|
Chronology of Islam in America (2011)
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali
April 2011
The Truth About American Muslims
April 1; At the Justice Department, it’s called the post-Sept. 11 backlash — the steady stream of more than 800 cases of violence and discrimination suffered by American Muslims at the hands of know-nothing abusers. These continuing hate crimes were laid bare at a valuable but barely noticed Senate hearing last week that provided welcome contrast to Representative Peter King’s airing of his xenophobic allegation that the Muslim-American community has been radicalized. Offering federal data rather than mythic scapegoating of an easy political target, the Senate hearing focused on the fact that while Muslims make up 1 percent of the population, they are victims in 14 percent of religious discrimination cases. These range from homicides and mosque burnings to job, school and zoning law abuses, according to the Justice Department.
In running the hearing, Senator Richard Durbin tried to set the record straight about the patriotism of a vast majority of American-Muslim citizens and the continuing assaults on their civil rights. He warned against the “guilt by association” whipped up by Mr. King’s broadsides — that there are “too many mosques” in the nation, that most of them are extremist, and that American Muslim leaders have failed to cooperate with law enforcement against home-grown terrorism.
It was former President George W. Bush who first warned against turning on Muslim Americans after Sept. 11, 2001, stressing the fact that Islam is “a faith based upon love, not hate,” regardless of the religious veneer the fanatics of 9/11 tried to attach to their atrocities. Since then, American Muslims have served as the largest source of tips to authorities tracking terror suspects, according to a recent university study.
The Senate hearing was not designed as a full refutation of Representative King’s wild thesis, but it put a more human and factual face on a community that has been badly slurred. Mr. King is promising more committee haymakers. This is unfortunate. At least Mr. Durbin’s hearing made clear that the nation’s struggle against terrorism is best served by information, not dark generalizations. (New York Times editorial)
Florida Senate panel moves Shariah law bill, but don't call it that
April 4: During a Senate committee hearing today, Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, said a bill he was sponsoring did one thing and one thing only. The bill "simply states in a courtroom of state of Florida, the only laws that might be applied are the laws of the state of Florida and the United States, period," he said. He made no mention of the fact that his bill, SB 1294, is nearly a word-for-word match of model anti-Islamic religious - Shariah - law legislation that is posted on the website of the American Public Policy Alliance, a group that works "to defend free speech, preserve and promote human rights, maintain the sanctity of our US and state constitutions, and aid and promote public safety." That fact was pointed out by those testifying against the bill today. Others said because there is no documented case where another entity's law trumped United States or Florida law, the bill is not needed. "This is the proverbial solution in search of a problem," said David Barkey, the Anti-Defamation Leagues' southern area civil rights counsel. (Jacksonville.com)
Peter King calls for ethnic profiling in addition to religious profiling
April 5; Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has caused an uproar with his relentless scapegoating of Muslim Americans. As chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, he refused to broaden his terrorism hearings into any non-Muslim groups. And given many of King’s public statements about Muslim Americans, including an argument that Muslim Americans aren’t Americans when it comes to war, many have accused him of prejudice. In a public television appearance aired today with Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), King elaborated on his exclusive focus on Muslim Americans as terrorist threats. In his remarks, King justified racial or ethnic profiling as well as religious profiling. King reasoned that if racist white terrorists were suspected of an attack on an African American community, the same standard against Muslims could be applied to “a white guy walking down around Harlem”: KING: I’m just saying, a person’s religious background or ethnicity can be a factor, one of the things to look at. For instance, if I’m told the White Citizens Council, the Ku Klux Klan, is going to attack Harlem, I’d be more suspicious of a white guy walking down around Harlem in a very African American neighborhood. To me, that’s a logical a thing. Should you harass? No. King’s argument for arguably unconstitutional racial and religious profiling — rather than behavioral profiling — is curious given America’s recent history with terror threats. As ThinkProgress’ Zaid Jilani has reported, there have been twice as many non-Muslim terrorist plots in the U.S. since 9/11 than plots by Muslims. For instance, there have been 27 terror plots by white supremacist groups. So King’s white terrorist hypothetical is real, yet he has never called any hearings on white supremacist terrorism, or called for whites to be ethnically profiled. (Think Progress)
14 join lawsuit against mosque in Murfereesboro
April 6: The number of plaintiffs seeking to stop the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro from building a bigger mosque grew from three to 17 today. Attorney Joe Brandon Jr. submitted an amended complaint to Chancellor Robert Corlew III's court against Rutherford County for approving what he said was a "megamosque" site plan. "The residents neighboring the property of the 52,000-square-foot Muslim Brotherhood Training Center fear for their property values, their safety, their privacy and constitutional rights," Brandon states in a news release. Brandon's news release, however, accuses the ICM of being a threat. "The leadership of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro (ICM) have been linked to terrorist organizations and have promoted anti-American and unconstitutional beliefs," Brandon's news release states. "Additionally, a video surveillance camera has been place on a public utility pole to watch neighbors come and go from their property. This form of intimidation should not be allowed."
