imam zaid on the norway massacre

Reflection on the Norway Massacre by Imam Zaid Shakir

...let us imagine that the wildest of the anti-Muslim bigots eventually get their wish and the country is purged of Muslims. Were that to happen, an America purged of Muslims would not be a nation immune from purges. New demons would emerge to take the place of the departed Muslims. Like the Muslims, those demons would demand to be exorcised and the likes of Anders Breivik, perhaps by the millions, would rise up to undertake the task. Before such a scenario unfolds, we would do well as a nation to realize that the demons we need to exorcise are not our fellow humans. They are the demons of ignorance, delusion, hubris and our tendency to continuously ignore the lessons that history repeatedly endeavors to teach us. The sooner we all get on with the business of attacking those demons the better off we will all be.

"the oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a westerner"

Loonwatch: Jews and Christians Way More Likely than Muslims to Justify Killing Civilians

Loonwatch: Surveys Show Muslims in Every Country Less Likely to Justify Killing Civilians than Americans and Israelis

Why They Hate Us (II) by Stephen Walt

I don't really want to essentialize Jews and Christians in the way Muslims too often are, but I can't help but point out that given the genocides which were commanded in the book of Deuteronomy and put into vivid practice in the book of Joshua, it is clear that Bible believers can't take the position that genocide is always wrong and be consistent. Furthermore, in modern times, in spite of the moral restrictions of Catholic just war theory, it is clear through acts like the attacks on Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII that even Christian/Western nations have reached a turning point in terms of following their own rules.

On a related note Defending the Transgressed: Mudafi' al-Mazlum by Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti is a contemporary fatwa (from a traditional Shafii) against targeting civilians in warfare.

Blogger Muhammad Cohen shares a tongue-in-cheek reaction to the Breivik attacks in Norway which was Overheard at Ali’s Diner on Arab Street

For a bit of background on where the title of this post comes from, you can check out Common Dreams' The Westmoreland Mind-Set by Derrick Z. Jackson

sometimes i wish i lived in his district in minnesota just so i could have voted for him

I think that in general Keith Ellison has been doing a great job of articulating what is wrong with the King hearings (although I can't tell if he has been effective in terms of changing minds).

What I would say is that the way you frame a question will determine the kinds of answers you tend to get. So when Rep. King chose to frame a set of hearings around the radicalization of American Muslims he basically chose to get answers which reinforce negative portrayals of Muslims. On the other hand, if you look more broadly at domestic violence and terrorism (George Stack flying a plane into an IRS building, Jared Lee Loughner's shooting rampage in Arizona, Scott Roeder's murder of George Tiller, George Jakubec's Esdondido house full of explosives, Roger Stockham's attempted bombing of a Dearborn mosque, the foiled Hutaree militia plot, and so on) other factors start to enter the conversation (how we diagnosis and treat mental health, the heated political discourse, gun-control, anti-government sentiment and much more). So by all means, let's look at the causes of violent extremism but let's not just look at a small slice.

roger stockham arrested on terrorism charges for trying to blow up islamic center

This story got swept up in the wake of news from Egypt, but last month Roger Stockham, a 63-year-old Army veteran from California who has a history of being angry with the U.S. government was arrested outside of the Islamic Center of America (in Dearborn, Michigan) wearing a black ski mask and with a large number of M-80s and other explosives in the trunk of his car. Stockham has a "colorful" history of mental illness, criminal activity and substance abuse. The most recent twist in his case is that he fired his court appointed lawyer Mark Haidar, for being Shiite.

Detroit Free Press: Mosque attack plot suspect demands a new lawyer
Huff Post: Roger Stockham Arrested With Explosives Outside Major U.S. Mosque
NPR: California Man Arrested For Planning Attack On Michigan Mosque
Detroit Examiner: Examiner: Mosque terror suspect has history of making threats
All Voices: California man charged in trying to blow up Michigan Mosque served time for threat against President Bush

more from imam zaid

Imam Zaid Shakir delivers a one-two punch against Islam-haters and extremist Muslims in a pair of his recent articles.

