U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel apologized to an Arab-American group on Thursday for comments disparaging Arabs made by his father.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) Nov. 13, 2008 – The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee sent a letter to Emanuel calling on him to distance himself from remarks made by the elder Emanuel in an interview with an Israeli newspaper following his son's appointment last week.
In the interview, Benjamin Emanuel was reported as saying: "Obviously, he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."
While some political analysts have said Rahm Emanuel, a veteran Democratic congressman, should not be held responsible for the actions of his father, there was also a sense that an apology was unavoidable.
"Today, Rep. Emanuel called Mary Rose Oakar, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, apologized on behalf of his family and offered to meet with representatives of the Arab-American community at an appropriate time in the future," a statement from his office said.
The committee, in a statement on its website, said Emanuel told Oakar it was unacceptable to make such remarks against any ethnic or religious group.
"From the fullness of my heart, I personally apologize on behalf of my family and me. These are not the values upon which I was raised or those of my family," the group quoted him as saying.
Oakar welcomed the apology, saying: "We cannot allow Arabs and Muslims to be portrayed in these unacceptable terms."
Some commentators in the Middle East have raised concern about the appointment of Emanuel, who has a pro-Israel record, suggesting he could use his position to influence Obama's policies in the region.
But political analysts and Emanuel himself this week dismissed such suggestions. The congressman said Obama did not need his influence to "orientate his policy toward Israel."
The chief of staff position serves as one of the closest advisers to the president and typically can decide who gains access to the president, while also developing administration policies.
SEE ALSO:
Who is Rahm Emanuel?
Friday, November 14, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
POST OBABA VICTORY ANALYSIS: What should Muslims do in the brave new world of an Obama Administration?
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Nov. 6, 2008 – There is, understandably, a huge wave of euphoria sweeping across the nation, and throughout the world, after Barack Obama's historic Nov. 4 victory in the U.S. Presidential Election.
Also notable is the that the 2008 Presidential campaign also makes the history books as one of the longest and most expensive presidential campaigns – pitting a veteran Republican maverick and "war hero" backed by powerful conservative interests against a previously unknown, first-term Senator and African American with Muslim ancestry.
But the more obvious cause for celebration stems from the fact that for the first time in U.S. history an African-American major party candidate was not only nominated, but actually won the election.
The Obama victory, celebrated by virtually all political progressives, comes after eight years of a truculent and increasingly unpopular Bush administration. The victory comes also in the context of a national financial and market crisis, rising unemployment, a ten trillion dollar national debt, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are draining the national treasury.
As the world celebrates with us, we must pause to ask; what does this mean for Muslims in America and what does this new political zeitgeist compel Muslims to do?
I contend, first of all, that Muslims should exhale a collective sigh of relief as the Bush administration fades into history.
Our joy over the election results should be tempered, however, with a critically needed strategy to consolidate and amplify both our political strength and our legitimate presence in civil society.
Not to diminish that the Muslim community has a lot to be happy about. An Obama administration means, first of all, a new Department of Justice, with (hopefully) a great deal more respect for civil rights and greater willingness to enforce the laws that guarantee equal protection.
The Guantanamo prison camp and torture abomination is likely to be dismantled, and it is likely we will see a more progressive policy in the U.S. Department of Justice regarding protection for immigrant rights, especially those of Muslim immigrants and Latinos.
President Obama will also be in a position to appoint federal judges that can counter-act the right-wing stacking of the judiciary under President Bush, and restore some modicum of objectivity and fairness to the courts.
We might also look forward to a potential shift in resources to enhance education, health, and the internal infrastructure with more emphasis on job creation and positive environmental stewardship and conservation compared with the deplorable record of George Bush and Company.
The numbers aren't in yet, but if Virginia is at all typical of trends in our wider community, it's quite likely to be reported that something in the range of an approximate 90% Muslim American vote went for President-Elect Obama.
The number of registered Muslim registered voters in Virginia, for example, exceeded 72,000 persons in the 2008 election. If 80% of this number voted and 90% of those votes went for Obama, then it is likely that Muslim Democratic votes provided a large component of the margin of Democratic victory in the key battleground states.
While Muslims are a relatively small part of the overall electorate, the bloc voting tendency points to the importance of concentrated and mobilized Muslim votes in close elections.
