A banner reading ‘United We Stand For Peace on Earth’ outside the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Photograph: Allen Breed/AP

The same motive for anti-US ‘terrorism’ is cited over and over

by Glenn Greenwald (Guardian)

(updated below – Update II – Update III)

News reports purporting to describe what Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told US interrogators should, for several reasons, be taken with a huge grain of salt. The sources for this information are anonymous, they work for the US government, the statements were obtained with no lawyer present and no Miranda warnings given, and Tsarnaev is “grievously wounded”, presumably quite medicated, and barely able to speak. That the motives for these attacks are still unclear has been acknowledged even by Alan Dershowitz last week (“It’s not even clear under the federal terrorism statute that this qualifies as an act of terrorism”) and Jeffrey Goldberg on Friday (“it is not yet clear, despite preliminary indications, that these men were, in fact, motivated by radical Islam”).

Those caveats to the side, the reports about what motivated the Boston suspects are entirely unsurprising and, by now, quite familiar:

“The two suspects in the Boston bombing that killed three and injured more than 260 were motivated by the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials told the Washington Post.

“Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, ‘the 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack,’ the Post writes, citing ‘US officials familiar with the interviews.’”

In the last several years, there have been four other serious attempted or successful attacks on US soil by Muslims, and in every case, they emphatically all say the same thing: that they were motivated by the continuous, horrific violence brought by the US and its allies to the Muslim world – violence which routinely kills and oppresses innocent men, women and children:

Attempted “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab upon pleading guilty:

“I had an agreement with at least one person to attack the United States in retaliation for US support of Israel and in retaliation of the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Palestine, especially in the blockade of Gaza, and in retaliation for the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond, most of them women, children, and noncombatants.”

Attempted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, the first Pakistani-American involved in such a plot, upon pleading guilty:

“If the United States does not get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries controlled by Muslims, he said, ‘we will be attacking US’, adding that Americans ‘only care about their people, but they don’t care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die’ . . . .

“As soon as he was taken into custody May 3 at John F. Kennedy International Airport, onboard a flight to Dubai, the Pakistani-born Shahzad told agents that he was motivated by opposition to US policy in the Muslim world, officials said.”

When he was asked by the federal judge presiding over his case how he could possibly have been willing to detonate bombs that would kill innocent children, he replied:

“Well, the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don’t see children, they don’t see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody. It’s a war, and in war, they kill people. They’re killing all Muslims. . . .

“I am part of the answer to the US terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people. And, on behalf of that, I’m avenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their own people, but they don’t care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die.”

Emails and other communications obtained by the US document how Shahzad transformed from law-abiding, middle-class naturalized American into someone who felt compelled to engage in violence as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, drone attacks, Israeli violence against Palestinians and Muslims generally, Guantanamo and torture, at one point asking a friend: “Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows?”

Attempted NYC subway bomber Najibullah Zazi, the first Afghan-American involved in such a plot, upon pleading guilty:

“Your Honor, during the spring and summer of 2008, I conspired with others to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban and fight against the U.S. military and its allies. . . . During the training, Al Qaeda leaders asked us to return to the United States and conduct martyrdom operation. We agreed to this plan. I did so because of my feelings about what the United States was doing in Afghanistan.”

Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan:

“Part of his disenchantment was his deep and public opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a stance shared by some medical colleagues but shaped for him by a growing religious fervor. The strands of religion and antiwar sentiment seemed to weave together in a PowerPoint presentation he made at Walter Reed in June 2007. . . . For a master’s program in public health, Major Hasan gave another presentation to his environmental health class titled ‘Why The War on Terror is a War on Islam.’”

Meanwhile, the American-Yemeni preacher accused (with no due process) of inspiring both Abdulmutallab and Hasan – Anwar al-Awalaki – was once considered such a moderate American Muslim imam that the Pentagon included him in post-9/11 events and the Washington Post invited him to write a column on Islam. But, by all accounts, he became increasingly radicalized in anti-American sentiment by the attack on Iraq and continuous killing of innocent Muslims by the US, including in Yemen. And, of course, Osama bin Laden, when justifying violence against Americans, cited US military bases in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israeli aggression against its neighbors, and the 1990s US sanctions regime that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, while Iranians who took over the US embassy in 1979 cited decades of brutal tyranny from the US-implanted-and-enabled Shah.

