It is heartening to see clear, incisive articles that carry a good deal of facts and strong arguments against Islamophobia. Yousef Munayyer’s most recent piece is one such article. My one quibble with it is that Munayyer says Muslim American’s are a “fairly new immigrant group,” while this is true in some regards it minimizes the long history of Islam going over a century in the United States, including indigenous Muslims, especially African Americans.:

An illusion of security

by Yousef Munayyer (Chicago Tribune)

In seven days this month, at least eight places of worship associated with Middle Easterners or South Asians have been targeted in the United States. A Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., was the site of a massacre where six people were murdered. Later that evening a mosque in Joplin, Mo., was burned to the ground. In the following days, mosques were targeted in Rhode Island, Southern California, Oklahoma City and at two sites in Illinois. In Dearborn, Mich., an Arab-American church was targeted with vandalism.

All of this occurs in the wake of continued Islamophobia peddled by some elements of the American right. Sadly, the failure to condemn such hateful rhetoric by mainstream Democratic leaders has allowed it to perpetuate unchecked.

U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., for example, delivered a xenophobic rant last week: “One thing I’m sure of,” he told a town hall meeting, “is that there are people in this country — there is a radical strain of Islam in this country — it’s not just over there — trying to kill Americans every week. It is a real threat, and it is a threat that is much more at home now than it was after 9/11.” He went on, “It’s here. It’s in Elk Grove. It’s in Addison. It’s in Elgin. It’s here.”

Two days later a mosque had pellet-gun rounds fired at its walls. A few days after that a bottle filled with acid was thrown at an Islamic school as students prayed inside. Both of these incidents happened within 15 miles of Walsh’s town hall meeting only days prior.

The events of the past two weeks are cause for alarm. A spike in Islamophobic incidents and an increase in gun violence suggest it is only a matter of time before this occurs again and possibly with significant casualties.

Make no mistake, this is terrorism. What else can we call this pattern of violence targeting and intimidating civilians, leaving them afraid of practicing their most basic right, their freedom to worship?

The University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Response to Terrorism maintains a database of terror incidents around the globe. Since 9/11 through the end of 2010 there have been 155 terror incidents in the U.S., and exactly two of them or 1.3 percent have been attributed to international Islamist terror groups. The majority of events are perpetrated by actors with domestic political motivations like anti-abortionists, right-wing extremists, extreme animal rights activists, and extreme environmentalists.

Anders Breivik, who killed scores in Norway last year, taught us a lesson about the folly involved in disproportionately targeting Muslims. The Norway killer apparently was inspired by U.S.-based Islamophobes like right-wing bloggers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller. The latter’s most recent endeavor is an ad campaign aimed at explaining the Israeli/Palestinian question in terms of overly simplistic and racist dichotomy between the civilized and the savage. Breivik, a disciple of this type of hate, was well-aware that his ethnic background would help him “escape the scrutiny often reserved for young men of Arab descent.” I suppose Wade Michael Page, who massacred the Sikhs in Wisconsin, had a similar confidence.

Despite this empirical reality, a vastly disproportionate focus has been put on the Muslim community in response to terrorism; racial and ethnic profiling has been a feature of this response. From the Bush administration’s Operation Frontline in 2004, in which Muslim-Americans were 1,200 times more likely than others to be interrogated by law enforcement and immigration officials, to the persistent manufacturing of plots by the FBI through the infiltration of mosques by entrapping informants, to the spying on the Muslim community done by the New York Police Department to the Israeli-inspired Transportation Security Administration programs (which have recently led 30 whistleblowers to complain about the use of racial profiling), Muslim-Americans have been disproportionately targeted through counter-terrorism measures.

So why is that?

The answer is simple. Muslim-Americans, a fairly new immigrant group still small in number and not yet cohesively organized, are easy targets. For a government that needs to demonstrate its ability to secure the homeland, the targeting of Muslim-Americans is a low-risk, high-reward option. American’s don’t actually have to be safer, they just need to feel safer, and if the government can get them to feel that way by targeting the “big bad Muslim boogeyman” then so be it.

It is easy to curtail the civil liberties of a minority group but far more difficult to curtail the civil liberties of larger groups. That’s why it is commonplace to see Muslim witch hunts advocated in the wake of an extremely rare domestic terrorist act. Yet, after far more common mass shootings, which seem very common these days, there is no political appetite to further regulate the Second Amendment.

Have post-9/11 policies made us safer from the threat of terrorism? Many might see the disproportionate crackdown on Muslim-Americans and think so, to the government’s liking.

But for the Arab, Muslim and Sikh families whose lives will be irreversibly marked by the tragic events of the past weeks, the answer is a very clear and resounding no.

Yousef Munayyer is executive director of the Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development, and the Palestine Center, in Washington.

An update on the Llanelli mosque:

Attacks on Llanelli’s mosque prompts security rise

SECURITY measures have been taken at Llanelli’s mosque following claims of attacks on the building.