Local attorney John Green said the case is hurting the county's reputation as a place that he feels should welcome freedom of religion. "I have been very heartbroken about the way this community has been portrayed internationally," said Green, noting that millions of people throughout the world watched a CNN documentary about the issue that aired twice last week. "This brings increasingly negative attention at a time when we ought to be focusing on education and jobs and the economy. This will not attract businesses to Middle Tennessee." Green said this case is all about religion and has nothing to do with the size of the ICM. "If it weren't, the same people would have been protesting the dramatic expansions of World Outreach Church, where traffic is a nightmare," Green said. "They would have been opposed to the zoning requests for New Vision Baptist Church, yet they've been silent. Mr. Brandon's persistence in calling this an Islamic training center is nothing short of absurd." World Outreach Church in 2007 presented plans to the city of Murfreesboro to expand it church to a new total of 264,000 square feet. New Vision Baptist Church last week picked up approval from the city's Board of Zoning Appeals to expand its existing 63,272 square feet by 51,066 square feet.
The ICM's 1,000-member congregation wants to move to a bigger location than the 2,250-square-foot mosque it currently uses at 862 Middle Tennessee Blvd., near South Church Street. It's common for an overflow group of worshippers to pray outside the door if they don't arrive at Friday afternoon services soon enough. (DNJ.com)
Banning Sharia law is fearmongering and unconstitutional
April 6: It is apparently not enough that our legislators in Washington, D.C., have held hearings on terrorism focusing only on our Muslim brethren. Now Rep. Don Wells, R-Cabool, wants to attack Islam by proposing yet another unnecessary and possibly federally unconstitutional amendment to Missouri’s constitution. And Rep. John Cauthorn, R-Mexico, who represents a portion of eastern Columbia and Boone County, has joined Wells’ team.
Their problem? Sharia law. Really? This is an example of fear mongering — attacking an issue based on fear and misunderstanding, using propaganda and no facts — at its best. House Joint Resolution 31, is specifically written to prohibit Missouri courts from using Sharia or international law in their deliberation. A search of Missouri courts and the State Courts Administrator website shows no incident in which Sharia law has been considered in Missouri courts. The state Supreme Court verified this fact. With the addition of Wells’ bill, these proposed (constitutional) amendments, all needing public vote, become more worrisome. They are designed to instill fear, loathing and distrust in those of the Muslim faith. These proposals are designed as a direct assault on the Constitution, the First Amendment and our founders’ concept that temporal and sectarian laws should remain separate but equal partners. I firmly believe that the men and women supporting these proposed resolutions in Jefferson City remain constitutionally illiterate. (The Columbia Missourian)
The sharia panic factory
April 7: One of the more striking things about the current anti-sharia craze is how often state legislators who introduce anti-sharia bills can't answer basic questions about Islamic law or why they see it as a threat. In Alabama, for example, when the state senator who sponsored an anti-sharia bill was asked by a reporter to simply define sharia, he responded: "I don't have my file in front of me." In Florida, anti-sharia bill sponsors couldn't name a single case where Islamic or international law had been used in a troubling way in U.S. courts. When, on Wednesday, I interviewed a Nebraska state senator behind a similar bill, I asked him about what cases were causes of concern to him. He responded: "I'm not in my office to look them up." How could all these legislators be so uninformed about their own bills? A big part of the reason is that most of them did not actually write the legislation in question. Rather, many of the anti-sharia bills being considered around the country are either based on or directly copied from model legislation created by an obscure far-right Arizona attorney and activist named David Yerushalmi.
