Ahmed Rehab discusses misconceptions about Islam and American Muslims, specifically addressing the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy, and reacts to recent Sarah Palin twitter comments about the issue.
Interview 1 (CBS): Interview 2 (WGN): ]]> http://www.ahmedrehab.com/2010/07/ahmed-rehab-talks-to-wgn-radios-john-williams-about-ground-zero-mosque-controversy-and-sarah-palin/feed/ http://www.ahmedrehab.com/2010/06/ahmed-rehab-muslim-chaplain/ http://www.ahmedrehab.com/2010/06/ahmed-rehab-muslim-chaplain/#comments Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:34:24 +0000 sohib http://www.ahmedrehab.com/?p=1537 Watch: ABC 7: Group challenges Muslim chaplain’s dismissal from force

June 23, 2010 (CHICAGO) (WLS) — The Council on American-Islamic Relations has filed a complaint against the Illinois State Police after they rescinded an offer to a prominent imam who was to become the department’s first-ever Muslim chaplain.

It has been six months since Muslim cleric Kifah Mustapha was trained and certified by the Illinois State Police as the department’s first and only Islamic chaplain.

In March, the I-Team reported on certain aspects of Mustapha’s background that prompted state police officials to put a hold on his chaplain duties. Now, Mustapha has been told that he is permanently banned as a state police chaplain.

“Imam Kifah Mustafa is beyond reproach. His track record is not only clear it is transparent and omnipresent. He has been an Imam since 1994. He has served his community with dignity and honor,” said Ahmed Rehab CAIR-Chicago executive director.

Despite strong backing Wednesday from Muslim leaders, Mustapha has been ordered to turn in his state police ID card and bulletproof vest and will no longer be on the roster of three dozen Illinois State Police chaplains, who many times ride-alongs with troopers and serve as the spiritual backbone of the force.

“Today we are filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Comission or EEOC on behalf of Imam Mustapha against the Illinois State Police,” said Christina Abraham, CAIR-Chicago civil rights director.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations says it blames Steve Emerson for Mustapha’s removal as a police chaplain. Early this year, Emerson’s terrorism research project began posting videos and documents critical of Mustapha and questioning his appointment as a chaplain. Emerson, a national security expert who has testified before Congress, posted public justice department documents that cite Mustapha as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, an organization that federal prosecutors say raises money for Hamas and is “committed to the globalization of Islam and violent jihad.”

“At first I thought there was another Kifah Mustapha. I could not believe that it could have been the same Kifah Mustapha who was associated with a terrorist organization and who was listed a year just a year and a half ago and was an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist case that the government won,” said Emerson.

State police officials say only that a further review of Mustapha’s background resulted in his dismissal as a chaplain.

“It’s disappointing that things should come to this, that the Illinois State Police has succumbed to the defamatory rantings of bigoted individuals who, while in the name of protecting American values, do nothing more than undermine and degrade the very principles this country was founded upon,” said Abraham.

The Mustapha case highlights a bitter rift between Council on American-Islamic Relations and Steve Emerson’s terrorism research project. CAIR claims Emerson is an islamophobe, fear monger and an Israeli lobbyist. In rebuttal, Emerson says that there is no truth to anything CAIR officials say. Emerson maintains that he merely highlighted information about Kifah Mustapha that Mustapha and CAIR wanted hidden and that the Illinois State Police then made its own decision.

Chicago – The Illinois State Police has revoked the appointment of a prominent cleric to become the department’s first Muslim chaplain.

Kifah Mustapha, a Chicago-area imam, was appointed the agency’s first Muslim chaplain in December. Community groups had praised Mustapha’s appointment as a nod to the growing diversity among the agency’s nearly 2,000 officers.

But within days, the appointment came under criticism from the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a Washington-based think tank.

The group alleged that Mustapha was linked to the Palestine Committee of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, a popular movement in the Muslim world that advocates the formation of Islamic governments in the Middle East. It also alleged he raised money for the Holy Land Foundation, a now-defunct Islamic charity whose founders were sentenced last year for funneling money to the Palestinian militant group Hamas. The group cited internal documents and a list of unindicted co-conspirators.

