|
Chronology of Islam in America (2011)
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali
August 2011 - Page Two
Seattle Muslim says he lost job over beard
Aug 4: A Seattle-area Muslim is suing his former employer, claiming he was fired as a security guard for refusing to shave his beard, which he wears for religious reasons. Abdulkadir Omar filed his federal lawsuit July 15 in Seattle. He spoke publicly about it yesterday along with representatives from the Seattle chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Omar, however, did not want his face shown in entirety. Omar says that in November 2009, a supervisor at American Patriot Security told him he had to shave his beard. Omar responded that his beard is part of his religious beliefs and refused. He was suspended the following spring. Omar filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which found that Omar was wrongfully terminated. The Yemeni-born man, now an American citizen, says he grew up believing in certain civil rights and he feels those rights have been violated. He's asking for changes at the company and for punitive damages for Omar. (King 5 News)
Islamic school rezoning rejected by Pittsfield Township Planning Commission
August 5: A split Pittsfield Township Planning Commission rejected a rezoning request by a group hoping to build an Islamic school in the township. In a 3-2 vote, the board voted to approve a motion to recommend that the Pittsfield Township Board of Trustees reject the zoning request by the Michigan Islamic Academy. The Board of Trustees has final authority and will vote on the issue at an upcoming meeting. The biggest issue has been traffic concerns, but officials involved with the school say two separate traffic studies have found there would be little impact on traffic. Commissioners Amy Longcore, Deborah Williams and Michael Yi voted to recommend against rezoning. Commissioners Michael Payne and Ann Harris voted against the recommendation. Commissioners Chris Wall and George Ralph weren’t present. Harris and Payne both stated that the land will eventually be developed and there will be increased traffic no matter what is built. They said the traffic studies have shown residential development would actually cause more traffic than a school. Payne said he lives near a school and understands the traffic concerns, but said the increase would be minimal. He also pointed out that the planning commission always relied on traffic studies in the past and questioned why it's now disregarding two studies. [Ann Arbor]
Vilifying Muslims in America
Aug 7: Judge nations by how they treat all people, whether equally, or advantaging some over others. Judge them harshly if they persecute some for political advantage. In America, people of color and Muslims are fair game. It's longstanding policy based on prejudicial attitudes, stereotypes, deep-seated racism, and notions of corrupted Western values, high-mindedness, and moral superiority. Post-9/11, in fact, Muslims are perceived as barbaric, violent, uncivilized, gun-toting terrorists, easily targeted, accused, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned - not for wrongdoing, for their faith in American at the wrong time. As a result, it's no surprise that when suspects are named, media reports automatically convict them in the court of public opinion. So do racist politicians for political advantage. Two notably among others stand out: (1) Senator Joe Lieberman (D/turned whatever-CT) last February wanting "a comprehensive national approach (developed) to (counter) homegrown radicalization to violent Islamist extremism; and (2) Rep. Peter King (R. NY), chairing House Committee on Homeland Security hearings, duplicitously claiming radicalized Muslims are increasing at an alarming rate, endangering US security. In fact, notorious Islamophobes like him, Lieberman and many others in Congress threaten humanity worldwide by funding and supporting destructive global wars, as well as persecuting innocent victims at home, endangering everyone as a result. No matter that Islamic tenets teach love, not hate; peace, not violence; charity, not selfishness; tolerance, not terrorism; or that Islam, Christianity and Judaism have common roots. You'd never know it in today's climate of hate and fear at a time America wages global wars on Islam, including at home.
