Wrong to Call Out Bigotry?

One of my favorite books is Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. I'm surprised I didn't bring it with me to Texas, but a summary is available online if I ever want a quick review. (http://www.westegg.com/unmaintained/carnegie/win-friends.html)

Because my recent post about political correctness and bigotry got a little popular, I've been giving more thought to the idea. I do think that "political incorrectness" serves as a mask for all kinds of bigotry--racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and more. But I doubt that the purveyors of it think of themselves as bigots. With the exception of some elites who might be deliberately "stirring the pot" I think most people probably believe their grievances are valid. Their irrational hatred, fear, or disdain seems to them to be sensible and obvious, though unpopular.

It is very easy for a person to insulate himself among similar ideas and points of view, perpetuating his belief system. For instance, I can choose to read only articles and blogs that I already agree with, and only discuss these issues with people who share my perspective. But if I do that, then I'm just stunting my own growth in understanding.

Although, this doesn't mean that by conversing with people of opposing opinions I necessarily enhance my understanding--a lot of people can talk and argue without listening or absorbing the arguments of their opponent. The key, I think, is to deliberately keep an open mind.

And that's where the Carnegie book comes in. A few of his points are especially relevant here. When "handling people," we shouldn't criticize. If you're trying to explain, for instance, that calling Islam a cult is stupid, saying that the majority of Muslims sympathize with terrorism is a lie, if you get straight to the point and call your opponent a stupid liar, you've pretty much closed the door to his understanding your point of view.

Another key strategy to "win people to your way of thinking" is to "show respect for the other person's opinions." Yep. Even if they are stupid lies. (Bad Amy!)

Granted, these techniques are for one-on-one interaction. Personal interaction can be extremely powerful, so it's important for Muslims to articulate their beliefs to their neighbors and communities. But in the public sphere, the impersonal world of media and blogs and punditry, perhaps other strategies are more appropriate.

I would be interested in learning the Real reasons that an individual has to oppose building a mosque, for instance, especially if it's not anywhere near him. I wonder if most people would maintain such acerbic criticism if someone sat down with them and listened to their concerns with an open mind, and let them offer solutions to ameliorate those concerns.

The Absence of Political Correctness

Has anyone else noticed that in the last few years, attacks on minorities--which should be rebuked as bigoted and racist--try to claim legitimacy by saying they are only speaking out against "political incorrectness." As if to say that being polite and avoiding racist comments is just political correctness, and somehow obfuscating the truth?

I guess that we have this term--political correctness--to describe language which avoids offense. I guess the sense is that politicians should speak a certain way to avoid offending their voters, but any kind of official language nowadays usually aims to avoid offense. Or does it?

If it is politically correct to avoid offense, then what do we call language which is offensive (bigoted, even racist)? Apparently, the purveyors of such inflammatory rhetoric defend their bigotry by claiming that they merely lack political correctness, or by even attacking political correctness. Doing so suggests that they--by means of aggressive language smearing whatever target group--are actually speaking the truth in the face of a propaganda machine which is trying to hide it.

In other words, they're trying to say that they are not in fact racist (or Islamophobic or anti-Semitic or any other kind of bigot) but they're just speaking the truth.

But I think that is the sinister face of intolerance--it believes in its own validity. And it thinks that it's okay to smear an entire group of people based on the actions of a few--or even based on their own imagined superiority.

So when a politician gets up and says that he is speaking out against political correctness by suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists, he is in fact trying to defend statements that he knows a civilized society ought to reject. When someone writes a book filled with lies about Islam, what should he call it but "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam." (And having read it, I feel comfortable saying that it is filled with lies.) And then the opposition to their Islamophobic propaganda is accused of just being politically correct by speaking out in defense of Muslims.

Now, verbal attacks on Muslims have become commonplace in today's political discourse, but the effect of bigotry disguised as truth has spread. Take, for example, the video posted by UCLA student Alexandra Wallace in which she criticizes the "manners" of her peers (specifically, Asian students in the library.) She starts her rant by saying "So we know that I’m not the most politically correct person so don’t take this offensively." In other words, she admits that she's about to be very offensive but defends herself by saying she's just not politically correct. As if that's a legitimate excuse. And shouldn't it be? After all, that's what so many politicians are doing when they attack Muslims, blacks, or poor people.

And she begins to describe her response by saying "So being the polite, nice American girl that my momma raised me to be..." Really? In a video to be posted on youtube, saying offensive things about "Asians" generally, she considers herself to be polite and nice?

What is it going to take for people to see offensive speech for the offense that it is?

What's Said About Islamophobia

It's been a rough week for American Muslims. With the ICNA Relief fundraiser protest making big news (though it happened a couple weeks ago) and Peter King's congressional hearings, attempting to legitimize prevalent marginalizing stereotypes about Muslims, I've been confused myself about even what to say. The attacks on Muslims seem bizarre and senseless to me, and I haven't even found words to reply.

But not everyone has been rendered speechless. In these days when Shari'ah is being widely misunderstood, the voices below demonstrate wisdom, reason, and calm in response to seemingly frantic anger directed at Muslims, and are worth hearing.

The first, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf on Riz Khan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkzDUJHEw8Q&feature=player_embedded

The second, Shaykh Yasir Qadhi in a Tennessee newspaper, posted at MuslimMatters: http://muslimmatters.org/2011/03/11/yasir-qadhi-a-proud-patriotic-shariah-practicing-american/

National Tragedy vs. Muslim Holiday

With all the controversy about the non-ground zero non-mosque, a lot of misinformation about Islam has been raining on the internet and even some television shows.