It should go without saying that the issue here is causation, not justification or even fault. It is inherently unjustifiable to target innocent civilians with violence, no matter the cause (just as it is unjustifiable to recklessly kill civilians with violence). But it is nonetheless vital to understand why there are so many people who want to attack the US as opposed to, say, Peru, or South Africa, or Brazil, or Mexico, or Japan, or Portugal. It’s vital for two separate reasons.

First, some leading American opinion-makers love to delude themselves and mislead others into believing that the US is attacked despite the fact that it is peaceful, peace-loving, freedom-giving and innocent. As these myth-makers would have it, we don’t bother anyone; we just mind our own business (except when we’re helping and liberating everyone), so why would anyone possibly want to attack us?

With that deceitful premise in place, so many Americans, westerners, Christians and Jews love to run around insisting that the only real cause for Muslim attacks on the US is that the attackers have this primitive, brutal, savage, uncivilized religion (Islam) that makes them do it. Yesterday, Andrew Sullivan favorably cited Sam Harris as saying that “Islamic doctrines … still present huge problems for the emergence of a global civil society” and then himself added: “All religions contain elements of this kind of fanaticism. But Islam’s fanatical side – from the Taliban to the Tsarnaevs – is more murderous than most.”

These same people often love to accuse Muslims of being tribal without realizing the irony that what they are saying - Our Side is Superior and They are Inferior - is the ultimate expression of rank tribalism. They also don’t seem ever to acknowledge the irony of Americans and westerners of all people accusing others of being uniquely prone to violence, militarism and aggression (Juan Cole yesterday, using indisputable statistics, utterly destroyed the claim that Muslims are uniquely violent, including by noting the massive body count piled up by predominantly Christian nations and the fact that “murder rates in most of the Muslim world are very low compared to the United States”).

As the attackers themselves make as clear as they can, it’s not religious fanaticism but rather political grievance that motivates these attacks. Religious conviction may make them more willing to fight (as it does formany in the west), but the motive is anger over what is being done by the US and its allies to Muslims. Those who claim otherwise are essentially saying: gosh, these Muslims sure do have this strange, primitive, inscrutable religion whereby they seem to get angry when they’re invaded, occupied, bombed, killed, and have dictators externally imposed on them. It’s vital to understand this causal relationship simply in order to prevent patent, tribalistic, self-glorifying falsehoods from taking hold.

Second, it’s crucial to understand this causation because it’s often asked “what can we do to stop Terrorism?” The answer is right in front of our faces: we could stop embracing the polices in that part of the world which fuel anti-American hatred and trigger the desire for vengeance and return violence. Yesterday at a Senate hearing on drones, a young Yemeni citizen whose village was bombed by US drones last week (despite the fact that the targets could easily have been arrested), Farea Al-Muslimi, testified. Al-Muslimi has always been pro-American in the extreme, having spent a year in the US due to a State Department award, but he was brilliant in explaining these key points:

“Just six days ago, my village was struck by a drone, in an attack that terrified thousands of simple, poor farmers. The drone strike and its impact tore my heart, much as the tragic bombings in Boston last week tore your hearts and also mine.

“What radicals had previously failed to achieve in my village one drone strike accomplished in an instant: there is now an intense anger and growing hatred of America.”

He added that anti-American hatred is now so high as a result of this drone strike that “I personally don’t even know if it is safe for me to go back to Wessab because I am someone who people in my village associate with America and its values.” And he said that whereas he never knew any Yemenis who were sympathetic to al-Qaida before the drone attacks, now:

“AQAP’s power and influence has never been based on the number of members in its ranks. AQAP recruits and retains power through its ideology, which relies in large part on the Yemeni people believing that America is at war with them” . . .

“I have to say that the drone strikes and the targeted killing program have made my passion and mission in support of America almost impossible in Yemen. In some areas of Yemen, the anger against America that results from the strikes makes it dangerous for me to even acknowledge having visited America, much less testify how much my life changed thanks to the State Department scholarships. It’s sometimes too dangerous to even admit that I have American friends.”

He added that drone strikes in Yemen “make people fear the US more than al-Qaida”.