The Nebraska case is instructive. State Sen. Mark Christensen introduced a bill in January to bar the use of any foreign law in Nebraska courts. When I spoke to Christensen, he acknowledged he did not have a deep understanding of the issue, referring me back to his office when I asked him what cases involving sharia or foreign law were troubling to him. He summed up his reason for sponsoring the bill: "This is America. We use America's law." It turns out Christensen introduced the bill after his office was approached by the head of the local chapter of the anti-Muslim group ACT! for America, Christensen aide Dan Wiles told me. ACT! for America is a Florida-based group led by Brigitte Gabriel. In a profile last month, the New York Times detailed Gabriel's strategy of selectively quoting the Quran to paint most or all Muslims as violent extremists.
The model legislation in question originates with Yerushalmi, the Arizona lawyer who is associated with several organizations including the American Public Policy Alliance. The model anti-foreign law bill on the Public Policy Alliance's website has been used in states including Florida, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri and South Dakota. It is called "American Laws for American Courts." Who is Yerushalmi? His background leaves little doubt that these anti-"foreign law" bills are designed to target sharia. He has written, for example, that "The Muslim peoples, those committed to Islam as we know it today, are our enemies." A group he founded, the Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), has reportedly advocated for a law making it a felony "punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam." The Anti-Defamation League has also called out Yerushalmi for his "anti-black bigotry." (By Justin Elliott – Salon)
Hearings provide an excuse for more Muslim bashing
April 7: A disturbing wave of Islam bashing is washing over the country. Some people are actually in court, trying to block Muslims from exercising their right to build worship facilities. Legislators in a few states have introduced bills to ban Shariah - Islamic law - even though no one is trying to impose it. One group calls itself "Stop Islamization of America." Stop Islamization? Can anyone explain to me how a religion that makes up less than 2 percent of the U.S. population is going to pull that off? In a tense atmosphere like this, a congressional hearing on "radicalization" of the American-Muslim community is the last thing we need. Yet, thanks to U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., it's what we just got. King insists he's only concerned about terrorism. It's a common tactic these days. It seems any violation of civil liberties becomes acceptable if it's wrapped in the guise of fighting terrorism. There are ways to oppose terrorism that don't involve smearing an entire religion. There are ways to oppose terrorism that don't invoke witch hunts. Yet these are King's tactics, and they run the risk of backfiring by fostering a dangerous mentality of "us vs. them." Instead of extending a hand of friendship to the American-Muslim community, King's approach offers only a closed fist. It looks like hypocrisy in the Muslim world - because it is.
We've been this way before and should know it's not a good place to be. In the mid-19th century, Roman Catholics were looked upon as suspect, loyal more to Rome than Washington. Wild stories circulated of their scheming. Catholic-Protestant tensions sparks riots in some cities. During World War II, we falsely assumed that Americans of Japanese ancestry were not loyal. In fact, Japanese-Americans were patriots, but we sent them to internment camps anyway. Many innocent people lost their jobs during the "Red Scare" of the 1950s. Post 9/11, the country saw a wave of attacks on Muslims - or people perceived to be Muslim. These assaults continue today. In Sacramento, Calif., two men recently pleaded no contest to beating a Sikh cabdriver whom they assumed was Muslim.
King's hearing runs the risk of further inflaming tensions by validating the lie that Islam is an inherently violent religion that sponsors terrorism. In fact, the vast majority of the world's 1 billion Muslims have repudiated terror. King's hearing recklessly tars Muslims with the brush of fanaticism. Ironically, many conservatives who have backed the King hearing were outraged in April 2009 when the Department of Homeland Security issued a report warning of a rise in right-wing extremism. For the federal government to even identify such a possibility was offensive to some conservatives. Congressional "show hearings" like King's do nothing to advance our understanding of terrorism. A large part of the problem is that King is simply an imperfect messenger. He was one of the first federal legislators to protest when an Islamic group in New York announced plans to build a mosque in lower Manhattan, even though the group was only doing something Christians do every day - buy land and build a house of worship. In light of King's intolerance, it's hard to believe his goal isn't more Muslim bashing. (The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State - McClatchy-Tribune)
Another anti-Muslim hearing
April 8: Under the guise of reviewing preparedness for any possible terrorist attack, another anti-Islam and anti-Muslim hearing was held by the New York State Senate on Friday, April 8, 2011. Like a similar Muslim-bashing hearing by the Republican congressman Peter King last month, the New York hearing drew sharp rebuke by Democrats. In a letter addressed to Republican lawmaker Greg Ball, who called the controversial hearing, 11 Democrats said that the hearing is designed to "isolate and villify Muslims." Under the guise of exploring the serious issues of emergency preparedness and public protection, Ball invited a pair of virulent, high-profile and unabashedly anti-Islam critics - Nonie Darwish or Frank Gaffney - to testify in hearings. Egypt-born Darwish, a self-styled "former Moslem" has written that "Islam is cruel, anti-women, anti-religious freedom and anti-personal freedom in general." A review of her book, "Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law," states: "For Darwish, Islam is a sinister force that must be resisted and contained." Frank Gaffney was a witness for the plaintiffs in a controversial lawsuit against the construction of the Tennessee mosque. Gaffney has promoted the false belief that President Obama is a Muslim. Gaffney, president of the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, is the employer of David Yerushalmi, author of the template used to promote anti-Islam bills in a growing number of state legislatures. Yerushalmi is also head of the anti-Islam hate group Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE).