Beyond the obvious irrational discussion about Park51, I'm afraid that Americans are being lied to regarding how Muslims feel about the tragedy of 9/11. And it's important this year, because those Americans might see their Muslim neighbors celebrating a holiday on that day--it's Saturday this year--for a completely unrelated reason.

And I want to clear up the confusion.

One disconcerting (yet utterly false) claim I've heard regarding Park51 is that Muslims supposedly like to build mosques on the sacred sites of conquered lands. How is that related to Park51? (Yeah, it's a leap; bear with me.) The enemies of Islam have been portraying the tragic loss of some 3000 lives 9 years ago as a "victory" for Islam. Let's be clear--it was nothing but a brutal tragedy, and has only been condemned by Muslim leaders--including the imam behind the project, by the way. Islam did not attack, but the terrorists (they don't even represent Islam--let's clear the air of that foul and false association) who did attack are hiding in caves--not what I'd call a victory by any definition. Ground Zero hardly resembles a "conquest." And nobody's building a mosque (or anything else I'm aware of) on Ground Zero.

The reason I say it's a false claim in the first place is because I've never even heard of Muslim building mosques on "sacred sites." In fact, there's a story about 'Umar ibn al-Khattab at the conquest of Jerusalem acting in order to preserve a holy site, so that a mosque would not be built on top of it. The reasons Muslims do build mosques, however, is to pray in them. And they build them in locations where Muslims live and work--since it's recommended to pray in them daily. So when there are Muslims in Manhattan, there need also be a mosque, or at least a "prayer space" for them in Manhattan. Nothing sinister about that.

But the fact that this claim is polluting the airways is causing a problem--corroding the barrier of common sense in people's minds which protects them from irrational paranoia. And I'm afraid that one piece of information might tip the balance. What information? The trivial date of an Islamic holiday--Eid al-Fitr.

You see, it's possible that Muslims might find themselves celebrating a festive day in their religion on the same day that Americans (and Muslim Americans too) are mourning the tragedy of 9/11. And I fear that anyone swimming in the sea of misinformation about Islam might find themselves drowning without a proper understanding of the context of this holiday.

Muslims celebrate essentially two major holidays each lunar year of the Islamic calendar. The days are called Eids, and they are Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. The lunar Islamic calendar has 12 lunar months, each 29 or 30 days--depending on the lunar cycle. Here's a bit of math:

There are 12 months, each having an average of 29.5 days (average of 29 and 30), resulting in a yearly total of about 354 days. In a solar year there are 365 days--probably what you learned back in grade school, since the calendar followed by the Western world, which runs from January to December, is based on a solar year, with 365 days. Why the discrepancy? Because they just don't line up.

It's okay, except that the Islamic lunar calendar--with only 354 days--will seem to move forward each year, since it's about 12 days shorter. There's no leap month every once in a while to keep the lunar calendar fixed against the solar one, it just keeps on moving, every year.

This means that Ramadan starts about a week and a half earlier (in the solar calendar) each year than the previous year. Two years ago it started on the 1st of September, last year it started in mid-late August, and this year it started in early-mid August. Next year, God willing, it will start at the very beginning of August or end of July.

But let's get back to the holidays--one of them occurs right at the end of Ramadan. It's called Eid al-Fitr. And this year, Ramadan ends right around September 11th. The Eid will consist of a congregational prayer early in the morning, just like it does every year at the end of Ramadan. Muslims will then celebrate it with family and friends by cooking, visiting, eating, maybe even sharing gifts.

Because the start and end of Ramadan is based on different criteria in different communities, it might not be universally celebrated on one day or another. But the day on which Eid is celebrated has no significance to the solar date, as it moves every year as well. So the holiday itself has nothing to do with the tragedy of September 11th, which I might point out was nowhere near the Eid 9 years ago, the year of the tragedy.

And while the prayer associated with Eid really can't be moved, I think it is wise for Muslim communities to try to schedule Eid-related weekend fairs and carnivals around the tragedy (by having them on Sunday the 12th instead of Saturday the 11th, or Saturday the 18th instead of the 11th.) However, this decision is up to local communities and the resources available to them. I've heard of many communities scheduling events deliberately off of the September 11th date in order to avoid local controversies, and to be more sensitive to Americans who choose that day to mourn that tragedy.

But more importantly, it is critical for us, as Muslims, to explain what the holiday Eid al-Fitr is about, and why its celebration has nothing to do with 9/11, despite the overlap in dates this year. If anyone is mistaken about why Muslims are celebrating, maybe it's our fault for not explaining ourselves in advance--and that's all I'm trying to do.

I'd like for this to be distributed and widely read--any recommendations for edits would be greatly appreciated in the comments section or by email. Thanks!

Muslim Day of Prayer?

How can there be an event called a "Muslim Day of Prayer" when Muslims pray 5 times (minimum!) every single day? Even Friday, the day of Jumu'ah, is a day of congregational prayer. So what does it mean to have a "Muslim Day of Prayer?"

I saw the flyers for the event at my masjid, though I've never heard any Muslims refer to the prayer on capitol hill as a "Day of Prayer," a title I've seen only from non-Muslims. Trying to make it sound... I dunno, evil? What's evil about prayer? Or public prayer?

I don't know how the event went overall, but when I found this article in my Google Reader I was just a little confused about the legitimacy of the criticism.