Metal bars have been fitted over the Station Road mosque’s front window after reports were made that the glass was smashed while someone was praying inside.

The incident came just months after the door was kicked through and a group of elderly women were followed in.

And police are now conducting high visibility patrols in the area to calm the concerns of people using the mosque.

Press officer for Llanelli’s Ethnic Minority Help Association Anne Stevens-Bevan said she was working hard to ensure people feel safe when they go to pray.

“I met with the police last week and I am negotiating with them and the Muslim Council for Great Britain to see what advice they can give,” she said.

“There have been problems with things thrown at the window and people being chased and abused physically and mentally.

“The trouble has been on-going for 14 years, but I have made a promise that it won’t happen again because it’s just not fair.”

Mrs Stevens-Bevan said she was “sickened to the stomach” to hear that the window was smashed while someone was praying.

“It should be a world of calmness,” she said.

“Having to put bars over the window takes away from that — it takes away from the sense of peace.”

She added that while lighting would soon be installed near the mosque, efforts were still being made to have CCTV cameras installed.

“The mosque is well used — and by some very elderly people — and they should feel safe,” she said.

“They get mouthy people passing, and these words can build up and rob them of their self-esteem.

“People don’t forget things like that, and for the women who were followed into the mosque it must be in their minds all the time.

“The mosque is a sacred place, like our churches and chapels, and we will not give up until people feel safe to go there.”

PC Dylan Davies said: “When they reported the criminal damage to me I did advise them to think about taking some security measures, which they did by adding the grill to the window.

“Having said that, this is a one-off instance. I am aware of concerns the people using the mosque have, and I am keeping an eye on the building and making sure that there are regular high visibility patrols in and around the area.”

alana.lewis@swwmedia.co.uk

First off I want to apologize for the last post, I actually had not looked closely at the images which were as many of you pointed out, “needlessly offensive” and in fact prejudiced. Thank you for the input and oversight, Emperor informed me of the comments and of my error, I am a new contributor and I hope this does not put me out of favor with the loonwatch family.  –Amago

Now the actual study, entitled “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace: Private Firms, and the Threat to Rights and Security,” is well worth the read. It recounts the pervasive atmosphere of Islamophobia and reliance on Islamophobes at the most and ignorance at the least amongst security officials, trainers and others and the corrosive effect in can have on our rights and national security.

Here is an excerpt from the “Executive Summary” of the report:

“Manufacturing the Muslim Menace: Private Firms, and the Threat to Rights and Security”

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks by al Qaeda Homeland Security Professionals Conference,on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the fed- eral government has mobilized law enforcement agencies at all levels into a coordinated national defense against future terror attacks. To meet this challenge, the growing ranks of the domestic security apparatus—including local police, transit, port, and other agencies not traditionally involved in counterterrorism—require training. The George W. Bush administration’s declaration of “war on terror” bolstered a private counterterrorism training industry that offers courses on topics ranging from infrastructure reinforcement to terrorist ideology.

A nine-month investigation by Political Research Associates (PRA) finds that government agencies responsible for domestic security have inadequate mechanisms to ensure quality and consistency in ter- rorism preparedness training provided by private vendors; public servants are regularly presented with misleading, inflammatory, and dangerous informa- tion about the nature of the terror threat through highly politicized seminars, industry conferences, trade publications, and electronic media. In place of sound skills training and intelligence briefings, a vocal and influential sub-group of the private counterterrorism training industry markets conspiracy theories about secret jihadi campaigns to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia law, and effectively impugns all of Islam — a world religion with 1.3 billion adherents—as inherently violent and even terroristic.

Walid Shoebat, a popular “ex-Muslim” speaker used by multiple private training firms, recently told the audience at an International Counter-Terrorism Officers Association (ICTOA) conference, “Islam is a revolution and is intent to destroy all other systems. They want to expand, like Nazism.”1 Another private sector counterterrorism trainer, John Giduck, told a Homeland Security Professionals Conference “Going back to the time of Mohammed, Muslims’ goal has been to take over the world.”2 Walid Phares, who teaches for The Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies and the National Defense University, argues that “jihadists within the West pose as civil rights advocates”3 and patiently recruit until “[a]lmost all mosques, educational centers, and socioeconomic institutions fall into their hands.”4 These “jihadists” put off militant action, Phares claims ominiously, “until the ‘holy moment’ comes.”5 Solomon Bradman, CEO of the training firm Security Solutions International (SSI), likewise claims that a Muslim stealth jihad threatens the United States from within. Such assertions are far from benign. Asked by a PRA investigator what she understood to be Shoebat’s solution to the Islamic threat he described at the ICTOA event previously mentioned, one audience member responded, “Kill them, including the children. You heard him.”6

Islamophobic statements like those above have the effect of demonizing the entirety of Islam as dangerous and “extremist,” denying the existence of a moderate Muslim majority, or regarding Islam gen- erally as a problem for the world.7 The private sector speakers and trainers PRA investigated routinely invoke conspiracy theories that draw upon deeply- ingrained negative stereotypes of Muslim duplicity, repression, backwardness, and evil.8 Islamophobia is “an outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in prac- tices of exclusion and discrimination” and may include the perception that Islam is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion.9

The notion that a generalized Muslim menace poses an existential threat to the United States and western democracy contradicts official national secu- rity doctrine and undermines both domestic security and the constitutional rights of our citizens and resi- dents. Nonetheless, PRA’s investigation finds that public resources are being used to propagate this dangerous falsehood to the nation’s first responders, intelligence analysts, and other public servants.

