Read Here – Gulf News

Muslim Americans (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Despite news and opinions to the contrary, Muslim Americans are just as normal as any other American citizen and NOT inclined to the violence we are all told they engage, but the negative image of Islam is  not for lack of trying.  Pundits have been pounding the message that Muslims in America are a threat to the American fabric ad nauseam; public officials have jumped on the bandwagon with congressional hearings and campaign speeches that are simply demagoguery that have lead to violence against Muslims or those who were mistaken for Muslims.  However, the facts do not support these rather erroneous conclusions.  Rather they point to an entirely different conclusion altogether. (The emphasis in red is mine)

As the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches, a comprehensive public opinion survey finds no indication of increased alienation or anger among Muslim Americans in response to concerns about home-grown Islamic terrorists, controversies about the building of mosques and other pressures that have been brought to bear on this high-profile minority group in recent years. There also is no evidence of rising support for Islamic extremism among Muslim Americans.

On the contrary, as found in the Pew Research Center’s 2007 survey, Muslims in the United States continue to reject extremism by much larger margins than most Muslim publics (countries) surveyed this year by the Pew Global Attitudes Project. And majorities of Muslim Americans express concern about the possible rise of Islamic extremism, both here and abroad.

…..Nonetheless, Muslim Americans have not become disillusioned with the country. They are overwhelmingly satisfied with the way things are going in their lives (82%) and continue to rate their communities very positively as places to live (79% excellent or good).

At a personal level, most think that ordinary Americans are friendly (48%) or neutral (32%) toward Muslim Americans; relatively few (16%) believe the general public is unfriendly toward Muslim Americans. About two-thirds (66%) say that the quality of life for Muslims in the U.S. is better than in most Muslim countries.

…..As in 2007, very few Muslim Americans – just 1% – say that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are often justified to defend Islam from its enemies; an additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified in these circumstances. Fully 81% say that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians are never justified.

A comparably small percentage of Muslim Americans express favorable views of al Qaeda – 2% very favorable and 3% somewhat favorable. And the current poll finds more Muslim Americans holding very unfavorable views of al Qaeda than in 2007 (70% vs. 58%).

….Opposition to violence is broadly shared by all segments of the Muslim American population, and there is no correlation between support for suicide bombing and measures of religiosity such as strong religious beliefs or mosque attendance. Yet opposition to extremism is more pronounced among some segments of the U.S. Muslim public than others.

….

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of Muslim Americans endorse the idea that most people can get ahead if they are willing to work hard; just 26% say hard work is no guarantee of success. Among the general public, somewhat fewer (62%) say that most people who work hard can get ahead.

U.S. Muslims are about as likely as other Americans to report household incomes of $100,000 or more (14% of Muslims, compared with 16% of all adults), and they express similar levels of satisfaction with their personal financial situation. Overall, 46% say they are in excellent or good shape financially; among the general public, 38% say this. Muslim Americans are as likely as the public overall to have graduated from college (26% of Muslims vs. 28% among the general public). Because as a group Muslim Americans are younger than the general public, twice as many report being currently enrolled in a college or university class (26% vs. 13%). Similar numbers of Muslim Americans and members of the general public report being self-employed or owning a small business (20% for Muslim Americans, 17% for the general public).

When it comes to many other aspects of American life, Muslim Americans look similar to the rest of the public. Comparable percentages say they watch entertainment television, follow professional or college sports, recycle household materials, and play video games. About one-in-three (33%) say they have worked with other people from their neighborhood to fix a problem or improve a condition in their community in the past 12 months, compared with 38% of the general public.

When asked to choose, nearly half of Muslims in the U.S. (49%) say they think of themselves first as a Muslim, while 26% see themselves first as an American; 18% volunteer that they are both. In a 2011 survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, 46% of Christians in the U.S. say they identify as Christian first while the same number identify as American first. White evangelicals are much more likely to identify first as Christian (70%).

The survey also finds that compared with Muslims elsewhere, Muslim Americans are more supportive of the role of women in society. Virtually all Muslim Americans (90%) agree that women should be able to work outside of the home. Most (68%) also think that there is no difference between men and women political leaders. These are not the prevailing views of Muslims in most predominantly Muslim countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

And on a key foreign policy issue, Muslim Americans are far more likely than Muslims in the Middle East to say that a way can be found for the state of Israel to exist so that the rights of the Palestinians are addressed (62% say this; 20% disagree). In this regard, the views of Muslim Americans resemble those of the general public, among whom 67% say a way can be found for the state of Israel to exist while protecting the rights of the Palestinians; 12% disagree.

….Many Muslim Americans are highly religious: 69% say that religion is very important in their lives, and about half (47%) report at least weekly attendance at a mosque for prayer. Similarly, about half (48%) say they make all five salah prayers daily, and another 18% report making at least some salah daily.

….Overwhelming numbers of Muslim Americans believe in Allah (96%), the Prophet Muhammad (96%) and the Day of Judgment (92%). Yet the survey finds that most reject a dogmatic approach to religion. Most Muslim Americans (57%) say there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of Islam; far fewer (37%) say that there is only one true interpretation of Islam. Similarly, 56% of Muslim Americans say that many different religions can lead to eternal life; just 35% say that Islam is the one true faith that leads to eternal life.

What the study shows is American Muslims are engaged in their communities, optimistic about their future and the future of the country in which they live, have strong bonds to America and its way of life, eschew violence overwhelmingly, yet identify with their religion and are productive members of the society. I remember as a 9th grade student studying civics being told all of the characteristics above were examples of good citizenship, yet today despite having embraced life in America, Muslim Americans are condemned for the very attributes we hold dear.  Stop the hypocrisy America, you can do better than this!

Related articles

• Report highlights Islam’s global diversity – Articles (religionnews.com)
• CAIR: American Muslims Stand with Sikhs After Wis. Shootings (prnewswire.com)

Aug 11, 2012 by     whitehouse

Aug 10, 2012 by     whitehouse

President Obama hosts an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan in the State Dining Room. This is the fourth Iftar that President Obama has hosted, continuing the tradition of hosting Iftars that began annually under President Clinton and was continued by President George W. Bush. The invited guests include elected officials, religious and grassroots leaders in the Muslim American community, and leaders of diverse faiths and members of the diplomatic corps.

Source

Michele Bachmann (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Juan Cole’s Informed Comment blog has put forth the best take on the murder in Milwaukee of members of the Sikh community as an I’ve seen advanced.  America wants to forget this latest reminder of her violent nature, coming so soon after the massacre that took place in Aurora, but Cole nails down what it is that’s taking place with this latest episode of mass murder. Below is just an excerpt. Please take the time to read the entire article here.