Conservative Christians need to learn be taught the values that they in fact share with Muslims. Don't they know that Muslims value the same things they value? I don't say this to capitulate to non-Muslims, but just as a simple statement. What's our excuse as Muslims (and on a personal level, my own excuse) for non-Muslims being ignorant about our beliefs?

Analogy Technique

When my dad asks me question that starts with "What do you think about..." I should be on my guard. I would normally interpret such a question to mean that the questioner is seeking to learn my thoughts on a particular matter. But when it comes to my dad, apparently not. Rather, it means, "let me see if you have any good reason for not believing the same thing I do." Or something to that effect.

Since my dad met my fiance (whom he loved,) he's been a little more open to talking about Islam with me. That's great, really, since I kind of botched my best chances to give da'wah to my parents. But yet my dad, as with most of my family, is swimming so deep in propaganda he can't see which way is up. After hearing him describe how my fiance would discuss Islam, I decided to try a change in tactics when the "What do you think about..." questions come up.

And I got that chance yesterday while driving to a nearby town (about an hour away) to visit my brother and sister et al. The question was, "What do you think about people who say Muslims are trying to take over the country?"

Now, what I think is that it's a lot of inane propaganda, vitriol from neocons and zionists, largely unfounded attempts to poison the American psyche against Muslims by perpetuating a state of fear which weakens the public defense of liberty in favor of "security." But I didn't say anything like that.

What I said was that America goes through cycles of having a targeted bias against a particular group of people, and I pointed out that some years ago there was widespread fear of and hatred towards Polish, Irish, and Italian immigrants, and there was even religious tension. Many Americans feared that if Kennedy were to win the White House in the 1960 presidential election, that the Pope would have a say in the running of the American government. People were afraid that Catholics would be taking over the then-mostly Protestant nation.

In retrospect, that fear seems wholly ridiculous, and except in very tight circles, Protestants and Catholics are more or less considered to be equally Christian. Especially, that is, in light of other non-Christian faiths, like Judaism or Islam. And in fact, Jews were for a long time a very unpopular minority in America. Although I didn't mention that.

But by mentioning Kennedy and Catholics, my dad could recall from his own experience how his family was reacting to the idea of a Catholic man running for the highest office. And I think he really started to see my viewpoint, acknowledging the possibility at least that the right-wing media's targeting of Muslims might be in the same vein as similar propaganda campaigns throughout American history. Instead of seeing Muslims as a true and legitimate threat, he explored the notion that Muslims are just the modern-day victims of a smear campaign. I'm not sure he was convinced of that, but at least he seemed open to the idea. While in fact I said very little to illustrate my point, more than making a simple analogy.

My dad then compared my technique to that of my fiance, which I will take as a compliment.

Scary Scarves

What's wrong with hijab? Why is it so terrifying? In schools, courts, we see the hijab being banned, or being mocked. Hatred of it runs so deep among non-Muslims that even Muslims start to have a hard time accepting hijab.

Of course, hard feelings aren't universal. But what I want to know is why the hijab specifically seems to be such a polarizing issue--between different faiths and even between Muslims.

Fit Muslimah Wannabe

Did anyone see this article in the New York Times? Exercise Tailored to a Hijab. It was reprinted in the 'Life' section of the N&O on Thursday, I think. Since I don't subscribe to the N&O, I wasn't aware until someone mentioned it at my monthly Faith Club meeting. Two other members who do subscribe informed me about it (saying that there had been articles "every other day" about Muslims lately.) One even showed me the article, which you can see. It even had the same picture, with the two ladies stretching while wearing hijab.

My mom even brought a copy of the paper home for me to read (she gets copies at work sometimes.) It's an interesting article, I think--I don't see any particular bias for or against Muslims, which was kind of nice to read. Maybe someone else reading had a different impression. As yet, I'm still way behind on my Google Reader (thanks to not reading anything in Ramadan) so I haven't read what anyone else might have commented on regarding the article. Reading it myself I felt like saying "Huh. I could've told you that..." but that's just me.

Mostly the article talked about special considerations that Muslim women who cover (in hijab) have to make in order to exercise. Obesity is not a problem absent, unfortunately, from Muslim communities, but still, exercise isn't emphasized more by Muslims than any other religious group, at least here in the United States.

I have a thought that in general, society (Muslim and otherwise) views religion as dealing with their spiritual life, and fitness to be a part of their non-spiritual life. For Muslims, however, this shouldn't be the case, since we know that Islam encompasses all aspects of life (therefore, why not our health?) and because physical and spiritual aspects are frequently intertwined in a single act. Take ritual purification as an example, where the individual washes himself in such a way to promote good hygiene (physical) but yet as an essential part of a religious obligation (e.g., preparing for prayer.)

Similarly, promoting health and fitness (or failing to do so) can impact a person's spiritual life. There are, for instance, some Muslim brothers and sisters who have tremendous difficulty praying their daily obligation just because of their weight. They might be forced to sit during the qiyyam (especially during taraweeh), or have to sit during ruku' and sujood because they would not be able to lift themselves from the floor. That is an extreme case, but also consider how carrying excess weight can cause a person's bones and joints to fail at a young age, which would also require special accommodations during prayer, or at the very least make it uncomfortable, perhaps even painful to perform prayer.

And if it's painful, that makes it harder to maintain the obligation, and even harder to add in extra salawat. Now of course our deen allows accommodations to people who have medical difficulties (whether related to weight or not,) and it is a beautiful mercy from Allah. But to know that some of these problems can be avoided or at least delayed by just eating right and exercising should be an encouragement for us, from our religion.

