The Onion battles anti-mosque prejudice

In an article entitled "Man Already Knows Everything He Needs To Know About Muslims", The Onion pokes fun at most of the arguments being bandied about by the mosque rejection movement.

According to the latest "local man", "All Muslims are at war with America, and I will resist any attempt to challenge that assertion with potentially illuminating facts."

Manufactured hatred

What I first took to be a storm in a tea cup ended up turning into anything but. Even more than the tragedy of September 11, the current mosque controversy will, I think, define for a generation what it means to be an American Muslim. While I'm not an American myself, my wife is American and Muslim, and so, like millions of others, I have a stake in this issue.

What shocks me more than anything about the mosque debate is that being a Muslim in the US is not as "normal" as I once took it to be. After all, I lived in the US for about five years, both in the Midwest and on the East Coast, both before and after September 11. My faith was pretty much never an issue in any of my dealings with non-Muslim Americans. The sense I got from my stay there was that, unlike the current climate in Western Europe, where being a Muslim automatically places you in the "dodgy" category for a large chunk of the population, in the United States you are judged more by your individual actions than any group identity (barring race, but that's not really the subject here). Well, that was then. Reading about the vitriol that surrounds the Park51 project has made me think again.

A Time poll shows a rather disheartening picture of Americans' attitudes about their Muslim compatriots. Only 55% of the people surveyed believe that most American Muslims are patriotic. Yes, that is a majority, but quite a slim one. Again, 55% would agree to a mosque being built in their neighbourhood. That means that we should be prepared for a slew of anti-mosque protests around the US from the 45% who disagree -- the kind of protests we've already been seeing in California, Tennessee and Wisconsin. It gets worse, though: around 30% of Americans think that Muslims should be prevented from occupying the post of president or Supreme Court judge. Only 44% say that they have a favourable attitude towards Muslims. What do you make of numbers like that? I'm not alone in making comparisons between the current American wave of Islamophobia and older, more ingrained European Islamophobia.

Politicians from both major US parties have been falling over each other in making outrageously Islamophobic remarks, the most infamous, of course, being Newt Gingrich's comparison of Muslims to Nazis. If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is currently touring the Middle East on behalf of the State Department, is a "radical Islamist", as Gingrich claims, then which Muslim is not?

Some media players have not been much better. In particular, News Corporation, which owns the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal and Fox News (among many other media outlets) unleashed the whole furore in the first place. The New York Times, which has launched a concerted and refreshingly sane attack on the mosque rejection movement, still featured a column that accused American Muslims of supporting "illiberal causes", and an article by the editor of National Review Online, who claimed that Park51 was "a Hamas-endorsed Islamic center". This is one example of the kind of demagoguery that has surrounded the issue. Yes, Hamas has "endorsed" the mosque, while "endorsing" churches and synagogues in the same breath. So are the Sarah Palins of this world going to "refudiate" churches next?

The pleasantly surprising part in all this has been that, as Maureen Dowd has pointed out, some of the most spirited defence for Park51 has come from Republicans, namely Michael Bloomberg and Chris Christie. Now Ron Paul has joined this group, issuing one of the most lucid statements that has yet been made in favour of building Park51. It is a sad thought, though, that Ron Paul, of all people, offers more hope on the issue than Barack Obama does.

So there's some hope here that even right-wing Americans will come to their senses. Newsweek suggests that the issue will go away after the primaries. Perhaps it will. But it certainly leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth, one which may linger for years to come. Perhaps one day Muslims will be praised for revitalising Park Place by building Park51 (some are doing so already). But rebuilding a secure place for Muslims in American society will most likely take far longer.

Two trials, same disease

So it turns out that Alexander Wiens, the Islamophobe who has recently been found guilty of the murder of Marwa al-Sherbini, is appealing his life sentence at the Federal Court of Justice. Let's hope this court has enough strength of character to reaffirm the sentence.

Meanwhile, the trial of Radovan Karadžić has been postponed until 1 March. Karadžić, of course, has been charged with the murder of 7,000 Muslims in Srebrenica and 10,000 people, most of them Muslims, in Sarajevo, among other crimes. So far, he has been able to obstruct his trial by boycotting it and continually asking for more time to study the charges against him. It seems, though, that, once the trial is well and truly under way, Karadžić should receive a life sentence if even one of the more serious charges against him is proven. Anything less would be a travesty of justice.

The difference between Karadžić and Wiens is simply one of degree. Unquestionably, there is a significant minority of Europeans that believes that there is no place for Muslims in Europe. While most such right-wing extremists spread their views non-violently (see picture), there are those, like Karadžić and Wiens, who evidently believe that European Muslims should be physically exterminated. It is thus reassuring that Wiens received his life sentence, and also reassuring that Karadžić is behind bars, despite the lack of progress in his trial.