Mustapha hasn’t been charged with any crimes. Messages left Wednesday for Mustapha weren’t immediately returned.

According to a statement from the Illinois State Police, after Mustapha underwent training in December and was issued state identification and a bulletproof vest, it was discovered that he had not undergone background checks required to serve in the volunteer position.

Mustapha’s appointment was rescinded Friday, but that action wasn’t publicly disclosed until late Tuesday after media inquiries. “Due to information revealed during the background investigation, Sheikh Kifah Mustapha’s appointment as a volunteer ISP Chaplain has been denied,” ISP spokesman Master Sgt. Isaiah Vega said in an e-mail. “Specific details of background investigations are confidential and cannot be discussed.”

Vega declined to say whether there was a connection between the think tank’s allegations and Mustapha’s dismissal.

But the Council of American-Islamic Relations in Chicago, which is representing Mustapha, said the imam was told that was why his appointment was put on hold.

Ahmed Rehab, CAIR’s executive director in Chicago, called it discrimination against Muslims, especially since Mustapha hasn’t been formally accused of wrongdoing.

“The ISP is kowtowing to the run-of-the-mill fear-mongering that Islamophobes have devoted their careers in order to avoid a public relations controversy,” he said.

Steve Emerson, executive directr of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, on Wednesday defended the group’s original report, saying it merely published content linking Mustapha to fundraising for terrorists.

He said his group was prompted to investigate after news of the appointment was published on the website of the Mosque Foundation in Bridgeview, one of the Chicago area’s oldest and largest mosques. Mustapha is an imam and director there.

Emerson dismissed charges of Islamophobia as “empty diversions and without merit” in an e-mail.

CAIR planned to file a lawsuit and a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Mustapha’s behalf.

“He knows that he’s a good man and he’s a good leader and that he really wanted to serve in this capacity to help,” Rehab said. “He feels he was unfairly denied.”

Kifah Mustapha was appointed last December. But a blog pointed out that he had worked for a Muslim charity group, the Holy Land Foundation.

Several of its leaders have been federally convicted for funneling money to Hamas, a Palestinian group on the U.S. foreign terrorist list. But Mustapha himself was never indicted for anything.

Ahmed Rehab of the Council on American Islamic Relations says this is a smear campaign:

REHAB: And then government entities give into that fearmongering and Islamophobia and end up axing Muslim participation in our civic life.

The Illinois State Police won’t say what it found in Mustapha’s background check after his appointment. But it says it will find another Muslim chaplain.

There is more outrage in this country over some bumbling comments she recently made than over the murder of a US citizen and eight others by our ally, Israel, on the high seas. Never mind the fact that she has apologized while Israel still refuses to apologize.

Judging by any standard, Helen Thomas has enjoyed a long and illustrious career. She made history as the first female member of the White House Correspondents’ Association, covering the administrations of 10 U.S. presidents, beginning with Kennedy.

Helen Thomas epitomized the role of the people’s reporter, a woman who was not afraid to ask tough questions that other reporters were too meek or politically correct to ask, the sort of questions that sought to hold the nation’s highest elected official accountable to the people who put him there.

Thomas was a White House fixture, an American icon, earning a permanent front row seat and rights to the first question (in all but the George W. Bush administration).

But it only took one unfortunate comment made in her personal capacity to a video blogger last week to bring this long and remarkable career to a screeching halt. The comment came on the heels of the Israeli raid of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla that resulted in the death of nine human rights activists and the wounding of many more.

“Tell them to get the get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people [the Palestinians] are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, it’s not Poland.” She was asked where they should go and she answered, “They should go home, to Poland, Germany and America”.

The comment was made viral by rabbilive.com and it did not take long for Helen to face a backlash including calls for her firing by former White House spokesperson, Aril Fleischer (yes the same guy during whose tenure she was stripped of perks allowed her by other administrations).

Do I agree with Helen Thomas’ statement?