It can also be observed that Muslims leveraged their voting power by forging new and potentially powerful strategic alliances with, for example, Latino communities, labor activists, and African-American civil rights activists.
In the 2008 election campaign, it is clear that the convergence of shared interests within the Muslim community gave birth to larger, progressive collaborations with other political forces to help move the nation beyond the legacy of the Bush administration.
Yet more sobering realities remain.
While the Muslim community voted in large numbers, our impact on a possible shift in American foreign policy in the Middle East leaves something to be desired.
It is no secret that the policy statements from both President-Elect Obama concerning Israel and Palestine – especially Obama's recognition of Jerusalem as the de facto capital of Israel – reinforces the status quo of American regional foreign policy at the expense of a more even-handed and democratic discourse that recognizes not only Israeli security rights, but Palestinian national and human rights as well.
In the course of his marvelous campaign President-Elect Obama made a concerted effort to directly reassure Jewish voters of his sensitivity to their concerns; in comparison, however, Muslims received no such consideration.
There is also the question of challenges to the legitimacy of the American Muslim identity itself.
We remember that Obama campaign staff members removed Muslim women in hijab from a photograph with the candidate – an action that subsequently resulted in a public apology. However, the incident signaled to the Muslim community a "don't-get-too-close-to-Muslims" policy that may carry over into the Obama administration as positions of power are assigned.
Added to these concerns is the ambivalence shown by the Obama campaign on the issue of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
President-Elect Obama's endorsement of American military strikes inside Pakistan raises enormous anxiety and concern for Muslim advocates who seek to demilitarize our foreign policy and create non-violent approaches to building new and better relationships with Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, and other majority-Muslim states on the current American military target list.
However, none of these concerns should dampen our hope and enthusiasm at this moment of monumental political change in America. But the realpolitik of our position requires clear vision, sound policy analysis, and above all, continuous Muslim political mobilization and coalition-building work to assure that a progressive Muslim-American agenda is not subsumed, or even lost, in the mix of regime change in Washington.
So let's congratulate President-Elect Obama for his extraordinary victory, and let's share in the happiness that most of the world is feeling.
But as Muslims, let us also continue to strategize and organize, not only for our own community, but for an even more progressive vision of real peace and a better future for all of America - and all of humanity.
--------------------------------------
MAS Freedom (MASF) is a civic and human rights advocacy entity and sister organization of the Muslim American Society (MAS), the largest Muslim, grassroots, charitable, religious, social, cultural, civic and educational organization in America – with 55 chapters in 35 states. Learn more here. To donate click here.
--------------------------------------
MAS Freedom
1325 G Street NW, Suite 500
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 552-7414
Toll Free: 1-(888)-627-8471
Fax: (703) 642-6191
MASF on the Web
Contact MASF by Email
Friday, August 22, 2008
Musharraf Finally Leaves - What Now for Pakistan?
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Aug. 22, 2008 – Yielding to enormous pressure and the threat of impeachment from the national legislature, General Perez Musharraf has resigned as President of Pakistan. His departure from office was hailed by a wide spectrum of internal dissidents, from secular democratic forces to radical Islamists in Pakistan, the second most populous majority Muslim country on earth and a critical player in the intrigues of geopolitics. But where does this political change leave Pakistan, and what are the prospects for the future?
As an non-Pakistani Muslim, I'll hazard a guess: there is no certain future for Pakistan. But it seems that the future, whatever it will be, should be much brighter than the continuation of nine years of military and dictatorial rule that marked the leadership of General Musharraf.
Pakistan, like much of the Islamic political world, has been embroiled for decades in multiple violent conflicts and deep social and political division. To some extent, these realities both preceded the Musharraf presidency/dictatorship, and are likely to continue, in some form, now that he has surrendered the pinnacle of state power. But there are three salient factors that make Pakistan a special case.
The first, simply put, is that Pakistan is, in its national construction, a parliamentary democracy, with a clear separation of power (like the U.S.) between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Large areas of the country (like the Western territories on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border), have been under de facto tribal authority, and outside the orbit of the central government since the establishment of the state in 1947.
However, this constitutional rule of law, with the limits on executive authority, is something that General Musharraf blatantly dismissed since he came to power in the coup of 1999. The most powerful card in his political hand was never the legitimate authority of an election, but the authoritarian power of the Pakistani military that supported him.