In Qur’an defeats Muslim Barbarism Imam Zaid exhorts towards the importance of reading the Quran holistically and guided by the highest ideals:

Like all other scriptures, it is easy to take a Qur’anic verse out of context and distort its meaning to fit an ideologically defined agenda. However, such an approach not only results in semantic violence towards the text, its can become the basis of physical violence against innocent adherents of a particular religion.

The time has come for members of all faith communities to begin a push towards a higher ground that leads to a common ground. The hard work of fostering understanding will require honest and enlightened scholarship and leadership, coupled with a deep quest for truth, peace and justice. If we stop short of that, we are only cheating ourselves and jeopardising our collective security.

In Letter to a Would-be Mujahid Imam Zaid writes to a hypothetical terrorist, Muslim to Muslim, explaining why becoming a terrorist is not just contrary to basic Earthling morality, and a violation of Islamic principles, but also really really stupid.

juan cole on white terrorism

In the wake of the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, here are some of Juan Cole's reflections on White Terrorism and the Tea Party's "Second Amendment" approach to political discourse.

explosive weekend

Speaking of bombs, there have been several "explosive" stories in the news lately which will probably raise some interesting questions regarding how the media covers terrorism and violence from Muslims and non-Muslims.

On the one hand you have the occasional-beer-drinking Somali teenager Mohamed Osman Mohamud who was recently arrested in a sting-operation. Mohamud's "plan" was to detonate a van full of explosives near a Christmas tree lighting ceremony. But he was never actually in touch with any international terrorists. His "co-conspirators" were FBI agents who gave him inert explosives for the "attack"... so the public was never in actual danger. Of course, there is a question of possible entrapment. In fact, he originally got on the FBI's radar in the first place because his Muslim father was worried about changes in his son's behavior and personality and alerted some government officials. So instead of doing an intervention or finding some other constructive way to direct this confused and restless young man to channel his energy into something peaceful and positive, officials chose to fan the flames, get a notch on their belt, and ruin this kids life for the next couple of decades.

On the other hand you have George Djura Jakubec, a 54 year-old Serbian national and computer software consultant who a was apparently using his home to stockpile the largest collection of homemade explosives (e.g. PETN and HMTD) ever gathered in U.S. history. Authorities are still investigating the case but the explosives involved are apparently so unstable that the investegators are reluctant about rushing into the house. Also, it seems as if Jakubec isn't Muslim so it will be interesting to see whether this case will change the public narrative about Muslims and profiling. Fortunately no one was hurt.

Finally (and this is more of an epilogue to the first story) an Oregon mosque where Mohamed Osman Mohamud "occasionally" went for prayers suffered an arson attack after it became associated with the failed car bomb incident in the subsequent news reports. (Note, that out of the three situations mentioned, this is the only actual completed act of terrorism.

Let's keep an eye on how each of these stories is covered/presented in the media.

Greenwald: FBI Thwarts its Own Terrorist Plot
Oregon Muslim leaders fear retribution after plot
US probing arson at mosque for ties to Somali case
Investigation Of Giant Home 'Bomb Factory' Suspended Over Dangerous Conditions
Largest cache of PETN explosives found on Thanksgiving Day

Planet Grenada's Past:
on joe (joseph) stack
the murder of george tiller
eric robert rudolph
miami and the seas of david
juan cole on the miami group
amish drug rings or why profiling is really stupid

a plague on both your houses... and juan williams

[First the facts]
By now you've probably heard that Juan Williams was fired from his job at NPR, ostensibly for making certain comments about Muslims while appearing with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News in the wake of O'Reilly's own controversial appearance on The View. The main statement by Williams at the center of the storm is the following:

I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

Not that long after making these comments, Juan Williams lost his job at NPR and not long after that he was offered a new three-year two million dollar contract with Fox News.

[climbing on soapbox]

-What Juan Williams said was Islamophobic in the most literal sense (i.e.expressing an irrational fear of Muslims) and by his own admission reflects his own thoughts and feelings. He's going to have to work on his neurosis on his own time.