So upon deciding to engage in a healthy lifestyle, a brother or sister must still consider religious obligations. For women, a exercise outdoors or even in a public gym open to men and women provides a problem. Exercise is easiest in light, formfitting clothing, which isn't exactly appropriate for a Muslim woman. For men, especially in exercise environments (like parks and gyms,) there might an abundance of women who are dressed in form-fitting clothes that don't cover much at all--and if they do, leave little to the imagination.

I would love to see more women's-only gyms, or gyms with accommodations for women to exercise in private. There is (was) a gym in downtown Raleigh (although the company recently went under) that had a women's-only room. I would have preferred to exercise there but it was too far from my home for it to be logistically feasible. The article in the paper mentioned a women's-only gym which it said had more Orthodox Jewish women. I think that's important because women wanting to exercise in privacy is not something unique to Islam. Women of many faiths value modesty.

I have at times seen other women in hijab at the gym. Frankly, it's not the easiest thing to do. For covering the arms and legs, it means pants and a long-sleeve shirt or a jacket. Honestly, it is cumbersome to do this. After an hour of a hard workout knit fabrics can be soaked through (for heavy sweaters,) and can feel heavy or cumbersome when doing exercises. Wearing a hijab is similarly troublesome. It's just extra fabric where sweat accumulates and prevents some heat from escaping the body. It's not comfortable, and for my own part I would prefer not to wear one, even though I do the best I can with a cotton slip-on, which is probably the best option to go with for working out. I've seen other sisters wearing extremely loose t-shirts (which can work if you're very small and can buy several sizes above what "fits"), and also wearing a sort of exercise dress. For that, the sister had a dress which was long sleeved and extended past her knees, made out of a light fabric, which she wore with some variety of track pants underneath, with a slip-on hijab. It was less form-fitting than other options. While I don't mind wearing hijab on a normal day, even outside on a warm day, wearing it while exercising is annoying, but for me it seems one of the only real options available to me right now. So I hope, truly, that a gym for women lurks somewhere in my near future--it would beat exercising in sweats, for sure.

The N&O's Grudge Against the IAR?

I got wind of this article today, and really it dwarfs my other recent complaints against the N&O. And this time it's written by the paper's Executive Editor, John Drescher. After watching him on WRAL's Headline Saturday, I've got to say I'm really hoping that he takes the N&O down.

Now, setting my personal biases aside, let's look at his complaints about the IAR. He tries, as did a previous article I blogged about before, to illustrate some "shocking" change of position on the part of the IAR administration. Basically, he thinks that before the arrests of 7 local Muslims accused of terrorism, the mosque used to be "open," and that now (afterwards,) the mosque is "closed." To the media, that is.

He's upset about restrictions on journalists that the IAR supposedly is enforcing. Now, I never heard about these restrictions until this article, so I can't really say if they're true or not, but let's just go with the flow. One such restriction is that journalists aren't allowed to interview anyone except a mosque spokesperson on the facility premises. And I think that's a pretty good idea, personally. Let me explain.

I've read plenty of articles thus far about the men who were arrested, and people (journalists, bloggers, etc.) love to say that they've talked to someone "on the inside." They talked to some random guy at the mosque, and since people don't seem to know better, they assume that person is talking for the entire community. And I've heard some pretty stupid nonsense from some random "unidentified sources." In fact, I've heard some pretty stupid nonsense from people I know who I've seen being interviewed on the news.

Some kid off the street who wants to feel important, get his name in the papers or whatever, can give an interview and then is hailed as being an "insider" who knows the "truth" about what's going on with the men who were arrested. Frankly, it's kind of shameful, the way the media has raised up some obscure and ridiculous interviewees as representative of the entire Muslim community.

The IAR is not part of the indictment. It is a place of worship, a place of learning--in addition to holding worship services five times daily, it also houses three schools, two of which are full-time. I don't think that the media should be able to just enter at will and start photographing people (I know other sisters who might have a serious issue with this!) and interviewing people. People go to the mosque to worship, and to learn about Islam. Why should they have to worry about dodging reporters? And now that it is Ramadan, the mosque fills with people every single night (to such an extent that if you're not on time, you might not find parking anywhere nearby.) I think that's just another reason that the media shouldn't be lurking around the premises.

But more importantly, why does the media want to interview people at the mosque in the first place? The only reason I can think of is that they wish to continue pushing this story about Muslims, and want to catch bystanders willing to profess uninformed judgments about the men who were accused.

So I would like to remind the N&O that the IAR had an Open House just a few weeks ago, an event attended by several local media outlets in addition to elected officials and representatives. And the N&O did not attend. So sure, Mr. Drescher can boast about his "full-time faith reporter." But what good is that if an activity exactly demonstrative of the openness he's looking for is blatantly ignored by his staff? As I understand it, the "full-time faith reporter" was on vacation. So nobody came. Not even someone at a lower level, to at least take pictures.

If the N&O wants accessibility to the IAR, then why didn't he send someone to the Open House? The article is incredibly frustrating, and really doesn't do much to impress on me a favorable opinion of the editor. Moreover, the mosque is not a place to be asking questions about politics or ongoing criminal investigations. Its a place to worship and learn about Islam. What will it take for Mr. Drescher to respect that?

Jihad on Trial

While there has been a lot of evidence and argument about jihad and violent jihad, this case is about a conspiracy of terrorism. --US Magistrate, William Webb (link)

I agree, the case should be about a conspiracy of terrorism--that's what the charges in the indictment amount to. But for some reason, the case is actually about jihad--which is what the charges in the indictment actually say.