We still have only rumors about Wade Michael Page, the gunman who walked into a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin near Milwaukee and opened fire with a semi-automatic weapon (weapons that should be illegal) on men women and children beginning to gather for a day of worship, singing and feasting…..

Page is said to have served in the military, discharged for misconduct in 1998.

He is said to have had a 9/11 tattoo.

He likely thought he was targeting American Muslims. He operated in an atmosphere of virulent hate speech against American Muslims. A discourse of Islamophobia has plagued the United States in the past decade, pushed by unscrupulous bigots in public life and by entire media organizations such as Fox Cable News and other media properties of billionaire yellow press lord Rupert Murdoch.

Among the hatemongers are Frank Gaffney, and his acolyte Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn), Rep. Peter King (R-NY) Daniel Pipes, James Woolsey, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, John Bolton, and sometimes Rudi Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and others, most associated with the Republican Party. The push for hate speech against American Muslims is funded by a small group of billionaires through their foundations. Some of the Muslim-haters are connected to the US arms industry and are hoping for profits from further wars in the Middle East. Others are Israel-firster fanatics. Others are looking for a bogey man to scare Americans with, so as to convince them to vote against their interests, as they used Communism during the Cold War to convince ordinary Americans to give up their constitutional rights.

Page is said to have served in the military, discharged for misconduct in 1998.

He is said to have had a 9/11 tattoo.

He likely thought he was targeting American Muslims. He operated in an atmosphere of virulent hate speech against American Muslims. A discourse of Islamophobia has plagued the United States in the past decade, pushed by unscrupulous bigots in public life and by entire media organizations such as Fox Cable News and other media properties of billionaire yellow press lord Rupert Murdoch.

Among the hatemongers are Frank Gaffney, and his acolyte Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn), Rep. Peter King (R-NY) Daniel Pipes, James Woolsey, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, John Bolton, and sometimes Rudi Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and others, most associated with the Republican Party. The push for hate speech against American Muslims is funded by a small group of billionaires through their foundations. Some of the Muslim-haters are connected to the US arms industry and are hoping for profits from further wars in the Middle East. Others are Israel-firster fanatics. Others are looking for a bogey man to scare Americans with, so as to convince them to vote against their interests, as they used Communism during the Cold War to convince ordinary Americans to give up their constitutional rights.

 

Related articles

• Terror war comes home: White supremacist kills 6 Sikhs in Wisconsin (mondoweiss.net)
• Sehgal: Sikh temple shooting shows how hatred can transcend boundaries (newsday.com)
• Under Attack as Muslims in the U.S. (nytimes.com)

Various Islamic scholars and Imams have updated their Facebook statuses with the following:

While ICNA updated their site with this notice:

Source: http://www.icna.org/icna-condemns-attack-on-sikh-gurdwara/

ICNA Condemns Attack on Sikh Temple

A Muslim Cleric on the Power of His Faith, the Struggle Against Prejudice,

and

the Future of Islam and America

[Introductory note:  This is a comment I wrote originally in 2010; it has been revised extensively for this forum.]

I was attracted to “American Crescent” in part because its author, Hassan Quazwini, has made his career in Dearborn, Michigan, another suburb of Detroit just across town from the one where I grew up.  Dearborn today has one of the highest proportions of Arab-Americans in the United States (and is sometimes termed “Dearbornstan”).  Quazwini presently serves as Imam at Dearborn’s Islamic Center of America, the largest Muslim congregation in the United States.  His odyssey to Dearborn started in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, from which his Shiite father and family fled in the 1970s, first to Kuwait, then to Iran.  In 1992, Quazwini left for the United States, living in initially in the Los Angeles area before migrating to Dearborn. Quazwini responded positively to presidential candidate Governor George W. Bush’s appeal in the 2000 presidential elections for his support with a pivotal group in a pivotal state.  In 2003, Quazwini broke openly with President Bush over the latter’s decision to go to war with Iraq.

In “American Crescent,” Quazwini delivers an impassioned argument that Islam fits comfortably into America’s religious pluralism.  The question whether Islam and democracy are compatible is “no longer open,” he says (p.202).  Quazwini’s faith in the American dream appears from his book as strong as his Islamic faith:

Muslims embrace Americans’ generosity and add to it.  They value America’s commitment to education and come from all over the world to take part.  They accept that their neighbors won’t necessarily worship the same way they do, or at all, and they appreciate the American idea of pluralism.  If one were to draw a circle on a piece of paper representing Islam’s values and the boundaries of what it permits, that circle would fit easily within the larger circle of what the American legal system, and its cultural standards, permit.  However you wish to view Islam, nothing about it disserves the American way of life (p.202).

Quazwini spoke out strongly after the September 11^th attacks, indicating that Muslims were “as appalled by the 9/11 attacks as any other Americans.”  Those who carried out these horrendous acts were quite simply “not Muslims” (p.132).

After terrorism, my greatest concerns about Islam are its treatment of women and homosexuals, and the anti-Semitism associated with wide swaths of Islamic thought.  Quazwimi addresses each of these fundamental human rights issues, but with a euphemistic, “we’re-all-sons-of-Abraham” gloss.  “Islam holds that men and women are absolutely equal, but that they have different talents and should focus their efforts accordingly” (p.59).  Islam’s position on homosexuality is “essentially the same as that of Judaism and Christianity,” acknowledging that in Middle East culture there is “strong disapproval of homosexuality” (p.246).  As to Judaism, Quazwini laments that “too few” Muslims will join him in his “utmost respect” for the Jewish faith, confessing to admire Jews for their ability to assimilate into mainstream America (p.153).

I’m viscerally drawn to a “we’re-all-sons-of-Abraham” approach.  I thus found Quazwani’s embrace of America and American religious pluralism highly endearing and a good rejoinder to the anti-Islamic currents circulating in parts of our country.  He presents a sound case that America’s religious pluralism is broad enough to embrace most forms of Islam.  Moreover, I found implicit support in “American Crescent” for my view that integration of Muslims into the American mainstream is significantly less complicated than parallel integration in Europe.

Yet, Quazwani’s tip toeing around Islamic views of women, homosexuals and Jews is a reminder that rooted deeply into Islamic thought are tenets which I hope would be rejected by all but the most marginal of America’s other religions.  America’s non-Muslim sons and daughters of Abraham should accord Islam the respect which one of the world’s great religious traditions merits.  But they need to do so soberly, without illusions.

