Palestine: From Prophecies to Prophetic Principles

The conflict in Palestine threatens to destabilize world politics and embolden fundamentalist demands for religiously exclusive political states. The principle of rule of law has suffered immensely under the climate of fear that followed the terrorist attacks on the American homeland on September 11, 2001. Extremists in both the East and the West are working hard to deepen the divide, and turn a political conflict into a religious war. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being used by the far right in both Muslim and Western countries to justify bigotry and to demonize people on the other side of the divide.

There is a dire need to use our creative imagination and to find a just and equitable solution to the conflict. The logic of “creating facts on the ground” and “might makes right” must give way to the spirit of the age, of equal dignity and the rule of law. It might be well the case that conflict might continue to play itself out until complete victory or complete defeat is achieved. But this would definitely be a tragic moment, as it would signal the triumph of force over morality and rationality. It would be a tragic moment, because by then, the conflict would have created overwhelming misery on all sides that no human being would be willing to contemplate.

The solution to the conflict must not be based on Jewish, Christian, or Muslim prophecies that would only inflame hate and mistrust among the followers of the three religious traditions. I should, rather, be based on the prophetic principles cherished by the three religious traditions. It must be based on the shared committed to the sanctity of human life, and the universally accepted principles of equal dignity, freedom of religion, democracy, and the rule of law.

Will prophetic principles triumph over self-styled and self-fulfilled prophecies? I am tempted by my own faith in the power of transcendental principles and values to answer in the positive. I do, however, equally believe that the answer to the question hinges on the actions of members of the communities of faith. I do hope that people of reason and deep faith do privilege the clear principles demanded by their religions and international conventions over vague prophecies interpreted by fallible and rationally limited and emotionally charged human beings.

To read the full article, titled "Elusive Peace: 60 Years of Pain and Surffering," please click on the link below:
http://lsinsight.org/articles/Current/PropheticPrinciples.htm

Read more >>>

Interfaith Dialogue a Moral Duty to Finding Common Ground

Extreme voices in the three religions that claim the monotheist heritage of Prophet Abraham--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--are busy sowing the seeds of confrontation and hate. They have recently taken the advantage of the politically rooted tensions between western and Middle Eastern countries to develop misunderstanding and mistrust among the followers of these religions.

Quoting selectively from Islamic sources, they have painted Islam as an intolerant religion that urges its followers to hate people of other faiths. This depiction belies both the historical record of Muslims dealing with the followers of other faiths, and, most importantly, the Qur'anic message itself. Although historical Muslim societies were imperfect, there are plenty of examples to show that Islamic values inspired Muslims to develop multi-religious societies in which people of diverse religious backgrounds lived in considerable harmony. The tolerance of Medieval Muslim Spain and the invitation extended to Jews expelled from Jerusalem to return to the city upon the defeat of the Crusaders are two shining examples.

The Qur'an reiterates a fundamental truth taught by all the prophets who were sent by God to guide human endeavors. It asserts that true and honest living is the assured way for spiritual and social harmony, and for protecting the long term self interests of every human being.

The Qur'an further asserts that humans are fallible and can never be free of error in understanding and judgment. Human knowledge is imperfect, and subject to bias and error. Knowledge of intentions and inner thoughts are beyond human capacity, and so is the knowledge of the final destiny of individuals. People of faith must show humility and put their trust in divine wisdom and the absolute justice of God, and must focus on doing what is right and just, instead of sitting in judgment on the eternal salvation of others. The Qur'an is clear that only God knows who is true and sincere in worship and service, and who has gone astray.

"Your lord knows best who strays from his way: He knows best who they are that receive His guidance." (6:117)

"And we granted them clear signs in matters (of religion): it was only after knowledge had been granted to them that they fell into schisms, through insolent envy among themselves. Verily your lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment as to those matters in which they set up differences." (45:17)

The duty of the faithful is, therefore, not to judge others and look down on those who have different understanding and faith, but respect their choices and try his or her best to live an upright life and manifest the values of his and her faith through good work and good deeds.

"To you we sent the scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that has come to you. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, he would have made you a single People, but (his plan is) to test you in what he hath given you; so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is he that will show you the truth of the matters in which you dispute." (5:48)

The Qur'an came to confirm the truth revealed in early scriptures, and the people of the book, the followers of the revealed scriptures, have a special place in the Qur'an, particularly those who carry the Abrahamic legacy. Significant portions of the Qur'an focus on the story of the Biblical prophets and their followers, the Jews and Christians. It presents their stories as the story of the journey of faith, reminding the followers of the last revelation of the ups and downs in the struggle of the early communities of faith.

Some commentators have stressed the down side of that story by focusing on the Qur'anic critique of the People of the Book. The Qur'an has pointed out several excesses and mistakes committed by the followers of the Biblical prophets, and warned the followers of Prophet Muhammad against committing similar excesses.

Yet the Qur'an is also full of stories of great struggles and shining examples of the followers of early prophets whose commitment and devotion were crucial for establishing the Monotheistic traditions and translating divine guidance into social practices: The strong faith of Saul (Talout) and those who stood firmly with him (2:249); the devotion of the people of the Trench who remained true to their faith in the face of a horrifying aggression committed by ruthless enemies (85:1-11); and the unwavering commitment of the followers of Christ to the ethical code and compassionate spirit he brought to humanity (61:14). Prophet Muhammad repeatedly emphasized that his mission confirmed those of early prophets. He directed early Muslims to seek refuge in Abyssinia, pointing out that the country was ruled by a just Christian King. This was the beginning of an excellent relationship and strong alliance between Muslims and Christians in Abyssinia that lasted for a thousand years.

Therefore, Muslim attitude toward the followers of other religions, particularly the People of the Book, should not be one of self-righteousness and pride, but one of compassion, mutual respect, and concern for the wellbeing and welfare of other communities. The Qur'an encourages Muslims to cooperate for the common good and to search from a common ground, based on mutual respect and help.

"Say: O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will)." (3:94)

The common ground Muslims are asked to seek with the followers of other religions is a society in which people are free to worship God. In such open society Muslims must display positive attitude and unwavering respect of the followers of other faiths. Dealing with respect and positive engagement does not mean that differences in doctrine and interpretation do not matter. Rather, it means that those differences must be addressed through free and open dialogue.

It is this open, free, and dignified dialogue that allows the followers of various religious traditions to affirm their diversity and discuss their similarities and differences, and it is what Islam requires from its followers. Muslims have a moral and religious obligation to engage in interfaith dialogue with other communities of faith, and they must do that by maintaining ethical standards required by the Qur'an, including the directive to "argue with [the follower of the revealed books] in ways that are best and most gracious."

This article appeared in the following publications:

iView
The American Muslim

Read more >>>

Hijab: Personal Choice Not State Law

Hijab, the head cover Muslim women wear in keeping with their religious traditions, has become in modern times a politically charged issue in several Muslim countries, and more recently in Europe. In the early eighties, Iran imposed hijab on its female citizens, while Syria banned it from schools during the same period. Syria gradually came to term with hijab, as the number of Syrian women who chose to wear it increased drastically during the nineties. Hijab is enforced today in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and banned in Tunisia and Turkey. France banned the hijab in 2004, and far right politicians and pundits are calling for similar ban in other European countries, and have already succeeded in doing so in the Belgium city of Antwerp.

The Turkish parliament passed last week a constitutional amendment that practically repealed early constitutional provisions that allowed the Turkish government to ban hijab from government buildings, universities, and schools in the late nineties. Although the lifting of ban is not in force yet, the confrontation over this issue with secularists who control the military and the courts has already started. Secularist Turks are up in arms, protesting the new amendment, and preparing to challenge it in court.

The debate over hijab is emotionally charged, with secular Turks presenting the move as the first step toward ending democracy in Turkey and forcing all Turkish women to wear headscarf. This alarmist language has clouded the debate and created a sense of panic, as the choices presented are based on the logic of either/or, as if the only choices society can make is that between banning or enforcing the hijab. These are of course false choices, as society can choose neither to ban nor enforce. The third choice is the one available to women in most Muslim countries. In most societies, the decision to wear headscarf, or to take it off, is a personal choice.

Yet, the real problem is not in the decision a woman makes, but in the politicization of that decision. The problem lies in the moral inconsistency and the use of double standards in addressing an issue concerning individual choice and freedom of expression. The only morally defendable position is in denying the state the right to either force or prohibit people to follow practices they genuinely believe to be required by their religious traditions, particularly when these practices do not violate the rights of others.