"This hearing will provide a venue to unqualified individuals who profit from maligning Muslims," reads the letter signed by 11 senators, including Bill Perkins, Liz Krueger and Velmanette Montgomery. "The Senate should not lend voice or credibility to those who advocate intolerance, hate, and promote bigotry," the letter states. The letter also calls for an investigation of hate crimes and discrimination against Muslims as well as those from the Arab, Sikh and South Asian communities. Not surprisingly, Nonie Darwish argued that Islam is a threat to the U.S. She said that schools and mosques throughout the Arab world commonly teach children to embrace violence as a way of dealing with nonbelievers and that women are brutally punished for perceived sexual crimes. “You’re supposed to hate America,“ she said. “You’re supposed to hate Western culture.“ Frank Gaffney claimed that virtually every major Muslim group in the U.S. was part of an effort — part political, part military — to impose Islamic religious law on the country and install a supreme leader, or caliph, to rule over all. Gaffney said there are terrorist training camps operating in the U.S. right now, including one in upstate New York, where jihadists are preparing for armed insurrection.
CAIR-NY Civil Rights Manager Cyrus McGoldrick appeared on a panel with Linda Sarsour, advocacy and civic engagement coordinator for the National Network for Arab American Communities. Sarsour, a Brooklyn native, said there were hundreds of thousands of peace-loving, law-abiding Muslims in the city. She said giving a public platform to people who wished to assail the religion in the name of national security just added to “a new era of increasing xenophobia.“ “We are part of the solution,“ she said of her fellow Arab-American New Yorkers. McGoldrick's testimony also examined the role of American Muslim individuals and institutions in preventing violent extremism, outlined CAIR's work in helping to undermine violent extremist narratives, detailed the major issues impacting the civil liberties of American Muslims, and offered recommendations such as funding Muslim community organizations' programs that protect youth from violent extremist influences. He said: “Issues negatively impacting American Muslim civil liberties include bigoted opposition to the building and expansion of American mosques, the use of Muslim-bashers as law enforcement trainers, violent extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda, and the introduction of anti-Islam legislation in state legislatures nationwide.” New York Lower Hudson Valley Journal News has denounced the anti-Islam witnesses at the New York State Senate hearing. In an editorial titled, “Greg Ball's 'security' role? Helping spread intolerance,” the paper said under the guise of exploring the serious issues of emergency preparedness and public protection, Sen. Greg Ball has invited a pair of virulent, high-profile and unabashedly anti-Islam critics to testify in hearings Friday in Manhattan. The odds of either Nonie Darwish or Frank Gaffney, Ball's firebrand invitees, informing or improving our safety and security are absolutely nil. (AMP Report)
Parents call for TSA to review frisking after kid gets pat-down
April 13: A Kentucky couple wants the TSA to change how it screens children after their 6-year-old daughter was frisked at the New Orleans airport. Selena Drexel told ABC's "Good Morning America" today the family was returning home from a vacation earlier this month when their daughter Anna was selected for a pat-down. She said she asked for her daughter to be re-scanned, but was refused. The incident drew attention and outrage after the Drexels posted a video of the search on YouTube. The girl's father, Todd Drexel, said Anna was confused by the search and started crying afterward because she thought she'd done something wrong. Selena Drexel says such searches are inappropriate for children because they're usually told not to let adults touch them in sensitive areas. She said she posted the video because she "had a very bad feeling that what happened was wrong."
A congressman whose subcommittee oversees national security issues said he was "personally outraged and disgusted" over the security pat-down. "This conduct is in clear violation of TSA's explicit policy not to conduct thorough pat-downs on children under the age of 13," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, said in a statement. Jennifer Mitchell, a child safety advocate, said after viewing the YouTube video that the pat-down seemed "a little invasive." Mitchell said she knows families who have declined to fly because they don't want their children frisked. She recommended that parents tell children before going to the airport that they may get a pat-down. (NBC News)
How it became acceptable to reveal bias against Muslims?