No, I do not. (For the record, I believe that the only way forward is for Israel to get the hell out of the occupied territories rather than for Jews to get the hell out of Israel).

It turns out, neither does Helen Thomas who has since retracted the statement and apologized for it.

I am glad she did. This article is not about defending her off-the-cuff comment; it is about defending her good person and questioning the motives of those who wish her ill.

Her comment was uncalled for; her apology was a welcome remedy. But curiously, that was not enough. Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League – a group that has mutated over the years from defending Jews to politicking for Israel – did not like the apology and asked for a second longer one. The backlash did not let off and she was forced to retire.

It irks me that for an expedient cadre out there, a “few seconds” of emotional speech are seemingly enough to cancel out a 67 year long career of honorable service.

But let us not be so gullible as to miss the background on this story.

Helen Thomas has been a nuisance for the Pro-occupation lobby in this country since forever. Her unfortunate gaffe presented those who had long sought to silence her with the golden opportunity they had been waiting for. (It is rather telling that they had to wait this long, with Thomas turning 90 years this August).

It is particularly disingenuous that Ari Fleischer should be the one to lead the call for her head.

What moral authority does he have to call for the firing of a reporter who has served American audiences with integrity and honesty for decades while he himself was a mouthpiece of lies and propaganda that cost Americans their lives and treasures in a needless war?

If anyone should have been fired for offensive conduct, it was Fleischer, a man who duped – or allowed himself to be used to dupe – the American people.

Secondly, whatever happened to freedom of speech, the same freedom of speech that is championed (by the same people who called for Thomas’s firing) when the outrageous comment is about Muslims, Arabs, or Palestinians? More on that later.

Thirdly, while I don’t agree with Thomas as I’ve already stated, it makes a difference to me that her comment was not given in her official reporting capacity but in response to an off-the-job question. Like everyone else, she is entitled to a personal opinion. Those who question her professional integrity need to provide evidence from her voluminous work to corroborate their concerns of potential professional bias.

Fourthly, the notion that she is advocating genocide is a fabrication. Neither her personal history, professional track record, nor the comment itself, point in that direction. Notice her words, “should get out” not “should be gotten out,” they clearly indicate active and willful action on the part of the subject, not coercive objectification.

As such, whether you agree or disagree with her, it is a logical error on anyone’s behalf to accept the trumped-up allegation that this is “a call to genocide.”

Rabbilive.com adds spin to her comment with a video caption that “6 million Jews were killed at home.” But Thomas’ comment was made in 2010, not 1940, a time in which Germany and Poland are not killing Jews. Plus she mentioned America as home, too; Jews were never killed here.

Again, this does not make her comment right; it just absolves her of “calling for genocide” as Fleischer and others have charged.

Fleischer further argued that “if a journalist, or a columnist, said the same thing about blacks or Hispanics, they would already have lost their jobs.”

His comparison of Israelis to US Blacks and Hispanics is bizarre. Helen is not talking about American Jews, but about a foreign country. Her opinion as such is not as relevant or reverent to Americans as a comment made about African Americans, Hispanic Americans, or Jewish Americans, etc.

Lastly, if the same standard was applied to reporters and politicians who said things half as offensive as this about Palestinians, a significant portion of that workforce would be fired, including many who have defended Israel’s mass killing of civilians.

Having said all that, this episode is mostly significant in that it provides a revealing portrait of the hypocritical state of freedom of speech in America.

Many self-proclaimed defenders of freedom of speech are quick to hail the many derogatory Muhammad cartoons as a symbol of defiance against Muslim radicals who wish to deter free speech with death threats. But if we are in the business of challenging red lines, then it is hypocritical to obsess with the case of the prophet but turn a blind eye over the case of the gorilla in the room, Israel.

Those who venture to offend the pro-Israel lobby may not face death threats, but they likely will face enough pressure to hasten the death of their careers – a deterrent against free speech that is no less offensive and apparently more effective. Indeed if this were not so, American reporters and politicians would do a better job at presenting both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian issue rather than the abysmal one-sided track record Americans have been subjected to for so long.