-To his credit, what he said actually wasn't that bad. He didn't try to use his Islamophobia to argue that Muslims should give up some of our First Amendment rights (e.g. move the Park 51 project) or argue that that Muslims as a group should receive differential treatment (e.g. profiling).

-I would even argue that if we are going to have an honest discussion about Islamophobia in America, then it is actually necessary for there to be *some* forums somewhere, some safe spaces where non-Muslims can candidly express their fears, misgivings, etc. about Muslims. (A televised broadcast by a "neutral" news analyst is NOT one of those forums.) The priority here is on expressing emotion not advocating for specific public policies. And of course, it is also necessary (and much more rare) for there to be safe spaces for Muslims to express how the post 9/11 climate makes us feel.

-What Juan Williams said is mild compared to the bigotry which the usual talking heads spew on Fox. In fact, what Bill O'Reilly said on The View or what Brian Killmeade said in his defense is orders of magnitude more offensive than what Juan Williams said. I really do believe in freedom of speech and an open marketplace of ideas so I don't actually want to see them censored, but anyone in the media is going to lose their job for making bigoted comments, there are a lot of folks who should get booted before Juan Williams.

-Juan Williams' real offense is that he allowed his reputation as a "reasonable" and liberal journalist (in part developed through his relationship with NPR) to provide cover and defense for the more extreme bigots at Fox.

-If the decision to fire Williams was only based on Williams' own comments, then NPR definitely overreacted. I'm more inclined to believe that since Fox News and NPR are competing news organizations, the executives at NPR probably weren't happy with Juan Williams' relationship with Fox for a while and were just looking for a convenient excuse to fire him.

-In hindsight, NPR definitely made a bad call. They are coming out of this looking like clumsy opponents of free speech and they have basically only strengthened Fox's position.

Huff Post: Juan Williams FIRED: NPR Sacks Analyst Over Fox News Muslim Comments
Garvey's Ghost: NPR and the Silencing of Outspoken Black Men
Michael Moore: Open Letter to Juan Williams
Juan Cole: Williams supported Imus Firing, Censoring of Rap Music
Juan Cole: End Federal Tax Subsidies to Fox!
Bin Gregory: Muslim Garb
Daily Show: NPR Staffing Decision 2010

immortal technique on immigration, slavery and religion

Also an audio interview with Immortal Technique on 9/11 the "Ground Zero Mosque", black and brown unity, and his Afghan orphanage

hat tip to: Davey D's Hip-Hop Corner

down with fanatics!

Down With Fanatics!

If I had my way with violent men
I'd simmer them in oil,
I'd fill a pot with bitumen
And bring them to the boil.
I execrate the terrorist
And those who harbour him,
And if I weren't a moralist
I'd tear them limb from limb.

Fanatics are an evil breed
Whom decent men should shun;
I'd like to flog them till they bleed,
Yes, every mother's son,
I'd like to tie them to a board
And let them taste the cat,
While giving praise, oh thank the Lord,
That I am not like that.

For we should love the human kind,
As Jesus taught us to,
And those who don't should be struck blind
And beaten black and blue;
I'd like to roast them in a grill
And listen to them shriek,
Then break them on the wheel until
They turned the other cheek.

-- Roger Woddis

the king's torah and the roots (and branches) of jewish violence

What follows is mostly from Coteret with a few passages from Haaretz. But to make a long story short, Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur wrote a legal text called The King's Torah which discusses the circumstances, according to Jewish law, when it is permissible to kill non-Jews. The book is apparently a bestseller in Israel. Personally I don't find it all that shocking. Don't get me wrong, based on the excerpts, the book is definitely evil and racist and offensive. But it isn't particularly surprising. Even among mainstream rabbinic Judaism's traditional enumeration of the 613 commandments of the Torah you will find:

596. Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17
597. Not to let any of them remain alive Deut. 20:16
598. Wipe out the descendants of Amalek Deut. 25:19
599. Remember what Amalek did to the Jewish people Deut. 25:17