The European and international justice system have so far been able to demonstrate that the brazen murder of innocents in Europe will not be tolerated. Thank God for that. However, an almost equally serious problem, in my view, is the seemingly growing political clout of openly Islamophobic movements that, while stopping short of calling for violence against Muslims, do their best to depict European Muslims as enemy aliens.

Among such groups I would count the British National Party (BNP). Last May, on a visit to England, I saw a BNP flyer which said, which no apparent shame, that Turkey should be prevented from entering the EU so that "70 million Muslim Turks" would not be able to flock to British shores. I would have thought that such open attacks on a particular group based solely on their religion would be illegal. But apparently not. Take a look at this poster, which makes it clear that opposition to Muslims (not Muslim extremists or whatever, mind, but all Muslims) is a central plank of the BNP's platform. Or look at this poster. Or this one.

Then, of course, there's the Swiss People's Party and its anti-minaret referendum, or Geert Wilders and his call for the Qur'an to be banned in the Netherlands, and for new Muslim immigrants to be kept out of the country. Lighter shades of Islamophobia are evident in Nicolas Sarkozy's campaign to legislate the clothing of Muslim women in France.

While anti-Semitism is, thankfully, on the decline in Europe, it seems that Islamophobia has very quickly taken its place. As Nick Griffin has admitted, this replacement of anti-Semitism with Islamophobia is, often, intentional. It's simply what sells these days.

-----

Now playing: "Concerto for Two Violins and Strings in D Minor: Largo ma non tanto" by Johann Sebastian Bach.

Tariq Ramadan on the Swiss minaret referendum

On 29 November, the Swiss are scheduled to vote on whether to ban minarets in the country. The referendum was called on the initiative of the Swiss People's Party, described by Swissinfo.ch as a "small ultra-conservative Christian party". The referendum campaign has included some quite shockingly Islamophobic posters, usually depicting minarets as missiles. Meanwhile, the Swiss Foundation against Racism and Anti-Semitism and the Society for Minorities in Switzerland have spoken out against the minaret-ban initiative, as have the Swiss government and seven political parties.

This is one of those instances where I, as a European Muslim, think to myself, "Thank God my family and I live in North America." I can't imagine living in a society where an architectural component of a mosque is compared to a weapon. Yet the 311,000 Muslims in Switzerland (of whom 36,000 are Swiss citizens) have to contend with these and other issues on an ongoing basis.

In an interview given to Arnaud Bédat of the Lausanne L'Illustré, the Swiss Islamic scholar and activist Tariq Ramadan blamed "racism" for the initiative.

Here are some excerpts from the interview (in my translation):

AB: What would you like to say to the Swiss who are being called to the ballot boxes on 29 November to voice their opinion on the anti-minaret initiative?

TR: I would like to tell them that they should not vote with their fears, but with their principles and their hopes, and that it is necessary to preserve the fundamental principles which comprise the Swiss tradition: freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. The UDC [the Democratic Union of the Centre, another name for the Swiss People's Party] is today instrumentalising fear, such as with the posters which transform minarets into missiles. These are old and well known methods, with a racism that is returning today with new targets.

AB: But do you understand these fears?

TR: Certainly. One must respect the fear of ordinary citizens, while one also must resist in civic fashion populist parties which are instrumentalising fear in order to win elections. The majority of our fellow Swiss citizens are not racists: they are afraid and they would like to understand. Swiss people of the Muslim faith have a real responsibility to communicate and explain.... At the same time, one must refuse to allow populism to install itself. The problem is that the UDC initiative is using the symbol of the minaret to target Islam as a religion. I have had debates with Mr. Freysinger. What does he say? That "Islam is not integratable into Swiss society." So he says to me, to me, and I am Swiss like him, that "You are not a good Swiss person, you cannot be one, since your quality of being a Muslim prevents you from being a good Swiss person." That is the foundation of the debate: the problem is Islam, not minarets.

AB: But the minaret, you write so yourself, is not a pillar of Muslim faith.

TR: Yes, but is that a reason to say "Since it is not an obligation, you don't need it"?... Does it have to be that the only good Swiss Muslim is an invisible Muslim? Is this the future of our pluralism and of our living together?

AB: Numerous Islamic countries forbid other religions on their territory -- there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia, for example. Is it not ultimately logical that part of the West reject Islam on its territory?