Personally, as a Muslim whose own faith values are often undermined by the misdeeds of those who claim to act in the name of defending the honor and freedom of Muslims, I know better than to blame Jewishness for Israel’s egregious violations.

Israel’s failure is not a failure of Jewish values. If anything, it’s a failure to apply Jewish values.

They are doing it for two reasons: a) because they know Muslims love their prophet and therefore consider any depiction of him to be offensive and b) because they believe that they are flag-bearers for freedom of speech and that drawing Muhammad is one of the last taboos left to break in Western society.

I won’t get into the freedom of speech debate and why such an endeavor has little to do with freedom of speech heroics, except to briefly point out two things: a) that this is not the first or last time someone has gone out to draw Muhammad, so there is nothing really ground breaking here, and b) we in the West do in fact have a standard of decency despite our freedom of speech.

You won’t for example find 60,000 people promoting a day of drawing racist or anti-Semitic cartoons, even though they would have the right to do so under freedom of speech - at least not without a public backlash. The reason for this  has less to do with freedom of speech and more to do with the simple fact that our society - after decades of missing the point - has evolved to such a level where we actually comprehend why such a public campaign would be offensive and uncalled for.

You may say, “oh but the Muhammad campaign is different.” Your reasoning may go something like this: religion is a choice, whereas race or ethnic identity are not, so it is fair game to be critical of religion but not race.

There is truth to this argument.

But there are also two small problems with it that many seem to readily miss: a)  there is a difference between objective criticism, and a campaign of ridicule and insults, and b) what if the next Facebook group came out and said, we find your lack of enthusiasm for a Facebook cartoon campaign that ridicules Blacks, or Jews, or Whites, or Latinos to be prudish and inherently incompatible with the values of our great Western civilization?

You may say: well but I don’t object to the principle that racists have a right to free expression of racism, absolutely they do.

Great, but the question is would you promote it? Would you champion it in the name of the principle of free speech or so as to make an academic point about defeating existing taboos of what is deemed off limits?

Probably not.

And the reason why not? Because your own standards of what is decent and what is not righlty cause you to write off racially offending people.

My friend, that brings you to the “yes you can but no you shouldn’t,” club, doesn’t it? Come sit next to us because I and my fellow American Muslims never questioned that Americans have a right to offend our religious sensitives and draw our prophet. Our simple message always was:  just because one has a right to do it, it does not make it the right thing to do.

Having said that, the campaign is already on, so what are we Muslims to do now?

Well, it’s simple: absolutely nothing. Let the show go on.

I would however advise that we do something for ourselves and that is make today a “Pray for Muhammad Day.”

Rather than concern ourselves too much with the actions of others, let’s put our own values to action. If someone wishes to offend, let them knock themselves out trying. Let us instead take the higher ground and appreciate the mercy, love, and other teachings our prophet brought us by making a prayer for him on a day when others go out of their way to ridicule him.

Today, let us pray for our prophet. But that is not all. Let us pray for the cartoonists who see fit to insult our prophet, that they should understand our love for our prophet and that they should be guided to peace in their hearts rather than animosity for others. Let us pray for our fellow Muslims who react to prophet cartoons with anger or violence, that they should also find peace in their hearts rather than return hate with greater hate.

Further Reading: A debate on Muhammad cartoons and freedom of speech with the Tribune’s Eric Zorn.

For more on religion and society, visit The Chicago Tribune’s Manya Brachear’s The Seeker Blog

And why does it invariably end up linking that person through multiple degrees of separation to terrorism?

The fact that even a Miss USA could not be spared this exercise in futility puts away any remaining doubt that there is a segment of America that is suffering from a bizarre and unhealthy obsession with Islam.

It is clear that this was a terrorist plot,” said US Attorney General Eric Holder of the recent New York Times Square incident in which a young Pakistani-American attempted but failed to detonate a second grade home-made bomb.

