On Sunday night, a terrorist attack in Garland, Texas resulted in the death of two terrorist gunmen (Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi), and the injury of a security guard. As described by media outlets, the attack was made on an event held by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), an organization led by Pamela Geller. The terrorist gunmen drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland on Sunday night as the event was coming to an end and shot at the security officer, Bruce Joiner, who was shot in the leg. Garland police returned fire and killed the two terrorist gunmen.
Rita Katz of the SITE Institute reports that one of the men, Elton Simpson communicated with a U.S.-Somali terrorist “Mujahid Miski,” who urged the attack. Responsible for Equality And Liberty has a statement of defiance and rejection to those terrorists who believe that their violence will deny the universal human rights of our fellow human beings. Nadir Soofi was not under the scrutiny of law enforcement sources. In addition, the Dallas Morning News provided a report on May 5, 2015, stating that ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in an audio recording: “We tell America that what is coming is more bitter and harder and you will see from the soldiers of the Caliphate what harms you.”
The terrorist attack happened as Ms. Geller was finishing her speech in the Curtis Culwell Center to other attendees and media covering the event in what they called the “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest.” CNN has reported on other similar attacks.
Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) rejects all terrorist violence, without qualification, everywhere, and all the time. Such terrorism is a direct attack on our fellow human beings and on their universal human rights.
We do not have to agree with or like the peaceful speech or actions by another group. But they have a right to that peaceful speech when it is not criminally calling for the murder or violence against another person.
I didn’t like Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons, either. But I don’t HAVE to like them. They have the right to their free speech nonetheless, and the terrorist violence in response to free speech is always wrong. Furthermore, it is a WAR – a war on our shared universal human rights.
In fact, I passionately disagree with Ms. Geller, her AFDI organization, her SIOA organization, her anti-Islam extremist stance, and her provocative tactics. I have writtenmany times, at length of my disagreement with Ms. Geller, and our rejection of her views and actions. I have seen some of vitriolic images her SIOA organization members have previously posted of Muhammad, and to say that many were objectionable and disgusting would be the understatement of the century. But like so many in the world, I believe she is doing what she thinks is the right thing to do, as much as I disagree with her extremist views.
While we can disagree, even passionately disagree with such views, comments, and insulting cartoons, when terrorists seek to silence public debate with their guns, bombs, knives, and other weapons of war, then even those of us who passionately disagree have a common threat.
According to our Universal Declaration of Human Rights, she and her organization have the right to freedom of thought and expression without being the target of a terrorist attack.
We either do or do not believe in these universal human rights. Not just when it is convenient, pleasant, or for those with whom we agree. This is what distinguishes us from those who seek the oppression of the world, using many arguments, many tactics, and many violent actions. Our universal human rights are shared by all of us, everywhere, all the time.
There are those who may find the AFDI’s views objectionable or who disagree with it, and may choose to believe this gives them the privilege to look the other way at a terrorist attack on free speech. But when we allow that, what will happen next time, when it is your free speech? Next time, will it be YOUR freedom of expression that terrorists threaten?
We are also seeing Twitter being used as a tool for universal communications in many ways, some good, some bad. It is a tool. How the tool is used is up to our fellow human beings. But what we see this morning (and last night) is that there have been too many who have used this tool to call for new attacks of violence against people with who them disagree.
As you can see, some call for new terrorism, some praise existing terrorism, some threaten the “kuffar.” Some post graphic images of beheaded individuals and threaten to do this to others who publish such cartoons. One threatens “stop insulting the Prophet Muhammad or come your heads everywhere,” as an ISIS beheading video is posted. Others are advised to provide their Twitter threats in Arabic so that the “right community” can read them.
Let us be clear: our universal human rights are for all people. Not just for people of one religion, one race, one ethnic group, one nationality. They are not for just one country or one region of the world. Our universal human rights are UNIVERSAL. This is where we must stand united. If there is a war, this is what we must all be fighting to defend.
The L.A. Times quotes Ms. Geller as stating “This is war on free speech. What are we going to do? Are we going to surrender to these monsters?” On this point, Ms. Geller is right. This war on free speech must not go unchallenged in the United States, just like those threatening a war on free speech have been challenged in France and the rest of the world.
We must take a stand on this. When it comes to this violent terrorist attack on freedom of expression, I stand beside Pamela Geller and all those whose free expression is threatened by terrorist violence. Because if we surrender on their universal human rights, we are not just surrendering on their speech and expression, but we are surrendering the free speech and expression of all Americans and all of our fellow human beings.
#JeSuisPamelaGeller –Photo of Pamela Geller (Source Twitter)
According to the media – prior to the terrorist attack – Elton Simpson’s Twitter account was being using to send messages sympathetic to the ISIS organization and its terrorism. SITE reports that Elton Simpson communicated with a U.S.-Somali terrorist “Mujahid Miski,” who urged the attack.