Whereas the United States government consistently refuses to take the measures needed to curtail terrorism (i.e. halting U.S.-led occupations and interventions abroad), Homeland Security (and the TSA in specific) has taken extreme measures in the name of Security.  Although these curtailments on civil liberties do virtually nothing to stop terrorism, they are very successful in ratcheting up the fear level in an already spooked citizenry. This may well be an unintended yet helpful consequence, but it may certainly also be a deliberate attempt to create an aura of imminent danger.

It truly speaks to our state of mind that we forever live in a world characterized by the government as “threat level: orange” or “threat level: red.”  Before the threat of Terrorism our collective conscious was paralyzed over the thought of nuclear annihilation from the Soviet Union.  It seems there is always one great existential threat that must exist in order for the U.S. government to keep its citizenry in a state of eternal trepidation.  Fear-stricken Americans are then forced to turn to the government for Security, ceding their freedoms in the process.

One American patriot, John Tyner, decided he had just about enough.  Tyner refused to be go through the XXX-ray scanner.  He also refused to be sexually molested by those acting in the name of Security.  Tyner’s refusal may well turn out to be historic.  It is certainly reminiscent of Rosa Parks and her refusal to go to the back of the bus. Glenn Greenwald writes:

Last week, John Tyner, a resident of Southern California, was subjected to a long series of harassing and vindictive actions by Homeland-Security/TSA functionaries after he refused to submit to the new body scanning and groping searches at the San Diego International Airport.  He was randomly selected for the new procedures, and after he refused on privacy grounds, he repeatedly offered instead to go through the metal detectors which were being used on the vast majority of passengers.  When told that he would not be permitted to fly unless he submitted to the new procedures, he agreed to leave the airport, but was then prevented from doing so and threatened with large fines and other punishments if he tried.  The same day, he chronicled this abuse in a long blog post — with detailed narratives and videotapes — which quickly went viral and was widely-circulated.   If you haven’t already, I highly recommend reading it.  As Digby wrote about it:

Just read this story of Orwellian airport hell and then think about how many of our basic notions of freedom we’ve given up in the name of “Homeland Security” in the past few years. Then think about the fact that we are spending billions of dollars in this so-called era of austerity on bullshit like this, with layer upon layer of supervisors and officers and supervisory officers basically performing security theater for no good reason.

These routine insults, humiliations and suspensions of human dignity are training us to submit to the police state. I noticed this morning that in all the blathering about tax cuts and deficits, not one person brought up Homeland Security. That bloated budget is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger and if you build it they will use it. And the results of that are obvious.

Making this story so much worse:  as John Cole notes today, the TSA called a news conference to announce that it was formally investigating Tyner to determine whether to impose $11,000 in fines on him.  As Cole observes:  ”Don’t submit to the police state, and we’ll come after you. This isn’t a punishment for Tyner, it is a message to everyone else.”

This is the sort of outrage that really merits a national uprising in defense of this citizen.  I hope to have some details on that in a bit (I turned in a major chunk of my book today and am thus slightly liberated until tomorrow).  I wrote on Twitter two days ago in response to this story:  “What has most degraded the American citizenry is convincing them that no value competes with or should be weighed against *Security*.”  And, of course, these measures rarely provide real security:  only security theater.

Many Americans, to their shame, are typically apathetic to such concerns because privacy and civil liberties infringements are — at least it’s perceived — being directed only at foreigners and Muslims, not “real Americans.”

I have bolded the last two paragraphs because they are especially poignant.  The last sentence speaks to the general theme of our website: Islamophobia (which, in all honesty, is simply one of the flavors of Other-ophobia) has far reaching consequences.  Not only does it enable and encourage morally defunct and horribly unjust wars, but Islamophobia’s power stretches to affect the lives of everyday Americans.  It is true, however, that many Americans won’t care until it affects the “real Americans”, by which of course we mean God-fearing Judeo-Christian white people.

Anyways, here is the whole post by John Tyner (well worth the read):

TSA encounter at SAN

…This morning, I tried to fly out of San Diego International Airport but was refused by the TSA. I had been somewhat prepared for this eventuality. I have been reading about the millimeter wave and backscatter x-ray machines and the possible harm to health as well as the vivid pictures they create of people’s naked bodies. Not wanting to go through them, I had done my  research on the TSA’s website prior to traveling to see if SAN had them. From all indications, they did not. When I arrived at the security line, I found that the TSA’s website was out of date. SAN does in fact utilize backscatter x-ray machines.