There seems to be this pervasive belief in the US that we can invade, bomb, drone, kill, occupy, and tyrannize whomever we want, and that they will never respond. That isn’t how human affairs function and it never has been. If you believe all that militarism and aggression are justified, then fine: make that argument. But don’t walk around acting surprised and bewildered and confounded (why do they hate us??) when violence is brought to US soil as well. It’s the inevitable outcome of these choices, and that’s not because Islam is some sort of bizarre or intrinsically violent and uncivilized religion. It’s because no group in the world is willing to sit by and be targeted with violence and aggression of that sort without also engaging in it (just look at the massive and ongoing violence unleashed by the US in response to a single one-day attack on its soil 12 years ago: imagine how Americans would react to a series of relentless attacks on US soil over the course of more than a decade, to say nothing of having their children put in prison indefinitely with no charges, tortured, kidnapped, and otherwise brutalized by a foreign power).

Being targeted with violence is a major cost of war and aggression. It’s a reason not do it. If one consciously decides to incur that cost, then that’s one thing. But pretending that this is all due to some primitive and irrational religious response and not our own actions is dangerously self-flattering and self-delusional. Just listen to what the people who are doing these attacks are saying about why they are doing them. Or listen to the people who live in the places devastated by US violence about the results. None of it is unclear, and it’s long past time that we stop pretending that all this evidence does not exist.

Dirty Wars

Several weeks ago, I wrote about the soon-to-be-released film, “Dirty Wars”, that chronicles journalist Jeremy Scahill’s investigation of US violence under President Obama in Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia and elsewhere. That film makes many of the same points here (including the fact that many Yemenis never knew of any fellow citizens who were sympathetic to al-Qaida until the US began drone-bombing them with regularity). Scahill’s book by the same title was just released yesterday and it is truly stunning and vital: easily the best account of covert US militarism under Obama. I highly recommend it. See Scahill here on Democracy Now yesterday discussing it, with a focus on Obama’s killing of both Anwar Awlaki and, separately, his 16-year-son Abdulrahman in Yemen. He also discussed his book this week with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes and Morning Joe (where he argued that Obama has made assassinations standard US policy).

UPDATE

The incorrect day was originally cited for Goldberg’s column. It has now been edited to reflect that it was published on Friday.

UPDATE II

I was interviewed at length this week by the legendary Bill Moyers about Boston, US foreign policy, government secrecy and a variety of related matters. The program will air repeatedly on PBS, beginning this Friday night (see here for local listings). You can see a preview for the show they released today - here - as well as one short excerpt from the interview on the recorder below:

UPDATE III

Here’s one more excerpt released today by the Moyers show, this one pertaining to exactly the questions raised in today’s column:

None of the reports that I have come across mention the religion of the perpetrators of this chilling and horrific crime in Papua New Guinea. (h/t: JD):

Woman burned alive for ‘sorcery’ in Papua New Guinea

(BBC)

A woman has been tortured and burned alive in Papua New Guinea after being accused of using sorcery to kill a young boy, local media report.

The woman, a mother aged 20 named as Kepari Leniata, was stripped, tied up and doused in petrol by the boy’s relatives in Mount Hagen in the Western Highlands, said the National newspaper.

She was then thrown onto a fire in front of hundreds of people.

Police and firefighters were unable to intervene, the paper said.

The Post Courier newspaper said they had been outnumbered by the crowd and chased away. Both newspapers published graphic photos of the incident on their front pages.

Provincial police commander Supt Kaiglo Ambane told the National that police were treating the case as murder and would arrest those responsible.

In parts of the Pacific nation deaths and mysterious illnesses are sometimes blamed on suspected sorcerers. Several reports have emerged in recent years of accused people, usually women, being killed.

In 2009, after a string of such killings, the chairman of PNG’s Constitutional Review and Law Reform Commission said defendants were using accusations of witchcraft as an excuse to kill people, and called for tougher legislation to tackle the issue.

Local Christian bishop David Piso told the National that sorcery-related killings were a growing problem, and urged the government “to come up with a law to stop such practice”.

The US embassy in the capital, Port Moresby, condemned the killing as a “brutal murder”, the AFP news agency reports, and evidence of “pervasive gender-based violence” in Papua New Guinea.