TR: This is the oft-repeated argument of reciprocity. It is untenable. Respect for the rights and dignity of people is not a question of trade. It falls to us, to us in Switzerland, to preserve our principles of respect, and to not allow ourselves to be colonised by the unacceptable practices of other societies. Let us say first of all that it is wrong to say that religious minorities are always discriminated against in Muslim-majority societies. There are synagogues, churches and temples [there]. However, one should not deny the fact that discrimination and the denial of rights do occur, as in Saudi Arabia. One cannot hold Swiss citizens and residents of Muslim faith responsible for the actions of certain dictatorial governments from which they have often, by the way, fled for political or economic reasons. What one can expect from them [Swiss Muslims], nevertheless, from a moral point of view, is a denunciation of discrimination and ill treatment. That is something I do not stop doing, which has closed the doors of several countries, such as Saudi Arabia, to me.

AB: Do you dream, as you detractors claim, of a world that is entirely Muslim?

TR: No. I was born, have lived and have studied in Switzerland; my whole philosophical education comes from that. I have always believed that those who do not share my beliefs allow me to be more myself. The absolute power or uniformisation of a religion on earth would mean corruption and death. The worst that could happen to Muslims is if the whole world became Muslim! That is not even what God's project is. There has to be diversity and difference. Because difference teaches us humility and respect.

AB: When you hear Michel Houellebecq declare that "Islam is the most stupid religion in the world," how do you react?

TR: I do not react to this type of provocation. Thinking that a religion can be the most stupid on earth is a little stupid, is it not?

AB: Some rapid-fire questions, to be answered with a "yes" or a "no". Do you condemn all types of fanaticism?

TR: Yes. All types of fanaticism and dogmatism, wherever they come from.

AB: Do you condemn hostage taking, such as that of Shalit in Israel?

TR: Yes. And that of thousands of Palestinians, too.

AB: Can one recruit a child suicide bomber in the name of Islam?

TR: No.

AB: Do you condemn Iran, which is suspected of building a nuclear weapon?

TR: Yes. I condemn all possession of nuclear weapons, without exception.

AB: Do you recongnise the right of Israel to exist?

TR: Yes.

AB: Are you for or against civil partnerships?

TR: I am for them. I have even gone further, in saying to Muslims that civil partnerships could be a contractual framework of interest to Muslim citizens.

AB: Are you going to set out into politics one day, as some have been hinting?

TR: An absolute "no". My feelings are left-leaning. If someone forced my hand, I can see myself in a pro-ecological party more than anything.

AB: Have you at times been the target of extremists?

TR: I have received threats. Nothing serious.

AB: You must be one of the most listened-to people by all the secret services of the planet, right?

TR: That does not matter to me much. I try to hold to a single line: my political engagement is clear.

Let's hope the initiative to ban minarets fails, along with every other attempt to deny Muslims their place in European society.

-----

Now playing: "When You Believe" by Michelle Pfeiffer and Sally Dworsky (The Prince of Egypt Soundtrack).

Bosnian Serb jailed for genocide role

Milorad Trbić, an officer of the erstwhile Bosnian Serb army, has been sentenced to 30 years in jail by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for his role in the Srebrenica Massacre of 1995, in which over 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed.

The court found that, as the Duty Operations Officer of the Zvornik Brigade of the Army of Republika Srpska in July 1995, Trbić "significantly contributed to the implementation" of the massacre, and did so "with genocidal intent".

Meanwhile, talks aiming to resolve disputes over power sharing in the loose federal structure of Bosnia-Herzegovina have apparently stalled. According to Valentin Inzko, the Austrian diplomat serving as the High Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina, "Bosnia is in a state of paralysis".

The possibility of a return to violence has been voiced by some observers. Although that is highly unlikely, it seems the wounds have still not healed.

Murder in Dresden

Egypt has recently witnessed a wave of demonstrations over the Islamophobic murder in Dresden of Marwa el-Sherbini, a 32-year-old Egyptian pharmacist who had been living there with her graduate student husband and her son.

Last year, in a dispute over a swing in a public park, of all things, the murderer, a Russian immigrant from Perm named Alex W., yelled out "terrorist" and "Islamist whore" at Marwa, the reason being that she was wearing a headscarf. She took him to court for the insults, and, in November 2008, Alex was fined €780 (TL 1,687 / US$ 1,087) for his actions. There are different versions of what happened next. According to the Guardian, Alex appealed the verdict; according to Wikipedia, it was the public prosecutor who lodged the appeal, since he considered the penalty meted out to Alex to have been too light.