I made my way through the line toward the first line of “defense”: the TSA ID checker. This agent looked over my boarding pass, looked over my ID, looked at me and then back at my ID. After that, he waved me through. SAN is still operating metal detectors, so I walked over to one of the lines for them. After removing my shoes and making my way toward the metal detector, the person in front of me in line was pulled out to go through the backscatter machine. After asking what it was and being told, he opted out. This left the machine free, and before I could go through the metal detector, I was pulled out of line to go through the backscatter machine. When asked, I half-chuckled and said, “I don’t think so.” At this point, I was informed that I would be subject to a pat down, and I waited for another agent.

A male agent (it was a female who had directed me to the backscatter machine in the first place), came and waited for me to get my bags and then directed me over to the far corner of the area for screening. After setting my things on a table, he turned to me and began to explain that he was going to do a “standard” pat down. (I thought to myself, “great, not one of those gropings like I’ve been reading about”.) After he described, the pat down, I realized that he intended to touch my groin. After he finished his description but before he started the pat down, I looked him straight in the eye and said, “if you touch my junk, I’ll have you arrested.” He, a bit taken aback, informed me that he would have to involve his supervisor because of my comment.

We both stood there for no more than probably two minutes before a female TSA agent (apparently, the supervisor) arrived. She described to me that because I had opted out of the backscatter screening, I would now be patted down, and that involved running hands up the inside of my legs until they felt my groin. I stated that I would not allow myself to be subject to a molestation as a condition of getting on my flight. The supervisor informed me that it was a standard administrative security check and that they were authorized to do it. I repeated that I felt what they were doing was a sexual assault, and that if they were anyone but the government, the act would be illegal. I believe that I was then informed that if I did not submit to the inspection, I would not be getting on my flight. I again stated that I thought the search was illegal. I told her that I would be willing to submit to a walk through the metal detector as over 80% of the rest of the people were doing, but I would not be groped. The supervisor, then offered to go get her supervisor.

I took a seat in a tiny metal chair next to the table with my belongings and waited. While waiting, I asked the original agent (who was supposed to do the pat down) if he had many people opt out to which he replied, none (or almost none, I don’t remember exactly). He said that I gave up a lot of rights when I bought my ticket. I replied that the government took them away after September 11th. There was silence until the next supervisor arrived. A few minutes later, the female agent/supervisor arrived with a man in a suit (not a uniform). He gave me a business card identifying him as David Silva, Transportation Security Manager, San Diego International Airport. At this point, more TSA agents as well as what I assume was a local police officer arrived on the scene and surrounded the area where I was being detained. The female supervisor explained the situation to Mr. Silva. After some quick back and forth (that I didn’t understand/hear), I could overhear Mr. Silva say something to the effect of, “then escort him from the airport.” I again offered to submit to the metal detector, and my father-in-law, who was near by also tried to plead for some reasonableness on the TSA’s part.

The female supervisor took my ID at this point and began taking some kind of report with which I cooperated. Once she had finished, I asked if I could put my shoes back on. I was allowed to put my shoes back on and gather my belongs. I asked, “are we done here” (it was clear at this point that I was going to be escorted out), and the local police officer said, “follow me”. I followed him around the side of the screening area and back out to the ticketing area. I said apologized to him for the hassle, to which he replied that it was not a problem.

I made my way over to the American Airlines counter, explained the situation, and asked if my ticket could be refunded. The woman behind the counter furiously typed away for about 30 seconds before letting me know that she would need a supervisor. She went to the other end of the counter. When she returned, she informed me that the ticket was non-refundable, but that she was still trying to find a supervisor. After a few more minutes, she was able to refund my ticket. I told her that I had previously had a bad experience with American Airlines and had sworn never to fly with them again (I rationalized this trip since my father-in-law had paid for the ticket), but that after her helpfulness, I would once again be willing to use their carrier again.

At this point, I thought it was all over. I began to make my way to the stairs to exit the airport, when I was approached by another man in slacks and a sport coat. He was accompanied by the officer that had escorted me to the ticketing area and Mr. Silva. He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. I asked him if he was also going to fine the 6 TSA agents and the local police officer who escorted me from the secure area. After all, I did exactly what I was told. He said that they didn’t know the rules, and that he would deal with them later. They would not be subject to civil penalties. I then pointed to Mr. Silva and asked if he would be subject to any penalties. He is the agents’ supervisor, and he directed them to escort me out. The man informed me that Mr. Silva was new and he would not be subject to penalties, either. He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area. When I asked why, he explained that I may have an incendiary device and whether or not that was true needed to be determined. I told him that I would submit to a walk through the metal detector, but that was it; I would not be groped. He told me that their procedures are on their website, and therefore, I was fully informed before I entered the airport; I had implicitly agreed to whatever screening they deemed appropriate. I told him that San Diego was not listed on the TSA’s website as an airport using Advanced Imaging Technology, and I believed that I would only be subject to the metal detector. He replied that he was not a webmaster, and I asked then why he was referring me to the TSA’s website if he didn’t know anything about it. I again refused to re-enter the screening area.