To Somali terrorist “Mujahid Miski,” who uses the Twitter tool to groom others and encourage them to commit terrorism, and who reportedly inspired Elton Simpson – as well as to all terrorists.
We are NOT AFRAID OF YOU.
We say this in public – and we say it to your face.
Criminals are a cowardly lot. They seek to sneak up on the helpless, the defenseless, and those who they think cannot fight back. They use their cowardice to seek to inspire “terror,” but they truly only inspire defiance instead.
Our support for our universal human rights is essential for the equality, liberty, dignity, and security of all of our fellow human beings. I urge all of my Muslim friends who work for human rights every day to also speak out to challenge the cowards who think they will terrorize free men and women in our world.
We reject and denounce those in the media and politics who feel freedom of expression is expendable to those they disagree with. This is wrong and it is a categorical rejection of our shared universal human rights. We either have such freedoms or we do not. It is essential to make it clear that we have such shared freedoms as part of our human rights, and to be responsible for their defense.
If we are responsible for human rights, it is not just when it is convenient. It is especially important when it is not convenient and when it is challenging to do so. That when we know that we are really….
Responsible for Equality And Liberty
and it is always another GOOD DAY to be responsible for equality and liberty.
Orange Ribbon for Universal Human Rights – Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)
Introduction: Responsible for Equality and Liberty (R.E.A.L.) represents a coalition of individuals that come together periodically to challenge human rights abuses and to promote human rights. To be consistent on such universal human rights, at times, we must also raise controversial issues as well. It is easy to be brave from a distance. But if we believe in the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty for all, sometimes we need to get close to issues that challenge our fellow human beings. We hope to offer solutions of peace, respect, and hope to all. We support the universal human rights of all people of all identity groups and all religions, without exception, without caveat.
====================================
I reject the views of the Anti-Islam movement, and I respect the religious liberty of all human beings, including my Muslim brothers and sisters in humanity. But I also reject the silence from our society, media, and our institutions on too many on extremists who rationalize oppression of human rights, hate, and violence based on the extremist views on what they believe justifies a religious “culture.” The failure to consistently address both extremist views will continue to lead to increasing human rights and security challenges in the United States and around the world.
In the past month, we have seen mirror images of ideological terrorists in Europe and in the United States: terrorist Anders Behring Breivik in Norway and failed terrorist Naser Abdo in Texas. Both terrorists believe they represent opposite ideological views, but they represent a common threat to our human rights and security.
The common argument by both ends of the spectrum has been an ideological view toward creating closed “cultures.” Both the Anti-Islam movement and the Bin Ladenist ideologues have rationalized terrorism to support closed cultures that they believe are not only more important than human rights, but also more important even than human lives. Furthermore, the neglect by media, our governments, international agencies, too many counterterrorists, and too many human rights groups to seriously discuss this problem is the fear of offending anyone’s view of “culture.”
Our cultures do matter. But our shared universal human rights and human dignity are what truly unite us as a human race. Our shared human rights are not only the basis for cultures of life and dignity, but also the basis for security and peace.
1. The Breivik Terrorist Attack
On July 22, 2011, 77 children, women, and men were killed in Olso, Norway at the hands of a terrorist who claimed that his actions were to promote his Anti-Islam views. As that nation remembers the loss of their fellow citizens and loved ones, it is past time to have a more serious reflection on the ideological claims of the confessed Oslo terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, and the consequences of his ideological views.
The week after the terrorist attack, the mainstream media discovered a video that Breivik made and a “manifesto” that he sent out on email. It listed a number of Anti-Islam leaders and writings by others, and the news media latched onto the Anti-Islam leaders, blaming them as individuals for Breivik’s terrorist activities. The Anti-Islam leaders defended themselves and rejected such associations, stating they were opposed to violence.
There is no question that Mr. Breivik is the individual responsible for and accountable for his crimes and terrorism. He and he alone is accountable for his actions, his cruel and vicious murder of women, children, and others. He is not a hero, but a criminal. He is not a visionary, but a common killer.
But Breivik’s use of the Anti-Islam ideology for violence is not the isolated incident that some believe, and it is important for human rights and security that it is addressed. His violent terrorism may have been the first, but he is not alone in his calls for violence among Anti-Islam activists. Breivik’s July 22 attack is not the first violence we have seen from the Anti-Islam campaigns.
The Anti-Islam movement is not only growing in numbers, it also is increasingly becoming a security and human rights challenge itself.
2. The Growing Challenge of the Anti-Islam Movement
After the 9/11 attacks, a number of Americans, and then Europeans began to fear future attacks from violent individuals who shared the extremist ideology of Osama Bin Laden. They sought to understand the ideology and rationale behind such attacks. Some sought to consistently challenge a Bin Ladenist extremist ideology which would use Islamic religious views to rationalize human rights and security threats. But as the mainstream media, governments, and traditional human right groups ignored this, some became more hard-lined in their thinking and political in their organization. This created a significant divide among people with this concern. Some remained concerned about Bin Ladenist ideologies and their followers; others sought to blame Islam itself for such terrorism and abuse of human rights. This latter group began to form an Anti-Islam movement.