The argument to ban hijab often rests on a paternalistic attitude derived from the dominant position enjoyed by the group to which the person who advocate hijab ban (or enforcement) belongs. For decades now, anti hijab writers refused to consider it as a personal choice and an individual right, protected under international humanitarian law. Reza Afshari, for instance, insists that wearing hijab must not be seen as a self-expression of Muslim women, but rather as a symptom of a male-dominant culture. He, further, argues that Muslim women have internalized the "male-dominated culture." He even claims that, in addition to being sub-consciously misguided, Muslim women have another reason for wearing hijab, namely to avoid "those sanctioned practices that permit harassment of women in public, forcing them to comply with repressive norms and rewarding them by according them a marked difference in the ways men treat women in public."

The argument is both flawed and sexist. It is flawed because it can be equally used to undermine the right of women who chose not to wear hijab by those who could argue that the latter style of dressing is not a personal choice, but is rather influenced by the dominant culture. The argument is, more importantly, sexist as it assumes that women cannot have a mind of their own, and are always vulnerable to manipulation by male members of their society.

Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that the above assertion is correct, then the remedy cannot be a decision to ban hijab and deny women the right to personal choices, in violation of equal protection of the law. The remedy must rely on persuasion, education, and enactment of laws that would empower women to act on their on volition, instead of being forced by the state to wear the headscarf of take it off.

A similar argument was recently made by Cheryl Benard in a report that was published by the RAND Corporation in 2004. Benard refused to see the Muslim headscarf as a religious practice, and chose instead to castigate it as a provocative political statement and a challenge to Western democracy. Benard insisted that hijab is worn by women who belong to one of several problematic categories. "In the United States," she claimed, "hijab is typically worn by the following groups: recent immigrants from rural, traditional parts of the Muslim world; fundamentalists; unassimilated traditionalists belonging to the strongly observant minority; the elderly;" and, the author states that when it is worn by "young women," these women "want to get attention and make a provocative statement in their schools, colleges, or workplaces."

What is provocative is not that Muslim women are choosing to wear hijab, but that there are still individuals that lay claim to intellectualism and liberal tradition who, in keeping with Orientalist strategies, continue to deal with the followers of the Islamic faith as silent objects of research who must always be defined by their detractors, but never allowed to define themselves in their own voices. This sad state of affairs was highlighted in an article by Manal Omar that was published in the Guardian in April 2007 under the title "I felt more welcome in the Bible belt."

Manal narrates in the article her ordeal during a short stay in Oxford, England, when she was challenged by an angry man who did not approve of her wearing a swimsuit that covered her body. Not only did the man speak with her in condescending voice, but the newspaper that reported the event with sensation and negative spin refused to interview her, and relied solely on the account of her accuser.

She ellequontly described her painful experience as she was rendered an object of ridicule, and her story was used as a springboard for attacks on multiculturalism and Muslim immigrants as it was debated on an online discussion forum. "Looking back," she wrote, "what disturbed me the most about the debate was that my very identity was reduced to a cluster of cliches about Muslim women. I was painted in broad strokes as an oppressed, unstable Muslim woman. I was made invisible, an object of ridicule and debate, with no opinion or independent thoughts. The fact that I had dedicated the past 10 years to working on women's issues on a global level, led a delegation of American women into Afghanistan in 2003, and put my life on the line in Iraq struggling for women's constitutional rights were clearly beyond anyone's imagination."

Politicians and pundits who question the right of Muslim women to practice their faith do not only ignore the leadership role they play, but also fail to recognize their capacity to be inspired by their faith. The claim that hijab is worn today by oppressed women is seriously flawed, and is remnant of 19th century Orientalim. Many women who chose hijab today are highly educated and actively involved in public life. They include lawyers, journalists, politicians, directors of non-profit organizations, human rights advocates, professors, and leaders of religious groups and grassroots organizations.

It is about time that Muslim women's personal choices are respected and their voices are heard.

This article appeared in the following publications

Media Monitors Network
Middle East Online
Alarab Online
Online Journal
Aljazeera Magazine
Dawn

Read more >>>

Undermining Civil Liberties at Home

Civil liberties are always precious for free people, but particularly so during times of turbulence when the future seems uncertain and society struggles to gain its balance and move in the right direction. These are, sadly, times when opportunists try to advance their fortune without regard to other people's rights, bigots hide behind the language of patriotism, and freedom is curtailed in the name of security. It is under such conditions that civil liberties and the right to dissent become exceedingly important, as free and open debate becomes essential for pursuing the best course of action.

Yet bigots, racists, and zealots have always tried to pursue their narrow agenda during the time of war and conflict by exploiting fear and hiding behind patriotic rhetoric. The last time zealots used foreign threats to silence defenders of human rights and critics of foreign policy was during the fifties, when a junior congressman with the name of Joseph McCarthy used his position and exploited national fear and anxiety to attack his ideological opponents. McCarthy confused dissent with disloyalty, and claimed to defend freedom abroad as he was undermining it at home.

McCarthy, for instance, accused the US Army of harboring communists and described the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of being "a front for, and doing the work of, the Communist Party." He went so far as to question the loyalty of the Democratic Party, accusing it of "twenty years of treason."

His divisive and misguided approach was eloquently described by a courageous journalist with the name of Edward Murrow, who decided to confront McCarthy on March 19, 1954. "[Senator McCarthy's] primary achievement," Murrow asserted on national TV at the height of the McCarthy era, "has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law."

The neo-conservative pundits, who lead a smear campaign with the aim to marginalize Muslim Americans, read from McCarthy's manual. They have repeatedly painted Muslim Americans critical of their inhumane and exploitative foreign policy as disloyal. They most recently chided Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England for attending the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in 2006 and for inviting ISNA officers to visit the Pentagon. They have accused ISNA, and every other Muslim American organization of repute, of being sympathetic to terrorism for the sheer fact that these organizations have been critical of human rights violations by friendly foreign countries, including Israel, and have defended the civil rights of minorities under occupation, including the Palestinians.

In an article published in the Washington Times under the provocative title "Front-Gate," Frank Gaffney called Congress to investigate the "judgment," even the "loyalty," of government officials who interact with Muslim leaders and organizations. Gaffney, the president of the Center of Security Policy, a neo-conservative think tank, has taken every opportunity in the last five years to rebuke public officials who met with Muslim leaders, including Karen Hughes, former Deputy Secretary of State. His insinuation was followed by an attack on Hesham Islam by Claudia Rosett, a staffer of another neo-conservative think tank with the name of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy. Rosett castigated Mr. Islam, a retired Navy commander who served his adopted country with distinction and honor, basically for having the tenacity to reach the position of special assistant to Secretary Gordon, having been born in Egypt and having expressed critical views of Israel's policies.

Members of the Muslim American community, including main stream Muslim organizations and leaders, have come under concerted and intense attacks by neo-conservative organizations because they have expressed concerns about the dire conditions of Palestinians under occupation. Although these organizations have been subject to close scrutiny by government agencies, and have not been implicated in any violation of anti-terrorism statutes, neo-conservative pundits and organizations continue to use innuendo, spin, haft truths, and unfounded accusations to cast a shadow of doubt on their loyalty and their commitment to the rules of law, and to isolate them and cut them off of political debate.

Other neo-conservative organizations, including Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum, have worked tirelessly to set up nominal Muslim organizations of insignificant membership and following, in an effort to undermine mainstream Muslim organizations. Some of these organizations surfaced last month to write a letter of protest to Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform Judaism (URJ), published in the Jewish Weekly. The letter asked Rabbi Yoffie to withdraw his organization from interfaith dialogue engagement with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The organizations, led by Stephen Schwartz's Center for Islamic Pluralism, disagreed with Rabbi Yaffie's assertion of the need for American Jews to learn first hand about Muslims.

The authors of the letter, who called themselves "moderate" Muslims, had the effrontery to question whether the president of the largest Jewish group in the country can speak for American Jews, suggesting that they are in a better position to do so: "If Rabbi Yoffie believes that Jews are ignorant about Islam, he should be recognized as speaking only for himself." Schwartz, converted from Judaism to Islam few years ago, continues to promote a neo-conservative agenda, and maintains close relationship with a network of Muslim bashers, that includes Daniel Pipes.

In response, Rabbi Mark Pelavin of the Union of Reform Judaism (URJ), rejected the claims by the self-proclaimed "moderate" Muslims that ISNA supports terrorism and promote violence, citing past statements and positions taken by the leading grassroots Muslim organization in the United States. The URJ's response reminded the letter's authors and their sponsors that no one who is serious about engaging Muslim Americans can ignore their largest organization: "If we are serious about engagement with the Muslim community, and we are, than it makes sense to go where the American Muslims are."

The far right in general, and the neo-conservative network in particular, will press on their quest to silence the Muslim community and to prevent Muslims to engage in an urgently needed national debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But these efforts can succeed only at the expense of America's democracy, and America's ability to engage in national discussion, essential for developing the right policies for America's welfare and for world peace. If these undemocratic efforts are allowed to continue, they will not only lead to further isolate the United States and undermine its credibility as a society of equal rights and due process, but they will eventually undermine freedom at home.