Then, on 1 July, the appeal was heard. Marwa was called to the witness stand to testify, following which the 28-year-old Alex grabbed a knife, approached her, and stabbed her 18 (!) times, killing her on the spot in front of her three-year-old son. When her husband, Elvi Ali Okaz, ran over to help his stricken wife, a policeman shot at him, critically wounding him. Apparently, the policeman couldn't tell which one was the husband, and which the attacker. Marwa was three months pregnant when she was killed.

The most mind-bogglingly unbelievable fact in this tragedy is that Alex was not prevented from bringing his knife into the courtroom, even though he was the defendant! You'd think that, at an appeal, a defendant could possibly have a grudge against the plaintiff, wouldn't you? You'd think that the state would want to ensure the plaintiff's safety, wouldn't you? Well, in this case, no such thing was done. The result is a family destroyed.

The second thing is this. Even after such a clearly horrific case of murderous hatred against an innocent Muslim, the only motivation being that she was a Muslim, the German government is reluctant to treat it as such. According to the Guardian, Thomas Steg, the vice-spokesman of the German government (apparently, the spokesman is too important to be making a comment on this matter) said that "In this case... the circumstances are not sufficiently clear enough to allow a broad political response. Should it be the case that this was anti-foreigner [and] racially motivated, [the government] would condemn it in the strongest possible terms."

So there you have it. IF it were to be proved that Alex hated Marwa for being different, ONLY THEN would the government condemn her murder "in the strongest possible terms". And do notice how Steg mentioned the hatred of foreigners and people of other races as potential (though apparently unproven) motivating factors, but did not say a word about the actual cause, proven by Alex's words: the hatred of Islam and Muslims, that is, Islamophobia. Alex had been taken to court not for calling Marwa a "dirty foreigner" or a "dirty black" or anything of the sort. No, he called Marwa (who was actually quite fair-skinned) an "Islamist whore" a few months before killing her. The fact that the Merkel government refuses to admit this simple fact is unconscionable.

The lack of clear, unequivocal condemnation of the murder not only by the German government, but also by other German politicians, as well as the German media, has led Aiman Mazyek, the secretary general of the Central Council of Muslims (of Germany) and Stephen Kramer, the secretary general of the Central Council of Jews, to issue a joint statement calling for more attention to be given to the murder.

Marwa has been dubbed Shahidat al-Hijab (the Headscarf Martyr) in Egypt. Some people have scoffed at the title, saying it's divisive and not reflective of reality, since Marwa's life should not be reduced to her clothes. Personally, I think "Headscarf Martyr" is, in fact, a very appropriate title for her. She was a woman with a diverse range of interests, but she was killed for one thing: for being a Muslim who was not afraid to stand up for herself. She was killed for wearing a headscarf and refusing to bow to fear. And that makes me proud to be her brother in faith.

That is not to say, though, that anger should be allowed to carry the day. At Marwa's funeral in Alexandria on 6 July, mourners chanted things like "Germans are the enemies of God." That is going way too far. I can understand the distress that something like this brings, but we should always distinguish between people with blood on their hands and the society those people come from or live in. Just as the existence of Muslim murderers does not make everyone in Muslim countries the "enemies of God", so equally the existence of a German or, in fact, a Russian murderer does not make Germans or Russians into God's enemies. This much should be obvious.

However, just as many in the West call for introspection in Muslim societies (and sometimes rightly so) when a terrorist calling himself a Muslim kills innocent people, so should Germany and Russia, Dresden and Perm, take a deep breath and think for a minute about where things have gone wrong, and what could be done to improve them, starting, perhaps, from trying a bit harder to see your neighbour for the human being she is.

[This post was written in Istanbul.]

Extreme rightists attack Muslims in Christmas message

The fringe right-wing website Tulsa Today, which claims to be a "local news service", has made use of its alleged Christmas greeting to label Islam "the only modern faith founded by a murderer." This is a website, mind you, that was noted for continuing to claim as late as 24 November that Obama was not a "natural born" US citizen.

So why would I bother to comment on the ravings of a site which has nothing to do with "news", local or otherwise? Well, because ridiculous claims such as these can, unfortunately, be insidious and persisting. If repeated a sufficient number of times, they acquire the air of general knowledge.

So I think it's important to say, to those who would sully their own holiday with venom against another religion: Shame on you.

----------------
Now playing: Jaromír Nohavica - Dokud Se Zpívá
via FoxyTunes

Russian neo-Nazi beheading video appears to be genuine

According to Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for the Investigation Committee of the Russian federal prosecution office, a video showing the murder of two men by Russian neo-Nazis is not fake, as was previously claimed (Газета.ru).

The video, which first appeared on a blog run by a neo-Nazi called Viktor Mil'kov on 12 August 2007, showed a Tajik and a Dagestani being executed by neo-Nazis in a forest. Prior to the execution, one of the victims is heard saying "We were arrested by Russian national socialists." Two men in camouflage then give Nazi salutes, and murder the victims, one by decapitation and the other by shooting.