The man asked me to stay put while he walked off to confer with the officer and Mr. Silva. They went about 20 feet away and began talking amongst themselves while I waited. I couldn’t over hear anything, but I got the impression that the police officer was recounting his version of the events that had transpired in the screening area (my initial refusal to be patted down). After a few minutes, I asked loudly across the distance if I was free to leave. The man dismissively held up a finger and said, “hold on”. I waited. After another minute or so, he returned and asked for my name. I asked why he needed it, and reminded him that the female supervisor/agent had already taken a report. He said that he was trying to be friendly and help me out. I asked to what end. He reminded me that I could be sued civilly and face a $10,000 fine and that my cooperation could help mitigate the penalties I was facing. I replied that he already had my information in the report that was taken and I asked if I was free to leave. I reminded him that he was now illegally detaining me and that I would not be subject to screening as a condition of leaving the airport. He told me that he was only trying to help (I should note that his demeanor never suggested that he was trying to help. I was clearly being interrogated.), and that no one was forcing me to stay. I asked if tried to leave if he would have the officer arrest me. He again said that no one was forcing me to stay. I looked him in the eye, and said, “then I’m leaving”. He replied, “then we’ll bring a civil suit against you”, to which I said, “you bring that suit” and walked out of the airport.

You can see the video of Tyner’s encounter on his blog.

We at LoonWatch salute this man’s bravery and his courageous support of civil liberties.  Unless more Americans stand up to such curtailments of citizen rights, then it’s only a slight exaggeration to say that one day TSA will give us pre-flight colonoscopies, and we’ll be forced to walk onto planes naked.

UPDATE:

A reader by the name of Mindy posted the following comment:

How come on Puerto Rico they had a base, they did not attack us, and we left it a couple of years ago(please correct me if I am wrong)

In fact, Prof. Brent Smith writes in his book Terrorism in America (p.22):

Puerto Rican Terrorism Puerto Rican nationalists were the most active terrorists in the United States and its territories during the 1980s.  From 1980-1982 Puerto Rican terrorists accounted for fifty-three of the 122 terrorism incidents (43 percent) that took place in that period.  As many as ten different Puerto Rican groups claimed responsibility for bombings and assassinations during the early 1980s.

In 1990 alone, Puerto  Rican terrorists carried out five bombings in the United States.  Can one imagine the reaction of the media and “average Americans” if Muslims carried out five coordinated terrorist attacks in one year?

Puerto Rican terrorism has subsequently declined.  Why?  Prof. Smith writes (p.23):

…Recent efforts in the U.S. Congress to allow Puerto Ricans to vote on the future political status of the island may have had an adverse effect on violent nationalists’ recruitment efforts.

How much clearer would you like it to be?  Was it Jihad, Islam, and the Quran which compelled Puerto Ricans to terrorism?  Or was it U.S. interventionist policies?

Mindy says further:

If people want sympathy from the average American, don’t blow things up, average people like me won’t like you.

This is exactly what average Muslims in the Islamic world think about us.  The United States drops more bombs on Muslim heads in the Islamic world in one single day (and continue to do so on a regular basis) than all the Islamic extremists combined have ever detonated throughout history.  The U.S. kills more Muslims in the Islamic world than Islamic extremists have ever killed Americans, on the order of magnitude of greater than 100.  And these killings, unlike the non-state actors like Al-Qaeda, are orchestrated by the democratically elected U.S. government herself, with the blessing of its citizenry.  So yes: if the United States wants sympathy from the average Muslim in the Islamic world, don’t blow things up, because average people won’t like you then.  Americans should not vote for such warmongers if they wish not to be seen as warmongers by the populations living in areas being warred upon by the U.S.

Please see:

Prof. Stephen Walt: Why They Hate Us?

And of course Glenn Greenwald’s excellent commentary:

They Hate Us For Our Occupations

Mindy says:

Weren’t terrorists trying to kill us before Afghanistan and Iraq?

U.S. interventionism in the region far preceded the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.  It may be worthwhile to read this document from the CATO Institute, which calls the U.S. “the heir to British imperialism in the region” and concludes that “U.S. conduct in the Middle East since the end of World War II” is “trag[ic]“.  The right-liberterian group argues that “it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations…of the Middle East.”

There is indeed a direct correlation between U.S. interventionism and terrorism against the U.S.  The more people we bomb, the more they want to be bomb us.  The more people we kill, the more they want to kill us.  Having said that, it’s probably a good idea to eschew the usage of unhelpful terms like “us” and “they”, as neither “us” or “they” are two monoliths.