McCarthy, who exploited the Cold War's uncertainties to persecute his ideological opponents, was defeated because courageous Americans like Edward Murrow, George H. Bender, Joseph Nye Welch, and others spoke in opposition of his witch hunt campaign against patriot Americans. Muslim bashers, who exploit the War on Terrorism to persecute Muslim Americans, will be stopped when more American leaders, like Eric Yoffie, reject their ploys to marginalize and silence Muslims, and speak out loudly against their divisive and deceptive voices that would only undermine our freedom and democracy.

It is imperative that American leaders speak out against bigoted voices that attack Islam and Muslims. We should all recall with pride the words of Edward Murrow, which are as true today as they were fifty years ago. We need only replace the phrase "Senator McCarthy" with "neo-conservative pundits." "This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent--or for those who approve...We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom--what's left of it--but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

This article appeared in the following publications:
Middle East Online
Media Monitors Network
Online Journal
Alarab Online
Official Wire
Aljazeera

Read more >>>

Gaza Exodus Symptom of Grave Situation

The Palestinians of Gaza have been under a tight blockade since June 2007 when Hamas consolidated its control over Gaza's security. The blockade, aims at forcing Hamas out of power, has been strongly supported by the Bush administration, and reluctantly by the Mubarak's government in Egypt. After Israel decided to tighten the blockade last week, by cutting the supply of fuel used to generate electricity, Palestinians broke out of the walls that separate the Gaza's portion from Egypt's portion of Rafah. Deprived of life's essentials, including food, medicine, and fuel, Palestinians desperately flooded the stores of Egyptian Rafah to buy every thing they could lay hands on.

The collapse of the 7-miles-steel wall that separated Gaza from Egypt creates new dynamics in the region. It is now the responsibility of the Egyptians to push the Palestinian back inside Gaza's fences, and to make sure that they comply with the blockade requirements. Egypt has already sent a reinforcement of riot police to push the Palestinians back to their enclave against widespread demands by the Egyptian public to keep the borders open. Mubarak is engaged in careful cost-benefit calculations to make sure that the Gaza situation does not destabilize his government. The question he confronts is quite clear: should he succumb to pressure from Israel and the US government and invoke the wrath of his people, or should he comply with popular pressure at the expense of loosing the two billion dollars his government receives annually from the United States?

Palestinians are likely to resist efforts by the Egyptian police to close the borders, and to use the skills they learned in the past decades under Israeli occupation to maintain their freedom. The Palestinians of Gaza could only be contained, though, at a high price that would include further radicalization of the people of the Middle East.

Israel has, for long, been using heavy-handed tactics to force the Palestinians to accept the expansion of settlements to the Palestinian territories it occupies since 1967. Israel has been busy creating new facts on the ground, hoping that despite their current fierce resistance, Palestinians would ultimately accept the “facts on the ground.” As it was engaging in prolonged negotiation in the 1990's to withdraw from the Occupied Territories as part of the Oslo peace accords negotiations, Israel continued to build settlements throughout the West Bank and Gaza during the nineties. It has, in the last seven years, further escalated its effort to create a strong Israeli presence.

Israel's ability to ignore blatant human rights violations against the Palestinians derives from the great support it receives from the World Jewry and Western societies. Western Jews, emancipated and empowered by the Enlightenment, are inspired by a long history of anti-Semitism that became pronounced in nineteenth-century Europe, and culminated in the Holocaust in mid-twentieth century. Many members of the Jewish American community, who were actively involved in the civil liberties movement, are ill-at-ease watching events unfolding in the Middle East. Despite their disapproval of harsh and inhumane Israeli policies toward Palestinians, they are reluctant to criticize Israel for the fear that such criticism would undermine Western support.

The important questions that ultimately matter for finding a lasting solution in the Middle East are two: Is silence the best approach to support the Jews in the Holy Land? And is force the best approach to dealing with Palestinians demands for equal rights?

There has been little public debate on the plight of the Palestinians and the Israeli policies responsible for Palestinian misery. The dominant discourse tends to shift the blame from Israel, the occupying force, to the Palestinians. Very few Americans have in the past challenged "blaming the victim" argument. With the deterioration of social and economic conditions, few leading Americans gathered their courage to question Israeli actions against Palestinians.

Jimmy Carter, former US president who sponsored the Camp David talk that led to the Peace Accord between Egypt and Israel, discussed in details Israel aggressive policies against the Palestinians in his recent book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. As a result, Carter has been demonized as anti-Semite in talk shows and commentaries. John Mearsheimer of Harvard University and Stephen Walt of the University of Chicago received even harsher treatment for discussing the impact of the lobbying activities of pro-Israel hawks on the moral standing, and potentially on the economic and political interests, of the United States.

Even Jewish leaders who spoke against Israeli excesses have not been immune to pressures and attacks. Edgar Bronfman Sr, the president of the World Jewish Congress, was traumatized for writing a letter to President Bush in 2003 urging him to persuade Israel to curb construction of its controversial "security fence." His critics accused him of "perfidy" and argued that “it would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel."

Likewise, Seymour Reich the president of the Israel Policy Forum, was denounced and accused of being "irresponsible," for advising Condoleezza Rice in November 2005 to ask Israel to reopen a critical border crossing in the Gaza Strip. His critics insisted that "there is absolutely no room in the Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing against the security-related policies . . . of Israel." The severity of the attacks forced Reich to announce that "the word 'pressure' is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel."

Stifling of debate is dangerous because it undermines all efforts to explore a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, thereby allowing things to deteriorate to the point of crisis. Jewish peace and tranquility cannot be achieved at the expense of Palestinian suffering. If history, including the recent history of European Jews, teaches us anything it should be that oppression and force can never break the resolve of a people to live in dignity, but can only complicate the possibility of reconciling the parties locked up in bloody confrontation. After decades of marginalization and mistreatment, the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are more determined than ever to confront their occupiers. And the Palestinians in the refugee camps in neighboring Arab countries are more eager to return to their homeland, which has become for the second generation of Palestinians born in the Diaspora a Promised Land of a sort.

Yasmine Ali captures the sentiments expressed by Palestinian children during her visit to a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon in 2000. These sentiments included a short essay posted on the school's Wall Magazine . "Palestine is a very, very beautiful land," the essay by an elementary school student reads. "There is a sea of chocolate in Palestine... Children are always happy in Palestine... Women don't gossip in Palestine... The streets are very clean in Palestine ... It is always Eid ["Feast Day"] in Palestine ... Parents don't die in Palestine." Evidently, Palestine is no more a Promised Land only for Jews, but for exiled Palestinians as well.

Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is intractable, and the future of the conflict is unpredictable. People of conscience on all sides of the issue have, though, a heavy moral duty to fulfill: to ensure that the solution to the conflict is fair and humane, and that the human rights of all involved are respected and protected. Relying on disparity of power and on efforts to keep the situation in the Holy Land away from public debate can only exacerbate an already dire situation, and ensure the continuation of anguish and suffering.

The blockade against Palestinians in Gaza is a form of collective punishment and must not be allowed to stand. Collective punishment was banned by the Fourth Geneva Convention, and we must not allow it to slip back in. All people of conscience should speak up and demand humane treatment for the long-suffering Palestinians. Silence is not an option, because those who choose silence allow extremist voices to decide the future.

The article appeared in the following publications:

The Middle East Online
Official Wire
Media Monitors Network
Online Journal
Aljazeera Magazine

Read more >>>

End the Disgrace of Guantanamo

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Martin Luther King Jr.

Amnesty International has embarked on a campaign to close Guantanamo detention facilities, adding an important voice to the rising demands to end Guantanamo disgrace. For years, Americans have been reluctant to criticize the Bush administration's efforts to keep the detention of terrorism suspects outside the purview of both American and International law. However, with the disturbing revelations of abuse and violation of detainees' human rights, and with recent reports of the ways several unsuspecting bystanders ended up in the ranks of Guantanamo detainees, anyone who cares about justice and the rule of law must join the call to close the infamous facilities, and end the moral and legal excesses committed under the veil of secrecy, and in the name of promoting freedom and the rule of law.

Gunatanamo Detention Facilities represent a sad and painful moment in US international conduct, as it runs contrary to the American founding principles and the self-pride of many Americans who see their country as the guardian of democracy and human rights. This moment of infamy was born out of arrogance, exaggerated fears, self-delusion, zealotry, and disregard to American and International law. In prosecuting the "Global War on Terrorism," the Bush administration has committed several serious mistakes that undermined the world standing of the United States as a leading advocate for human rights. None of these, however, rivals the negative impact caused by Guantanamo detention facilities.