Why did the magistrate say that there is evidence and argument about jihad and violent jihad? Basically because the indictment and the media (don't get me started) are using these words as technical terms. That is, as if we're supposed to actually know what they mean. One local paper even reverted to calling jihad "holy war." ("A family respected in the community was arrested and charged with fomenting violence and holy war.")

Haven't they got it into their heads yet that jihad does not mean holy war? They are starting to now, apparently, as I noticed that they clarify:

And like Ali Hassan, the father of defendant Mohammad Omar Aly Hassan, they longed to explain their meaning of "jihad." It is a term that has come to signify holy war, but it has many other meanings. For Muslims it literally means "struggle" and can also refer to an internal desire to improve oneself.

Jihad does not, has not, and will not ever mean "holy war." It means something else, instead, and not in addition to. It does mean struggle--that's from its literal root. Thus it literally does mean struggle.

However, that's not to mean that it's only internal and self-oriented. It can be physical, and it can be violent. So the phrase "violent jihad" is not meaningless. A while back I wrote a post on jihad, in which I described four different categories of jihad, the fourth of which was the only one using force. And that was further divided into offensive and defensive. Nobody would argue with defensive jihad (somebody attacks you, invades you etc., you can fight back) but the offensive jihad with force was an interesting case. I wrote then:

Some time after the Muslims were allowed to fight defensively to protect themselves against aggression, Allah (SWT) eventually allowed them to fight offensively. Why? To end oppression, to allow the spread of da'wah (note: to allow it, not to force islam on anyone), to prevent the torture of Muslims, and to end the oppression of people who are interested in learning about Islam but are forcefully prevented from doing so. This kind of jihad must be declared by a Muslim khalifa, and is an act carried out by an Islamic state, and not a "rag-tag" group of dissatisfied youths. And as it happens, though there are 56 Muslim countries, there is not an Islamic state with a khalifa.

So if someone could perhaps figure out who the khalifah is, where the Islamic state is, then maybe the allegations of plotting "violent jihad" would actually make sense. But since I'm pretty sure that nobody can, we should simply refer to the alleged conspiratorial plot as what it actually is: terrorism.

Conspiracy of terrorism. Just that simple. Thank you, Mr. Magistrate.

More News About Arrests and Open House

Check out today's N&O: Muslims torn between shock, compassion: arrest could undo goodwill efforts.

I for one am tired of reading headlines describing Muslims as "shocked." Thankfully the article doesn't go on to just talk about Muslims being "shocked," but unfortunately veers towards blaming Muslims for not getting a "good" (i.e., sensational) story.

For starters, it actually mentions the Open House! Yay! For a whole paragraph sentence. Sigh.

On Saturday, the Islamic Association of Raleigh threw open its doors for a "Meet Your Muslim Neighbor" event that drew 600 people, including two congressmen, one cabinet secretary and several mayors.

600 people? 600 was my "lowball" estimate. But anyway--the event is mentioned at least. I thought that was good, but then I read on.

On Monday, the association faced its biggest nightmare: Seven men, all of whom at one point worshiped at the association's mosque, were arrested and charged with plotting to carry out terrorist attacks abroad.

That is the association's biggest nightmare? Really? I'm pretty sure some bigot deciding to actually bomb the mosque due to all this scare-mongering is a much bigger nightmare. But apparently the N&O thinks the Muslim community's biggest nightmare is "bad PR." I'd say the N&O is a little bit out of touch. Read on.

For years, the Raleigh Muslim community had worked to improve relations with the wider Triangle population and ease tensions caused by the terrorist bombings of Sept. 11, 2001. Now it faces its biggest public relations challenge and a potential setback to all its efforts. A family respected in the community was arrested and charged with fomenting violence and holy war.

Had worked? They are still working to improve relations with their neighbors. Go ahead and ask me why? Oh, because of the teachings of Islam! That is, because of instructions to do so in the Qur'an and in the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad! (ﷺ-peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)

Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful. (Qur'an 4:36)

Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a believer.'' It was asked, "Who is that, O Messenger of Allah?'' He said, "One whose neighbour does not feel safe from his evil". [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]. (Rights of Neighbors in Riyadh us-Saliheen)

Muslims being good in their communities is not a PR stunt, it's actually just following Islam. So in reality, who cares about the "bad PR?" There is no setback for work done for the sake of Allah.

The other silly part about the above quoted paragraph is saying the arrested men were accused of "fomenting violence and holy war." Please read the indictment, and see for yourself exactly what the men are accused of doing. I'm pretty sure the words "holy war" do not appear in the indictment, and it should be widely understood by now that jihad does not mean holy war--so why did the N&O stoop to such a ridiculous level to claim that it is? The fact that the indictment mentions "violent jihad" throughout is bad enough, isn't it? I think I might write another post on the usage of that phrase alone--violent jihad, it's technical usage in this case, and its meaning in Islam, for those who are unaware of how wide the disparity is.

Daniel Boyd, a U.S. native and a Johnston County resident, is accused of recruiting young men to join the cause of violent jihad. The 39-year-old father of five was a regular at Friday prayers where worshipers form neat lines for a series of prostrations.

Again we see the indictment terminology "violent jihad," but apparently Friday prayers with "neat lines for a series of prostrations." It almost looks like someone is trying to insert an informational tidbit about Islam here--Friday prayers involve "neat lines" and a "series of prostrations." I guess it's nice to mention something about what Friday prayers are, but the gross oversimplification isn't really helpful. The section goes on to call a Friday sermon a "hutba" (correct term is "khutbah") and describe Muslims as "shocked" among other things.