The second reality that differentiates Pakistan from other nations is the context of events that followed the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.
The Bush administration put enormous pressure on Musharraf to line up against armed Islamists in Pakistan, not only in the frontier provinces, but throughout civil society, including elements of the army and the security services.
The geopolitics of the U.S. "war on terror", and especially Pakistan's proximity with the war in Afghanistan, gave license for the U.S. to support the Musharraf dictatorship, even in the face of enormous civil society dissent and the heavy-handed overturning of constitutional law – as evidenced by Musharraf's sacking of Pakistan's Chief Justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudry, in 2007.
Throughout this chain of events, the Bush administration was willing to arm, finance, and politically support Musharraf (in a way similar to the support for Hosni Mubarak in Egypt), despite the clear will of a majority of Pakistanis that he needed to leave power.
The third, and perhaps most ominous reality is that, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan, or other majority-Muslim conflict areas, Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state. While Pakistan's arsenal is estimated to be less than 100 warheads (and smaller than that of regional rival India), the presence of these weapons of mass destruction in an area of intense geopolitical conflict, coupled with ongoing political instability and the power of armed groups in Pakistan that might be willing to use these weapons if they could get them, suggests that the future of Pakistan will be closely related to some stability within the state/military apparatus, and a real de-escalation of Pakistan's conflict with India.
It is not at all clear whether the coalition government led by Asif Ali Zardawi, the widower of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, will be able to form a government of national unity that can effectively control extremism and violence while bringing Islamic radicals into some form of detente with civil society.
Formidable ethnic and regional rivalries will remain, to be sure, regardless of the forces that rule the nation after the departure of former President Musharraf.
Whatever the political alignment, it is clear that the U.S. must reverse its support for an unpopular dictatorship, and come forward with massive, nonmilitary foreign assistance for the rebuilding of Pakistan's civil society and the eradication of the poverty and deprivation that are key ingredients supporting the extremism and are so prevalent in Pakistan. More affluent Muslim states should also lend a generous hand in providing the material underpinning for peace and social welfare in Pakistan.
I believe that the enormous energy and talent of the people of Pakistan, especially its youth, can help create the systemic changes that will support the prospects of real democracy and the evolution of a nonviolent, and tolerant, political culture.
While this possible post-Musharraf future is far from guaranteed, it is one that both the global Muslim community and the U.S government should be prepared to support.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Aug. 22, 2008 – Yielding to enormous pressure and the threat of impeachment from the national legislature, General Perez Musharraf has resigned as President of Pakistan. His departure from office was hailed by a wide spectrum of internal dissidents, from secular democratic forces to radical Islamists in Pakistan, the second most populous majority Muslim country on earth and a critical player in the intrigues of geopolitics. But where does this political change leave Pakistan, and what are the prospects for the future?
As an non-Pakistani Muslim, I'll hazard a guess: there is no certain future for Pakistan. But it seems that the future, whatever it will be, should be much brighter than the continuation of nine years of military and dictatorial rule that marked the leadership of General Musharraf.
Pakistan, like much of the Islamic political world, has been embroiled for decades in multiple violent conflicts and deep social and political division. To some extent, these realities both preceded the Musharraf presidency/dictatorship, and are likely to continue, in some form, now that he has surrendered the pinnacle of state power. But there are three salient factors that make Pakistan a special case.
The first, simply put, is that Pakistan is, in its national construction, a parliamentary democracy, with a clear separation of power (like the U.S.) between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Large areas of the country (like the Western territories on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border), have been under de facto tribal authority, and outside the orbit of the central government since the establishment of the state in 1947.
However, this constitutional rule of law, with the limits on executive authority, is something that General Musharraf blatantly dismissed since he came to power in the coup of 1999. The most powerful card in his political hand was never the legitimate authority of an election, but the authoritarian power of the Pakistani military that supported him.
The second reality that differentiates Pakistan from other nations is the context of events that followed the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.
The Bush administration put enormous pressure on Musharraf to line up against armed Islamists in Pakistan, not only in the frontier provinces, but throughout civil society, including elements of the army and the security services.