The anger over the treatment of Guantanamo detainees reached a new height in November 2006, when German attorney Wolfgang Kaleck filed war crime complaint with the German Federal Attorney General against 14 high ranking officials and advisors in the Bush administration. The list included Robert Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Stephen Cambone, Ricardo Sanchez, and Geoffrey Miller. The complaint cited complicity in torture and other crimes against humanity at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Kaleck acted on behalf of 11 victims of torture and other human rights abuses, as well as about 30 human rights activists and organizations who are co-plaintiffs. The co-plaintiffs to the war crimes prosecution include 1980 Nobel Peace Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel (Argentine), 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner Martín Almada (Paraguay) and Theo van Boven, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture.

Robert Gonzales, former US Attorney General, and Donald Rumsfeld, former US Secretary of Defense, were particularly implicated in the making of the Guantanamo's disgrace, as the former led the efforts to authorize torture, while the latter introduced the "extended interrogation techniques," to US military manuals. So was Geoffrey Miller, Guantanamo detention facilities commander, who was evidently responsible for setting up procedures in both Guantanamo and Abu Graib that led to the revelation of the appalling practices of degradation and torture.

Up until 2002, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was used to house Cuban and Haitian refugees intercepted on the high seas on their way to the United States. On June 8, 1993, United States District Court Judge Sterling Johnson Jr. declared the holding of the refugees who fled Haiti unconstitutional, and the last Haitian migrants departed in late 1995. In 2002, US military designated the camp a military prisons for terrorism suspects.

The legal status of the detainees and their treatment came under criticism from the outset. The criticism was initially sporadic and focused on the designation of prisoners as "illegal enemy combatant" and the open cage-like cells were the prisoners were kept. The international criticism prompted the US military to build better facilities. The Bush administration, however, rejected calls to treat prisoners under the Geneva Convention rules.

A series of abuses that was made public in the last five years mobilized international public opinion, and led to increased demand by American political leaders to close it. Human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, and Amenity International, have repeatedly called for opening up the Guantanamo detention facilities for outside inspection. Other humanitarian organizations, including the Red Cross and the United Nations, have raised serious concerns about the conditions in the facilities. Members of Congress have also voiced their concerns about both interrogation procedures and the negative impact the camp has had on the US moral standing in the world. Charges of mistreatment of prisoners included degradation, physical and metal abuse, torture, violation of religious rights, and desecration of the Qur'an that led to worldwide Muslim outrage.

Calls for closing Guantanamo can now be heard even from once strong supporters of the Bush administration's War on Terror. Thomas Friedman declared, in a recent New York Times' opinion piece, that he "will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans." Friedman, like many other Americans troubled by the way the "War on Terror" has often used to further narrow political and ideological agendas, has come slowly to realize that the policies adopted to fight terrorism are strengthening the hands of the terrorists and extremists and weakening civil rights at home and undermining US standing in the world.

The outrage over Guantanamo is by no means an opposition to the international efforts to confront terrorism and hold terrorists responsible for their horrific actions. It is rather a clear rejection of the attempts to sidestep established legal and constitutional requirements, and to violate basic human rights. Guantanamo detainees have been deprived of the due process of the law, required by the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, and by International Law, which states that anyone who is deprived of liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to review by a court of law to decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention.

Donald Rumsfeld approved in 2002 a list of 16 harsh interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo, most of which were general and allowed for interpretation by interrogators. Many of the techniques involving humiliation were part of a standard "futility" or "ego down" approach, but some have permitted acts that generally considered blatant acts of torture, including "water-boarding," a technique of simulated drowning. Sadly, US Vice President Dick Cheney endorsed openly the use of water-boarding for interrogation of terrorist suspects, even though the technique makes a person feel that his death is imminent. In responding to a radio interviewer from North Dakota station WDAY who asked whether water boarding, was a "no-brainer" if the information it yielded would save American lives, Cheney replied: "It's a no-brainer for me." The promotion of “extended techniques of interrogation” by high ranking members of the Bush administration prompted Congress to pass a bill outlawing torture. Senator John McCain referred to water-boarding as “an extreme measure” and led the congressional endeavor to outlaw it.

Many of the conditions in Guantanamo are in violation of Geneva Convention, which governs treatment of enemy combatant. Article 17 of the Convention states that "no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever." The Bush administration denied that Geneva Convention applies to Guantanamo detainees, but the US Supreme Court disagreed, insisting that the humane treatment requirements apply to all detainees in the War on Terror.

Although known al Qaida members are imprisoned in Guantanamo, many detainees were picked from locations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, and other countries in very mysterious circumstances, and without any clear connection to terrorist groups. The New York Times reported, in June 2004, that not much more than two dozens of the around 750 detainees were closely linked to al Qaida and that only very limited information could have been gotten from questioning them. An Associated Press report claims that some detainees were turned over to the US in return for cash bounties. Amnesty International documented the case of Omar Deghayes, a Libyan living in the U.K. as a refugee, who decided in 2001 to travel to Malaysia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to look for work. In Afghanistan, he was married and had a son. After September 11th, he moved his family to Pakistan. They planned to return to the U.K. but he was arrested in Lahore, Pakistan in April 2002, for a bounty of $5000.

The New York Times reported in November 2004 that the International Committee of the Red Cross accused, in a confidential report issued in July 2004, the U.S. military of using "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions" against prisoners. The Red Cross inspectors concluded that "the construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture." The United States Government has reportedly rejected the Red Cross findings.

The US Government denial was, however, unconvincing given the contradictory statements by key members of the Bush team in charge of implementing the "War on Terror" policies. One of the key figures in the Guantanamo's controversy is Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who commanded the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and later helped set up U.S. operations at Abu Ghraib. The Washington Post reported its July 14, 2005 edition that Gen. Miller was accused by investigators into the interrogation of Guantanamo detainees of failing his duties and was recommended for reprimand by investigators. Miller would have been the highest-ranking officer to face discipline for detainee abuses, but Gen. Bantz Craddock, head of the U.S. Southern Command, declined to follow the recommendation.

Miller traveled to Iraq in September 2003 to assist in the setting of Abu Ghraib's prison, and he later sent in "Tiger Teams" of Guantanamo interrogators and analysts as advisers and trainers. Within weeks of his departure from Abu Ghraib, military working dogs were being used in interrogations, and naked detainees were humiliated and abused by military police soldiers working the night shift.

Colonel Thomas Pappas, head of the military intelligence brigade at Abu Ghraib, claimed that it was Miller's idea to use attack dogs to intimidate prisoners. He insisted that the same tactics were used at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo. Several of the photos taken at Abu Ghraib showed terrified and naked detainees surrounded by dogs. Photos also showed that one of the detainees was even bitten by a dog.

Miller initially denied charges against him, and testified in May 2006 at the courts martial of the Abu Ghraib dog handlers that his instructions on the use of dogs had been misunderstood. Miller testified that he instructed that dogs should be used "only for custody and control of detainees." Miller's testimony was directly contradicted by the commander of Abu Ghraib's Military Police detachment, Col. Jerry Phillabaum.

This was not the only incident Miller's statements were contradicted by his colleagues, as he reversed himself in several other occasions. In July 2005 "discrepancies emerged between Miller's May 2004 testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, and sworn statements he made three months later." Miller told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had only filed a report on a recent visit to Abu Ghraib, and did not talk to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or his top aides about the fact-finding trip. But in a recorded statement to attorneys three months later, Miller said he gave two of Rumsfeld's most senior aides - then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary for Intelligence Steve Cambone - a briefing on his visit and his subsequent recommendations.

Similarly, Major James Yee, the Muslim chaplain who spent one year in Guantanamo, and was responsible for developing the manual for safeguarding the religious rights of the Muslim detainees, charged in his memoir, For God and Country: Religion and Patriotism Under Fire, that Miller routinely incited the guards to hate the detainees. He was arrested on Miller's orders and accused of treason. However, after spending several months in solitary confinement and suffering sensory deprivation, all court-martial charges against him were dropped on March 19, 2004. Miller appealed to secrecy as the ground for not providing any evidence against Maj. Yee, "citing national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence."

Guantanamo has been a knee-jerk reaction to a horrific tragedy committed by misguided terrorists full of anger and vengeance. We already know that a large number of the detainees where arrested because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were kept in custody because of zealotry and disregard of the rules of national and international law. The detainees were kept for years under extreme conditions of deprivation of basic human rights and dignity, even though the majority of them have not been charged with crimes, and were eventually let go because of the lack of evidence after spending many years of abuse, degradation, and mistreatment. It is about time that these detainees are given their day in a court of law, like any person accused of crime. Doing that is not only important for the sake of justice, but also for the sake of ending acts of gross excess, human pain, and international disgrace.