April 15: Before gauging whether you are in line with most of America in your opinion about Muslim immigrants, here are two things you should know: Firstly, Americans are no more opposed to granting citizenship to Muslim immigrants than Christian immigrants. Secondly, despite no real difference in opinion, Americans are significantly more open about their opposition to a Muslim becoming a citizen. In other words, what is unique is not the extent to which opposition exists, but the extent to which it is out in the open. About a year ago, in the spring of 2010, with funding from the National Science Foundation's Time-Sharing Experiments in the Social Sciences program, we decided to see if Americans really felt differently about the incorporation of Muslims into American citizenry.
Because the U.S. has a long tradition of religious tolerance, we worried that Americans might feel uncomfortable expressing an intolerant view toward a specific religious group. To get around this, we randomly assigned the 2,366 participants in our study to three groups. One group we asked directly whether they supported or opposed giving legal Muslim or Christian immigrants citizenship. A second and third group we asked about these two religious groups separately and indirectly, never forcing respondents to reveal their opinion to the interviewer or anyone. This approach, called a "list experiment," has been used to consider other controversial topics such an affirmative action and same-sex marriage. Its unique insight is not just into the level of opposition, but the degree to which it is hidden. (Mathew J. Creighton and Amaney A. Jamal, Huffington Post)
Bigotry at Missouri Islamic center an affront to all
April 15: Worshipers at the Islamic Center of Springfield, Missouri, found a threatening letter and several burned Qurans on the property on April 10. It reads "death to Islam," and the writers vow Islam, "will not survive." The News-Leader, Springfield, in an editorial said: We believe the perpetrator(s) of the recent acts of bigotry and hatred at the Islamic center represent a very small portion of Ozarkers. That the dark side rules this person or persons is a reason for pity.
The center received a threatening letter Sunday with statements such as Muslims "stain the earth" and "Islam will not survive" and "Death to Islam!" Earlier, the charred remains of three Qurans were discovered. The incidents were initially investigated by Springfield police, and the FBI has joined the case as a possible civil rights violation. The police logged one of the incidents as a "terrorist threat."
The very idea of a terrorist threat here is an outrage. It's an affront to how we want to see ourselves. Now is the time when our citizens, churches and authorities should show a unity in purpose to prevent this incident from being the image of our Ozarks. Make no mistake, this has the potential to become a national or even international issue, though we hope it does not. But if it does, we want the world to see our reaction as one that shines the light of inclusiveness and compassion to push back the darkness. Now is the time for us to stand beside the members of our community who are Muslim. They have been harmed -- a harm done against us all -- and need us to stand with them. Now is the time to acknowledge that we have a responsibility to act with expressions of support by individuals, from the city's pulpits and in our civic groups. Now is the time to show we are better than threats and vandalism. Let the image we see not mirror hate and bigotry. (The News-Leader)
Missouri legislator still can't explain why he wants to ban Sharia
April 20: Tim Murphy of Mother Jones writes: About a month ago, we told you about a bill before Missouri's legislature to ban Islamic Sharia law from being enforced in state courts. The proposal, introduced by Republican state Rep. Paul Curtman, drew its language from the sample legislation drafted by David Yerushalmi, an Arizona-based attorney who has previously called for Muslims to be deported. Since the beginning of 2009, two dozen states have considered proposals to ban Sharia, many of which have borrowed Yerushalmi's language.
Yesterday, the Missouri bill passed out of committee in the House, after a heated debate. Per KMOX: "This bill will go to court and you are wasting your ink on this paper. Because this will not be upheld in court," [Democratic Rep. Jamilah] Nasheed said Tuesday. "You're wasting your time gentleman. You're wasting your time in this body." Nasheed called on Curtman to provide a list of cases in which international law had been used in American courts but Curtman was unable to provide an example of such a case.
Why should that sound familiar? Because this exact same scenario unfolded in March, when Curtman held a press conference unveil the bill. Here was his response then when a reporter asked for examples: "I don't have the specifics with me right now but if you go to—the web address kind of escapes my mind right now. Any Google search on international law used in the state courts in the U.S. is going to turn up some cases for you." (Mother Jones)
Continued on page two
2011 January February March April May June
July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
|