The family of a Dagestani man named Shamil Udamanov, who has been missing since August 2007, is claiming that the Dagestani shown being executed in the video is none other than Udamanov. The Russian prosecution started examining the case in earnest after Shamil's father Artur Udamanov wrote a letter to ex-President Vladimir Putin asking him to intervene.

The case is currently under investigation by the Russian Interior Ministry and German police.

Meanwhile, Mil'kov is serving a one-year prison sentence for initiating the distribution of the video on the Internet.

A previously unknown group which calls itself the Combat Brigade of the National-Socialist Party of Rus took responsibility for the execution in August 2007. In a statement sent to a Chechen separatist website, the group declared "armed war against black colonists" and "bureaucrats of the Russian Federation" who help non-ethnic-Russian immigrants. The terrorist group promised to "deport all Caucasians and Asians from the territory of Rus" (Rus being a medieval state whose successors today are Belarus, Russia and Ukraine).

The whole thing is thoroughly sickening. I wonder what the German connection is.

Bardot convicted of inciting racial hatred

The former actress Brigitte Bardot has been found guilty of inciting racial hatred against Muslims. The court in Paris where Bardot, 73, was convicted has fined her €15,000 (Canadian $23,531; US $23,157).

The conviction stems from a statement made in a letter to Nicolas Sarkozy (then the French Interior Minister) in December 2006, in which she called Muslims "this whole population that is destroying us, destroying our country...." The reason for her anger at Muslims was that they usually do not stun animals before slaughtering them (Белорусские новости; Le Point).

Australian town rejects Islamic school

The city council of Camden, a suburb of Sydney, has rejected a proposal by the Qur'anic society to build an Islamic school in the town. The planned school would have accommodated 1,200 students. The nine city councillors voted unanimously against the proposal, citing reasons such as a risk of increased traffic congestion and parking problems that would result if the project were approved.

During the consultation stage of the approval process, the city council received 3,042 briefs from residents against the proposed school, and only 23 in favour.

After the council voted to reject the application, Camden resident Kate McCulloch said that, although the councillors would not admit it, the main reason for rejecting the school was that many townsmen wanted to keep Muslims out. McCulloch, who supported the council's decision, explained that "They don't like what their culture is about. Look at every news channel overseas -- it is about oppression and it's just not democratic. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation -- I'm sorry, I don't want them in Australia."

In order to explain her reference to Hizbullah, McCulloch said that radical Muslims tended to hide in small towns, adding that "All them terrorist attacks did happen overseas, they were someone's friends, they were someone's neighbours...."

The mayor of Camden, Chris Patterson, said that he fully supported the idea of "multicultural schooling", and had rejected the Islamic school proposal for reasons that had nothing to do with religion (Australian).

During a previous residents' meeting to discuss the Islamic school project, some speakers asked the council to reject the application in order to avoid a takeover of the town by Muslims, of whom there are about 150 families in Camden. One man said "Can I just say this without being racist or political? In 1983, in the streets of London a parade by Muslims chanted incessantly 'If we can take London, we can take the world.' Don't let them take Camden."

Andrew Wynnet, of the Camden/Macarthur Residents' Group, asked a BBC reporter, "When you have no Muslims living in Camden, why have a Muslim school here?" (this despite the fact that there are Muslims in the town). Wynnet went on to explain that his opposition to the school flows from his opposition to other Muslims moving to Camden: "The character of the town will change. When you have a large facility like this, the parents will follow. That amount of parents will change the character of the town. If you introduce 1,500 Muslim people to the town they'd be a majority. And that's not what this town is about."

The right-wing politician Pauline Hanson also visited Camden to campaign against the school, which she had at first thought would be a mosque.

The Quranic Society may appeal the town council's decision to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (BBC).

Dunkin' Donuts gives in to anti-Palestinian prejudice

After pressure from the right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin, Dunkin' Donuts has cancelled an online ad featuring TV host Rachael Ray wearing a keffiyeh.

Malkin described the piece of Arab men's headdress as "a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists".

According to Dunkin' Donuts, "no symbolism was intended" by the silk keffiyeh. Malkin has praised the company for its decision, saying that the picture of the scarf could have led to "the mainstreaming of violence" (BBC).

So my question is: what was Timothy McVeigh wearing when he perpetrated his terrorist act? And if he was wearing a shirt and trousers, should everyone now stop wearing shirts and trousers? Come on now.

If you disagree with Dunkin' Donuts's decision, please contact them.