“There is no possible justification for this sort of violence. We hope that appropriate resources are devoted to identifying, prosecuting, and punishing those responsible for Ms Leniata’s murder.”

There is more descriptive report of this horrific act on TIME magazine’s website:

A woman accused of sorcery was tortured, burned and set on fire on Wednesday in Mount Hagen in the Western Highlands of Papua New Guinea, reports Australia’s Courier Mail.

(via. Islamophobia-Watch)

German bigotry shifting from race to religion

(The Local)

“It’s no longer ‘the Turks’ but ‘the Muslims’,” Wilhelm Heitmeyer, head of the institute for research of interdisciplinary conflict and violence at Bielefeld University told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung on Monday. Research has led him to be concerned general xenophobia had given way to a growing rejection of Islam in Germany.

His theory is not new – a study from Münster university found that in 2010, 66 percent of western Germans and 74 percent of eastern Germans had a negative attitude towards Muslims.

And a more recent study from the Allensbach Institute suggested that this had not changed over the past two years, as only 22 percent of Germans asked said they agreed with Germany’s ex-President Christian Wulff’s statement that Islam, like Christianity, was a part of Germany.

Heitmeyer also found that Islamophobia seemed to exist not only in the far-right, but was also present in more left-leaning and centrist circles. The sentiment was identifiable throughout the country, from the highest echelons of society to the lowest.

Neo-Nazi expert from Düsseldorf’s technical university Alexander Häusler told the newspaper that while discriminating against an entire ethnicity was a taboo, religion-based racism was generally considered to be exercising freedom of opinion.

“Criticism of Islam or Muslims appear acceptable, because it is not seen as classically racist,” said Häusler.

German Muslims have also voiced concern about growing anti-Islamic sentiment. Head of the Central Council for Muslims in Germany Aiman Mazyek told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung that police and intelligence officials still refused to rank violent attacks towards Muslims independently, but grouped it within the broad category of xenophobia.

“By doing this, hostility against Islam is being blurred out,” said Mazyek. He said the government should publish a yearly racism report.

Orlando, Florida: Billboards stress commonality of religions

Local Muslim organizations have started a media campaign stressing the commonality of Christians, Muslims and Jews.

The billboards proclaiming “Same family, Same message” sprouting throughout the Orlando and Daytona Beach areas are sponsored by the Longwood-based American Muslim Community Centers, the Islamic Center of Orlando and the United Muslim Foundation in Lake Mary.

“In the holiday season, people are more spiritual,” said AMCC Chairman Atif Fareed. “The idea is this would be an ideal time to spread the message that we are really from the same source: one family, one message.”

Read the rest…

The Crusader Army? (h/t: Chameleon)

Cadet quits, cites overt religion at West Point

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A cadet quitting West Point less than six months before graduation says he could no longer be part of a culture that promotes prayers and religious activities and disrespects nonreligious cadets.

Blake Page announced his decision to quit the U.S. Military Academy this week in a much-discussed online post that echoed the sentiments of soldiers and airmen at other military installations. The 24-year-old told The Associated Press that a determination this semester that he could not become an officer because of clinical depression played a role in his public protest against what he calls the unconstitutional prevalence of religion in the military.

“I’ve been trying since I found that out: What can I do? What can I possibly do to initiate the change that I want to see and so many other people want to see?” Page said. “I realized that this is one way I can make that change happen.”

Page criticized a culture where cadets stand silently for prayers, where nonreligious cadets were jokingly called “heathens” by instructors at basic training and where one officer told him he’d never be a leader until he filled the hole in his heart. In announcing his resignation this week on The Huffington Post, he denounced “criminals” in the military who violate the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution.

“I don’t want to be a part of West Point knowing that the leadership here is OK with just shrugging off and shirking off respect and good order and discipline and obeying the law and defending the Constitution and doing their job,” he told the AP.

West Point officials on Wednesday disputed those assertions. Spokeswoman Theresa Brinkerhoff said prayer is voluntary at events where invocations and benedictions are conducted and noted the academy has a Secular Student Alliance club, where Page served as president.

Maj. Nicholas Utzig, the faculty adviser to the secular club, said he doesn’t doubt some of the moments Page described, but he doesn’t believe there is systematic discrimination against nonreligious cadets.