The above-listed commandments from Deuteronomy are clearly genocidal. And in the book of Joshua one can read about how they were implemented by the armies of the children of Israel who went from city to city "killing everything that had breath" in the "Promised land". And as far as the Old Testament is concerned those laws are still valid. Do I think all Jews and Christians are genocidal maniacs? Of course not. Christians typically teach that Jesus (as) abrogated those commandments (although I would argue it is still problematic to accept God would reveal such commandments in the first place) while many Jews today find creative ways to read those texts non-violently (e.g. saying that the Canaanite nations don't exist in the present-day, treating Amalek as a metaphor for the evil inclinations inside of everyone). Although in Israel today you definitely have more hawkish voices (like Netanyahu) who rhetorically invoke the label of "Amalek" to refer to the enemy of the day (Saddam Hussein, Iran, the PLO, Hammas, etc.)

So while the authors of the King's Torah are clearly extremists, they generally don't seem to be disavowed by the rabbinical establishment which makes it hard not to conclude that the apple isn't falling very far from the tree.

Something else which should be mentioned is that apparently US taxpayer money is being used to help support Rabbi Shapira's organization which definitely needs to be fixed.


[modified article begins]

The marble-patterned, hardcover book embossed with gold Hebrew letters looks like any other religious commentary you'd find in an Orthodox Judaica bookstore - but reads like a rabbinic instruction manual outlining acceptable scenarios for killing non-Jewish babies, children and adults.

The prohibition 'Thou Shalt Not Murder' applies only "to a Jew who kills a Jew," write Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur of the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar. Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and attacks on them "curb their evil inclination," while babies and children of Israel's enemies may be killed since "it is clear that they will grow to harm us."

When is it permissible to kill non-Jews? The book Torat ha-Melekh [The King’s Teaching], which was just published, was written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the dean of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in the community of Yitzhar near Nablus, together with another rabbi from the yeshiva, Yossi Elitzur. The book contains no fewer than 230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guide for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.

Although the book is not being distributed by the leading book companies, it has already received warm recommendations from right-wing elements, including recommendations from important rabbis such as Yitzhak Ginsburg, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, that were printed at the beginning of the book. The book is being distributed via the Internet and through the yeshiva, and at this stage the introductory price is NIS 30 per copy. At the memorial ceremony that was held over the weekend in Jerusalem for Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was killed nineteen years ago, copies of the book were sold.

Throughout the book, the authors deal with in-depth theoretical questions in Jewish religious law regarding the killing of non-Jews. The words “Arabs” and “Palestinians” are not mentioned even indirectly, and the authors are careful to avoid making explicit statements in favor of an individual taking the law into his own hands. The book includes hundreds of sources from the Bible and religious law. The book includes quotes from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, one of the fathers of religious Zionism, and from Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, one of the deans of the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, the stronghold of national-religious Zionism that is located in Jerusalem.

The book opens with a prohibition against killing non-Jews and justifies it, among other things, on the grounds of preventing hostility and any desecration of God’s name. But very quickly, the authors move from prohibition to permission, to the various dispensations for harming non-Jews, with the central reason being their obligation to uphold the seven Noahide laws, which every human being on earth must follow. Among these commandments are prohibitions on theft, bloodshed and idolatry. [The seven Noahide laws prohibit idolatry, murder, theft, illicit sexual relations, blasphemy and eating the flesh of a live animal, and require societies to institute just laws and law courts]

“When we approach a non-Jew who has violated the seven Noahide laws and kill him out of concern for upholding these seven laws, no prohibition has been violated,” states the book, which emphasizes that killing is forbidden unless it is done in obedience to a court ruling. But later on, the authors limit the prohibition, noting that it applies only to a “proper system that deals with non-Jews who violate the seven Noahide commandments.”

The book includes another conclusion that explains when a non-Jew may be killed even if he is not an enemy of the Jews. “In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created,” the authors state. “When a non-Jew assists a murderer of Jews and causes the death of one, he may be killed, and in any case where a non-Jew’s presence causes danger to Jews, the non-Jew may be killed.”