Thomas H. Peebles

Rockville, Maryland

July 1, 2012

Democratic National Headquarters (Photo credit: Matt Ortega)

Tens of thousands of Muslims will conduct Mass Prayer & Pro-Islamic Events During the Dem Convention .Here we go , it’s all coming out ,  the liberals , communist, gays, feminist,socialist are actually   Muslims in drag. As I posted before   Allah and Mohammed aproves of anal sex , the picture tells the story. The liberals prove that they love giving it to the people up the ass.  WHAT SAY YOU? CAN YOU SEE THE TEMPTATION ?  BUT I HOPE NOT!

Related articles

• Muslim group to host mass prayer at DNC; expects 20,000 (creepingsharia.wordpress.com)
• BIMA announces Muslims will make voices heard at DNC (charlotte.news14.com)
• Muslims to host events during Democratic National Convention in Charlotte (charlotteobserver.com)

The Sultan’s Corner

JANUARY 10, 2011 · 12:15 AM

“American vs Muslim: Is there a clash of Identity” by Sheikh Yasir Qadhi

 Sheikh Yasir Qadhi answers the mind troubling questions of American Muslim Identity: Can you be a Muslim and be an American at the same time? Is there a clash? Is it permissible for a Muslim to have his/her allegiance to a nation-state. What are you first? An American or a Muslim?

Do Muslims have to live in a Islamic State? Can Muslims live in a Kufr State (non-Islamic or non-Muslim State), use the kufr system to defend themselves in the Kufr State? What is the difference between the concept of Ummah andQaumiyat (nation or community)?

Muslims residing in the Non-Muslim nation-state, can they be patriotic to their country? Is America a Christian State? What American Muslims should say if some one asks them that why are they in America?

Can American Muslims be loyal to America? Is there a clash of loyalty between Islam and America? Can American Muslims be proud Muslims and patriotic Americans at the same time? And is this permissible in Islam?

This video is beneficial for everyone- Muslims and not Muslims, Americans and not Americans, American Muslims and General Americans, Islamists, Nationalist and what ever “ists” you call yourself.

This video addresses the very important issue out in Public just like the Ulema (Islamic Religious Scholars) in early 1900′s did in South Asia. Indian Ulema went through these kinds of debates, discussion and discourses about being Muslims in the newly found concept of Nation-state.

Disagreement among the Indian Ulema resulted in mainly two groups. 1st group of Ulema supported the unified Indian, where Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwiand Abul Kalam Azad were at the forefront. 2nd group of Ulema supported the Pakistan Movement, where Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, Students of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanwi are famous names from famous Islamic SeminaryDarululoom Deoband, while Mawlana Mawdudi supported Pakistan Movement with caution towards the Muslim League.

Many other groups and movements in Pakistan and Middle East then sprang up around 1950′s that propagated skewed and unorthodox concepts about Shariahand Islamic State, those ideas have affected the thinking of Western Muslims and the Easterners since then.

This is a very good sign the Sheikh Yasir Qadhi came out in public and spoke intellectually on a topic that has been in long discussion for past half century and a very hot topic in online forums.

21 Responses to “American vs Muslim: Is there a clash of Identity” by Sheikh Yasir Qadhi

1. Paul Marcel-Rene

   February 3, 2011 at 6:33 AM

   No, compliance with the true understanding of Islam is completely incompatible with being a good citizen or resident of America or the “western world”. Shariah Law is completely incompatible with being a good citizen or resident of America or the “western world”

   Introduction: Tenets of Shariah Law

   Shariah-Islamic Law is a military political doctrine written 1,200 years ago by Islamic authorities. The believers of Shariah-Islamic Law have created a movement like Apartheid in which a minority oppresses a majority.

   The goal of authoritative Shariah-Islamic Law is to establish a one-world militant political Islam through Jihad. There are three forms of Jihad: Violent, Cultural, and Financial.

   Shariah is not a religion. It was created centuries after the written Koran, Islam’s holy book. Just because a person is Muslim and therefore follows the Islamic faith, it does not necessarily mean he or she supports or chooses to live under Shariah. Many Muslims are brutally oppressed under Shariah-Islamic Law.

   Today, Shariah is the law of the land in Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Nigeria and Indonesia. It is the ultimate authority among the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbullah.

   There is NO freedom of religion, equal rights, children’s rights or freedom of speech under Shariah-Islamic Law. Criticism of Islam or leaving the faith of Islam is a crime punishable by death. Forced child marriages, the beating of disobedient wives, public hanging of gays, and persecution of those who do not believe in Islam (Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, others) are tenets of Shariah law.

   Tenets of Shariah-Islamic Law (From Reliance of The Traveler: The Classic Manual of Sacred Law, the authoritative Sha’afi school compendium of shari’a jurisprudence.)

   Sharia on family law:

   * Women are eligible for only half of the inheritance of men
   * Virgins may be married against their will by a father or grandfather
   * Arab women may not marry non-Arab men
   * Women may not leave the house without a husband’s permission
   * Muslim men may marry 4 women, including Christians and Jews; Muslim women may marry Muslims
   * Men may beat insubordinate wives

   Sharia on Jihad and religion:

   * Offensive war (military Jihad) against non-Muslims is a religious obligation
   * Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death without trial
   * Non-Muslims ruled by Islam must follow including discriminatory “dhimmi” taxes and laws.
   * Non-Muslims may not receive Muslim charity “zakat”, but may be bribed to convert to Islam but
   * Lying to infidels during Jihad, or to promote Islam, is permissible

   Sharia on human rights:

   * Homosexuals and lesbians must be killed
   * Slavery is permitted and legitimate
   * Muslim men have unlimited sexual rights over slave women, even married slaves
   * Female sexual mutilation (cliterectomy) is obligatory
   * Adultery is punished with death by stoning
   * Women’s testimony in court is worth half that of men (and is permitted only in property cases)
   * Non-Muslims may not testify in Shariah courts.

   CREEPING SHARIAH-ISLAMIC LAW

   The Shariah Supremacy movement does not have the goal of hacking off limbs and stoning women in the West. The goal of the Shariah political movement is to have political Islam become an important component of Western life, bringing with it: Shariah courts to maintain patriarchal power in the family structure, censorship of speech and press to eliminate “racism and discrimination” against Islam; control of western economies through investment by dictating “un-Islamic” and “Islamic” industries, and elevating the political importance of Islam far above any other religion.

   umersultan
2. February 3, 2011 at 2:46 PM

   First, thank you for teaching me about my religion.

   Second, I have nothing to say because everything that you have said has no foundation in Islam.
   You said: “There are three forms of Jihad: Violent, Cultural, and Financial.” You have no evidence of such uninformed statement & I don’t want to go on like this.

   Please check other posts regarding Shariahhttp://umersultan.wordpress.com/tag/sharia/

   Especially this: http://dawudwalid.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/what-is-shariah/

   What you need to do is get yourself educated about Islam from authentic sources rather than the Islamophobes!