And just for the record:

The FALN (Armed Forces of National Liberation) is a clandestine organization committed to the political independence of Puerto Rico from the United States. Between 1974 and 1983, the FALN claimed responsibility for more than 120 bombings of military and government buildings, financial institutions, and corporate headquarters in Chicago, New York, and Washington DC, which killed six people and injured dozens more. The purpose of these bombings was to protest U.S. military presence in Puerto Rico, draw attention to Puerto Rico’s political relationship with the United States, and object to increased influence of U.S.-based corporate and financial institutions on the island.

source

Filiberto Ojeda Ríos, a Puerto Rican nationalist, was classified as a terrorist by the United States, and was in fact one of the FBI’s most wanted.  He had great support in Peuerto Rico.

Los Macheteros is a Puerto Rican group categorized by the FBI as a terrorist group.  It operated (and continues to operate) cells in the United States, with an active membership in 2006 of approximately 1,100 to 5,700 members and an unknown number of supporters and sympathizers.  The group campaigns for Puerto Rican independence from what they see as “U.S. colonial rule.”

Members of the Puerto Rico Nationalist Party infiltrated the gallery of the U.S. House of Representatives and shot 5 Congressman. We must ask, as we always do: what if they were Muslims?

Here's praying that Islam and Muslims face the blame for Fort Hood

 Since news of the heinous Fort Hood massacre at the hands of Major Malik Nidal Hassan first broke out, “Islam Scholar” Robert Spencer, of f**kislam fame, has been like a gluttonous kid in a candy shop, frantically blogging over three dozen times with one goal in mind: slap down the blame on Islam and Muslims at large.

That is precisely the line that every sane responder has warned against. Whether it was the American Muslim leadership, the US military leadership, the mainstream media, or the President of the United States. But to Spencer who is rubbing his hands praying that a massive backlash could befall the American Muslim community, the sanity that he is hearing and seeing from mainstream America is cause for anger, bitterness, and complaints.

For the “Islam Scholar,” everyone including the US Military leadership are “dhimmi” wimps afraid of the Mooslims. Fancy that, a sedentary blogger who barely gets off his backside where he sits day and night punching away at a keyboard sees fit to accuse those who venture on the war frontiers risking their lives to protect this country (including his) of being cowardly sell-out wimps.

As pretentious and downright sick as that is, Spencer who is drenched in his own bias and deafened by the screeching sound of his own propaganda will likely fail to take notice.

Spencer’s mad response of course is entirely predictable, after all he has shown tremendous consistency and undying loyalty to a line of arguments whose sole agenda is to drive a wedge between America’s faith communities and make a compelling case for the widespread hate of Islam and distrust of Muslims.

Accordingly, only moments after news of the shooting was made public, the opportunistic preacher wasted no time getting on his e-pulpit and positing that the shooter was carrying out a legitimate Islamic Jihad, a religious requirement of all Muslims (unbeknownst to you and them for that matter). Since then, he has immersed himself in whipping out a flurry of dishonest and sinister propaganda posts, cherry picking items to strengthen his case, and completely ignoring those that do not.

For example, Spencer seems to the be the only one who missed the tremendous outpouring of support from the American Muslim community and their organizations of whom CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, and virtually every registered Muslim organization – if not Mosque – in the United States were quick to issue condemnation and condolences as they expressed that such action has no support in their Islamic faith. Some even started support networks for the victims. Not a peep from Spencer. Instead, all the expedient Spencer could see was that one 18 year old kid and this one Imam in Yemen (condemned by Muslim orgs in the US and refuted by American imams) who supported the killing. Oh and wait, there is a radical web forum out there too. “Aha! There you have it, it’s a MOOOSLIM thing! It’s Izlaahm! Am I lying about anything I posted?”

Lying by highly selective reporting and glaring omission, yet another example of the objective scholarly ways of the “Islam Scholar” Robert Spencer.

Spencer’s three dozen posts on the Fort Hood massacre fall into one of three rants:

1) Incriminate the faith of 1.5 billion Muslims who had nothing to do with Hassan’s actions, and 7 million American Muslims who condemned his act (moved ironically by their faith to do so). Question the loyalty of Muslims in the military, ignoring that there are 3500 active Muslim service men and women in excellent standing.

2) Cherry pick any instance of support for the massacre regardless of how off the beaten path they are while turning a blind eye to the zillions of instances of more credible and representative Muslim voices condemning it.

3) Whine when others take a pass on your loon rants. Throw a temper tantrum at the mainstream media, the US military, the public and everyone else; respond by ridiculing them as dhimmis and wimps. (Take solace in the fact that at least Lou Dobbs and slimey Senator Joe Lieberman may come through for you).

Here is a fun little exercise for our wonderful readers, see if you can match each of Spencer’s posts below to its appropriate category above:

• In the wake of Fort Hood jihad, Houston authorities try to assure non-Muslims that steps are being taken to keep them safe — no, wait…

• AP: “Anti-Muslim Backlash Immediate” — but offers not even one example

• Muslim vets group: No reports of harassment of Muslim soldiers. None.