One of the dispensations for killing non-Jews, according to religious law, applies in a case of din rodef [the law of the “pursuer,” according to which one who is pursuing another with murderous intent may be killed extrajudicially] even when the pursuer is a civilian. “The dispensation applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly,” the book states. “Even a civilian who assists combat fighters is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Anyone who assists the army of the wicked in any way is strengthening murderers and is considered a pursuer. A civilian who encourages the war gives the king and his soldiers the strength to continue. Therefore, any citizen of the state that opposes us who encourages the combat soldiers or expresses satisfaction over their actions is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Also, anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer.”

Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur determine that children may also be harmed because they are “hindrances.” The rabbis write as follows: “Hindrances—babies are found many times in this situation. They block the way to rescue by their presence and do so completely by force. Nevertheless, they may be killed because their presence aids murder. There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

In addition, the children of the leader may be harmed in order to apply pressure to him. If attacking the children of a wicked ruler will influence him not to behave wickedly, they may be harmed. “It is better to kill the pursuers than to kill others,” the authors state.

In a chapter entitled “Deliberate harm to innocents,” the book explains that war is directly mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers.

Retaliation also has a place and purpose in this book by Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur. “In order to defeat the enemy, we must behave toward them in a spirit of retaliation and measure for measure,” they state. “Retaliation is absolutely necessary in order to render such wickedness not worthwhile. Therefore, sometimes we do cruel deeds in order to create the proper balance of terror.”

In one of the footnotes, the two rabbis write in such a way that appears to permit individuals to act on their own, outside of any decision by the government or the army.

“A decision by the nation is not necessary to permit shedding the blood of the evil kingdom,” the rabbis write. “Even individuals from the nation being attacked may harm them.”

Unlike books of religious law that are published by yeshivas, this time the rabbis added a chapter containing the book’s conclusions. Each of the six chapters is summarized into main points of several lines, which state, among other things: “In religious law, we have found that non-Jews are generally suspected of shedding Jewish blood, and in war, this suspicion becomes a great deal stronger. One must consider killing even babies, who have not violated the seven Noahide laws, because of the future danger that will be caused if they are allowed to grow up to be as wicked as their parents.”

Even though the authors are careful, as stated, to use the term “non-Jews,” there are certainly those who could interpret the nationality of the “non-Jews” who are liable to endanger the Jewish people. This is strengthened by the leaflet “The Jewish Voice,” which is published on the Internet from Yitzhar, which comments on the book: “It is superfluous to note that nowhere in the book is it written that the statements are directly only to the ancient non-Jews.” The leaflet’s editors did not omit a stinging remark directed at the GSS, who will certainly take the trouble to get themselves a copy. “The editors suggest to the GSS that they award the prize for Israel’s security to the authors,” the leaflet states, “who gave the detectives the option of reading the summarized conclusions without any need for in-depth study of the entire book.”

One student of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in Yitzhar explained, from his point of view, where Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur got the courage to speak so freely on a subject such as the killing of non-Jews. “The rabbis aren’t afraid of prosecution because in that case, Maimonides [Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1135–1204] and Nahmanides [Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, 1194–1270] would have to stand trial too, and anyway, this is research on religious law,” the yeshiva student said. “In a Jewish state, nobody sits in jail for studying Torah.”

Coteret: Settler Rabbi publishes “The complete guide to killing non-Jews” — UPDATED
Haaretz: The King's Torah: a rabbinic text or a call to terror?
AlJazeera: The King's Torah
Pakalert Press: FALSE FLAG NUKE ATTACK ON U.S. JUSTIFIED….”KING’S TORAH”
Alternet: How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book's Shocking Religious Defense
of Killing Non-Jews (with Video)
MyJewishLearning: Genocide in the Torah: The existential threat of Amalek by Shmuly Yanklowitz
City of Brass: Iran as Amalek: Netanyahu pulls an Ahmadinejad

catholic church involved in terrorist cover-up

NPR: Cover-Up In 1972 North Ireland Bombing
The British government and the Roman Catholic church colluded to cover up the suspected involvement of a priest in a 1972 bombing that killed nine people and injured 30, a new report said Tuesday.

you don't fight terrorists the same way you fight rumpelstiltskin

I saw this exchange on CSPAN and thought it was pretty bizare and frustrating. Admittedly, Holder should have been a bit more confident and smooth, but Lamar Smith (and other folks of a similar mindset) are downright ignorant and dangerous.