Some reports suggest that Faisal Shahzad, a happily married 30-year-old father of two with a master’s degree in Business Administration may have “snapped” after having recently lost his suburban home to foreclosure. Other reports suggest a political motive, mostly that he sought revenge for the US military drones that have claimed a significant number of civilian casualties in his native Pakistan, but also that he may be reeling against the lingering Bush doctrine and the Iraq war. Others yet suggest that he was radicalized and co-opted by Al Qaeda or a similar group.

Faisal may have been motivated by any one or all four of the above; investigations are still pending. But whatever his motive, one thing seems fairly clear: he planted a bomb with the intention of inflicting physical harm against a civilian population. Eric Holder is correct; this is an act of terrorism.

To their credit, American Muslim organizations did not wait for Holder’s conclusion to speak out. CAIR, MPAC, MAS, ISNA, and others immediately issued statements and held press conferences in which they condemned terrorism in general and the Times Square bomb incident in particular. For them, it was important to publicly register a zero tolerance policy for radicalized behavior emanating from members of the Muslim community — even if basic logic dictates that Faisal’s actions are of his own doing and should not reflect on the larger Muslim community.

Of course, American Muslim organizations were not the only ones talking. The national and global news media were abuzz with headlines, emerging reports, expert analysis, and condemnations. Elected officials, terrorism analysts, and think tanks rallied to have their say.

All this is well and good.

But what happens when a similar scenario takes place only a few days later and with only one minor difference: that the target of the bombing is an American Mosque? What if the bomb actually goes off?

Chances are news of this incident did not even make your paper or favorite news show, so let me briefly take you to Jacksonville, Florida where an unidentified man trespasses on mosque grounds and detonates an incendiary device that successfully goes off causing a blast and igniting a fire.

Jacksonville, Florida:

FBI Special Agent James Casey testifies:

It was a dangerous device. Had anybody been around it they could have been seriously injured or killed. We want to emphasize the seriousness of the thing and not let people believe that this was just a match and a little bit of gasoline that was spread around.

Jacksonville’s WOKV reports:

That kind of weapon could also mean terror charges for the person arrested for the crime, carrying a lifetime sentence in federal prison.

To their credit, Jacksonville’s Mayor and its FBI unit are taking the incident seriously. The local media has also given it some play.

But this is much more than your average local village prank, this is a potential act of terrorism.

With that in mind, the question must be asked: where is the national media buzz, the expert analysis, the condemnations? Where is the statement from the White House and Eric Holder? Where is the outrage from our national security, terrorism, and civil rights watchdogs?

Failure to take this incident seriously by our national press, elected officials, and community organizations sends the message that a bomb attack in this country is not such an alarming prospect so long as the target is “them.”

That’s right, the passive response to this act of terrorism at worst, hate crime at best, has “it’s just them” written all over it.

American Muslims are Americans, “us” not “them” (much in the same vein as the American Muslim response to Faisal was that he is messing with “us” not “them”). An American Mosque is an American target.

Hate crimes against mosques in this country, including violent crimes, are on the rise; interestingly, so is anti-Muslim expression in our media, churches, and political establishments.

Do we dare connect the dots?

Do we dare investigate whether there is a politicization element in the motive or goal of the guy who planted the bomb at the Jacksonville mosque with the intent to maim and kill? And if the FBI dares to say yes, do the media and the think tank groups then dare to ponder the nature, machinations, and consequences of an “anti-Muslim radicalization” process taking root in our society?

The Other Radicalization:

Every day, concerned experts in government and media circles gather to ponder the effects that anti-American preachers have on young disgruntled Muslims – a valid concern no doubt.

But do we dare explore the effects that radical American pastors have on their followers, when they write Islam off as a “wicked and evil” religion or call upon Christians to wage a “war” against the “false religion” of Islam with the aim of destroying it? Do we dare ponder the effects this rhetoric is certain to have on disgruntled members of their loyal congregations who otherwise have little knowledge of Islam and little interaction with Muslims? Do we dare assess the unabashed incitement gushing out of the end-of-times Christian TV and radio shows that brainwashes audiences with the belief that the Muslim stands between the Christian faithful and the return of Jesus?