   Reply
3. Paul Marcel-Rene

   February 3, 2011 at 9:32 PM

   @umersultan There is no error in what was posted. All of it is completely accurate and comes directly from accepted authentic Islamic scholars, just not from Islamic Apologists that are obeying their religion through Taqiyya. When Osama bin Laden says Islam will dominate the world and that all is justified by the Qu’ran, Hadith, Sunnah/Sunnat and Islamic Apologists say Islam is a religion of peace, it is bin Laden who is being truthful.

   And before you find it necessary to start quoting the Qu’ran about its peaceful Suras, they are subject to abrogation.

   It is because Christians, and many Muslims, do not understand this doctrine of abrogation coupled with the nonchronological order of the Quran that they do not understand what is going on in the Islamic world at this time. On the one hand, many Islamic leaders will claim that their religion is a peaceful one, and quote passages from the Quran to prove it. On the other hand, other Islamic leaders will call for terrorism and jihad and base their call on the same Quran. Most of us would view this a simple matter of how the Quran is interpreted, but such is not the case. The peaceful passages within the Quran are found in the early days of Muhammad’s recitations, during a time when he felt that his new religion would be a unifying factor among “People of the Book” (Jews, Christians and Muslims). When his doctrine was ultimately rejected by Jews and Christians he turned on them and “was given” new “revelations” of war and hate to replace the former ones of peace. The surahs, which teach jihad against Jews, Christians and unbelievers, are all found in the later time frame of the Quran. Passages of a later date include 2:190-193,216; 4:74,89,91,95,101-102; 5:33,51; 8:12,39,60,65,67,69; 9:5,29,30,73; 47:4; 59:2-4,5,14 and 61:4. While such passages are scattered throughout the Quran, they are all chronologically of later origin and have, according to the doctrine of abrogation, replaced the former teachings on peace.
   • umersultan

     February 3, 2011 at 10:39 PM

     Bin Laden is not a Islamic Scholar, your statement tells me much about you.

     May God Guide you!

     umersultan
   • February 3, 2011 at 10:44 PM

     I understand well about what Abrogation is but it is certainly not the way you have understood.

     If you are interested to have a basic understanding of this topic read this:

     “Ulum Al-Quran: An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran” by Ahmad Von Denffer
4. Paul Marcel-Rene

   February 3, 2011 at 10:51 PM

   No bin Laden is not a scholar at all. Nor did I imply he is. Rather when he states “Islam will dominate the world and that all is justified by the Qu’ran, Hadith, Sunnah/Sunnat ” he is correctly stating the correct understanding of Islam.

   I have a correct understanding of Abrogation, but will attempt to find a copy of the book you recommend to determine its accuracy on this subject.

   Are you aware of any online links for a free copy? I doubt my local library would have a copy.
   • umersultan

     February 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM

     I read this book from the Local Library, you should be able to get it through WorldCat Library Loan.

     Christians believes in Christianity Dominating the world too!

     I don’t see the problem with the word “Domination.” If people want to believe in something without compulsion then what is the problem.

     As far as Abrogation is concerned it is not based on the time line of the verse. It is based on the occasion the verse is revealed. Islam is not based on the last revealed verses! Each verse was revealed on a specific occasion and it has to be interpreted keeping that in mind and thus it is the job of the people who have dedicated their lives to Islam.

     Bin Laden can use the verses as he wish, he will be answerable to God just like every other human being will be. Just like Christian Terrorist may bomb the Abortion Clinics and target and kill the Doctors by justifying their act from the Holy Bible, but at the end they will be answerable to God. Jesus & Muhammad, peace be upon them, are free from the insanity of these Nuts.
     • Paul Marcel-Rene

       February 4, 2011 at 6:57 AM

       No, Christians do not believe in Christianity dominating the world. In fact, it is is the opposite. Christians believe there will be opposition and false doctrines of the adversary throughout the world until the second coming of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

       And, contrary to the Sura that states there is no compulsion in religion, that Mohammad replaced through abrogation, Islam does compel.

       We both know the Suras and Hadith that specifically tells to subjugate all who do not accept Islam, kill those who fight this subjugation, that all who apostatize and speak out against Islam are to be killed, etc etc.

       But, you are correct, those nuts that bomb abortion clinics as well as those who do the abortions, will face the judgment of God. All who kill will.

       There is a big difference though. These abortion terrorists are in complete contradiction of the Christian Bible. The Islamic terrorists are in fact complying with the teachings of the Qu’ran and Mohammad. Both will come before God and Jesus to be judged.
     • umersultan

       February 5, 2011 at 1:49 PM

       See this is what you say but these Christian Terrorists who bomb Abortion clinics do it based on Bible and so did the KKK lynched every Black man and woman, burned their churches down in the name of Bible.

       Please don’t teach me about the world history, I have studied. No one can turn the face by saying the massacre of Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem was not committed by Crusaders in the name of Christ. What British and other European Colonialist did to the world under the name of “White Man’s Burden” was all in the name of Christ.

       The difference is, Muslims in general understand the difference between what Jesus peace be upon him taught and the Christians who have committed crimes against Humanity. No one can deny the Inquisition was not done in the name of Christ, forcible converting Jews and Muslims, or expelling or killing them in Spanish, while the Muslim Spain encouraged the Christians and Jewish scholars to come contribute to Al-Andulus. Ever heard of Maimonide? You might want to read into his life.

       Christians started believing in “Christianity dominating the world” since Christianity became the official religion of Rome by Constantine. Christian Missionaries accompanied all the Colonialist to “civilize” the savages of the Africa, Asia, Latin America, “New World” called North America, China, South-East Asia. The difference is we Muslims don’t go about targetting and associating lies to Jesus Christ for crimes committed by the Christians.

       Make sure you go through the links I posted. In time, God-Willing you may realize that the world is very different from what you have come to know!
       May God guide us all, Ameen.
5. Zayn

   February 4, 2011 at 8:33 PM

   People have grossly taken the ayahs’ meaning out of content. I suggest you do not just quote verses without reading the surrounding verses. Context clues seem to disappear when people interpret the Quran.

   Everyone will be judged according to intentions, whether they be Muslim or Christian or Jew. No one has the right to judge another, or to criticize beliefs without any factual evidence.

   Islam is a religion of peace, and will remain so until the end of time. Those who use violence and claim it is “Islamic” are not to be called Muslims.
   • umersultan

     February 5, 2011 at 2:00 PM

     “Those who use violence and claim it is “Islamic” are not to be called Muslims.”