Wait until they find out Obama is a Christian, says "scholar"

In a piece of wacky logic and the worst example of Orientalism I've ever seen in the New York Times, Edward Luttwak, a fellow with the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), has claimed that, if Muslims found out that Barack Obama "chose to become a Christian", they would try to kill him. According to Luttwak, the hope among many Americans that a victory by Obama in the general election would improve American relations with the Islamic world is "a mistake".

Luttwak disingenuously calls Obama "the son of the Muslim father" (sic), while Obama has written that his father had become an atheist before marrying Barack's mother. In Luttwak's words, this fact "makes no difference". But according to whom? Which Islamic scholar would say that a child born to an atheist father and an agnostic mother must practice Islam when he has grown up? Can Luttwack cite even one such scholar?

Further, Luttwak argues that "under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant." This statement, I'm afraid, is a simple case of deception. There is nothing in the Qur'an about punishing apostates, so Luttwak strategically employs the words "based on". Secondly, I lived in Kuwait when a Kuwaiti Muslim converted to Christianity, changed his name to Robert Qambar, and was declared an apostate by conservative Kuwaiti Muslim groups. He fled to the US despite assurances of government protection, but eventually came back with his Christian wife and reconverted to Islam. During the discussion sparked by the case, it was said in the Kuwaiti media that the apostasy law does not apply to people born of at least one non-Muslim parent. In that case, how would they apply to someone born of one ex-Muslim and one non-Muslim parent?

More importantly, the entire premise of Luttwak's article is based on what may be charitably called a false assumption, and less charitably called a lie. He says "that most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known". As my wife, an American Muslim, said when she heard this, "it's not like Muslims live in a hole". I think most Muslims already know that Obama is a Christian. Hundreds of millions of Muslims speak English, and can follow the debates and discussions surrounding the race for the American presidency in the original language. Non-English-language media worldwide are also discussing Obama. All the fellow-Muslims I've spoken to about Obama support him and wish him well, without exception. Each one knows that he is a Christian.

Luttwak attempts to paint "most citizens of the Islamic world" as ignorant, irrational bigots. I am encouraged by the dozens of comments his article has generated on the New York Times website, almost all of which say that his argument is ridiculous. The amount of goodwill that has already been generated for Obama in the Muslim world is very considerable. Islam stands for justice, fairness, dignity, truth and peace. These are values that Obama espouses as well. It is these values that Muslims, like anyone else, want to see in a presidential candidate, especially one who is running for the leadership of the most powerful country in the world. So if Obama wins the election and then acts on these values of his, I think the United States will find millions of new Muslim friends around the world.

Muslim teacher in NY loses job because of hate campaign

Debbie Almontaser, a Yemeni-American teacher who led the drive to set up a new public school in New York called Khalil Gibran International Academy, was forced to resign her position as principal before the school opened its doors to new students. The reason was a campaign of Islamophobia unleashed by a group that called itself the "Stop the Madrassa Coalition". The group was, in some ways, orchestrated by the Islam basher Daniel Pipes.

The school's mission was to teach Arabic as a foreign language. Almontaser's plan was to have a student body that would be half Arab-American. In all other respects, the Gibran Academy was to be a regular New York public high school. Moreover, in its emphasis in Arabic, the school was similar to dozens of other schools in New York that stress a particular language, such as Spanish or Russian.

The campaign against the Gibran Academy (named after a Lebanese Christian poet) broke out when Pipes wrote an op-ed in the New York Sun, in which he argued that "Arabic-language instruction is inevitably laden with Pan-Arabist and Islamist baggage." He also called the planned school a "madrassa", which is simply the Arabic word for "school" but, as Pipes knows very well, means an "Islamic seminary" in English. More recently, Pipes has admitted that his use of the word "madrassa" was "a bit of a stretch" and a tool he used to "get attention".

Attention he did get: a group of people, including Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a trustee at City University of New York, gathered around Pipes, and formed the above-mentioned coalition. Having very little information about the planned school to go on, the Coalition to Stop the Madrassa dug into Almontaser's past and her personal activities, and used the information obtained to smear her online and in the media. What motivated them was a desire to stop what Wiesenfeld referred to as "soft jihad", that is, the promotion of "radical Islam", in Pipes's words, through "the school system, the media, the religious organizations, the government, businesses and the like". In other words, the mere teaching of Arabic was construed by the group as equivalent to the promotion of "radical Islam".

What helped the Coalition clinch its case was an interview with the New York Post, in which Almontaser explained that the word "intifada" meant "a shaking off". She was asked about the shirts because some teenaged members of an Arab-American women's group she belonged to had been seen selling T-shirts that said "Intifada NYC" on them. The Post misquoted Almontaser as saying that the girls selling the T-shirts had been "shaking off oppression".