The geopolitics of the U.S. "war on terror", and especially Pakistan's proximity with the war in Afghanistan, gave license for the U.S. to support the Musharraf dictatorship, even in the face of enormous civil society dissent and the heavy-handed overturning of constitutional law – as evidenced by Musharraf's sacking of Pakistan's Chief Justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudry, in 2007.
Throughout this chain of events, the Bush administration was willing to arm, finance, and politically support Musharraf (in a way similar to the support for Hosni Mubarak in Egypt), despite the clear will of a majority of Pakistanis that he needed to leave power.
The third, and perhaps most ominous reality is that, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan, or other majority-Muslim conflict areas, Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state. While Pakistan's arsenal is estimated to be less than 100 warheads (and smaller than that of regional rival India), the presence of these weapons of mass destruction in an area of intense geopolitical conflict, coupled with ongoing political instability and the power of armed groups in Pakistan that might be willing to use these weapons if they could get them, suggests that the future of Pakistan will be closely related to some stability within the state/military apparatus, and a real de-escalation of Pakistan's conflict with India.
It is not at all clear whether the coalition government led by Asif Ali Zardawi, the widower of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, will be able to form a government of national unity that can effectively control extremism and violence while bringing Islamic radicals into some form of detente with civil society.
Formidable ethnic and regional rivalries will remain, to be sure, regardless of the forces that rule the nation after the departure of former President Musharraf.
Whatever the political alignment, it is clear that the U.S. must reverse its support for an unpopular dictatorship, and come forward with massive, nonmilitary foreign assistance for the rebuilding of Pakistan's civil society and the eradication of the poverty and deprivation that are key ingredients supporting the extremism and are so prevalent in Pakistan. More affluent Muslim states should also lend a generous hand in providing the material underpinning for peace and social welfare in Pakistan.
I believe that the enormous energy and talent of the people of Pakistan, especially its youth, can help create the systemic changes that will support the prospects of real democracy and the evolution of a nonviolent, and tolerant, political culture.
While this possible post-Musharraf future is far from guaranteed, it is one that both the global Muslim community and the U.S government should be prepared to support.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Crossing the Line: NY Post Attempts to Label Prominent Muslim Advocate as 'Terror Imam'
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) July 28, 2008 – Rupert Murdoch's New York Post has, once again, re-established itself as having the journalistic integrity and ethics rivaling the worst of tabloid publications found in the check-out isle at most convenience stores. The in-your-face sensationalism and hyperbole of Post news articles is not designed to elevate intelligent debate or present objective news information. Rather, it is published to sell tabloid-style news – trading on the emotional responses, and often prejudices – of those who might not otherwise be inclined to read publications such as the New York Times or the Economist.
So it wasn't any surprise to me when, on Monday, July 21, I was alerted to a Post "Exclusive" cover story titled, "Train-ing Day for Jihadists – Muslim Subway Ads Have Terror Tie-In" referring to Imam Siraj Wahhaj, of Brooklyn, as the 'inflammatory imam', who has organized a campaign to post advertisements on 1,000 New York City subway cars, this September (during Ramadan), guiding commuters to a source for information explaining the true nature of Islam to non-Muslims curious about the religion, or who, based on inaccurate information (largely provided through media sources), believe the religion is bent on acts of violence.
This, of course, in the eyes of the Post editorial team and its journalists, would make Imam Wahhaj guilty of being a purveyor of terrorism and a supporter of radical Islam and its proponents, who launched an attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) in 1993.
Despite the fact that Imam Wahhaj was never formally charged with having any connection to the 1993 WTC tragedy, cited as 'evidence' for the inappropriately titled Post article, was U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White's statement alleging him to be 'one of 170 unindicted co-conspirators' in the WTC bombing; the fact that he testified as a character witness for Sheikh Oman Abdul Rahman - convicted of playing a role in the same incident; and past statements wherein Wahhaj is said to have referred to the FBI and CIA as the 'real terrorists'.
While it can be said that Imam Wahhaj is, indeed, a highly vocal and prolific critic of U.S. foreign policy and the blanket indictment of Muslim activists by the Justice Department, it is clear that the intent of the Post's article is to suggest that the "Why Islam" campaign, very simply designed in an attempt to aid in clarifying long-held misperceptions about Islam and being Muslim for the 4.9 million people riding the New York City subway, is nothing less than a blatant attempt to recruit people into criminal or terrorists acts.
