

It is impracticable to rationally argue with those who are essentially irrational. Many of us have tirelessly tried to wrangle with those who want to ‘kill all Muslims’ whenever someone claiming to be a Muslim is accused of carrying out or planning to carry out an attack somewhere in the world. The ‘debate’ rages on, not because of the power of its logic, but because of the heavy price of blood and gore that continues to be paid due to the deliberate misinformation, utter lies and subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) intellectual racism that defines much of the American media and academic discourses.

Numbers are of no relevance in such discussions because absurd media pundits are not swayed by facts. In the United States, there have been nearly 900,000 gun fatalities in the last 30 years or so (1980 to present) compared to around 3,400 terrorism-related fatalities in the last 40 years or so (1970 to present). These figures include victims of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. This unsurprising fact was recently referenced by MSNBC’s All In With Chris Hayes and raises some critical points.

If the US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen (plus numerous other lesser acts of violence committed in the name of ‘fighting terror’) were indeed compelled by the preciousness of American lives, then the least US Congress should do is tighten gun control laws in their own country. But respected members of Congress are fighting the good fight to keep things as they are, in the name of protecting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution – “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

But rights are infringed at will whenever it suits US foreign policymakers and their intellectual peddlers. Despite the fact that the war on Iraq was illegal and that torture of prisoners is a loud violation of the US’s own Constitution and the Bill of Rights, America’s war rages on and the Guantanamo gulag is thriving. One cannot help but think that the US’s legal, political and even moral blind spots must always somehow involve Muslims.

But of course it’s more complicated than this. Muslims are not targeted because they are Muslim. Yes, of course, religion and skin colour are important layers in the massive ‘crusade’ – a George W. Bush term, not mine – in America’s so-called war on terror. But ‘hating Islam’ is also a convenient pretence to achieve foreign policy objectives that are centred around imperial domination, thus natural resources. Neither American foreign policymakers, nor their media cheerleaders who hardly take a day off from smearing everything Muslim, are not interested in Islamic theology, history, spirituality or values that are meant to espouse uprightness in the individual and righteousness in the collective. But there is an army of dishonest people who would rather comb through every shred of Islamic text to highlight passages out of context just to prove that Islam is fundamentally flawed, teaches hate or ‘anti-Semitism’ and that it celebrates a supposed ‘culture of death.’ These very men and women would have done the same, as their predecessors have, to demonise any other culture, religion or community that sat on large deposits of oil or dare exist in an area of strategic importance to the United States or within an alarming proximity to Israel.

The anti-Islam tirade received another boost following the Boston Marathon Bombings of April 15, 2013, which were blamed on two American-Chechen brothers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The anti-Muslim circus was back in town, as political jugglers, along with media acrobats seemed to reach the ever predicable conclusion: hate all Muslims and do whatever possible to exploit any tragedy to further US hegemonic interest in the Middle East. Eric Rush, a Fox News pundit, summed up that sentiment when he called for the killing of all Muslims following the bombings and then later claimed that his tweets were meant to be sarcastic. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, called for women to be put in jail for ‘wearing a Hijab.’

This type of hate-mongering is of course not random, no matter how palpably ‘crazy’ the people behind it are. It is an essential component of ensuring that a largely uninformed public is always on board whenever the US is ready for yet another military adventure involving Muslim countries.

All of this rhetoric must also be juxtaposed with what is happening in the Middle East. There, yet a new war is brewing, one that is largely aimed at ensuring that the current chaos underway in the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ countries will yield favourable results from the viewpoints of Israel, America and the west. The new push for military intervention started with Israeli allegations that the Syrian regime is using chemical weapons against opposition forces, followed by British-French allegations, and finally, despite brief hesitation, concurred by U.S. Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel.

Over 70,000 people have reportedly been killed in the Syrian civil war. In the last two years it has become a hub for unprecedented regional and international rivalry, a Great Game of sorts. The US, Israel and their allies have watched as Syria, once considered a ‘threat’ to Israeli security, descended into inconceivable brutality involving the Syrian army, various factions and bands of fighters from near and far. It was a matter of time before the US and its allies made their move to seal Syria’s fate and to ensure quiet at the Israeli north-eastern frontier.

For that to happen, Muslims must be hated and dehumanised in ways that would make war a tad less ugly and future violence, in some odd way, ‘justifiable.’

The official purpose of Hagel’s recent visit to Israel was to finalize US arms sales to Israel and other countries which total about $10 billion. Knowing how such weapons have been used in the past, one can hardly appreciate the ‘sarcasm’ in Eric Rush’s tweet of wanting to ‘kill them all.’ Per the history of US foreign policy, violent words often translate into violent action and here lies the real danger of the supposedly crazy bunch who equate Islam to Brazil and wish to incarcerate women for wearing scarves.

[RAMZY BAROUD is the editor of PalestineChronicle.com.]

Article source: http://www.radianceweekly.com/358/10572/boston-brazil-and-islam-irrational-rhetoric-illegal-wars/2013-05-12/cover-story/story-detail/boston-brazil-and-islam-irrational-rhetoric-illegal-wars.html

A report was released on May 7th by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). It revealed that out of 15 nations which were the worst offenders against religious freedom, 10 were Muslim/Islamic nations.