• “Everybody knows Islam is a Religion of Peace”

• Muslims in New York celebrate the deaths of Americans in the Fort Hood jihad

• DHS Secretary warns that Fort Hood jihad must not be repeated — no, wait…

• Muslim at Islamic Community of Greater Killeen, Texas: “I honestly have no pity” for victims of the Fort Hood jihad

• U.S.-born Islamic cleric: Nidal Hasan “Did the Right Thing”

• Fitzgerald: A Nest of Ninnies

• U.S. government vows revenge after jihadist commits mass murder at Fort Hood — no, wait…

• Why He Shouted “Allahu Akbar”

• It wasn’t jihad, it was heartburn

• U.S.-born Muslim cleric praises Fort Hood jihadist

• Lindsey Graham: “At the end of the day this is not about his religion — the fact that this man was a Muslim”

• U.S. Army General: Lack of diversity in Army is worse than mass murder

• Playing the victim card: Florida mosque requests extra police protection, even though it wasn’t threatened

• Fort Hood jihadist’s coworkers saw warning signs, but said nothing for fear of seeming bigoted

• Muslims at Fort Hood blame army command for jihad massacre

• It’s getting harder by the minute to say he just “snapped”: Fort Hood jihadist linked to 9/11 jihadists

• In the wake of Fort Hood jihad, Houston authorities try to assure non-Muslims that steps are being taken to keep them safe — no, wait…

• Fort Hood shooter regularly described war on terror as “war on Islam”

• Fort Hood shooter taught Koran when he was supposed to be giving a medical lecture

• Just before his jihad

• Al-Qaeda last week called for attacks on “any crusaders whenever you find one of them, like at the airports of the crusader Western countries that participate in the wars against Islam, or their living compounds, trains etc.”

• “A person behind counter stood up, and he said, ‘Allah Akbar!’ And just opened up on everybody”

• Fort Hood jihad shooter handed out Korans the morning of his attack

• Fort Hood jihad shooter was disciplined for Islamic proselytizing

• Spencer: Jihad at Fort Hood

• Fort Hood jihadist is alive

• Fort Hood shooter a devout, observant Muslim

• Fort Hood jihad shooter said “Muslims have to stand up against the aggressor”

• Jihad at Fort Hood? Shooter: Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan

• Islamic Awakening Forum on Fort Hood shooter: “What a brave mujahid”

• Fort Hood shooter was member of Homeland Security Panel advising Obama

Major Nidal Malik Hasan

The Islamophobic blogosphere has gone buck-wild.  Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and the rest of the goof troop are pretty ecstatic that Major Nidal Hasan, a Muslim American, killed thirteen U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood.  Nothing makes a neo-conservative happier than an attack on American soil; as the family of the victims mourn the dead, the anti-Muslim ideologues gleefully co-opt the situation to market their hate-filled beliefs.

The Islamophobes claim that Major Hasan was simply “being a devout Muslim” when he opened fire on his fellow soldiers.  According to them, this is a part of Jihad, an obligation in Islam.  As such, the enemy is not just extremists, radicals, or terrorists; but rather, it is Islam itself.  It is not then a gross perversion of a religion by zealots that result in such horrific attacks, but rather the exact opposite: it is a faithful understanding of the Islamic religion which results in terrorism.  That’s what they claim at least.

There is, according to these anti-Muslim bigots, a conspiracy by Muslim Americans to overtake the country from within.  The tactics to do so can be non-violent (“Stealth Jihad”) or overtly violent (such as 9/11 or the Fort Hood Massacre), but the goal is the same: to overthrow the U.S. government, rip the Constitution to shreds, and enact Sharia (Islamic law) in the West.  It is for this reason, you–the average American Joe–need to fear your Muslim neighbor.

The Covenant of Security

But experts of the Islamic legal tradition say differently.  The Islamic religion commands believers to obey the laws of the land they live in, even if it be one ruled by nonbelievers.  Muslim jurists consider citizenship (or visa) to be a covenant (aqd) held between the citizen (or visa holder) and the state, one which guarantees safe passage/security (amaan) in exchange for certain obligations (such as obeying the laws of the land); covenants are considered sacredly binding in Islam.  The Quran commands:

And fulfill every covenant.  Verily, you will be held accountable with regard to the covenants. (Quran, 17:34)

The Quran condemns those who break covenants as not being true believers:

It is not the case that every time they make a covenant, some party among them throws it aside. Nay! The truth is most of them believe not. (Quran, 2:100)

The Islamic prophet Muhammad described the religious hypocrite as follows:

When he enters into a covenant, he proves treacherous. (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Citizenship (and visa) is called in Islamic legal parlance as a “covenant of security” (aqd al-aman).  For over a thousand years, Muslim scholars have rigorously affirmed the binding nature of the covenant of security.  This covenant of security can be of two types: (1) a contractual agreement or (2) a customary understanding.

Naturalized citizens in the United States enter into a contractual agreement with the government when they declare the oath of allegiance, as follows:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”

A Muslim is obliged to keep to his word, and thus this oath is religiously binding upon him.