The second section starts telling us more about the indictment:

The federal indictment against Boyd states that he quit attending the mosque over "ideological differences." He found the theological attitudes at the Raleigh mosque too compromising for his radical brand of Islam, according to a federal indictment.

If we hadn't ever read anything about this story before now, this might be a useful paragraph. It's true--the indictment mentions ideological differences when it says that Boyd stopped attending the Raleigh mosque. Other reports have described the Raleigh mosque as being "too moderate" for him, but I find it interesting that the N&O decides to describe the Raleigh mosque's "theological attitudes" as "too compromising." It suggests that the Raleigh mosque is making compromises in its interpretation of Islam--rather a bold thing for the paper to say, since it was apparently too busy to be bothered to send anyone to the mosque's Open House.

I really want to know how the indictment can make claims like Boyd stopped attending because of ideological differences. It must be from the (FISA) surveillance.

Now what really got me going on this article form the N&O is the following:

In response to the arrests, mosque leaders reverted to old habits. They decided not to allow its two imams, or prayer leaders, to be interviewed by reporters, and returned to issuing tersely worded statements.

"The Islamic Association of Raleigh takes no official position on any pending criminal matters," read the statement on its Web site.

What old habits? Basically the article here is saying that the mosque is no longer the friendly "Meet Your Muslim Neighbor" center that it was at the Open House (which they could not be bothered to attend) but now it's a secretive vault refusing to indulge the media in their frenzy for juicy gossip. I mean, a secretive vault denying the public important information. Whatever.

I support the IAR in their decision to issue such a public statement, and I think it's entirely appropriate. Interviewing the imams, however, would not do the N&O any benefit (except maybe sell a paper or two by claiming that they got to hear what "Boyd's imam" said.) And is that position really a proper place for our scholars and spiritual leaders?

I wonder, if a Christian person, or a Jewish person, or a person of some other religion committed a crime--like conspiracy to harm people in another country, e.g.,--would it be appropriate to visit that person's place of worship, and interview the administration and leadership? Would a person's priest or pastor, or rabbi be expected to provide interviews to the media? I don't think so. And if that priest, pastor, or rabbi refused, would the place of worship (church or synagogue) be attacked in the media?

The imams and the mosque administration, have no part in the accusations or the court proceedings. They don't have any more knowledge about the case than what the public already has available--the indictment, press releases, etc. So why should they have to take sides, submit to an interview, or open themselves to public view for something not related to them.

Muslims, just like anyone else, want to see justice carried out, and with due process. Or maybe not everyone wants due process, which is why the media is so quick to label these men as terrorists and worse (I even saw one headline calling them an "Islamist sleeper cell!"), before even a trial date has been set. This reminds me of how some boys at Duke were labeled rapists a few years ago by the media, only to have the charges dropped later on (because they were completely false, based on DNA evidence.) They had their names dragged through the mud for a year (March 06-April 07), their pictures in the paper and on the news--and they were completely innocent!

Right now, the public and the media do not know whether these men accused of plotting terrorism are guilty or not--and we definitely shouldn't rush to hasty judgments, either.

Over the past few years, mosque leaders made deliberate efforts to establish good relations with law enforcement officials. At its open house, an FBI agent from Raleigh as well as Charlotte attended.

I've had the opportunity to participate in some mosque events with local law enforcement officials, and I have no complaints against them. They have visited the mosque on several occasions, and I even once had the opportunity to present to some officers at NCSU. As I see it, the mosque is doing its part to be a responsible part of the community.

Retired federal agent Steve Miller said he developed such good working ties with local imams, he invited two to participate in a U.S. Army Worldwide Antiterrorism Conference in Orlando in January.

"They were able to give an overview of what it's like to be an American Muslim, and it was very well-received," said Miller, who served as the lead liaison for the Muslim community for the Raleigh Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Isn't it nice to know that actual imams were invited to an Antiterrorism Conference? (And that these are extremely knowledgeable imams, not just random folks from a mosque somewhere.) I got to look at some of the material presented at that conference, which discussed (from the Islamic perspective) the importance of an entire community contributing to its safety and security. But with the article praising the mosque's relations with law enforcement, why is it criticizing the mosque now?

Still, whatever warm feelings the mosque was able to establish, many Muslims across the Triangle harbor deep disagreements with U.S. foreign policy, especially toward Israel and the Middle East. And that means internal discussion about international issues often becomes heated and occasionally harsh.

Not really a good answer, is it? In fact, it's a total distraction. The mosque established "warm feelings" with whom? And Muslims disagree with US foreign policy? Two totally unrelated concepts--law enforcement isn't really responsible for foreign policy, is it? We're talking about police officers, not the State Department, right? Apparently not--because now international issues are the focus. Doesn't it sound like the article is trying to make Muslims seem hateful of America? Many Muslims in the Triangle have relatives who are suffering overseas because of the decisions of American policymakers in regards to support for Israel and the "War on Terror." They might have family living in a refugee camp, family killed in an airstrike, etc. And it's quite patriotic to air one's dissenting views about government policy, isn't it? But still MAPAC rep Waleed Elhentaty had to defend such views:

"This doesn't mean we hate America," said Waleed Elhentaty, vice president of the nonprofit Muslim American Public Affairs Council. "We are using legal means to talk to politicians and educate them on the issues."