That was too much for the city's Education Department to bear, and Almontaser was asked to resign by Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott, who added that she had until 8:00 am the next day to resign, because Mayor Michael Bloomberg wanted to announce her resignation "on his radio show". Almontaser resigned, but filed a lawsuit to try to get her job back. A panel of federal judges has recently ruled that the New York Post has misreported the comments she had made to the paper.

The school did open under the direction of a different principal, Danielle Salzberg, who does not speak Arabic and soon made a name for herself with her authoritarian methods. Meanwhile, Almontaser has been assigned to a school inspection job, and has been allowed to keep her principal's pay of US $120,000 (Canadian $121,722) per year. The Coalition to Stop the Madrassa, for its part, continues to protest against the existence of the school (New York Times).

Danish MPs cancel Iran trip over cartoons

A group of nine Danish MPs who were due to visit Iran have called off the trip two days before their scheduled departure, after being asked by the Iranian parliament to apologise over the recent reprinting of a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) wearing a turban with a bomb in it. Villy Søvndal, the head of the Socialist People's Party, said that "If anyone needs to apologise for freedom of speech, human rights, imprisonments, executions and lack of democracy, it is the Iranians" (BBC).

So if one group of people acts in a way that others find offensive, does that mean that those opposed must also try to be offensive? Is that what Søvndal is trying to proclaim?

UK Shari'a row exposes limits of tolerance

Last week, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, sparked a major row in Britain when he suggested that "aspects" of the Shari'a would eventually be incorporated into British law, and said that British Muslims should not be faced with "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty". Archbishop Williams faced a barrage of criticism after his comments, both from within and without the Anglican Church.

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, said that it would be "disastrous" to incorporate any Shari'a-based laws into the British legal system. Col Edward Armitstead, a member of the General Synod of the Church, said he didn't think Williams was "the man for the job". Alison Ruoff, another member of the Synod, said that "in terms of being a leader of the Christian community I think he's actually at the moment a disaster." Brig William Dobbie, a former member of the Synod, said that Williams's words on the Shari'a were "a tragic mistake." Ordinary Muslims a BBC correspondent talked to in Bradford also seemed opposed to the idea.

However, in many ways Williams was greatly misunderstood. According to Muhammad Abdul Bari, the Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB),

The archbishop is not advocating implementation of the Islamic penal system in Britain. His recommendation is confined to the civil system of Sharia law, and only in accordance with English law and agreeable to established notions of human rights.

The MCB thanked Williams for his "thoughful intervention".

The Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, the Bishop of Hulme, criticised the "knee-jerk" response to Williams's suggestions, and added,

We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest Archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day. He is undoubtedly one of the finest minds of this nation. The way he has been ridiculed, lampooned and treated by some people and indeed some of the media within this process, is quite disgraceful.

The highest-ranked female priest in the Church of England, the Very Rev June Osborne, cautiously backed Williams, saying, "Our society needs to be provoked into talking about these things." Alun Michael, a former minister in the Home Office, condemned the "absurd media feeding frenzy" surrounding the issue. Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, condemned the outburst against Williams, saying that such a response created a "fear that people with a Christian conscience will be put to the sidelines and not allowed to say what they believe to be true for the common good."

What Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor is saying may be true, since Williams has been shocked by the response into a near-silence on the issue. His website said, however, that some Shari'a-based rules were "already recognised in our society and under our law. The statement added that the Archbishop had been looking for ways in which "reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience", and was trying to "tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state".

The best part in all this is that, of course, as Williams says, some aspects of the Shari'a already operate in daily lilfe within British law (for example, halal slaughter and the certification of halal meat), and that Orthodox Jews have had their own religious courts in Britian for a long time.

Quite unfortunately, Williams's words were used by some quarters in British society and the media to once again jump on Muslims and decry anything Islamic. It's quite heartening, though, to see voices of calm and moderation not just among British Muslims, but among Christians as well.

Belarusian journalist imprisoned for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) caricatures

Aliaksandr Źdźvižkoŭ (whose name is also spelled Alexander Sdvizhkov in English), the former editor of the defunct Belarusian opposition newspaper Zhoda (Agreement), has been sentenced to three years in prison by the Minsk City Court for reprinting the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) which first appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

After having the cartoons reprinted, Źdźvižkoŭ was quoted as saying "We did the right thing by speaking out against Islamic hysteria." I have to say, whipping up hysteria by attacking what is sacred to someone else is a funny way of "speaking out against... hysteria." In particular, Źdźvižkoŭ didn't seem to remember that Belarus has its own community of around 30,000 Muslims who were exhibiting no "hysteria" over the cartoons, and that printing the cartoons in Zhoda (especially given the negative depiction of the Prophet contained in most of them) would be needlessly, gratuitously offensive to Belarusian Muslims.