Natural born citizens, on the other hand, do not utter any such oath, so they fall under the second category under Islamic law.  The covenant of security is considered for them a customary understanding, in the sense that even though they did not physically say an oath or sign a document of loyalty, it is understood that there exists between the citizen and the government a covenant of security; this, i.e. customary understanding, is considered by Islamic law to be just as binding as the contractual agreement.  There is no difference between the two.

Betraying the Covenant is Forbidden

What the 9/11 hijackers did was a violation of Islamic law for multiple reasons.  The most obvious of these is the prohibition of killing civilians, but it should also be pointed out that they violated the covenant of security between them and the United States, which granted them visas to enter the country.  Using Islamic lingo, the U.S. government granted safe passage (amaan) to the 19 hijackers, and thus they entered into a covenant (aqd), which they subsequently violated.

The United States government granted them visas with the understanding that they would come to the country to study, or seek medical treatment, or for sightseeing, etc., but not for waging war within their lands or killing their citizenry.  Even if a Muslim country is at war with a non-Muslim one, it would not be permissible for a Muslim fighter to enter into enemy territory by requesting safe passage (amaan) and then subsequently killing enemy troops once he crosses over.

The classical Islamic jurist, Muhammad al-Shaybani (died 805 A.D.) expounded:

If it happens that a company of Muslims pass through the enemy’s front lines by deceptively pretending to be messengers of the Muslim’s ruler carrying official documents–or if they were just allowed to pass through the enemy lines–they are not allowed to engage in any hostilities with the enemy troops. Neither are they entitled to seize any of their money or properties as long as they are in their area of authority.

Both the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan violated this sacred principle of Islam.  They gained the trust of those whom they considered their enemies, and then when those they consider enemies were caught unaware, they killed them.  In other words, these criminals took advantage of the fact that they had been trusted, and violated this trust.  Such a thing is considered unacceptable in Islam.

(It should be noted that Muslim Americans don’t see themselves as living in “enemy territory,” but the point is that even if Nidal Hasan saw the U.S. in that light, then he still wouldn’t be allowed under the Islamic belief system to do what he did.  Of course, the point applies even more to those Muslim Americans who see themselves as distinctly American and who love the country.)

The Quran does say that if the believers are being oppressed in some land, then the Muslims should come to their assistance.  But it forbids fighting against those with whom a covenant exists.  The Quran says:

If [your coreligionists] ask for your aid in religion, then you must help them, except against people with whom you have covenants with. (Quran, 8:72)

A Muslim American Must Obey the Constitution and Never Rebel Against the U.S. Government

A Muslim must abide by his covenant, which includes obeying the laws of the land he lives in, no matter how he entered into the country, be it by birth, legal (or even illegal) immigration.  (Entering countries illegally with forged documents is considered forbidden in Islam, but if one commits this sin, he cannot commit the further sin of then using it as an excuse to violate the laws of the land.)  Salman al-Oudah, a senior religious cleric, says:

[Islamic] scholars have stated that those who enter non-Muslim countries have to adhere to their respective laws and regulations even if they entered those countries illegally, and they have no excuse for breaking those laws, since they were entrusted to abide by those laws upon entry into those countries…As long as [a Muslim] agrees to live in a non-Muslim country, he is never to rebel against the people living in his choice of residence, even it seems too hard for him to endure.

From a religious angle, Muslim Americans are forbidden to rebel against the U.S. government.  They are not allowed to seek to overthrow the government, rip up the Constitution (which they gave an oath to uphold!), etc.  They are not allowed to cheat on taxes, steal from anyone, kill or harm any of their fellow citizens, etc.  Instead, they should be law-abiding citizens–according to the Islamic religion and the consensus (ijma) of the Muslim clerics since the last 1,400 years, in spite of Al-Qaeda’s reinterpretation (perversion) of religious doctrine.

Even if hypothetically the U.S. law were to stipulate a condition which was against Islamic teachings, the Muslim American would still have to follow it, as the Islamic cleric I quoted above says:

[Muslims] have to avoid whatever contradicts Islamic teachings. In case they are obliged by law to uphold something contrary to Islamic teachings, they have to adhere to the minimum that the law requires of them.

This idea–that Muslim Americans should uphold the laws of the land–is taught in mosques across the country with great unanimity, so the Islamophobic fear mongering is ill-founded.

Conclusion

The actions of Islamic extremists–such as the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan–flout the normative tradition of Islam and the teachings which millions of Muslim Americans follow.  It is therefore inappropriate to conclude that the religion of Islam itself advocates such things, or that these attackers were simply following their religion.  Such a thing is offensive to say and quite frankly inaccurate.

In any case, it is too early to say with any level of certainty what Major Hasan’s motivations were.  Was he an extremist or simply a guy who lost his marbles like so many other shooters?  Whatever the case, one thing is for sure: his actions do not reflect the Islamic teachings nor the millions of law-abiding Muslim Americans.

UPDATE: I recently found a similar article to mine found here, from BBC News.

SECOND UPDATE: Another article that raises some good points can be found here, this one by a Muslim cleric specifically about the Fort Hood Shooting.