     I would disagree with this statement. How can we say they are Not Muslims? A Muslim is a person who believes in the message revealed to Muhammad, peace be upon him. So unless one crosses the boundary laid down in Islam, one cannot be labelled “Not Muslim!” This is a very serious thing.

     They are Muslims, but they are misguided! Thats what we should say!
6. Paul Marcel-Rene

   February 6, 2011 at 3:39 AM

   No, there is nothing what so ever in the Bible that permits Terrorists to bomb Abortion clinics not the wicked KKK to kill anyone or burn a church.

   As for The Crusades:

   Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and “kill millions.”

   The Truth:

   Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.

   Here are some quick facts…

   The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

   By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

   Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

   In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in ‘converting’ the survivors to Islam.

   Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).

   The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.

   The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. (The Arab occupation is in its 1,380th year).

   Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the “occupiers” quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.

   The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the “Crusaders.” Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes. Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Muslims.

   For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusaders and went so far as to sign treaties with their rivals.

   Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

   Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.

   The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.

   What is called ‘sin and excess’ by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.

   Yes, I am aware of the Inquisition and Maimonide. And, yes there were errors made. Again, these were done in direct opposition to the Bible. There is no support for the excesses of the Inquisition in the Bible.

   As for colonialist taking Christian missionaries with them, that makes perfect sense. The great commission is for all Christians to teach the truth to all who do not know it, about the nature of the One True God and His Son Jesus Christ. It is what I am doing this exact moment and what every true Christian should be doing, sharing the news of salvation and eternal life with all who do not know these truths.

   We do agree on correcting Zayn regarding that he/she who identifies themself as Muslim are Muslim. And I most definately agree that those practicing jihad/stealth or silent jihad or any violence are misguided, BUT they are not misunderstanding Islam, the Qu’ran or the sayings and behaviors of Mohammad.
   • umersultan

     February 6, 2011 at 6:49 PM

     If Crusaders were following the Bible or were so justifies then why they sacked Constantinople and put a whore on the pulpit of the Orthodox Church.

     You should read: “Two Faiths One Banner” by Ian Almond the Holy War of Catholicism will get into perspective.

     So you say that KKK was not following Bible and the Inquisition was not following Bible, but thats interesting because they were citing Biblical verses as well, or other time its interpretation. So does those Evangelical Terrorist do when bombing Abortion clinics.

     Any way, you should study more into the verses that “preach violence” in the Holy Quran, when they were revealed & what occasion were they revealed and what Authentic Islamic Scholars say about these verses.

     Regarding Extremism and Terrorism read this: “Islamic Awakening between Rejection and Extremism” by Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Online read here: http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/Q_RE/index.htm
7. MahaMuslimah

   March 15, 2011 at 12:01 PM

   @Paul Marcel-Rene:

   Learn your facts from a law professor (working at Boston College Law School and at Harvard) who teaches American law AND Islamic law.
   Lay off the Fox news.

   http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/03/rabb_interview.html
   • Paul Marcel-Rene

     April 13, 2011 at 7:04 AM

     I would be willing to teach this professor so that he can correctly teach his students. Just because his positions are great, does not mean he is correct. When I attended college, many professors had serious errors in subjects being taught. When I taught college classes, the correct information was taught.

     As for Fox News, I’m much more likely to be watching Al-Jazzeria, than Fox. Of course, I have a correct understanding to filter the propaganda of any “news” from any source. Stealth Jihad fails to deceive some of us.
     • MahaMuslimah

       April 13, 2011 at 10:58 AM

       @Paul Marcel-Rene. The Link I sent to you is of a female professor. Shows how well you read…
8. Paul Marcel-Rene

   April 13, 2011 at 12:21 PM

   Yes, it was. I mistyped on my smart phone. The point is the same regardless of the gender. But, thank you for pointing out the error. I also spelled Al-Jazeera, due to my phone’s auto correct feature. You didn’t catch that error.
   • MahaMuslimah

     April 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM

     @Paul,

     You cannot ignore the fact that many Muslims do not feel compelled into these practices you have stated (none of which have foundation in Quran or Sunnah, but rather twisted cultural practices!). Many Muslims who are American do not find contradiction in these two identities. You cannot just ignore reality. I will share with you my own blog where I, a practicing AMERICAN MUSLIM, have found nothing but an amazing balance between my faith and nationality:http://mahamuslimah.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/american-first-muslim-first-no-contradiction/

     Paul, you have made many statements that have no basis in Islamic teaching (i.e. genital mutilations (!?), women traveling without permission, requirement of violent jihad, not giving zakaat to non-Muslims (!?), forbidding Arab women to marry non-Arabs (!?), forced marriages, rape of slaves, and so on). These are cultural practices, and have NO foundation in Quranic teaching. Many of these conditions were already present in the historical context of the prophet. I am sure you know that Islam did NOT invent, implement nor encourage slavery! The same goes for polygamy! Islam did not invent, implement nor encourage polygamy! In fact, it made a limit to the polygamous abuse AND is the only religion that says ‘only have one spouse if you cannot be fair” and it goes on to state “no, you can never be fair”. In fact, there is much evidence in Quran that expresses Allah’s disgust with oppression and the enslavement of other human beings–Muslim or non; enslaved or free.

     As a convert who has learned Islam from its sources (Quran and Sunnah), I am appalled and disgusted that some so-called “Islamic nations” oppress their people in the ways they do.

     Shariah, for regular-ol’ Muslims (not those with agendas), means “the way” and includes “the ways” in which we perform ablution, pray, fast, pay zakaat. It has more to do with lifestyle than some kind of doctrine that governs the land. I do not even find basis in Quran that encourages Muslims to “dominate” the world. We are encouraged to teach others about Islam, but definitely not force anyone! Anything done under compulsion–by force–does not even count as legitimate (this includes forced conversion, forced marriage, etc) In Quran, there is encouragement to live in a society peacefully with others of diverse beliefs. Read Surah al-kafirun (“Say to those who reject faith, I do not worship what you worship. You do not worship what I worship. And I shall not worship what you worship and you shall not worship what I worship. Unto you is your religion, Unto me is my religion”). This surah recognizes religious diversity and a requirement for Muslims to deal in the BEST manner with others despite their beliefs!

     Even you mentioned that:
     “Shariah is not a religion. It was created centuries after the written Koran, Islam’s holy book. Just because a person is Muslim and therefore follows the Islamic faith, it does not necessarily mean he or she supports or chooses to live under Shariah. Many Muslims are brutally oppressed under Shariah-Islamic Law.”

     Shariah–as a legal system–is an invention to Islam. And I would agree, some Muslims AND non-Muslims are brutally oppressed under so called “Islamic law”. And this is disgusting to me and other Muslims who truly believe in the mercy of God, read Quran, practice Islam. In no way is oppression and hatred toward any individual OK (whether Muslim or non-Muslim)!