Support Amnesty International Campaign to close Gunatanamo Camp at tearitdown.org

This article appeared in the following publications:

CounterPunch
Online Journal
Official Wire
Media Monitors Network
Middle East Online
iView
Aljazeera

Read more >>>

Steve Emerson's Fantastic Obsession

What would an investigative reporter turned director of a private intelligence operation, who is increasingly obsessed with proving that mainstream Muslim American organizations are radical, do when he fails to find evidence to support his obsession? Human decency and ethical conduct dictate that he give up his obsession and admit that he was wrong. Steve Emerson, the director of the shadowy Investigative Project, thinks otherwise. Rather than doing the right thing and give up his bigoted endeavor, he decides to use fantasy to forge evidence and prolong his compulsive obsession.

Emerson belongs to a network of anti-Muslim pundits who, driven by bigotry and exclusivist ideology, are bent on marginalizing Muslim Americans, and using unscrupulous tactics to distort the image of Muslims and instill fear of Islam and Muslims in the American public. Their strategy is to repeat their unfounded accusations against mainstream Muslim organizations so as to create a public record and then use it to incite federal officials and agencies against Muslim Americans. The idea is that if they can repeat a lie long enough, and use different media outlets to propagate their accusations, the lie in time becomes "believable" and takes the semblance of "truth." Obviously, they have not heeded Abraham Lincoln's wise advice: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

In a recent article published in the National Review Online (June 28, 2007) under the title "Radical Outreach: Bush coddles American apologists for radical Islam," Emerson lashes out against President Bush for appointing a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Emerson made it clear that he resents Bush's initiative, which is aimed at mending fences with the Muslim world, and faults OIC for being critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians under military occupation.

Emerson was particularly upset that President Bush distinguished between Muslims in general and fringe extremist groups whose attacks on innocent civilians have been condemned by Muslim communities throughout the world, and by mainstream Muslim organizations. By making a distinction between ordinary Muslims and extremists, Emerson proclaims, Bush advances the "very talking point [that] is the refuge of America’s supposedly [sic] mainstream Muslim organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Society of North American (ISNA)."

To undermine the distinction between mainstream Muslims and extremists, he goes to the website of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and picks up a news release that was published in 2004. The news release reported then the decision of the US Navy Chief of Chaplains to remove an article by Salman Rushdie that was intended to instigate Muslims against the West and westerners against Islam from the Navy website. I wrote to Rear Admiral Louis V. Iasiello, then the Navy Chief of Chaplains, asking him to reconsider the decision to publish such a divisive article. Chaplain Iaseillo realized that it was a mistake to republish the article and he ordered its removal.

Emerson takes the news release and turns its content upside down, and without any ifs, maybes, or buts he attributes to me the divisive argument advanced by Rushdie. Emerson writes: "In 2004, Louay Safi, a top ISNA official, went further, writing that the 'assertion by 'world leaders' that the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam is nothing but a piece of propaganda and disinformation that was meant to appease Western Muslims and to maintain the coalition against terrorism.'"

Emerson ignores the context of the above statement and omits a key phrase that shows clearly that the quoted argument was that of Rushdie and not my own as he claims. Here is the paragraph which Emerson misquotes in its totality:

"Salman Rushdie's article 'Yes, This is About Islam,' originally published in New York Times, argues that the assertion by 'world leaders' that the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam is nothing but a piece of propaganda and disinformation that was meant to appease Western Muslims and to maintain the coalition against terrorism."

Emerson misrepresentation of my position is not simply an error of omission, but a gross distortion of my words and a malicious attempt to put a spin on my statement so as to support his thesis of assigning anti-American views to Muslim American leaders, scholars, and organizations. My correct position is in complete opposition to what Emerson presented and is not easy to miss as it is spelled out in the subsequent paragraph. Here is my response to Rushdie's argument:

"In his letter, Dr. Safi pointed out that the article not only insult the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide, particularly American soldiers of the Islamic faith, who every day put their lives on the line . . . but its cynicism cannot be easily missed as it accuses the commander in chief, and virtually all senior members of the government, of duplicity."

Mr. Emerson has in the past used innuendo and half-truths to malign mainstream Muslim individuals and organizations, but he has recently reached a new low as he is now willing to use fraud and fabrication to undermine Muslim Americans. His unscrupulous attacks and insinuations against Muslims in general and Muslim Americans in particular must be condemned by every American of conscience, as his hateful and divisive message would, if left unchecked, confuse the public and undermine the efforts to isolate extremism and defeat terrorism.

More insights into Emerson's mission and tactics:

Who is Steve Emerson?
Steven Emerson's Crusade
MPAC Exposes Steve Emerson's Self-Serving Distortions
What Hypocrisy
Steve Emerson's Profile in Source Watch


This article appears in the following publications:

Counterpunch
Official Wire
Media Monitor Network
Middle East Online
iviews
The American Muslim

Read more >>>

Myopic Builders and Elusive Moderates

Building Moderate Muslim Networks is RAND Corporation's second attempt at devising a strategy to help prevent "some Muslim societies [from] falling back even further into patterns of intolerance and violence." And to do that RAND reassigns Caryl Benard, the author of the first report Civil Democratic Islam, to join three more scholars for preparing its new report.

The present report makes little improvements over the previous one, and suffers from the same faulty assumptions and flawed analysis. The new report moves away from overtly relying on "lifestyle" for distinguishing friends from foes, and shifts the emphasis to a set of political values. RAND's new research team uses a list of 10 criteria to separate moderate and radical Muslims. The emphasis is less focused on religious practices, as attention turns to ideology and commitment to free and open society.

The current study recognizes that the entrenched authoritarian governments and the decline of civil-society institutions in much of the Muslim world "have left the mosque as one of the few avenues for the expression of popular dissatisfaction with prevailing political, economic, and social conditions." Yet the authors seem less concerned with the need to withdraw support from authoritarian regimes responsible for destroying civil society in much of the Muslim world. Rather, the authors are exceedingly obsessed with the goal of marginalizing social groups, even the most moderate of them, that appeal to Islamic values as the basis for sociopolitical reform. I have already discussed at length in my response to RAND's early report why this obsession is counterproductive and will only feed into political radicalization, and have nothing to add to this point here.

One cannot help but notice that the report consistently places the blame on Muslim societies. It refuses to assign any responsibility for the radicalization of Muslim politics to the cynical strategies advocated by foreign policy experts. These strategies call for freedom and democracy simultaneously as they continue to urge support to friendly authoritarian regimes.

In discussing the Danish cartoon saga, for instance, the report directs the blame for this sad and unfortunate episode to the "Danish imams," who the report asserts "caused the cartoon controversy to spiral into an international conflagration." No blame is placed at the door of the newspaper that published the offensive cartoons, despite the fact that the newspaper was implicated in deliberate efforts to demonize the emerging Danish Muslim community. Blaming the Danish imams is the equivalent of blaming the Rutgers University women's basketball team for complaining about Don Imus’s racial slur and abuse, and for making their indignations known to the public, leading to his ousting from his job.

Among the many faulty assumptions on which the report builds its recommendations is that the Muslim World's Moderates, defined as secularist and liberal Muslims, lack the resources they need to dominate Muslim societies. Moderates, the report asserts, "do not have the resources" they need to create viable networks to counter the radicals. They lack the skills to do that themselves and require an "external catalyst." The United States can, the report continues, serve in the role of catalyst by utilizing the experience it gained "during the Cold War to foster networks of people committed to free and democratic ideas. The United States "critical role" consists in leveling the playing field for moderates."

The reality is that radicals in most Muslim countries constitute small and fringe groups whose impact far exceeds their numbers because they are willing to employ shocking violence in pursuing their goals. Further, many of the Middle Eastern regimes are ruled by elites who are socially secular and liberal, but politically autocratic and authoritarian.

The radicalization of politics in Middle Eastern countries like Egypt, Syria, and Iraq was the result of deliberate efforts by Muslim secularists to impose modern practices on Muslim societies. The reliance on force and iron fist policies to impose “modern” institutions and practices by socially "moderate" but politically radical secularists, who held and continue to hold power in many Muslim countries, has led to the destruction of public debate, the disappearance of civil society, and the radicalization of politics. For instance, the use of violence by state security agencies to silence opposition during Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat of Egypt has paved the way to the rise of terrorism in the 1980s and 1990s.

The report's efforts to take a principled approach to defining the "moderate" proved to be elusive. For even though the report acknowledges that some Islamists satisfy the "moderate criteria," it eventually sides with those who counsel against engaging Islamists. Moderate Islamists, the report contends, should only be engaged as "interlocutors," but never supported even when they espouse democratic values.