Do we dare ponder the effects that rabidly anti-Muslim statements from elected officials and their surrogates have on unsuspecting Americans who fear their Muslim neighbors as “the other” or the “enemy within”? Do we dare ponder the effects these “leaders” have on the public when they deliver somber warnings that America has too many Mosques or too Many Muslims?

Do we dare ponder the consequences of the recent rise of anti-Muslim citizen groups such as ACT! For America or Stop the Islamization of America (SOIA) whose founders harbor a documented history of racism and bigotry but who nonetheless rally their neighbors (including most recently in Jacksonville) to hate and paranoia under the guise of free speech heroics?

Do we dare ponder the “otherization” of Muslims even from the least probable sources including progressives such as Bill Maher and neutrals such as Anderson Cooper whose recent smirk-filled, generalization-laden exchange contrasting “Muslims” with “Americans” (broadcast on “the most trusted name in news” that seeks “to keep them honest”) came down to a comparison between “over there” and “over here,” and a bewailing of “that desert stuff”? Do we dare consider that what was even more alarming than the exchange itself was that few people found it alarming?

If we did dare to ponder, we may find that we are surprisingly lax when it comes to anti-Muslim violence in that we do not even consider the question whether or not it is politicized violence, let alone the answer.

Increasingly, there are data, trends, and other reasons to believe that acts like the Jacksonville bombing are not just “hate” crimes but a violent response to an emerging succinct anti-Muslim political discourse.

If so, if it is a violent act, against a civilian population, with the intent to incur death and destruction, and with a political motive or goal, then it is automatically an act of terrorism.

Acknowledging this, we may then be better equipped to protect that segment of “our” citizens within the auspices of our existing counter terrorism measures.

Some may think that my argument is far-fetched. But consider that more Americans have died since 9/11 from attacks of the “Jacksonville sort” (the type we seem content to gloss over), than the “Times Square sort” that rightly concerns us but which since 9/11 has thankfully claimed zero lives.

A Single Standard:
So long as we assume an exclusive association between terrorism as a tactic and Muslims as a faith community, we create for ourselves a false impression of causality, rather than correlativity. This is simply inaccurate and self-delusional. To continue to delude ourselves is to undermine our chances of successfully confronting and defeating the general threat of terrorism wherever and whenever it appears.

Our stance against terrorism ought to be a morally principled one, drawn from our commitment to a safe, free, and just society. If we allow ourselves to politicize our fight against terrorism, purposefully or unwittingly, we lose our credibility in this fight and the moral grounds upon which it is drawn.

It is of vital importance that our stance against terrorism be rooted in law and order and not dub as a self-fulfilling prophecy, a faithline war with pre-designated villains and victims.

Muslim leaders are often called upon to condemn terrorism. That we do without qualm or reservation. What is overdue however is a commitment from all Americans – government, media, and people – to condemn all acts of terror with the same strength and vigor and without favoritism to faith or political affiliation.

Terrorism designation ought to classify acts not peoples.

Chicago Public Radio | Worldview

Ahmed Rehab, and Yaser Tabbara, talk to Worldview’s Jerome McDonnell as part of NPR’s week-long series Islamic Reform: Towards a Global Reformation Movement

About the Interview: (Worldview Link)

“Yaser Tabbara and Ahmed Rehab are co-founders of the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

“CAIR says its mission is to “enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.”

“We’ll find out what Islamic Reform means to Yaser and Ahmed, and how CAIR draws on lessons learned from the Civil Rights Movement.”

About the Series:

“Muslims around the world have made a bold call for reform; from alternative Quranic interpretations on women to Islamic bio-ethics, today’s Muslim reformers encompass a wide range of different ideas and are engaged in creative solutions aimed at transforming global Muslim societies. This week on Worldview, we discuss the issues with today’s most important reformers. We’ll look at the history of reform in Islam, and the broad scope reform has taken in modernity.”

Listen to any of the interviews from this series HERE. ]]> http://www.ahmedrehab.com/2010/05/rehab-and-tabbara-on-chicago-public-radio/feed/