The rest of the article talks about Muslim suspicions about law enforcement tricking a few average Muslims into getting caught up in grand scary terrorism schemes, to put them behind bars. And honestly, I think those suspicions are perfectly valid, with "informants" who seem to provide the know-how, the contacts, the finances, and critically all the brains behind such operations. On the other hand, I know that I would like to see behind bars anyone who thinks that blowing up someone's place of worship is the will of God. Just as much as I hate to see innocent people arrested, detained, and sometimes even tortured, just to make the government look tough--and sometimes, I'm pretty sure that's what's going on.

Open House vs. "Bad PR"

I was waiting to see some kind of coverage in the local newspaper, the News and Observer, (N&O) about last weekend's Open House at the Islamic Center of Raleigh. But I guess the only thing related to Islam that the N&O can be bothered to write about is the arrests of some local Muslims accused of "plotting violent jihad." (As if "violent jihad" is a technical term, right?)

Many of the "articles" (which so far seem to amount more to fear-mongering propaganda than actual reporting) I've read about the recent arrests talk about the "bad PR." It's one of the more irritating claims about the incident, as if all Muslims are concerned about is their public image. What's neglected almost universally is that Raleigh Muslims preempted this "bad PR," with their Open House, which took place a few days before the arrest (and which took months of planning.)

I'm confident that any one of the over 600 attendees at the Open House would consider that visit to be far more weighty in their understanding of Islam than news reports about a few people who they've never met. In fact, the more the media tries to malign Islam (by trying to associate it with criminal behavior), the more people will investigate Islam. And some people will even become Muslim based on their investigation--after learning about Islam on their own, despite the repeated attempts of hate-mongering ideologues to paint Islam as a religion of terror.

But what is the excuse of the N&O for ignoring stories about Muslims which try to clear the fog, like the Open House? If you want to complain, please send a tasteful letter to the editor.

And let it be said of the Muslims in Raleigh that they didn't wait for "bad PR" to try to teach their neighbors Islam.

A Blog Supporting Local Suspects

I was sent a link today to the blog called Support Boyd, a blogspot hosted page just getting started. I don't know who the author is, but clearly his (or her) opinion is in favor of the innocence of the men who were arrested. That is in contrast to the media's rather blatant opinion favoring his guilt, and frankly it's quite refreshing. You'll find some information there that's not in the news, and clearly a different perspective than the news. If Allah wills, it may become good resource on the case.

More News on Local Arrests

Since I was trying to get news on the IAR Open House (which was last Saturday), I had set some Google Alerts, because of which I heard very early about the arrests of 7 local Muslims who were indicted on some vague charges on suspicion of terrorist plotting.

And my inbox has just been overflowing with that kind of news. I wanted initially to start posting that news, so I've been reading it myself, and then I got lazy about posting it, and now I'm really just sick of reading it.

The media seems to be trying very hard to get "Muslim perspectives" on the incident so it can talk about how "shocked" we all are. The main suspect, Daniel Boyd, has really been flayed the most by the media overall, and I've seen some members of the community making statements.

However, the local mosque offered an official statement indicating that they cannot comment on an ongoing criminal investigation. And I think that was a wise move on their part, and the more "news" I see on the issue just shows the suspects being quite literally tried by the media and most often being found guilty. It's just so sensational to get to talk about "terrorists" who were "home-grown" and plotting "violent jihad," even though these charges have not been substantiated.

So I'm going to remove my post with the news listings on it, along with my commentary, less anyone misconstrue my remarks in the future.

I might post particular relevant updates later on, but for now I think it's better for me to just stay out of it. I have heard that the court date for the suspects has been set to Tuesday morning (8/04) at 9:30am at the Federal Courthouse in downtown Raleigh, if anyone would like to attend. It's recommended to arrive early (around 8am), and remember that cell phones aren't allowed in so just leave it in the car. Personally I'd love to go but unfortunately I'll be sitting a final exam for my summer class from 9-11am.

Absurdities Abound Regarding Terrorism

I came across this article today, and as I began to read it became astonishingly confused. At first I was taking it seriously, not sure what it was exactly but giving it the benefit of the doubt, but then I went and read the letter it cited up front, and realized that this "Investigative Project on Terrorism" is just a Muslim-bashing front.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism (www.investigativeproject.org) has obtained a letter (http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/282.pdf) sent by seven House Democrats to Attorney General Eric Holder invoking a list of complaints from radical Islamist groups and asking that Holder meet with representatives from those militant groups, most of which have defended violent jihad.

Please read the letter, and look at the complaints. I think they're perfectly reasonable. It looks like Muslims consulted their elected officials and explained some concerns they had about the way the Dept. of Justice has been operating. The letter asks the Attorney General to meet with leaders of some organizations mentioned to help allay the fears of Muslims.

But if you read the paragraph above, you might think the Congressmen were asking the AG to meet with Al-Qa'ida! First it refers to the organizations as being "radical Islamist groups" and then it calls them "militant!" Do you know what it's talking about? CAIR, ICNA, ISNA, MANA, MAS-FF, AMA, MPAC, MSA, and MUNA! These organizations aren't radical, "Islamist," or militant.

The article goes on in attempts to paint these organizations as evil terror-mongering types, trying to show ties to overseas groups associated with terrorism. Muslims were just asking for justice, as America is supposed to be a nation of justice, and they're accused of terrorism. Now that is scary.