The report concludes by giving several examples of moderate Muslims, and surprisingly they include prominent Islam bashers. The list includes Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen, Irshad Manji, Basam Tibi, etc. Ultimately, it is not commitment to democratic values and practices, but proximity to Islam, that sets moderates and radicals in the eyes of the authors of the recent RAND report on moderate Islam.

It is not surprising, therefore, that RAND's recommendations feed into the arrogant and unilateralist policies advanced by the neoconservatives in the last six years, policies that resulted in more chaos on the world stage and misery within Muslim societies.

This artricle has appeared in the following publications: Media Monitor Network, Aljazeera.com, Middle East Online, Official Wire, Middle East Time, The American Muslim, iView.com, Milli Gazatte, Islamonline.com, and others

Read more >>>

Islamophobia: A Call to Confronting a Creeping Disease

President Bush reacting to the unearthing of the alleged bombing plot over the Atlantic August 10 remarked: "This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."

On Aug. 7, during a press conference from his ranch in Texas, he said terrorists "try to spread their jihadist message - a message I call ... Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism". A moment later, he said "Islamo-fascism" was an "ideology that is real and profound". White House spokesman Tony Snow told the “Atlanta Journal-Constitution” Aug. 11 that the president will continue to use the phrase.

This is not the first time that Bush and members of his Administration have used this deliberate coupling of Islam with evil ideologies or actions, such as fascism or terrorism. Bush referred to "Islamo-fascism" in his address to the National Endowment for Democracy, Oct. 6, 2005. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) addressing Christians United for Israel (CUFI) held their first Washington-Israel Summit in Washington D.C., July 2006, declaring "Islamic fascism is a mosaic..."

Media baron Rupert Murdoch pontificated in Sydney, Australia June 26, 2006: "You have to be careful about Muslims who have a very strong, in many ways a fine, but very strong religion which supercedes any sense of nationalism wherever they go."
The term is coined, and was initially used, by radical Zionist pundits and their allies in the Far Right, and is intended to drive a wedge between Western and Muslim communities. The fact that it is already being used by President Bush and his top lieutenant underscore the extent to which Islamophobia is gradually creeping into public discourse.

Blaming Islam and Muslims for the rise of terrorism that threatens the U.S. and the West is at the heart of the strategy developed by individuals and groups whose systemic attacks on Islam and Muslims, borne out of either ignorance or hatred, constitute the recent and painful reality : Islamophobia.

Islamophobia reflects an attitude and a posture normally associated with the Far Right, but that has been creeping slowly to the center of political debate. Islam and Muslims are separated out from the citizenry and increasingly presented as a problem to be addressed and a question to be tackled. The last time a world religion was considered a problem and a question was in late-nineteenth-century Europe. Then, the "Jewish Question" was widely debated by both the enlightened and bigots among European thinkers.

Islamophobia is a strategic weapon in the campaign to marginalize Muslim Americans by ideological extremists and paranoid bigots. On one level, Islamophobia stems from ignorance, deception, and misrepresentation. On a deeper level, however, it stems from a very basic human instinct to dominate, exploit, and abuse, combined with a unscrupulous attitude that refuse to recognize moral principles and boundaries. While Islamophobia has existed for centuries, perhaps the term became public in Europe in the 1990s. Today, some are recognizing this creeping disease may even be prompted to confront it. In 2001, some concerned Britons formed The Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism (FAIR); and in Dec. 2004, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan hosted a seminar on "Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding".

The Council of Europe defines Islamophobia as "the fear of or prejudiced viewpoint towards Islam, Muslims and matters pertaining to them". Matti Bunzl, Associate Professor Department of Anthropology University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign, in his paper "Between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: Some thoughts on the new Europe" ("American Ethnologist" 32(4): 499-508) argues: "Whereas traditional anti-Semitism has run its historical course with the supersession of the nation-state, Islamophobia threatens to become the defining condition of the new Europe."

In Britain, the term “Islamophobia” was not used in government policy until 1997, when the race relations think tank Runnymede Trust published the report "Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All". In a section entitled The Nature of Islamophobia, the report itemizes eight features that Runnymede attributed to Islamophobia:

- Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
- Islam is seen as separate and "other." It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
- Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
- Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a Clash of Civilizations [an idea enunciated by and latter elaborated by Samuel P. Huntington, with the publication of his book, "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" Simon & Schuster; 1998].
- Islam is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
- Criticisms made of 'the West' by Islam are rejected out of hand.
- Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
- Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.

The twentieth century witnessed great struggles all over the world to overcome bigotry and racism, and to create more open and inclusive societies in which different races, ethnicities, and religions live side-by-side and cooperate for the betterment of society. After many devastating tragedies and wars, including two world wars that wiped out more than 80 million people, a holocaust, and a long civil rights struggle, chauvinism, racism, and bigotry were finally condemned, though not totally rejected. By the mid-twentieth century, the concept that individuals must be treated on the basis of their individual characters and actions, and that no individual or group should be targeted on the basis of religious, ethnic, racial, or national affiliations became widely accepted.

Therefore, the recent efforts that aim at presenting Islam as a challenge and Muslims who practice their faith as a problem are both disheartening and disquieting. They represent a dangerous move to reverse human progress and return to the age of outright racism and intolerance. This renewed focus on Islam as a problem has been justified by invoking security concerns. Many voices, particularly within the U.S. policymaking community, either out of ignorance or prejudice, decided to place the blame for terrorism squarely at the door of Islam.

The decision to ignore complex and painful realities that give rise to discord and tension between Western and Muslim countries, and to blame it all on a major world religion and its practitioners, will only exacerbate an already dire situation. This exercise in self-delusion can only distract us from confronting the real sources of the concerns on both sides and delay the efforts to bring forth a permanent and lasting solution. Meanwhile, tremendous resources are wasted, and the credibility and prestige of the United States are being undermined.

The failure to understand the profound changes taking place in the Muslim world is not simply a matter of ignorance and lack of insight into Muslim cultures, but a reflection of the bewildering stubbornness of neoconservative analysts in the U.S. and Europe, and their comfort in employing the archaic Orientalist attitudes and tools to analyze relationships between the West and the Muslim world. Muslims are not awarded the dignity of equal human beings with intrinsic values and legitimate concerns, but are often presented as thoughtless and violent masses incapable of articulating their conditions and solving their problems. Consequently, no effort is made to initiate dialogue and exchange, and all energy is focused on devising strategies for the manipulation and control of the Muslim world.

Many self-proclaimed experts on Islam continue to behave as if Islam and Muslims are a distant part of reality and an external problem to address, rather than partners for dealing with common problems and challenges. An increasing number of Muslims are proud Americans, serving American society as professors, businessmen, medical doctors, engineers, lawyers, sport stars, firefighters, police officers, and teachers. Many experts in Middle East and Islamic Studies departments have their ancestral roots in Middle Eastern and Muslim cultures. Many Muslim Americans are active in the debate on how best to bridge the divide, or at least change the perceptions of a divide, between the Muslim world and the West.

The Far Right

In Islamophobia, the Extreme Right has finally found a clever way to arrest America’s march toward asserting its foundational principles of equality, religious freedom, and the rule of law. Their strategy is to transform the war on terror into a war against Islam and use security needs to subvert constitutional protections. The Extreme Right draws its ranks from the fringes of the Christian Right and the neoconservatives, particularly those who see in the indigenization of Islam and the presence of authentic Muslim voices in the U.S. a direct threat to their ability to manipulate the public and promote their narrow religious and foreign policy agendas.

The 9/11/2001 tragedy has given a new impetus to the campaign against Islam and Muslims, as the Far Right discovered that the climate of heightened fear and uncertainty provides an exceptional opportunity to advance their bigoted and racist agenda under the guise of patriotism. They have focused in the last four years on turning Islam into an enemy. In their efforts to demonize Islam and Muslims, they have persistently advanced two themes: (1) that Islam is intolerant, violent, and anti-western, and must not, therefore, be allowed a legitimate place in American society, and (2) that Muslim Americans who assert their Islamic identity, and express positive views of Islam cannot be trusted, and must be chastised and marginalized.

Although their fanatical views were initially rejected by mainstream America, the post-9/11 environment of confusion and fear provided them with a unique opportunity to advance their racist agenda. Their views and arguments have steadily gained more receptive ears among key agencies and leaders in the Bush administration. Not only have they succeeded in creating doubts in the White House and the Congress about mainstream Muslim American organizations and leaders, but they, evidently, have succeeded in injecting their language into the political discourse of public institutions and government agencies. Senior administration figures have moved from calling the current war against groups involved in indiscriminate killing of civilians a war on "terrorism" to a war on "Islamic terrorism," "Islamist terrorism," and “radical Islam." Most recently, top leaders in the Bush administration, including George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld have accepted the argument, popular among the Extreme Right that the war on terror aims at preventing Muslim extremists from establishing an "Islamic Caliphate" and an "Islamic Empire."