In these Islamic/Muslim countries, non-Muslims are persecuted, imprisoned and killed for their non-Islamic religious beliefs. This isn’t surprising since such persecution is written into Islam itself. That is, under sharia law all non-Muslims have a dhimmi status at best; at worst they are persecuted and often killed. The Koran itself has countless passages of hate towards “unbelievers” and the hadiths are often even worse.

Since most Muslims in the UK are either Pakistani or of Pakistani heritage, let’s start with Pakistan.

In Pakistan there is a controversial blasphemy law. That will also explain why many British-Pakistani Muslims are agitating for blasphemy law here in the UK. Of course they don’t use those words — “sharia blasphemy law”. Instead they talk about “hate crimes”, “Islamophobia”, “racism” and whatnot. In fact Muslims in the UK have been so successful of fusing the criticism of Islam with racism that we’ve now got the Religious and Racial Hatred Act of 2006.

Let’s stay with Pakistan. In that country there is massive persecution of all religious minorities, which often results in killings, arson and rioting.

(It’s ironic that one day Pakistani Muslims in the UK will be interfaithing and enjoying peace and tolerance, and the next they will be visiting Pakistan, as they often do, and seeing some of the massive violence and persecution — carried out by their relations? — of non-Muslims. This is the case with specifically Christians, which happens there on a day-to-day basis. I wonder what the UK’s Pakistani Muslims think about all this…)

Take Egypt, led by what Western governments deem to be the “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has explicitly stated that the Muslim Brotherhood has systematically failed to stop violence against Egypt’s religious minorities, most prominently the Copts (Christian Egyptians). This is not a surprise because the Muslim Brotherhood has always been strong on persecution and even on assassinations and bombings (i.e., since the 1920s). This was hardly likely to have stopped once they gained power.

If we then move to Iraq and Iran, the Commission informs us that the imprisonment, torture, and executions are daily occurrences for non-Muslims in these countries. As is the case with many Muslim/Islam states, a conversion to Christianity in Iran and Iraq is classed as a “crime against state security.” This shouldn’t be a surprise because in Islam the state and religion are as one; that’s what Islam demands and what sharia law is there to bring about.

In Saudi Arabia all religious activities outside the permitted Wahhabism, an extremely conservative movement within Islam, are banned. Indeed in Saudi Arabia’s apartheid state non-Muslims have to drive on their own side of the road. That apartheid system encompasses all aspects of Saudi life. This is because the Islamic system of Dhimmitude enforces a system of apartheid on all non-Muslims in Islamic/Muslim states.

The Muslim countries which USCIRF also notes include Sudan, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. These Muslim countries are classified as ‘particularly worrisome countries.’

Article source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/is_there_an_interfaith_movement_in_the_muslim_world.html

It’s one of those national issues that for now is not before the U.S. Supreme Court, but almost inevitably will be before the justices somewhere down the line, even if just in the petition stage.

Sharia, based on the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, is often a consideration in family issue cases involving U.S. Muslims. But its precepts apply to all aspects of life, and its severest critics allege it is a factor in some acts of terror.

How widespread is the movement to ban Sharia and any foreign law from domestic courts?

Legislators in at least 32 of the 50 U.S. states introduced bills from 2010 go 2012 to limit consideration of foreign or religious laws in state court decisions, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports.

During those two years, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee enacted such bills.

In Oklahoma, the law explicitly banned judicial consideration of Islamic law, or Sharia. The ban was approved by the voters.

The ballot measure read: “This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.

“International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes,” the ballot issue read. “It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.

“The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.

“Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed. Shall the proposal be approved?” the ballot read, then offered voters a choice of yes or no.

Seven out of 10 voted yes.

But in 2010, in a challenge brought by Muneer Awad of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, a federal judge struck down the law as unconstitutional, saying it violated the rights of Muslims. A federal appeals court upheld the ruling, and the law was never implemented.

The appeals court said supporters of the law — State Question 755, or the “Save Our State” measure — “do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment sought to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma.”

The Pew Forum says the other five states still have their restrictions on court consideration of foreign or religious law. But the laws enacted in Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota and Tennessee are more neutral than the Oklahoma law and do not cite Sharia or other religious laws in particular.

Only 21 of the 92 bills introduced between 2010 and 2012 cite Sharia or other religious laws.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School held a symposium on the phenomenon last week in Washington, focusing on “the roots of this movement and the unintended consequences of foreign law bans … [and] how the current wave of foreign law bans upends the carefully calibrated methods that American courts use to decide whether to apply foreign law, as well as the legal uncertainties these bans could create for families, businesses, and people of all faiths.”

Others are far more enthusiastic about such bans.

The American Public Policy Alliance not only supports the bans, but offers a sample legislation for states to follow, adopted in 71 pieces of legislation.

“Granting comity [legal reciprocity] to a foreign judgment is a matter of state law, and most state and federal courts will grant comity unless the recognition of the foreign judgment would violate some important public policy of the state. This doctrine, the ‘Void as against Public Policy Rule,’ has a long and pedigreed history,” the alliance says on its website.