“I think it represents his own personal experience and perhaps it might not be as universal as he suggests,” said Utzig, who teaches English literature.

One of Page’s secularist classmates went further, calling his characterization of West Point unfair.

“I think it’s true that the majority of West Point cadets are of a very conservative, Christian orientation,” said senior cadet Andrew Houchin. “I don’t think that’s unique to West Point. But more broadly, I’ve never had that even be a problem with those of us who are secular.”

There have been complaints over the years that the wall between church and state is not always observed in the military. The Air Force Academy in Colorado in particular has been scrutinized for years over allegations from non-Christian students that they faced intolerance. A retired four-star general was asked last year to conduct an independent review of the overall religious climate at the academy.

There also has been a growing willingness in recent years by some service members to publicly identify themselves as atheists, agnostics or humanists and to seek the same recognition granted to Christians, Jews and other believers. Earlier this year, there was an event at Fort Bragg that was the first known event in U.S. military history to cater to nonbelievers.

Page said he hears about the plight of other nonreligious cadets in part through his involvement with the West Point affiliate of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The founder and president of that advocacy group said Page’s action is a milestone in the fight against “fanatical religiosity” in the military.

“This is an extraordinary act of courage that I do compare directly to what Rosa Parks did,” said Mikey Weinstein.

Page, who is from Stockbridge, Ga., and who was accepted into West Point after serving in the Army, said he was notified Tuesday of his honorable discharge. He faces no military commitment and will not have to reimburse the cost of his education.

West Point confirmed that it approved his resignation and that Page had been meeting the academic standards and was not undergoing any disciplinary actions. Page said he had been medically disqualified this semester from receiving a commission in the Army as a second lieutenant — like his classmates will receive in May — because of clinical depression and anxiety. He said his condition has gotten worse since his father killed himself last year.

It’s not unusual for cadets to drop out of West Point, an institution known for its rigorous academic and physical demands. But the window for dropping out without the potential for a penalty is in the first two years. Dropouts are rare after that point.

Page expects to leave for his grandparents’ home in Wright County, Minn., in the coming days. He plans to remain an activist on the role of religion in the military.

“I’d really love to be able to do this for the rest of my life,” he said.

The article below is a great example of uniting communities and learning about the “other” through art. (h/t: Hakeem)

Calligraphy to Bridge Religious Communities in God’s Own Country 

(India: Future of Change)

Down in the heart of Kerala (God’s Own Country), an Indian Muslim calligrapher is using his skills in the art of the ink flourishes to bridge Jewish and Muslim communities.

Thoufeek Zakriya is an Indian Muslim from Cochin who does calligraphy in a number of languages, including Arabic, Samaritan, Syriac and Sanskrit.  More interestingly, he is a Muslim who does masterful Hebrew calligraphy.

While study in madrasa, he learned that the Jewish people were considered by Islam to be ahl al-kitab(“People of the Book”), which sparked a curiosity in him to learn more about this religious community.  His curiosity led him to find a copy of the Gideon’s Bible, which had a page with prayers in in 23 different languages.  He decided to find what encompassed the Hebrew word for God, so using the page as his “Rosetta Stone” he was able to decipher what letters entailed the Hebrew name for the Lord.

He became more interested in Judaism and Hebrew calligraphy, and reached out to the tiny yet historic Jewish community in Cochin.   Thoufeek purchased some Hebrew texts he found at a streetside book shop and he went about learning the Hebrew alphabet.  His studies in Hebrew led him to begin crafting calligraphy of Jewish prayers such as the birkat habayit (prayer for the home) in golden resplendent brilliance.  He also began creating replicas of the Hebrew bible, the Torah.

More importantly, Thoufeek does something very unique: he has crafted Hebrew calligraphy in the ancientKufic Arabic script.  Such work is a rarity in the calligraphic world, and his innovations in the Kufic/Hebrew calligraphy has brought Thoufeek accolades from admirers from all over the world.

Read the rest…

We deal with a lot of negativity on this site, sometimes it is good to post some of the positive aspects of religion.