Have the Extreme Right succeeded in pushing their extremist views on Islam and Muslim into mainstream political discourse? Are those who want to turn the war on terror into a war on Islam getting the ears of government agencies and political leaders? And what can we do to expose the Extreme Right's deceptions and bring peace to a world that continues to drift toward turmoil and upheaval?

Demonizing Islam

Ever since George Bush, rushing to defuse the post 9/11 tension, described Islam as "a religion of peace," the Far Right sprung to action to challenge the Administration's position and to generate ill-will toward Islam and Muslims in the U.S. and Europe. The anti-Islam fanatics have been working hard to demonize Islam and marginalize Muslim Americans. Using their propaganda machinery, and occasionally likeminded individuals in key governmental agencies, the Extreme Right have been able to confuse the public about Islam and Muslims, by using half-truths, innuendos, and sheer fabrications and lies.

Their tactics of confusing the public, painting all Muslims as potential terrorists, and presenting Islam as the source of hate and violence have brought them limited successes, including profiling of Muslims in airports, smearing the good name of mainstream Muslim American organizations, and intimidating Muslim leaders and activists through repeated interviews by security agencies.

The anti-Islam fanatics have made it known that they are not happy with their limited success, and continue to drive at a complete crackdown by law enforcement agencies on all forms of Muslim organizations. They seem to have made a breakthrough if a recent report by Paul Perry, an anti-Islam writer, turns to be correct. Perry, the author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington" (Nelson Current; 2005), reported that a Pentagon's intelligence agency, the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), has embarked on a project to understand Islam by studying the Qur'an and the life of Prophet Muhammad. Citing an internal document allegedly obtained from CIFA, Perry contends that the CIFA document “notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Qur'an, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. The defense briefing adds that Islam is also unique in classifying unbelievers as "standing enemies against whom it is legitimate to wage war."

"Muhammad's behaviors today would be defined as radical," Perry quotes the document, "and Muslims today are commanded by their 'militant' holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the ‘cult characteristics of Islam.’"

Perry further contends that the CIFA document "ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as 'an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism,' which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing."

It is shocking to learn that a public agency can sink to this level unless it is fed by the anti-Islam campaign. While Perry's words cannot be trusted, Americans worried about abuse of public agencies for turning the war on terror into a war on Islam cannot afford to take chances. The Extreme Right has already succeeded in persuading the Bush administration to appoint a war monger to the United State Institute of Peace (USIP), and it took a great effort to make the divisive agenda of Daniel Pipes clear to the USIP board, leading to his demise as a USIP director.

Cloaked Racism

The events that shook the U.S. on 9/11/2001 represent a watershed for the anti-Islam campaign. The brutality of these attacks, and the indiscriminate terror unleashed by the fanatics, has raised many questions in the mind of Americans about the connection between Islam and terrorism. American interest in understanding Islam and deciphering the connection between the act of terrorism and the Islamic faith led to a sharp increase in the number of books published on Islam. While few of the books published since 9/11 provide a balanced views of Islam's teachings and history, most aim at demonizing Islam and Muslims. Of the 30 bestsellers by Amazon.com, by far the largest online distributor, 19 promote views that range between the negative and abusive, while 8 advance more favorable views of Islam. Three books offer neutral views on Islam. The eight positive books include two translations of the Qur'an and two on the renowned Muslim mystic Al Rumi. The anti-Islam books that dominate the Amazon bestsellers include books by well-known hate mongers and Muslim bashers who made careers out of demonizing Islam and attacking Muslims, including Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, Tony Blankley, and Steven Emerson. At the heart of the writings of these four, and other collaborators, is a racist strategy whose aim is to persuade American leaders, and the public at large, that Islam is the enemy and that Muslims cannot be trusted.

The authors of anti-Islam books are not scholars who are objectively interested in understanding Islam and Muslims, but a group of activists who deeply committed to promoting an expansionist foreign policy. They perceive world politics as a zero-sum game that requires the U.S. to use its military power against present and future competitors. They have consistently presented Muslim countries as incapable of democratic rule, and Islamic values as antithetical to world peace and religious diversity.

To ensure that their views are not challenged by the academic community, the Extreme Right has been working hard to undermine academic freedom and intimidate scholars with balanced views of the Middle East. Martin Kramer's "Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America," published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP -- October 2001) is a diatribe against Middle East Studies in U.S. universities, and Daniel Pipes' Campus Watch, an organization devoted to smearing professors critical of U.S. foreign policy and Tel Aviv's treatment of Palestinians, have initiated a new campaign that aims at intimidating free thinking on the Middle East and silencing any views that challenge the Extreme Right's propaganda. Stanford professor Joel Beinin ("Le Monde diplomatique," Spring 2006) described WINEP as pro-Tel Aviv think tank.

Concerted Efforts to misrepresent Islam

The anti-Islam campaign is carried by self-appointed experts who have little understanding of Islam and Muslims, yet are bent on depicting the faith of 1/5th of humanity as intolerant, violent, and anti-western. Having little insight into Muslim societies and Islamic faith, and history, they often rely on the crude and faulty logic of generalization about Muslims from the experiences of fringe Muslim groups, and of reading Islamic texts out of context, both the socio-political and the discursive.

Robert Spencer, a prolific anti-Islam writer and a leading Islamophobe who is bent on distorting Islam and demonizing Muslims, has persistently argued that violence and terrorism employed by Muslim extremists is rooted in the Qur’an and its message. Spencer calls the Qur'an, "the jihadists' Mein Kampf," in reference to Hitler's memoir. He blames the Qur'an for giving impetus to the terrorist open war against the West. He declares: "So is the Qur'an the Mein Kampf of the totalitarian, supremacist movement that is the global Islamic jihad? If we take seriously the words of the book itself and how they are used by jihadists, then it clearly is their inspiration and justification" (FrontPageMagazine.com December 8, 2005). Spencer contends: "Nor are these jihadists misrepresenting, twisting, or hijacking what the Qur'an says. There are over a hundred verses in the Qur'an that exhort believers to wage jihad against unbelievers. 'O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed' (Sura 9:73). 'Strive hard' in Arabic is jahidi, a verbal form of the noun jihad. This striving was to be on the battlefield: "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly" (Qur'an 47:4). This is emphasized repeatedly: 'O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.' (Qur'an 9:123)."

Spencer picks few out of the hundreds verses that deal with issues of peace and war, and misrepresents Islam by arguing that the Qur'an directs Muslims to fight non-Muslims on the account of having different faith. He does that by obscuring both the textual and historical contexts of the verses he cites. The Qur'an is unequivocal that fighting is a last resort and is permitted to repulse aggression and stop oppression and abuse: "A declaration of disavowal from God and His Messenger to those of the polytheists (Arab pagans) with whom you contracted a Mutual alliance." (9:1)

The reason for this war against the pagans was their continuous fight and conspiracy against the Muslims to turn them out of Medina as they had been turned out of Makkah, and their infidelity to and disregard for the covenant they had made with the Muslims: "Why you not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and attacked you first" (9:13). Out of the hundreds of the Qur'anic verses left out of Spencer's discussion are those that direct Muslims to initiate fighting only to repel aggression while urging them to seek peace when the other party seeks peace: "Fight in the way of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression, for God loves not aggressors. And fight them wherever you meet them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no oppression and the religion is only for God, but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression." (2:190-193)

The Specter of Islamic Empire

In an effort to link extremism to the larger Muslim communities and organizations, the Extreme Right has repeatedly exaggerated the size of extremists among Muslims, and obscured their identity and the political conditions leading to their emergence. In order to instill fear of Islam in the heart of Americans and Europeans, the Far Right contends that mainstream Muslim communities and organizations in the West are part of a global movement with wild aspirations and grandiose design to control the world and impose institutions and laws borrowed from 7th century Muslim society. It is true that fringe groups within Muslim societies espouse literalist views of Islamic sources and history. Yet the Far Right not only fails in identifying these groups as the exception to the rule, but they have erroneously presented them as the only voice in Muslim communities.

Similarly, mainstream Muslim organizations are depicted as supportive of global terrorism and Muslim American leaders and activists as fifth column. These organizations have been the target of a smear campaigns in which innuendo, half-truth, and guilt by association have been employed to undermine and disrupt their efforts to integrate the Muslim American community into mainstream American society.

In the last three years, mainstream Muslim organizations have been the subject of rough treatment by law enforcement agencies under the urging of the Far Right. In 2002 the offices of the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), the highest Muslim religious authority in the North America, and the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences (GSISS), a major Muslim institution of higher learning for training Muslim chaplains, were raided by federal agents, led by an agent of the customs service who apparently relied heavily on information provided by the Steven Emerson's Investigative Project and his former assistant Rita Katz's SITE Institute. Although the raids were publicized as an important operation in the war on terrorism, three years after the offices of these, and other Muslim institutions were searched and hundreds of documents confiscated, no criminal charges were returned, and the Justice and Homeland Security Departments made no apology.