     It doesn’t even bother me that you say the things you have said. Mainly because I have studied Quran and know there is no foundation nor tolerance for this within the religion. And I am SURE you have not taken time to read Quran from cover to cover. Have you read sunnah (the life of the prophet? How about his teachings? And the ways in which he spoke to and treated his wives? I am sure you have not sat down to talk to a brother or sister and ASK them how THEY feel about these atrocities going on around the world! I have never met a Muslim who has even sympathized with the abuse of these screwed up governments! I am not talking about American Muslims, American converts! I am talking about individuals from the Middle East who recognize the corruption in their government. Corruption of power and religion, Paul.

     I honestly, honestly encourage you to read Quran. More so, I encourage you to go to library and find unbiased sources regarding the prophet’s life.
9. Paul Marcel-Rene

   April 13, 2011 at 1:43 PM

   My friend, I have read the Qu’ran. I have spoken with many Muslims from around the world, both converts and “born” Muslim. I have read the life of Mohammad and all that he spoke. I have studied extensively the historical context of the Qu’ran and the culture to which Islam began. Perhaps your intentions are pure, but this does not change the facts. You still have much to learn about Islam before you will truly understand its true nature and the true theology behind it. May this process of discovering the truth be short and painless.
   • MahaMuslimah

     April 13, 2011 at 1:51 PM

     With your knowledge of “truth”, how is it that you manage to have so many unfounded statement in your posts? Do not patronize me.
   • umersultan

     April 14, 2011 at 8:32 AM

     Paul, you haven’t cited a single source of your claims, and I think that sums up how much well informed you are about Islam and Muslims.

     You should be bold enough to cite the books and authors from whom you have gained these very wonderful insight of Islam that has no bases in the Quran or the Sunnah of the Prophet, peace be upon him.

Related articles

• Islamic Supremacist 911 Mega Mosque Imam Rauf’s “Muslim Leader of the Future” Hater, Anti-Semite, Jihadist (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
• American Jihadi: A Muslim’s Loyalty Must Be To Islam, Not America (creepingsharia.wordpress.com)
• Pamela Geller, Weekly WND Column, Defending the West “Muslim-Americans stand up for honor killing” (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
• Muslim site tells children become Muslim in secret, tell parents later (creepingsharia.wordpress.com)

Related articles

• Islam in America conference in Virginia on Saturday (myglobalcommunitytoday.wordpress.com)

Young Muslim boy at souvenir stand outside the Kul Sharif Mosque, Kremlin, Kazan, Russia. June 2008. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Originally Written on 12/14/11

After a long day of work, I got home, sat down, and turned on the TV just to find another news story being covered about one of the most infectious diseases to ever spread across mankind…. “IGNORANCE”!!!!! So, apparently LOWES and some other big name companies have pulled ads from the TLC network that were suppose to air during a docu-series called “ALL AMERICAN MUSLIMS”, because a conservative group (The Florida Family Association) associated with the Evangelical church yelled “FIRE!!!” Lowes claimed it retracted the ad not because the show is about Muslims, but because the show was very controversial. REALLY????? My business sense tells me that I would want my ad to be viewed during a controversial TV show that has been put under a huge microscope. Through those lenses, even more viewers will tune in to see what the fuss surrounding the show is about; therefore, my ad would reach a broader audience.

“All American Muslims” was created to portray Muslims in a positive light, perhaps how they really are, instead of portraying them as terrorists like most of America’s “propagandist media”, which has become experts at it since 911. SO KUDOS TO TLC FOR TAKING ON SUCH A PROJECT!! The show documents the lives of five Lebanese families in Dearborn, Michigan. To me the show seems to make an effort to show the rest of America that Muslim Americans are no different from Christian Americans, Buddhist Americans, Jewish Americans, etc. One of the clips I saw, depicted a young Muslim woman talking about how important her faith is to her, another illustrated a Muslim man as a police officer who obviously loves his job, and another clip depicted a Muslim high school coach, participating in one of American’s Friday night rituals, High School Football.

Now back to Lowe’s retracting its ad….. The retraction took place after The Florida Family Association called for businesses to pull their ads from TLC, because the show is “….propaganda that riskily hides Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.” Ha! “Islamic agenda”? What agenda? I did not get that memo! If you are talking about the words emitted by the late Osama Bin Laden, then you are wrong! A terrorist group within a religion does not set the tone for the religion as a whole. We do not see people of other faiths thinking that all Christians are anti-abortion and anti-gay killers, because of “AMERICAN SOIL GROWN TERRORIST ERIC RUDOLPH” (the 1996 Atlanta Olympic bomber). Oh!! And let us not forget that just a few hundred years ago Christians set out on a mission to take over the World by killing, enslaving, and taking the lands of innocent people all in the name of GOD himself! I do not think the Christian community today is getting much heat from other faiths due to its participation in the “BIGGEST TERRORIST ATTACK ON MANKIND”!!

Enough of my ranting… I know the tone of this message may sound a bit Anti-Christian, but it is not. I am simply a believer that is fed up with the ignorance which plagues our world. I have had and continue to have the pleasure of socializing and befriending Muslim people; furthermore, I have been educated by them, professors, and even myself on the faith. So please, let us not past judgment on things we do not understand, or know nothing about; chances are you are very WRONG…

Related articles

• TLC Cancels ‘All-American Muslim’ (huffingtonpost.com)
• My Take: NYPD’s use of anti-Islam film makes us less safe (religion.blogs.cnn.com)
• Report finds that radical American Muslims are not terribly prevalent. Or competent. (emilylhauserinmyhead.wordpress.com)
• Radical Muslim Americans Pose Little Threat, Study Says (nytimes.com)

Frightening, isn't she?

Regular readers will know I am pretty much against generalisations – “all generalisations are false” being one of my favourite aphorisms -  other than those that are supportable by the obvious empirical evidence, such as “The Republican Party have selected a bunch of vicious right wingers and idiots for people to choose from in 2012 and do not stand a snowball in hell’s chance of winning against Obama in November”.

One of the generalisations that worries me sick is the creeping fear of Muslims that plagues daily life in the West. Our leaders (whether in a political sense, or opinion formers) regularly use coded language – or not so coded – to keep us constantly on edge about the likelihood of a home-grown Muslim – whether we’re in America, Europe, or Australia – launching a terrorist attack in our backyard. It simultaneously plays to our best side – instinctive defence of family, stability, our community – and to our worst – fear of the unknown (or little known), fear of “other”, fear of those not like us.