Here are what many religions have to say about poverty and social justice. Read some of the quotes and become better acquainted with other faith traditions.:

Religion And Poverty: Religious Teachings On Social Justice, Helping The Poor (QUOTES)

(Huffington Post)

As the Democratic National Convention meets in Charlotte, North Carolina the mandate of caring for the poor has largely dropped out of the conversation, replaced by a more popular focus on the middle class.

The United States is one of the world’s most religious and religiously diverse nations. Nearly all of the world’s religions focus on the requirement of truly religious people to care for the poor.

HuffPost Religion hopes that politicians and voters of all parties will continue to place the needs of the most vulnerable at the center of their campaigns. As Mahatma Gandhi is reported to have said: “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”

Do you have a favorite scripture passage concerning care for the poor? Send it toreligion@huffingtonpost.com and we’ll add it our collection.

- Baha’u'llah, The Hidden Words

O ye rich ones on earth! The poor in your midst are My trust; guard ye My trust, and be not intent only on your own ease.

- Buddha

Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.

- Confucius

In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.

– Luke 6:20-21

Then he looked up at his disciples and said: ‘Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

‘Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. ‘Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.

- Mahabharata XIII 7.7

He who feeds a stranger and a tired traveler with joy attains infinite religious merit.

- Qur’an 11:85-86

And O my people! Give just measure and weight, nor withhold from the people the things that are their due: commit not evil in the land with intent to do mischief. That which is left you by Allah is best for you, if ye (but) believed!

- Leviticus 19:9-10

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of the harvest. You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God.

Read the rest…

When one is confronted with hate and bigotry, how should one respond? What if one’s respond in a polite, civil manner only to be slapped with hate and bigotry again? HuffPo religion writer Kari Ansari recently encountered such an experience, and she explains how she learned that persistence is important and vital to counter Islamophobia.

Persistent Dialogue: A Tale of Two Women

(Huffington Post)

American Muslims and Sikhs have been experiencing another uptick in aggression against them. Last week shots were fired at a Morton Grove, Ill., mosque; paintball guns left ominous paint splatters all over amosque in Oklahoma; and an acid bomb was thrown at a Lombard, Ill., Islamic school – all three incidents occurred while the buildings were full of Muslims observing the Ramadan evening prayer service calledTarawih.

Even worse, a mosque was burned to the ground inJoplin, Mo.; and most frightening and tragic, six innocent Sikh followers were gunned down in their Wisconsin gurdwara (place of worship), seemingly because the shooter assumed they were Muslim.

At this same time, some elected officials are publicly spouting false, hateful accusations at the Muslim community. Last week Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh, while speaking at a town hall meeting just miles from both Chicago suburban incidents listed above said, Muslims are trying to “kill us in America every week.” U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, (R-Minn., 6th District), has been on a Muslim witch-hunt that is truly reminiscent of McCarthyism. While even Bachmann’s Republican colleagues have called her out, and her fellow Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn., 5th District), has made repeated attempts to set Bachmann straight, she’s sticking with her assertions and gathering a small cadre of fellow Tea Party Republicans to whip up the fear in their districts as well.

Is there a correlation between this political rhetoric and some of these acts of violence against non-Judeo-Christian-adherents-who-also-happen-to-be-brown? I think so, but only God knows what’s in the heart and mind of each individual. When these things happen, a person wonders if it’s possible to overcome so much animosity from people who are bent on not hearing you or recognizing you as a human being. Your first instinct is to either fight back with equal fury and hatred, or just turn and walk away. Though both options are natural reactions, I learned neither is as effective as persistent dialogue.

Last winter I was a guest on WBUR in Boston’s “Hear and Now” on the subject of bias against Muslim Americans. Later that day I received a long letter from a woman who had heard the interview, telling me why Americans hate Muslims and Muslim women.

She wrote that “rational” people are repulsed by Muslims because “the absolute fact that [Muslim] women are nothing. ZERO! You are a possession.” She vented hate for many paragraphs and concluded with, “you can talk up a good game Kari, but you are not ever going to be part of America in anything but address. You can live here; don’t ask for respect or inclusion, it will never happen. Your poor little daughters will be raised in this repressive religion and it is just sad… ”

I was shaking with anger. I typed off a very insulting reply and promptly deleted it as I thought about how Prophet Muhammad had always responded with stoic patience and kindness to his worst detractors. He said, “The best friend in the Sight of God is he who is the well-wisher of his companions, and the best neighbor is one who behaves best towards his neighbors.”