In June 2003, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information held a series of hearings on radicalization of Muslim inmates. Several Extreme Right spokesmen accused Muslim chaplains of promoting radical views. Indeed, the anti-Islam pressure groups succeeded in persuading Sen. Schumer (D-NY) that GSISS and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) have been promoting "Wahhabi Islam" and demanded that the Justice Department conduct an investigation to uncover "radical" Islamic activities in federal prisons. A year later, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Justice Department issued a report that showed that, contrary to these claims, Muslim chaplains made a positive impact and brought balanced and moderate teachings to Muslim inmates, and that radicalization was more likely in prisons where inmates did not have Muslim chaplains. Federal correction facilities officials further testified that, contrary to the claims of the self-proclaimed experts who provided Sen. Schumer with erroneous information, "ISNA is a moderate, mainstream, non-Wahhabist, Islamic organization that encompasses Muslims from several Islamic sects."

In Dec. 2003, the Senate Finance Committee listed Muslim organizations and charities on a suspect list, and asked the IRS to provide financial records to uncover alleged support for global terrorism. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) stated in an interview with the "Indianapolis Star" that his committee "did not find anything alarming enough that required additional follow-up beyond what law enforcement is already doing." A week later, the Committee, apparently under pressure from the Extreme Right, issued a press release, reversing Grassley's statement, and contending that the fact that Committee's conclusion of reviewing the information it received from the IRS "does not mean that these groups have been cleared by the committee."

Creeping Islamophobia

Islamophobia is no more the attitude of the marginal extremists, as it has colored the writings and analyses of mainstream research organization such as the RAND Corporation and Freedom House. The RAND report on Islam (Cheryl Benard: "Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies"; 2004; and the 567-page study "The Muslim World After 9/11"; 2004) makes no efforts to seriously engage authentic Arab and Muslim voices for more accurate information on Islam and Muslim Americans. The same attitude permeates other think tanks and policy formation groups.

In an 89-page study, published in 2005 under the title, "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques," the Freedom House made sweeping and largely inaccurate generalizations about Muslim Americans. After collecting a few copies of some Saudi publications that their researchers alleged were found on the library shelves of fifteen mosques, they accused mosques across the nation of promoting hate. The Freedom House found it quite permissible to smear every mosque in the U.S. without conducting a single interview, or inquiring about the reasons and circumstances of carrying questionable Saudi publications. There are more than two thousand mosques in the U.S., and fifteen out of two thousand mosques constitute less than 1 percent of all mosques in the country.

Evidently, the authors never stopped for a second to ask: How has the presence of the Saudi literature impacted the attitudes of the mosque-goers? They have also failed to consider asking the leaders of the Islamic centers about their views and activities, or how the Saudi material was used. One would think that this is the most reasonable and sensible thing to do in a study that aims at ascertaining the truth and enhancing understanding.

Islamophobia has contaminated public discourse on Islam and Muslims, and has affected the best judgment of religious and political leaders, and, hence, has made the efforts to deal with terrorism more complicated and less effective and led to a long series of missteps. Let us recall the most serious ones:

In 2001 and 2002, bigotry and intolerance were elevated to a tolerable national discourse by leading Evangelical leaders who insulted Islam and its Prophet, and did it with impunity. Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson described Islam as "wicked, violent and not of the same god," and called the Prophet of Islam a "terrorist" and "pedophile," and were allowed to get away with it. Little has been done so far to rein in Christian and Jewish extremists.

In November 2002, John Ashcroft, then the U.S. attorney general, got away with similar bigoted remarks when he asserted that “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him,” while “Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.” Ashcroft never denied that he made the statement, nor did he apologize despite demands by several Muslim American organizations to retract his statement. In the same year Ashcroft made his remarks, the Department of Justice embarked on a massive detention and deportation of thousands of innocent Muslim immigrants in the name of fighting terrorism. Many of those who were detained were denied visitation by family members and representation by lawyers. Deprived from the due process enshrined in the US constitution, they were eventually deported on minor violations.

In October 2003, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, was allowed to keep his job after telling church gatherings that the Christian God is "real" and the Muslim is “idol." Secretary Rumsfeld defended Baykin's bigoted remarks by citing the latter's freedom of speech.

In December 2003, the military accused Capt. James Lee, a dedicated Muslim Chaplain and West Point graduate, of spying, and ordered his incarceration in a maximum security facility, but failed to provide any evidence to back up these serious charges. Chaplain Yee was eventually found innocent of all charges laid against him, including charges of adultery and pornography concocted when the spying charges were withdrawn. The army refused to issue an apology and Lee resigned.

In May 2004, Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim lawyer and former Army officer, was arrested by FBI agents in connection with the Madrid terrorist bombing. The FBI maintained its certainty that Mayfield's fingerprints matched those found on bags left behind by the terrorists even after Spanish authorities said that the original image of the fingerprint did not match Mayfield's. He was eventually released after spending two weeks in prison.

In December 2004, the open season on Islam and Muslims by extreme Religious Right pundits reached a new low, when the Washington Times, a leading American newspaper, published an article by Sam Harris, entitled "Mired in a Religious War." The article declared Islam the enemy, and openly advocates an all-out war on Islam and Muslims.

In December 2004, 46 American Muslims were fingerprinted, searched and held for 6 hours by U.S. border security agents upon returning from a religious conference in Canada. The incident is the latest in a series of overzealous ethnic and religious profiling, and of the targeting of law-abiding American Muslims in the name of national security.

The above list, though far from being complete, reveals disturbing patterns of Muslim bashing and abuse, and underscores the troubling fact that some public officials in various departments and at highest levels espouse prejudices toward Islam and Muslims. While the number of bigots and zealots is still limited, the damage they have done to both American Muslims and the reputation of the United States is enormous.

This attitude toward Islam and Muslims, and the policy recommendations that stem from it, have so far led to continuous radicalization of Muslim societies and have strengthened the very divisive forces that desire to marginalize and eliminate Islam and Muslims in the West. Many of the complex challenges the United States faces are the outcome of a faulty or unbalanced foreign policy, formulated from information supplied by ill-informed, Islamophobic experts. These policies are the result of defining adversaries on the ground of ethnic and religious identities, rather than universal ethical principles and actions, which include respect for the religious sensibilities of others

While both truth and vanity play a role in shaping Islamophobia, I am less concerned with the vain sources of these sentiments that take the form of deception, jealousy, and arrogance. I am more concerned, however, with the true sources of Islamophobia, namely anti-Muslim attitude and exclusivist political ideologies that fuel extremism. U.S. foreign policy, as articulated by the neo-conservatives, is bent on dominating and manipulating Muslim societies for achieving narrow economic and geopolitical interests; similarly, exclusivist ideologies continue to inflame the vicious terror campaigns that justify the killing of civilians for achieving political ends.

Rethinking US Foreign Policy

The war on terror has not contributed so far to isolating the terrorists, but seems to have led to increasing anti-American sentiments. The Bush administration has been ill-advised by individuals and groups driven by anti-Islam agenda that made an already difficult war even more complicated. By listening to prejudiced and bigoted voices who have shown little respect to the followers of the Islamic faith, and who have urged the administration to exceed established moral and legal limitations, the Bush administration has made several blunders that undermined the credibility of the United States.

From Guantanamo, Abu Ghuraib, and other abuses, to massive detention and deportation of Muslim immigrants, to profiling the predominantly law abiding Muslim Americans, to letting off the hook high ranking officials caught making derogatory and bigoted remarks about Islam and its followers, to denying visas and turning back from U.S. airports Muslim leaders who have been working hard to build bridges between Islam and the West, to supporting authoritarian regimes implicated in human rights violations, the Bush administration has adopted the wrong approach and gave the wrong impression that the war on terror is gradually shifting from targeting individuals implicated in terrorism and indiscriminate violence to targeting mainstream Muslim communities and organizations.

The Bush administration should reject the racist strategy of the Far Right and become more discreet in executing the war and terrorism, making a clear distinction between fringe groups driven by hatred and fanaticism, and the overwhelming majority of law abiding Muslims who aspire for just peace. The administration should also enlist the help and the crucial resources that the American Muslim community, and mainstream Muslim organizations and leaders, can bring to bear on the war on terrorism and extremism. It is not difficult for any person aware of the patterns of U.S. foreign policy toward the Muslim world, and of the terror campaign conducted by militant Muslims, to see that the two are interrelated and feed one another. The U.S. has for decades s