Republican and Democrat Party right-wing extremism is a cancer destroying America. In 2012, one of their own may become president, bringing ideological hate to the White House if elected. On June 14, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) National Executive Director Nihad Awad expressed concern about anti-Islamic sentiment aired by Republican presidential candidates at a June 13 New Hampshire debate, saying: "When the candidates were asked: 'Are American Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christians or Jews?' not one spoke up (for) religious tolerance. While most remained silent, Herman Cain reiterated his position that he would treat Muslims differently than members of other faiths. (He) and (Gingrich) echoed the far-right manufactured controversy about Sharia replacing the Constitution." In fact, "Muslim groups are currently at the forefront defending the Constitution against attempts by many states to pass anti-Muslim legislation that clearly violates the Bill of Rights." Moreover, it's "unconscionable" that political aspirants like Gingrich, Cain, and many others equate Muslims with fifth column threats to America. In fact, many do and say so. Others also but mute their comments or stay silent. At issue is what's threatened all Muslim Americans post-9/11 - persecuting them maliciously for political advantage, making it unsafe for anyone practicing Islam by equating it to terrorism. America's First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Those serving in it and the White House are mandated to enforce all constitutional provisions and statute laws. However, it hasn't prevented them from violating them, especially against vulnerable Muslim Americans. As a result, anyone may be at risk in a nation targeting its own for political advantage. It's everyone's obligation to stop it. (By Stephen Lendman - Indybay)
Anti-Sharia movement fuels bigotry
Aug 7: This anti-Sharia movement would have Americans believe that the Islamic Code holds all Muslims hostage and calls their basic loyalties into question. The ugly opposition to the Islamic center near ground zero in New York is but one example of how misinformation and false assumptions can be whipped up into frenzy. Last month, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was stunned by the public response to his decision to appoint Sohail Mohammed, a lawyer who defended Muslims detained after the Sept. 11 attack, to the bench. The opposition's beef? Not merely that he defended people who were proven innocent but the assumption that he would somehow impose Sharia in his courtroom. Lest anyone dismiss such bigotry as a merely a New York-New Jersey trend, there are ample examples from around the country. Last year, voters in Oklahoma overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that bans the use of Islamic law in court. More than two dozen states are considering similar restrictions. Had any of these states targeted other religions — banning enforcement of Jewish kosher restrictions, for example — it would be immediately dismissed as anti-Semitic or worse. But bigotry against followers of Islam appear to hit a blind spot for many.
That's no endorsement of Sharia. But to insist that states must amend their constitutions to keep judges from imposing these specific religious beliefs in their decisions is to ignore the U.S. Constitution's own instructions on the broader subject of church and state. The First Amendment's prohibition on state establishment of religion already prevents Sharia as the basis of U.S. law, just as surely as it prevents courts from relying on the Talmud or the Bible to make decisions. But what these efforts to target Sharia do is to single out one particular religion for official disapproval, and that violates the Constitution just as surely as establishing religious law would. The only possible explanation of this unconstitutional discrimination is to trade on public fears. And there is no more distressing example of this than the movement to get Republican presidential candidates to pledge opposition to Sharia, something several have already agreed to do.
This anti-Islamic fervor is a dangerous business. A fear of Muslims taking over Western governments is exactly the kind of anti-immigrant, anti-Islamic ideology spouted by Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian man accused of killing 76 people in a downtown Oslo bombing and shooting spree on Utoya Island. Maryland has so far been fortunate not to have attracted the kind of demagoguery that has plagued Europe. But the movement is young and it's hardly beyond the pale to anticipate some ambitious right-wing lawmaker introducing an anti-Sharia bill in the next General Assembly session. What the country needs right now is to regain a bit of our own sanity and not start passing laws to address problems that don't exist — or to discriminate against fellow Americans. And shame on those politicians who would exploit the electorate's wariness of Islam for personal advancement and foster hatred of innocent Americans. (The Baltimore Sun Editorial)
DOJ invokes state secrets privilege in mosque spy suit
Aug 8: The state secrets privilege—perhaps the most powerful weapon in the government's legal arsenal—has a complicated history. For years, Democrats, including then-Sen. Barack Obama, accused the Bush administration of overusing of the privilege, which allows the government to quash cases that involve national security before a court even hears evidence. Then, after Obama took office, his Justice Department used this get-out-of-court-free card repeatedly. Last week, the DOJ invoked the state secrets privilege yet again. But this case, civil liberties groups say, is different. Most of the post-9/11 cases that the government has killed with the state secrets privilege have either involved foreign-born terrorist suspects or the government's actions abroad. The case the Obama administration tried to quash last week doesn't explicitly involve either. The case in question, which was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), focuses squarely on domestic intelligence-gathering targeting Americans—namely the FBI's allegedly widespread use of informants and surveillance against Muslim Americans.
The case, Fazaga v. FBI, stems from the purported actions of Craig Monteilh, a 49-year-old convicted criminal who claims that he spent 15 months in 2006 and 2007 infiltrating mosques in Orange County, California, as part of an undercover FBI investigation known as "Operation Flex." The Fazaga case, which the ACLU and CAIR filed in February 2011, claims that the FBI utilized Monteilh to "collect personal information on hundreds and perhaps thousands of innocent Muslim Americans in Southern California." The ACLU says that the FBI investigation "violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee of government neutrality toward all religions." For evidence, the two groups point to a somewhat problematic source: Monteilh. According to Monteilh, Operation Flex did indeed involve the indiscriminate monitoring of the Southern California Muslim community with the goal of apprehending terrorists. Monteilh claims to have gone by the name Farouk al-Aziz and posed as a French Syrian man pushing a radical Islamist view on mosque-goers in Irvine, California. And after months of Monteilh's spying, Southern California Muslims did in fact call the FBI to alert them of a possible terrorist: Monteilh. The whole episode was a bit of an embarrassment for the FBI, and received national press attention after 2007, when Monteilh was imprisoned for grand theft and started talking to the press. The FBI's involvement in the case—and the fact that it involves Americans—makes it stand out among the other state secrets cases, says Ameena Qazi, CAIR's deputy executive director. "We're surprised at the government's shocking move in invoking the state secrets doctrine in this case of all cases," Qazi says. Since this case "involves domestic intelligence-gathering on US soil against Americans," she explains, "it's an unprecedented move to our knowledge."