For me, the basic question is about how the US should respond to terrorism. Should there be a targeted and defined effort with a relatively clear endgame (e.g. dismantle Al-Qaedah and capture/kill OBL). Or should there be vaguely defined war without any clear limits (e.g. a War on Islamic Terrorism or "Radical Islam")

As a Muslim and an American I can totally get behind the first approach. But in the second case I'm not sure I would trust someone like Lamar Smith to be able to distinguish between "radicals" and the rest. I'm not going to pretend to be able to see into Smith's heart but I have to wonder if he simply hates Muslims and is using the word radical as a figleaf. In any case, if folks like him end up framing the terms of the US' anti-terrorism response, we will probably end up fighting the Crusades for 1000 years or so.



Huffington Post: Lamar Smith Wants Eric Holder To Say 'Radical Islam' Or He'll Cry

And if you have the time, here is the whole hearing:
House Judiciary Cmte. Hearing with Atty. Gen. Eric Holder on the Attempted Times Square Bombing

on joe (joseph) stack

The article Terrorism: The Most Meaningless and Manipulated Word by Glenn Greenwald takes a look at the Joseph Stack incident and uses it to underline some of the hypocrisy behind how the term "terrorist" is used today (to delegitimize Muslims).

When I first read about Joseph Stack flying a plane into an Austin office building which housed the local IRS office I pretty much saw him as a Tea Party terrorist. After reading the Joseph Stack Manifesto I have to admit that he does have some left-wing elements to his "ideology" but on balance he seems more like an ordinary "Joe" who has had a series of frustrating Kafka-esque experiences with the bureaucratic IRS. At the same time,there do seem to be some tea party types embracing him as an American hero after the fact.

In any case, even if this particular incident isn't the responsibility of someone clearly in the Tea Party camp, there have certainly been other warning signs that anti-Obama conservative backlash has been becoming more and more aggressive and has the potential for moving in violent directions. (see pray for obama and the murder of george tiller)

See also: I Am Not Saying Joe Stack Is A Teabagger, But He’s A Little Teaish By Casey Gane-McCalla

all terrorists are muslims... except the 94% that aren't

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group,
From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI database

A couple of interesting links:
From Loonwatch: All Terrorists are Muslims... Except the 94% that Aren't summarizes an updated FBI report of terrorist acts on US soil. As you can see for yourself from the above pie graph, among the counter-stereotypical results are: 1) Only 6% of the terrorist acts on US soil in the period covered were committed by Muslims. 2) In fact, slightly more terrorist acts were committed by Jewish groups. And finally, 3) the largest category of groups associated with acts of terrorism in the US is apparently Latino! (although this includes both far-right anti-Castro terrorist groups and left-leaning pro-Puerto Rican independence groups)


Also CNN recently reported in Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated the results of a study funded by the Department of Justice which looks at how to prevent the radicalization of Muslim youth in America. The original study can be found at: Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim-Americans


And finally, Stephen M. Walt gives one of the more candid answers to the "Why Do They Hate Us?" question in his article: Why they hate us (ii): How many Muslims has the US killed in the past 30 years?

hat tip to the Anonymous Arabist

the murder of george tiller

You may have heard of how this weekend Dr. George Tiller became the most recent victim of Christian (specifically anti-abortion) terrorism in the US. It will be interesting to see how this form of terrorism will be treated by the general public and the current administration. I wonder if, had this occurred under George W. Bush's rule, the government would have declared members of militant right-wing groups in the US as "enemy combatants" and sent them to Guantanamo?