What the Post failed to include in their report is the fact that the "Why Islam" initiative has been a part of the east coast billboard landscape for the past several years, has been advertised in community newspapers, promoted at booths in local malls, and has never once been associated with promoting violence or condoning crime.
Now to address the matter of the nebulous and dangerous 'smear' otherwise known as the 'unindicted co-conspirator' (UCC) phenomenon, a tool used by government prosecutors empowering them with the ability to cast a wide net of implied conspiracy in criminal cases – with or without evidence of guilt. More than 150 UCC's were named in the WTC case – a number that rose to 300 or more as the government prosecuted the Holy Land Trust (a Muslim charitable organization).
Despite the fact that Imam Wahhaj is a well-established, prominent, national Muslim leader and highly regarded advocate and fund-raiser for Muslim institutions throughout the United States, the tag, "UCC" has, in effect, according to the Post, morphed into his being labeled as the 'terror imam'.
Numerous national legislators, including Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) have called the Justice Department to task for their use of the UCC label as a substitute for real evidence in legal actions against Muslim individuals and institutions – an act that has subsequently produced 'trial by trash' journalism – just one of numerous strategies designed to malign, and even destroy, the credibility and work of Muslim individuals and organizations who have had nothing to do with criminal activities. Perhaps that was the intent of the Post's article as it relates to the "Why Islam" initiative.
For the record, I believe that all people are free to accept or reject the call of the Holy Qur'an, and equally, they are free to reject the ideology and vision presented to them by any Muslim individual or organization propagating the message of Islam. We are all free to form our own opinions about the credibility and authenticity of – or lack thereof – Muslims in the public sphere. After all, there is no compulsion in religion, and there should never be.
But to label Imam Wahhaj as the 'terror imam' based merely on guilt-by-association, or by a desire to propagate his religion, is simply a flimsy and crude attempt at character assassination and fear-mongering.
Imam Wahhaj is not underground, by the way. It's fairly easy to find his mosque, Masjid Al-Taqwa, in the Bedford-Stuyvesant community of Brooklyn. I would suggest that, New York Post reporters, and anyone else with a legitimate interest in the truth about who he is and what he believes, meet him and visit his community before launching future attempts to label or smear him, Islam, or the Muslim community at-large.
If the Post has hard evidence of the involvement of Imam Siraj Wahhaj, or anyone else, in conspiracy to commit violent crimes, they should present the evidence to the proper law enforcement authorities. If the publication and/or its publishers have contempt for Islam, that is its/their right. And for those objecting to the public display/advertisement of educational material on the subject of Islam, I would suggest a good read-through of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
And finally, the Post, and the general public, should also be aware that labeling someone as a terrorist, or implying that a person has connections with terrorists, is a very, very, serious charge that cannot be used as a cover for bigotry, religious hostility, or a sensationalist pretext to sell newspapers.
"Why Islam" is a public information campaign to bring information about the religion of Islam, the Holy Qur'an, and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) to the American public. The centerpiece of the campaign is a toll-free number (1-877-WHY ISLAM) and a website (whyislam.org) that gives people access to further information about the fastest growing religious affiliation in the United States.
RELATED:
"Why Islam", Chicago Tribune, December 13, 2007
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) July 28, 2008 – Rupert Murdoch's New York Post has, once again, re-established itself as having the journalistic integrity and ethics rivaling the worst of tabloid publications found in the check-out isle at most convenience stores. The in-your-face sensationalism and hyperbole of Post news articles is not designed to elevate intelligent debate or present objective news information. Rather, it is published to sell tabloid-style news – trading on the emotional responses, and often prejudices – of those who might not otherwise be inclined to read publications such as the New York Times or the Economist.
So it wasn't any surprise to me when, on Monday, July 21, I was alerted to a Post "Exclusive" cover story titled, "Train-ing Day for Jihadists – Muslim Subway Ads Have Terror Tie-In" referring to Imam Siraj Wahhaj, of Brooklyn, as the 'inflammatory imam', who has organized a campaign to post advertisements on 1,000 New York City subway cars, this September (during Ramadan), guiding commuters to a source for information explaining the true nature of Islam to non-Muslims curious about the religion, or who, based on inaccurate information (largely provided through media sources), believe the religion is bent on acts of violence.