I thought, “She just doesn’t know me,” so I wrote back:

“As a Muslim, my faith dictates that I treat you with respect and kindness, regardless of your behavior towards me.”

I went on to tell her that I am a multi-generation American and that my daughters are “active, vibrant young ladies who attend school, play sports, violin, and participate in the high school robotics club and Model United Nations.” I told her about my respectful sons, and my loving husband who is a true partner in parenting. I finished with, “I wish you had the opportunity to meet my family, or any of the other 6-to-7 million Muslims who are your fellow Americans. We’re open for a discussion and we’re open for a visit. Don’t hesitate to reach out with sincere curiosity, and you’ll be surprised at what a warm response you’ll get.”

She replied with another insulting letter and ended with this, “Quit looking for acceptance, you’re not going to get it for all the reasons I listed below. You be strong in your faith and ignore us. But don’t insinuate we are ignorant and need to visit your sweet, gentle, loving home filled with Muslim bliss … We would have to pretend, you and I, for as I would look at your head scarf the reality of what that means would sour all else.”

Oh well, I thought, it’s pointless. I mentioned the exchange to a friend of mine who wisely advised that I not give up because she said that this type of exchange could be the “ultimate dialogue ideal,” given that it was private and allowed each person to take time to write their thoughts. I was dubious, but because I admire my friend and her experience with community building, I decided to give it one more try. I wrote:

“I won’t take your comments personally, because you aren’t treating me like a person…” And I then let her know I would not continue the conversation in a hateful manner.

She wrote one more “addendum,” as she called it, with more nasty comments and agreed that she was finished with the exchange.

I tried to get her hateful words out of my mind that night, but I felt like a stranger had slapped my face.

The next day I received another e-mail, with the subject line, “An Apology.” She wrote, “Kari please accept my sincere apology for my absolutely rude comments. You are right, I am wrong for just going off like a rocket. I bundled every bad thing ever said about Muslims and aimed it at you. You and your family are obviously fine people and yes, my fellow Americans, who I do not know and had no business maligning. I had had a VERY bad day and week (which I will not burden you with) and just took everything out on you.”

I could have left it alone, at that point but I wrote back, “Apology accepted because that’s where dialogue begins, and can end with mutual respect.”

I let her know that if she ever had sincere questions regarding some of the issues she had raised that I would be more than happy to talk to her about them: “My door is open for discussion if it’s honest, and sincere. I promise to return the favor.”

I heard from her one more time.

“Thank you. I don’t know if I would have been so forgiving had this exchange been reversed. I will always be reminded that great differences exists within any religion, and to paint with a broad brush is a mistake. I have always known that, just lost my way in anger. You allowed the burden of my great regret to be lifted and I thank you for that gesture.”

When she began this exchange she did not think of me as living, breathing woman with a real life. By engaging her, and patiently reminding her that she was writing to a person, I was able to break through some of her animosity. She may not have known any Muslims before, but now she knows me.

We all have to persist in dialogue with others outside of our “group” because only God knows whose path we may alter away from hatred or violence.

A German Judge Bans Judaism, Islam

By JOSEF JOFFE (Washington Post)

A Cologne court has decreed that a child’s circumcision is “bodily harm” and thus verboten. Unless the German Bundestag intervenes, which it has pledged to do, about four million Muslims and 100,000-plus Jews will have to practice a central part of their religion in the catacombs of Berlin, Frankfurt and Munich.

It is all God’s fault. “This is my covenant,” He ordered in Genesis 17:10, “which ye shall keep, and thy seed after thee. Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” The original criminal was Abraham, who laid hand on himself—without sterile equipment, let alone novocaine. Then he inflicted the same on his son Isaac on the eighth day after his birth, circa 4,000 years ago.

We are talking about a few millimeters of foreskin, not about female mutilation (clitoris out, labia excised or sewn together). But if you believe the Cologne judge and the chorus of yeah-sayers, this is a “barbaric ritual,” as the children’s ombudswoman of the Social Democrats put it. Matthias Franz, a psychiatrist at the University of Düsseldorf, bemoans “grave genital injuries with psychological and sexual damages down the line.”