Ironically, the letter was received by Mr. Holder's office on the very same day that 8 radical Islamists from Raleigh, North Carolina were indicted on terrorism charges in a plot to carry out "violent jihad" and Islamic martyrdom (suicide) operations.

This point I thought was totally irrelevant, since the public is not aware of any evidence in this case, the men were just indicted on Monday, and the case isn't even mentioned in the letter. Clearly the writing of the letter took place before any news broke about the indictments. So there's no irony at all.

The last line of this quote also makes me wonder, does the author (of that article) really think that a Muslim has to commit suicide to be a martyr? When did that happen? A person committing suicide basically nullifies his martyrdom.

Hijab Oddities

Gaza female lawyers ordered to wear religious headscarves in court

I found this article kind of interesting. I imagine many people will think that it interferes somehow with rights of women. But I think many of those same people will still find it acceptable for Muslim women to be denied the right to wear "religious headscarves" in court, as judges, lawyers, or even witnesses. I can't prove that of course, or provide evidence for my assertion here, it's just something that seems to be the case. And I wonder why one would be okay and the other not?

Forcing a woman to wear a "religious headscarf" (as a opposed to a non-religious headscarf? whatever that means) violates her rights, but preventing her from wearing one does not? Do women have a right to uncover, but not a right to cover?

I just wonder, you know?

Religious Clothes in Oregon Schools

I'm really surprised that it took me so long to hear about this. And even now, all I can find is how Sikhs are protesting this law, but now how Muslims are--except that I am hearing about it through Muslims which means Muslims are doing something. Someone forwarded me the CAIR note about this, plus I also saw it today over at Muslimah Media watch on their Friday News Links today.

But anyway, what's past is past. Let me explain what's going on (for those of you just hearing.) The Oregon senate has passed a bill which prohibits teachers in public schools from wearing religious clothing. That can mean a Sikh's turban (which is why they are upset, naturally), but could also mean a hijab, and probably many other things. Here's the text of the bill (see Section 4):

No teacher in any public school shall wear any religious dress while engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher. A school district, education service district or public charter school does not commit an unlawful employment practice under ORS chapter 659A by reason of prohibiting a teacher from wearing religious dress while engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher.

Now, before we go up in arms, make sure you read the rest of it. The bill actually includes several provisions for religious observation, including attire, and taking time off for holidays, even time for daily prayers. So the bill is supposed to protect religious freedoms of employees. That's good. But why not teachers? That's the problem with the bill, that the religious freedoms of public school teachers are being denied here, and specifically the freedom of dress.

In a way, this is even keeping certain people out of a particular job, based on their religion. Muslims, Sikhs, even some Jews, would not be able to take jobs as public school teachers in Oregon at all because of this, which opens up another problem.

The bill now needs to be signed or vetoed by Oregon's governor. If you want to send him a letter voicing your concern over the bill, (especially if you actually live in Oregon, or nearby), you can send one via CAIR.

French Burqas

What is it with the French and not wanting to wear clothes? (Burqa ban.)

Our German Shaheedah

Three months pregnant. Killed in front of 3-yr old child and husband. Brutally stabbed to death--18 times. Attacker called her "islamist," "terrorist," and another insult related to the headscarf. She had been harassed by the attacker, who even tried to forcibly remove her hijab.

Link 1. Link 2. Link 3.

I don't really know what to blog on the subject. I can't help but cry when I read the articles, when I hear about the suffering of Muslims overseas, the hatred and the xenophobia they have to live with. It seems so much worse than what we deal with here in the States.

I'll repeat the du'a of a sister living in Germany: may Allah give her and her unborn child the place of a martyr in paradise and most of all may He protect her little son.

How to be a Fox News Anchor

Lately I've been going to a gym a few times a week, and they've got about 8 different TVs on two levels. At least two TV stations are always tuned to FOX, so if I look in the right direction I can see what's on, though I hardly ever listen or even pay much attention.

What has been catching my notice, however, are the news anchors, and some surprising similarities between them. Now, other networks are almost as bad as FOX, but it seems that FOX is definitely the worst in this regard. You see, what you find on "news" channels is no longer equivalent to "current events." What you find is entertainment spun around current events, rather than the facts of the matter or serious reporting about those facts. In short, it's flashy pictures which manipulate your mind. I guess one key objective when creating the brainwashing media is getting you to "tune in." If you're flipping channels, what is it that will grab your attention and make you watch one particular channel instead of something else?

I have a thought.

That's how I came up with this post.

How to be a Fox News Anchor:

(1) Be a male. This is for the regular viewers--the male anchor is someone who men can relate to, and who they can trust. So that the viewers believe the garbled nonsense that comes out of his mouth.

OR, if you want to be a Fox News Anchor, and you aren't a male, hope is not lost. If you are non-male, then if you fit the following criteria, you might still have a chance!

(2) Be white.
(3) Have long hair.
(4) Preferably long blonde hair.
(5) Have a dazzlingly white smile.
(6) Be thin.
(7) Be no older than 35.
(8) Modeling background is a plus.

In short, look like a bimbo. In writing this post I realized I'm not the first to notice the FOX preference for female anchors who fit this standard of attractiveness--what people tend to find as attractive. And I guess it's working for FOX, when a google search on 'female fox news reporters' is not only a common search, but yields such hits as Ten Hottest Female Fox News Anchors, which pretty much proves my point, I think. At the very least, it shows that Fox News is selecting anchors that people do find attractive. So I think it's a tool to get people to watch. Or, not people necessarily, but boys.

And I'll say again, it's not like other TV channels are much better in this regard.