In the wake of Tiller's murder, most anti-abortion groups and many individuals have strongly condemned the murder of Tiller and have acknowledged some of the excesses of the pro-life movement, but at least a few (e.g. Fox personality Bill O'Reilly and Operation Rescue founder George Terry have given comments which ranged from the ambiguous to unapologetic.

What I found really disturbing was a bit of analysis from an LA Times piece, "Abortion doctor George Tiller is killed" as follows:

UC Davis sociology professor Carole Joffe said that the worst period of violence against abortion providers was during Clinton's tenure, and that attacks dwindled under President George W. Bush, when the movement had an ally in the White House. But now, with a president who supports abortion rights and a Democratic Congress, she said, some abortion foes may be feeling hopeless.

"When social movements feel they're not getting anywhere, they get desperate," she said, adding that the vast majority of antiabortion activists reject violence. "This is deeply tragic but unsurprising."

So does this mean that for the rest of Obama's tenure we can expect more and more of the fascist/ militant/ racist /far-right wing crazies to come out the woodwork?

Planet Grenada eric robert rudolph
LA Times: A history of violence on the antiabortion fringe
Huffington: Bill O'Reilly Crusaded Against George Tiller For Years

deobandi scholars say terrorism is anti-islam

I wouldn't call myself a card-carrying Deobandi (and I certainly wouldn't pick sides in the whole Deobandi/Barelwi issue) but I do like Tablighi Jamaat enough to get defensive when they are attacked and I do have a couple of "Deobandi" books on my bookshelf which I occasionally consult as references. In short, I certainly didn't need this fatwa to know that terrorism was wrong, but in spite of the fact that mainstream Muslim organizations and scholars often issue statements denouncing terrorism, it is slightly more satisfying/relevant coming from this particular movement.

more on deobandis (and barelwis)
under suspicion
what is the islamic stance on the london bombings?



Darool-Uloom Deoband says terrorism is anti-Islam
Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:35pm IST

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Darool-Uloom Deoband, a radical Muslim seminary said to have inspired the Taliban has denounced terrorism as against Islam, calling it an unpardonable sin, in an effort to distance itself from religious violence.

Tens of thousands of clerics and students from around India attended a meeting at the 150-year-old Deoband, north of New Delhi, on Monday, and agreed to take a stand against acts of terrorism.

"There is no place for terrorism in Islam," Maulana Marghoobur Rahman, the ageing rector of Deoband, told Reuters on Tuesday. "Terrorism, killing of the innocent is against Islam. It is a faith of love and peace, not violence."

Thousands of smaller Islamic seminaries, or madrasas, are affiliated to the Deoband school in India alone, and Indian security services say some have provided recruits for radical Islamist groups in India and neighbouring Pakistan.

Its teachings, and its strict interpretation of Islamic law, have spread to many other countries, including Britain and Afghanistan, where they are said to have inspired the Taliban.

Rahman's comments are seen as significant as they betray a deep sense of anxiety among India's 140 million Muslims that a violent interpretation of Islam was finding root in the country and tarnishing the reputation of the entire community.

Indian Muslims were implicated in bomb attacks on packed commuter trains in Mumbai in 2006 and in a failed attack in Britain last year.

But Rahman said it was unjust to equate Islam with terrorism, to see every Muslim as a suspect or for governments to use this to harass innocent Muslims.

"There are so many examples of people from other communities being caught with bombs and weapons, why are they never convicted?" said Qazi Mohammed Usman, deputy head of Deoband.

The meeting defined terrorism as any action targeting innocent people, whether committed by an individual, an institution or a government.

Rahman's sermon will be circulated to all madrasas affiliated to his seminary.

Muslims make up about 13 percent of India's officially secular but predominantly Hindu population -- giving it the third largest Islamic population after Indonesia and Pakistan.

other news articles on the same event:
Greater Kashmir: Deoband declaration evokes mixed reaction
Clerics against Terrorism by Ali Eteraz
Dawn: 20,000 scholars term terrorism un-Islamic: Declaration issued at Darul-Uloom Deoband