Tell that to about six million Jewish men, half a billion Muslim males and about three-quarters of America’s manhood.

The Cologne judge ruled that the “physical integrity” of a baby boy beats religious ritual. Plus: The baby’s unuttered will trumps his parents’ say-so. Hence the state must step in, never mind parental rights or a pillar of faith. If this author’s parents weren’t dead, he would love to sue them for his unwanted tonsillectomy when he was age 5, for we now know that these tissues, a lot more voluminous than a tiny foreskin, are the body’s first defense against pathogens. He would also sue them for various involuntary vaccinations and their painful after-effects.

How about soccer moms who send their boys into the mayhem on the pitch? Or all those ambitious parents, medals dancing before their eyes, who risk the limbs and lives of their offspring on the ski-run, balance beam or show-jumping horse?

Yet this debate is not about facts or faith, as hundreds of letters to the editor testify. One “expert” argues to me that the American practice has nothing to do with health. The intent was “anti-libidinous,” aimed at stopping boys from “masturbating.” Another put circumcision into the same category as Nazi sterilization and forced abortion in China. This is not funny, but serious hatred of things American, Jewish and Muslim.

Leave aside fear and loathing, a large chunk, and you are left with the biggest headache of them all: state versus church in a Europe that is de-Christianizing. The closer the historical tie between throne and altar, as in Germany and Protestant Europe, the more control the state has arrogated unto itself. In Germany, which invented “cuius regio, eius religio” (the ruler’s faith determines his subjects’ faith), the government collects the tithe, mandates religious instruction in public schools, and decides which churches are “established” (Protestants, Catholics and Jews, but not Mormons or Baptists).

Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation,” justified by “religion [being] a matter which lies solely between man and his God,” has always been a low fence in Europe. As secularization grew, so did the scope of the state as scourge of superstition and unreason. Hence, the Cologne judge is hardly alone; 45% of German people think he is right. The state trumps both parents and a few thousand years of sanctified practice.The irony of it all is that the state, as represented by the legislature, will have to reverse the judge. The temporal power as savior of the faith is not exactly a liberal’s dream, but neither is the “wall of separation” that now divides Jews and Muslims from the rest.

While the parliament ponders, let the stand-up comics have the stage. A good start is the War of Jenkins’ Ear, fought from 1739 to 1742 over three inches of epidermis and cartilage belonging to Captain Robert Jenkins. His merchant ship was boarded by the Spanish coast guard in the West Indies. In the scuffle, the skipper’s auricle was sliced off. He took it to London as Exhibit A, where a furious Parliament called for retribution. Spain didn’t back down and war ensued, sliding into the War of the Austrian Succession, which embroiled almost all of Europe.

Such a small piece of flesh, and such a big war. If the Cologne judge had known his history, he would have let discretion prevail over secularist rigor. “Live and let snip” might have been the wiser choice. Who wants to tangle with the Man in Heaven above?

Mr. Joffe is editor of Die Zeit, senior fellow of the Institute for International Studies and fellow of the Hoover Institution, both at Stanford University.

OK, so I don’t know how Zelenik came up with these numbers, but she’s sticking to them:

Zelenik: “15% Of Islam Is A Religion, 85% Political.”

(newschannel5)

NASHVILLE, Tenn.- The question of religion is playing a major role in one of the most heated congressional primary races in the country.

Republican Lou Ann Zelenik is challenging incumbent republican Diane Black in the sixth congressional district. When asked if she believed if Islam was a real religion, Zelenick said she believed it to be mostly political.

“I consider 15 percent of Islam a religion, 85 percent political. It’s a total way of life. The only ones who do not call Islam a religion are the Muslims because it’s not a religion,” said Zelenik.

News Channel 5 Investigative reporter Ben Hall asked Zelenik asked if she felt Islam was a real religion or something else Zelenik was clear.

“I will tell you I don’t agree with everything that they say in the Islamic religion or ideology or whatever you want to call it, but I think it has been established by the Federal government and it’s protected as a religion and that’s what I am going to abide by is the law,” she said.

The entire interview of both candidates, including their take on the negative ads that have been such a big part of this campaign will air on Inside Politics on News Channel 5+ at 7 p.m. on July 27 or at 5 a.m. Sunday, July 29 on News Channel 5.