“Unfortunately, because state legislatures have generally not been explicit about what their public policy is relative to foreign laws, including as an example, Sharia, the courts and the parties litigating in those courts are left to their own devices — first to know what Sharia is, and second, to understand that granting comity to a Sharia judgment may be at odds with our state and federal constitutional principles in the specific matters at issue.”

The model legislation offered by the alliance says in part, “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.”

The alliance offers specific cases in state courts in which Sharia was considered:

“Joohi Q. Hosain [vs.] Anwar Malik, Sharia law of Pakistan, Maryland, 1996: Trial and appellate courts upheld foreign Sharia law and denied mother custody. She lost custody because going to custody hearing in Pakistan would have risked prison, torture or execution.”

And “Laila Adeeb Sawaya Malak vs. Abdul, Shariah law of Lebanon/UAE, California, 1986: Appellate court upheld foreign Sharia law and denied mother custody, reversing trial court.”

And among others, “Parveen Chaudry vs. M. Hanif Chaudry, M.D., Sharia law of Pakistan, New Jersey, 1978: Appellate court upheld foreign Shariah law, overturned trial court. Wife denied support and child support and division of property; prenuptial agreement signed by parents giving her only $1,500 from marriage upheld by appellate court.”

A Pew Forum analysis is far more kindly to Sharia and other religious laws.

“Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis,” the analysis says. “The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year. In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.

“For the most part, religious courts and tribunals operate without much public notice or controversy. Occasionally, however, issues involving religious law or religious courts garner media attention. … Meanwhile, [state] bills aimed at banning the use of Islamic [Sharia] law — or at restricting the application of religious or foreign law in general — have been introduced in more than 30 state legislatures.”

The analysis says, “Disputes over the laws of various religious traditions have occasionally made their way into U.S. civil courts, but the [U.S.] Supreme Court consistently has ruled that judges and other government officials may not interpret religious doctrine or rule on theological matters. In such cases, civil courts must either defer to the decisions of religious bodies or adjudicate religious disputes based on neutral principles in secular law.”

Disputes “within a faith tradition often are settled amicably or adjudicated by the religious community itself without involvement from religious or secular courts. Indeed, many religious groups encourage members who are accused of [non-criminal] moral wrongdoing or who are involved in a financial dispute with another member of the religious group to engage in mediation in an effort to come to a voluntary agreement. In many cases, more formal tribunals and the like are employed only after such efforts at mediation fail.”

A piece written by Daniel Mach, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, and Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Human Rights program, is highly critical of the state bans.

The piece appeared on the Religion News Service, and was posted on the Huffington Post website earlier this month.

“A discriminatory and wholly unfounded idea is taking root in state legislatures across the country: attempts to pass laws that would explicitly and unnecessarily ban state courts from applying or even considering Islamic, or Sharia, law,” the article said.

The article said the outlawed Oklahoma law and others like it contain “prohibitions on ‘international law’ and ‘foreign law,’ nonsensically conflating Sharia with foreign law. Other states, preferring not to wear their bigotry on their sleeves, don’t mention Sharia law per se, instead referring only to bans on ‘international law.’ Their intent, however, is unmistakable.”

The article said “these efforts are rooted in the baseless idea that U.S. Muslims wish to impose Islamic law on American courts. Proponents of these misguided measures, which have been introduced in 25 states so far, clearly seek to ride the recent wave of anti-Muslim bias in this country.

“Supporters would have us believe that these laws are designed to uphold the Constitution,” the article said. “In reality, these measures distort the protections already provided by the Constitution in ways that harm the rights of individuals, faith communities and businesses.

“Rather than strengthen the Constitution, these measures violate religious freedom and undermine the independence of our courts. Laws like the Oklahoma amendment ignore the fact that there are instances — such as in the execution of a will, or a dispute over religious property — that require civil courts to consult religious law. Our existing legal system is well-equipped to determine when courts may properly reference religious law, and also when doing so would cross the line. Banning the consideration of a particular faith’s laws entirely is not only discriminatory, but also impractical. …

“Want to get married in Aruba? Couples who are married outside the U.S. could come home to find that a state court could not recognize marriages conducted under Aruban law,” the article said. “Want to adopt a child from abroad? If you thought the adoption process was difficult now, think about what would happen if state courts were unable to consider foreign and international law. …

“These laws are unnecessary and serve only to do two things: Single out Muslims as second-class citizens and undermine the Constitution,” the article said. “If supporters of these measures genuinely wish to protect the Constitution, they would do well to trust the framers’ respect for international law and religious freedom — and not trade away our most precious values for political advantage.”

The American Public Policy Alliance, on its website, rips into the ACLU-authored article.

“The article posits a series of disjointed, hypothetical misapplications of the legislative efforts to prevent Sharia from encroaching into our legal system,” the website said. “Yet, the authors cite no actual examples of misapplications of laws already passed and in force, in Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona.”

Article source: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/05/19/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Islamic-law-in-US-courts/UPI-64481368948600/