As it happened, Ismail Varanovič, the head of the Spritual Directorate of the Muslims of the Republic of Belarus, sued Źdźvižkoŭ for "inciting hatred" against the Muslim community. However, he now claims that the government and, in particular, the Committee of Religious and Ethnicity Affairs, put him up to it. More that that, they made him understand that it was their express desire that he sue Źdźvižkoŭ.

Varanovič says that he felt sorry for Źdźvižkoŭ at the trial, which was held behind closed doors, and even tried to help him by telling the court that he had come to think that Źdźvižkoŭ's actions represented not an incitement to hatred, but rather a mere illustration to the story of the cartoon controversy. According to Varanovič, Źdźvižkoŭ apologised to him personally, and to the Muslim community in general, for his actions.

So it seems that the Belarusian Muslim community was led into something not of its own choosing, and was used by the government in its own game against Źdźvižkoŭ. This theory is supported by the fact that the prison term that Źdźvižkoŭ was sentenced to -- three years -- is the most severe of all so far received by people found guilty in the cartoon controversy in any country.

So why is it that the Belarusian authorities were after Źdźvižkoŭ? Two reasons have been raised in the independent and opposition press. Some say that the Belarusian government wanted to impress rich(er) Muslim countries with their defence of Islam in order to attract investments from them. However, the theory that sounds more likely to be true is that the authorities wanted to move Źdźvižkoŭ out of the way for a while because his newspaper, Zhoda, had endorsed Aliaksandr Kazulin, a Social-Democratic candidate for the Belarusian presidency. In addition, the action taken against Źdźvižkoŭ can serve as a warning to what is left of the independent Belarusian media to be more careful in what they say -- not about Islam, but about President Lukašenka. This theory rings true not just because of various actions against journalists undertaken by the Belarusian government in the past, but also because Zhoda was shut down following a threat from Lukašenka to do so.

So where does this leave the Belarusian Muslims? Unfortunately, they have faced a certain degree of scapegoating from the Belarusian opposition, which is not normally known for anti-Muslim positions. Thus, the deputy leader of the Belarusian Popular Front, Alieś Michalievič (Mikhalevich), has asked Metropolitan Filaret, the Exarch of the Russian Orthodox Church in Belarus, to intervene with the authorities in order to get Źdźvižkoŭ's sentence softened. In his appeal, Michalievič claims that Źdźvižkoŭ has been made to suffer for "expressing his Christian convictions", and asks sarcastically whether the "the law of the Shari'a" is in force in Belarus. To which one may reply that one does not need to look as far as the Shari'a to find condemnation of libel and hate speech of the kind that the cartoons represented.

One pro-opposition journalist has even warned that Belarusians should beware of the transformation of our country into "Belarusistan". In his view, Źdźvižkoŭ understood this danger, but went overboard in his response. At best, the journalist's statement regarding the "present threat" posed by Belarusian Muslims reflects a hastily put together reaction that ignores the simple facts that the Muslim community has lived peacefully in what is now Belarus for over 600 years and, that Muslim scholars were writing religious treatises in Belarusian centuries ago, and that further, Muslims constitute less than 1 percent of the population of Belarus. These sorts of responses from respected segments of the opposition intelligentsia are irresponsible and seem to imply an attempt to align pro-Western Belarusian views with those of extreme right-wing Western European politicians. What does not make sense in this equation, however, is that those xenophobic politicians try to court public support by attacking immigrants or their children (which is, in itself, wrong), while Belarus, as I said above, has what can be quite justifiably considered an indigenous Muslim population.

So what is needed here are liberal voices, ones that understand that freedom comes with responsibility, and that we Belarusians are one people who must continue building our country for all of us together, whether we are Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, or what have you. Fortunately, there are some who have been speaking out in just such a vein.

Since becoming a "normal European country" is one of the biggest dreams of the Belarusian opposition, I'd like to suggest that turning on minorities at the slightest hint of imagined provocation is not the way to achieve that dream.

Canadian philosopher wins Templeton Prize

Charles Taylor (not to be confused with the Liberian ex-president) has won the US $1.5 million award for his study of the role spirituality plays in conflict resolution. Appropriately enough, he is the co-chair of a Quebec commission on "reasonable accommodation" (as we call it here), and is trying to discourage "mindless Islamophobia" (Christian Science Monitor).