There is no doubt that the world is in thrall to terrorism. But the numbers of cases of “home-grown” Muslims actually engaging in violence against the countries they now call home have been remarkably few, given the millions of people living next door to us who have contacts or family in the Middle East and Asian sub-continent, and who might well have reason to be aggrieved at some (not all) of our involvement in those regions.

Well now Professor Charles Kurzman, of the  Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at the University of North Carolina, has released a report that found that radicalization among Muslim-Americans is “relatively low,” and has actually been on the decrease since 9/11.

Kurzman also points out that many of the suspects in 2011 “appeared to have been limited in competence.” In one arrest of a Muslim-American for terrorism-related charges, for example, Emerson Begolly, “a 21-year-old former white supremacist who converted to Islam and posted violent-sounding material on the Internet” was tricked by his mother into meeting with FBI agents outside of a restaurant. He then tried fight them off by biting them. In another case, on his way to attack a local Shia mosque, Roger Stockham bragged about the his plan to a bartender when he stopped in to a bar for a drink.

Kurzman notes that “The limited scale of Muslim-American terrorism in 2011 runs counter to the fears that many Americans shared in the days and months after 9/11, that domestic Muslim- American terrorism would escalate,” the report concludes. “The spike in terrorism cases in 2009 renewed these concerns, as have repeated warnings from U.S. government officials about a possible surge in homegrown Islamic terrorism. The predicted surge has not materialized.”

Blogger Emily Hauser notes that she wishes she “had a job that would justify me doing a comparative study of all the kinds of extremist violence perpetrated in this country on an annual basis. I’d like to see how, for instance, the 1 ,002 hate groups tracked by the Southern Law Poverty Center compare to extremist American Muslims (individuals or organizations).

If you’d like to know what most Muslims (American and non-) think about such extremism, I gathered some statistics and statements here (spoiler alert! They’re pretty solidly against it).“

Well done again, Emily.

Judging the Ainger awards, and what it’s got to do with this story

This year I was a judge at The Ainger public speaking competition in Melbourne for teenagers. It was not a debating competition, in that the speakers had to persuade us of their point of view – rather it was designed to see who could present their case lucidly, compellingly, and convincingly, whether or not we were convinced of the merits of their argument.

The notes for contestants were very specific. Rule one read:

“Speakers must choose their own topic which should be based on fact. It should be
presented in a manner that will cause an audience to take a greater interest in a topic which
may not appeal to them. In addition to the content, the speaker should use analogies,
anecdotes and the music of the language to illustrate and enhance the delivery. The
presentation should inform, interest and entertain. Take heed of Cicero’s advice: “Oft an
argument of greater merit will be defeated by an argument of lesser merit, which is better
presented.”

It is worth noting, I think, that the winning speech (and including the heats, there were dozens of speeches on a huge variety of topics) came from a young Australian Muslim teenage girl in “Western” clothing and sans hijab who asked the audience  – who were mainly white, Anglo, middle-aged, and slightly more men than women – in a voice that was carefully modulated and barely rising above a quiet and calming tone for her entire speech, to simply look with her at some of the facts surrounding Muslims in our society.

In particular, in the four minutes alloted to her, she asked us why we were so obsessed with the issue of the burka, when less than 2% of Muslim females wordwide wear it, when it is a cultural item not a religious one, and when the figure in Western countries was way lower than that anyway.

Why, she was asking, with incredible self-control, subtlety and courtesy, did we, as democratic-minded people in free societies with great traditions of tolerance, allow ourselves to be distracted, overwhelmed or misled by caricatures and bias against her, her family, and her co-religionists. Why are we so easily led astray by the shock jocks, and those who seek to divide us, not unite us? By those who prefer simplistic sloganeering to facts. She didn’t even ask us to change our minds, just to hear her out, and pause for a moment, and think.

As we listened to her questions – so gently presented, and yet with such urgent import – I looked around the audience, and I fell to thinking about how our societies had absorbed and benefitted from the flow of immigration from so many areas over the centuries.

I grew up in Britain – a country made up almost entirely of immigrants, starting with the Romans, the Saxons and Vikings, through the Normans and hundreds of other groups and cultures, up to the West Indians, Indians and Pakistanis of the 60s and 70s, and the Eastern Europeans and Africans of today.

America wouldn’t even exist as a nation state were it not for the exhortation “Send me your poor and huddled masses”, and, indeed, because of the vast influx of Africans brought across the Atlantic by the slave trade, and Hispanic migrants from the south.

Australia is the most racially mixed country on the planet – with the possible exception of Israel, but as that is also virtually a uni-religionist state it could be considered in a different category – and also one of the safest and most peaceful, and similarly would not exist in its current form were it not for a proud tradition of accepting and integrating immigrants from all over the world, and from widely varying cultural backgrounds.

As I listened, I pondered how those previous flows of immigration had been received by the host nations. And it struck me that they had often caused a degree of tension – the clashes between the Irish and Italians in New York, the anxieties over immigration in the UK when Enoch Powell predicted “rivers of blood” flowing down the streets, the dismissive attitudes of the mainly British and Irish local stock in Australia when they were confronted by a vast influx of southern Europeans in the 50s and 60s – those “wogs” who “smelled funny” and talked incomprehensibly – or again in the 80s and 90s with concerns over the Asian-isation of this wide brown land. And how those tensions always existed, and exist, and probably always will, but how over time they always invariably seem to disappear, as we learn about the incoming culture, and come to value its distinctive contribution to our suburbs and our streets.

When the Nazis began to wage war against the Jews, they used rhetoric and propaganda at first, then followed by action. On November 8, 1937 a propaganda exhibit entitled Der Ewige Jude (The Wandering Jew) opened which portrayed Jews as communists, swindlers and sex-fiends. Over 150,000 people attended the exhibit in just 3 days. Jews were frequently associated with communists and thieves. The Wandering Jew later became a notorious hate film, and associated the Jews with rats and other vermin.

And then I mused, at some length, about the Jews, and how they had been repeatedly marginalised and persecuted, and alternately embraced and celebrated, and then persecuted again, over hundreds of years. And how one of the major differences between the Jews and other immigrants was that they didn’t just believe different things, they often looked different, too, with their  yarmulkes or kippas, and some of them with funny haircuts and weird black 19th century clothes, too. And how in Europe and Russia that meant they became such an easy target for us to foist our fears on – see any propaganda materials of the time to understand how difference in appearance played a major role in whipping up fear – so that we slaughtered tens of millions of utterly innocent men, women, and children, giving away our own humanity in the process. And I say “We” deliberately, because although it was the Tsarist Cossacks and then the Stalinists and then the Nazis who actually did the deed, it was the rest of Western society – including great chunks of the political establishment, the cultural leadership, and the opinion formers – who stood by and let them do it when a timely intervention could have stopped the madness before it ran entirely out of control.