This, of course, in the eyes of the Post editorial team and its journalists, would make Imam Wahhaj guilty of being a purveyor of terrorism and a supporter of radical Islam and its proponents, who launched an attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) in 1993.
Despite the fact that Imam Wahhaj was never formally charged with having any connection to the 1993 WTC tragedy, cited as 'evidence' for the inappropriately titled Post article, was U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White's statement alleging him to be 'one of 170 unindicted co-conspirators' in the WTC bombing; the fact that he testified as a character witness for Sheikh Oman Abdul Rahman - convicted of playing a role in the same incident; and past statements wherein Wahhaj is said to have referred to the FBI and CIA as the 'real terrorists'.
While it can be said that Imam Wahhaj is, indeed, a highly vocal and prolific critic of U.S. foreign policy and the blanket indictment of Muslim activists by the Justice Department, it is clear that the intent of the Post's article is to suggest that the "Why Islam" campaign, very simply designed in an attempt to aid in clarifying long-held misperceptions about Islam and being Muslim for the 4.9 million people riding the New York City subway, is nothing less than a blatant attempt to recruit people into criminal or terrorists acts.
What the Post failed to include in their report is the fact that the "Why Islam" initiative has been a part of the east coast billboard landscape for the past several years, has been advertised in community newspapers, promoted at booths in local malls, and has never once been associated with promoting violence or condoning crime.
Now to address the matter of the nebulous and dangerous 'smear' otherwise known as the 'unindicted co-conspirator' (UCC) phenomenon, a tool used by government prosecutors empowering them with the ability to cast a wide net of implied conspiracy in criminal cases – with or without evidence of guilt. More than 150 UCC's were named in the WTC case – a number that rose to 300 or more as the government prosecuted the Holy Land Trust (a Muslim charitable organization).
Despite the fact that Imam Wahhaj is a well-established, prominent, national Muslim leader and highly regarded advocate and fund-raiser for Muslim institutions throughout the United States, the tag, "UCC" has, in effect, according to the Post, morphed into his being labeled as the 'terror imam'.
Numerous national legislators, including Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) have called the Justice Department to task for their use of the UCC label as a substitute for real evidence in legal actions against Muslim individuals and institutions – an act that has subsequently produced 'trial by trash' journalism – just one of numerous strategies designed to malign, and even destroy, the credibility and work of Muslim individuals and organizations who have had nothing to do with criminal activities. Perhaps that was the intent of the Post's article as it relates to the "Why Islam" initiative.
For the record, I believe that all people are free to accept or reject the call of the Holy Qur'an, and equally, they are free to reject the ideology and vision presented to them by any Muslim individual or organization propagating the message of Islam. We are all free to form our own opinions about the credibility and authenticity of – or lack thereof – Muslims in the public sphere. After all, there is no compulsion in religion, and there should never be.
But to label Imam Wahhaj as the 'terror imam' based merely on guilt-by-association, or by a desire to propagate his religion, is simply a flimsy and crude attempt at character assassination and fear-mongering.
Imam Wahhaj is not underground, by the way. It's fairly easy to find his mosque, Masjid Al-Taqwa, in the Bedford-Stuyvesant community of Brooklyn. I would suggest that, New York Post reporters, and anyone else with a legitimate interest in the truth about who he is and what he believes, meet him and visit his community before launching future attempts to label or smear him, Islam, or the Muslim community at-large.
If the Post has hard evidence of the involvement of Imam Siraj Wahhaj, or anyone else, in conspiracy to commit violent crimes, they should present the evidence to the proper law enforcement authorities. If the publication and/or its publishers have contempt for Islam, that is its/their right. And for those objecting to the public display/advertisement of educational material on the subject of Islam, I would suggest a good read-through of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
And finally, the Post, and the general public, should also be aware that labeling someone as a terrorist, or implying that a person has connections with terrorists, is a very, very, serious charge that cannot be used as a cover for bigotry, religious hostility, or a sensationalist pretext to sell newspapers.
"Why Islam" is a public information campaign to bring information about the religion of Islam, the Holy Qur'an, and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) to the American public. The centerpiece of the campaign is a toll-free number (1-877-WHY ISLAM) and a website (whyislam.org) that gives people access to further information about the fastest growing religious affiliation in the United States.
RELATED:
"Why Islam", Chicago Tribune, December 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