Monteilh says he knows what the government might be trying to hide
Monteilh, for his part, says he knows what the government might be trying to hide. Monteilh—who, for what it's worth, is a convicted felon—now says that the FBI broached the subject of his traveling abroad to act on the intelligence he gathered during Operation Flex. In one instance, Monteilh says, the FBI asked him whether he'd be interested in traveling to Pakistan to assassinate a terrorist target. Monteilh claims that a CIA representative reviewed his progress in Arabic and Islamic training every month. Monteilh alleges that during his time as an informant, the FBI also involved him in an elaborate plan to present himself as a single, Muslim man seeking introductions to potential wives in Orange County and record his meetings with the women. Monteilh says that before the relationships turned sexual, he approached the FBI agents on the case: "I said look guys, as you hear the recordings, if it goes to a level where there's a potential sexual encounter what do you want me to do?" According to Monteilh, the agents said to go ahead with the sexual interactions in cases where good information existed. After learning more about the women's potential "terrorist" connections abroad through Monteilh, the FBI would confront the women with recordings of their sexual encounters with Monteilh, intending to frighten them into giving the bureau actionable intelligence. "They told me that we're going to use the [Islamic] culture against the Muslim community," Monteilh says. Monteilh's claims aren't the kind of thing that anyone would believe without further proof of the kind that could be obtained in a courtroom. But if the Justice Department gets its way, that kind of proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. "In asserting the state secrets privilege they have sealed the gaps of the entire Department of Justice on Operation Flex," Monteilh says. "There's one gap they can't touch—which is me." [Mother Jones editorial]
Whole Foods under Islamophobic pressure
Aug 9: Last week, the retailer announced a marketing campaign for Ramadan, the Islamic holy month that began on Aug. 1. In a post on its official blog, Whole Story, writer Yvonne Maffei of My Halal Kitchen, encourages Muslims to try Whole Foods' halal-certified offerings, specifically items from the frozen entree brand Saffron Road. Fast Company called the campaign "a new benchmark for the Muslim-American community: the first coordinated Ramadan promotion by a national supermarket chain." nsurprisingly, the campaign was blasted by some right-wing bloggers, including Debbie Schlussel, who closed out a blog post on the topic with, "Whole Foods ... For the Organically Conscious Jihadist. Way more humane because, hey, ‘free range chickens' can run away from the IED. allahu natural fruitbar." Houston Press reported that it was this pressure that led the company send out an internal e-mail that stated, "It is probably best that we don't specifically call out or 'promote' Ramadan ... We should not highlight Ramadan in signage in our stores as that could be considered 'Celebrating or promoting' Ramadan." The newspaper got a hold of the e-mail and published excerpts of it today. Whole Foods responded to the tweets, claiming that the e-mail did not come from its corporate headquarters. "We are still carrying and promoting halal products for those that are celebrating Ramadan this month. We never sent a communication from our headquarters requesting stores take down signs or remove parts from this promotion. We have 12 different operating regions and unfortunately, one region reacted by sending out directions to promote halal and not specifically Ramadan after some negative online comments." [Orange County Weekly]
Islam has always been part of our American family: Obama
Aug 10: Welcoming guests at the annual White House Iftaar party, US President Barack Obama said, Islam has always been part of the American family and Muslim Americans have long contributed to the strength and character of our country in all walks of life. Obama said the annual Ramadan dinner, a tradition that President Clinton began and President George W Bush continued, is quintessentially American. "This evening reminds us of both the timeless teachings of a great religion and the enduring strengths of a great nation. Like so many faiths, Islam has always been part of our American family, and Muslim Americans have long contributed to the strength and character of our country, in all walks of life. This has been especially true over the past 10 years," Obama said. Referring to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 next month, Obama said it will be a time to honor all those that the country has lost, the families who carry on their legacy, the heroes who rushed to help that day and all who have served to keep us safe during a difficult decade. "And tonight, it's worth remembering that these Americans were of many faiths and backgrounds, including proud and patriotic Muslim Americans," he said. "An America that doesn't simply tolerate people of different backgrounds and beliefs, but an America where we are enriched by our diversity. [Reuters]
Continued on page three
2011 January February March April May June
July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
|