And two things occurred to me.

No, I still don’t think women should wear the burka, because I remain to be convinced that anyone truly wears it out of choice but rather through fear and cultural imposition, and I think it is demeaning to their personal freedom not to be able to wear whatever they damn well please*, and it is representative of an antiquated and patriarchal view of the family and the world that I simply do not agree with. And I also believe it is active cruelty to expect an Afghan woman to walk along the streets of Melbourne on a thirty eight degree day swathed in black heat-absorbing cloth while her husband wanders along beside her in white shorts and a t-shirt.

And also that the matter has nothing to do with Muslims in general, who in the main are far more like me than they are unlike me, who love their children, and worry about their jobs, and want to live in a decent house, and go to the footy, and contemplate art, and most of all just want to be left alone to get on as best they can, and make a contribution to the country they now live in. And that every time I forget that, I am zipping my mouth shut in a manner that could one day lead to marginalisation, or pogroms, or worse – and will certainly not lead to a rapprochement between my country and the countries Muslim migrants have come from any time soon. And that if there is not a rapprochement, that the tiny number of terrorists who make our life a misery under the cloak of radical Islam will continue to kill themselves and others, as sure as night follows day.

David Kossoff

Driving home that evening, I remembered a short story told by David Kossoff, who was a popular actor and writer-philosopher when I was just a boy, and a Jew who wrote movingly for Christian audiences in his best-seller “The Book of Witnesses”, (first published 1971 and still available, and a heart-warming read for followers of both cultures), who talked on radio one day about the foolishness of one side of society instinctively mistrusting another.

As a child of Russian-Jewish emigrés to London himself, he told with gentle charm the story of a young man who was walking home one night to his hut near the Jewish outskirts of a Russian town, pushing his bicycle, when a mounted sabre-wielding Cossack thundered around the corner of the street with clearly murderous intent, and bore down on a small group of Jews huddled in fear against the wall of a nearby building.

As the Cossack raised his sabre to strike, the young man interposed himself between him and the Jews and called out “What on earth do you think you are you doing?”

Momentarily nonplussed, the Cossack looked down, and cried out “It’s all the fault of the Jews!”

The young man shook his head, and spoke quietly. “No, my friend,” he said, “It is all the fault of the bicycle riders. It is me you should kill if you are angry.”

The Cossack peered at him in confusion, and asked “Why the bicycle riders?”

The young man shyly looked up at him and smiled gently, and murmured “Why the Jews?”

Kossoff doesn’t say if the young man was Jew or Gentile, and I like to think that omission was deliberate. And as I thought back to the faces of those in the audience listening to the quiet urging of a young girl who could not understand why we didn’t trust her and her family, I realised that one thing was stamped on the face of the listeners, almost universally.

It was shame.

And as I pulled into the driveway of my very ordinary suburban house, which just happens, by sheer coincidence, to be right next door to the home of a family of Muslims of Lebanese extraction – who seem just like my family except they drink tea when we would drink wine, and look healthier for it, too -  I gave thanks to God, as I often do, for the innocent, naive honesty and passion of the young, and I made a mental promise to listen to them more intently and more respectfully, as I watch myself slide slowly but inexorably into ossified middle age, and beyond.

*This also means I accept their right to wear it, of course, if it is genuinely their choice and preference.

A feared wave of homegrown terrorism by radicalized Muslim Americans has not materialized, with plots and arrests dropping sharply over the two years since an unusual peak in 2009, according to a new study by a North Carolina research group.

The study, to be released on Wednesday, found that 20 Muslim Americans were charged in violent plots or attacks in 2011, down from 26 in 2010 and a spike of 47 in 2009.

Charles Kurzman, the author of the report for the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, called terrorism by Muslim Americans “a minuscule threat to public safety.” Of about 14,000 murders in the United States last year, not a single one resulted from Islamic extremism, said Mr. Kurzman, a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina.

The report also found that no single ethnic group predominated among Muslims charged in terrorism cases last year — six were of Arab ancestry, five were white, three were African-American and two were Iranian, Mr. Kurzman said. That pattern of ethnic diversity has held for those arrested since Sept. 11, 2001, he said.

Forty percent of those charged in 2011 were converts to Islam, Mr. Kurzman found, slightly higher than the 35 percent of those charged since the 2001 attacks. His new report is based on the continuation of research he conducted for a book he published last year, “The Missing Martyrs: Why There Are So Few Muslim Terrorists.”

The decline in cases since 2009 has come as a relief to law enforcement and counterterrorism officials. In that year, the authorities were surprised by a series of terrorist plots or attacks, including the killing of 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., by an Army psychiatrist who had embraced radical Islam, Maj. Nidal Hasan.

The upsurge in domestic plots two years ago prompted some scholars of violent extremism to question the conventional wisdom that Muslims in the United States, with higher levels of education and income than the average American, were not susceptible to the message of Al Qaeda.

Concerns grew after the May 2010 arrest of Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen, for trying to blow up a sport utility vehicle in Times Square. Mr. Shahzad had worked as a financial analyst and seemed thoroughly assimilated. In a dramatic courtroom speech after pleading guilty, he blamed American military action in Muslim countries for his militancy.

The string of cases fueled wide and often contentious discussion of the danger of radicalization among American Muslims, including Congressional hearings led by Representative Peter T. King, a Long Island Republican and chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

But the number of cases declined, returning to the rough average of about 20 Muslim Americans accused of extremist violence per year that has prevailed since the 2001 attacks, with 193 people in that category over the decade. By Mr. Kurzman’s count, 462 other Muslim Americans have been charged since 2001 for nonviolent crimes in support of terrorism, including financing and making false statements.

The 2011 cases include just one actual series of attacks, which caused no injuries, involving rifle shots fired late at night at military buildings in Northern Virginia. A former Marine Corps reservist, Yonathan Melaku, pleaded guilty in the case last month in an agreement that calls for a 25-year prison sentence.

Other plots unearthed by law enforcement last year and listed in Mr. Kurzman’s report included a suspected Iranian plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, a scheme to attack a Shiite mosque in Michigan and another to blow up synagogues, churches and the Empire State Building.

“Fortunately, very few of these people are competent and very few get to the stage of preparing an attack without coming to the attention of the authorities,” Mr. Kurzman said.

If the radical Muslims aren’t terrorists, what does that say about the non radical Muslims….who even by the most xenophobic accounts are probably the majority of the practitioners of the faith?  America wake up….we’ve been had.