With the example of the success that American Tea-Party style activism found with conservative politicians, some Anti-Islam activists began to start to build a political movement of their own. (This began less than a year after our own R.E.A.L. human rights coalition had started to offer a consistent view on human rights issues.)
There are many who have been outraged by the actions of Bin Ladenists. The outrage towards such extremists was coupled with a sense of abandonment and fear, in believing that traditional government and human rights groups were not concerned about the Bin Ladenist ideological views. As those with Bin Ladenist views have sought to threaten human rights and security, some have gravitated towards populist leaders in the Anti-Islamic movement.
In Europe, groups such as the Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) and the English Defence League (EDL) were created. In the United States, the SIOE sought to create a version of their group in the United States called the Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) two years ago. R.E.A.L. has been on the record as objecting to the SIOA and its message since the creation of the SIOA.
The Norway terrorist Anders Breivik used the ideas from such Anti-Islam groups as the rationale for his July 22 terrorist acts. I have read much of Mr. Breivik’s “manifesto,” and I have seen his video that he released prior to his terrorist attack. There are a number of familiar names and familiar images. Anti-Islam terrorist Breivik has praised the SIOE and praised the EDL. In Breivik’s Anti-Islam manifesto, he quoted original SIOA leader D.L. Adams, as well as current SIOA leaders Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller. In addition, Breivik references European philosophers, and even counterterrorist analysts such as Evan Kohlmann, who have I met, and I know that Mr. Kohlmann adamantly rejects an Anti-Islam view. I have no doubt that Mr. Spencer (who was widely quoted in the Breivik manifesto) and others referenced in Breivik’s manifesto, were shocked and horrified by this, as any sane individual would be.
I have met Mr. Spencer and neither he nor Ms. Geller are the demons that the media have sought to portray them as. While I disagree with their views and their strategy, I have no doubt that they genuinely believe that what they are doing will protect American human rights and security. I met with Mr. Spencer several years ago and I shared his concern about those rationalizing human rights abuses in some parts of the world based on some extremist individuals’ and groups’ interpretation of Sharia.
The difference that Mr. Spencer and I have is that he believes the extremists are correctly interpreting Islam and Sharia. I believe that Muslims around the world all practice Islam differently and I know many Muslims who reject the views of extremists and Bin Ladenists who seek to deny human rights – based on any rationalization, including religious ones. We must support those who would promote human rights and dignity from within any religion and any identity group.
While I think Spencer and Geller are wrong in their Anti-Islam ideology and their approach, their voices once sought to challenge human rights abuses and terrorist threats from those who would rationalize their acts based on their extremist views of Islam. To gain attention from an apathetic public and government, they have pursued a political approach, taking over as the leaders of the SIOA group in the United States and seeking to align with political leaders. Two years ago, the original SIOA had only a few fringe members that sought to disrupt a Muslim prayer meeting on Capitol Hill. A year later, with the SIOA leadership taken over by Spencer and Geller, the SIOA led a massive protest with politicians against the Coroba House Islamic Center, and went on to coordinate anti-mosque campaigns elsewhere.
The emphasis moved from a concern about violent “jihad” and human rights concerns to political affiliations with other Anti-Islam activists groups, and a growing tolerance of Anti-Islam extremists – regardless of their tactics.
3. The Anti-Islam Movement’s Anger Attracts Hate and Violence
The political mass movement of the Anti-Islam movement has garnered greater populist support, but without a positive focus and with an emphasis on outrage, it has sometimes attracted not only angry, but also violent individuals.
The debate has also led to many in the Anti-Islam movement to shift from defending human rights to defending Western “culture” or “Western civilization.” This has led to their movement attracting individuals who will seek to “defend” such cultural views, using any means necessary – including some who promote hate and violence.
Frustration within the Anti-Islam movement has led individuals to move from outrage over human rights to alliances with those who will use even violence to defend what they view as Western “culture.”
Years ago before she led the SIOA, Pamela Geller sought sympathy for “honor killing” victims and led a fund-raising effort for a headstone for the unmarked grave of a girl Aqsa Parvez, who was a victim of such an “honor killing.” I donated to that cause out of concern for mercy and respect for the dead; whether that was naive or not, I felt pity for that child. As much as I disagree with Ms. Geller today, I appreciate what she did for Aqsa Parvez. There is no “honor” in murder, and “honor killings” are nothing than that – murder.
The SIOA leaders, including Mr. Spencer, have stated they rejected Mr. Breivik’s violence and indicated that they have never supported any violence. That certainly appears to be true. However, it is not the entire story.
In April 2010, Geller and Spencer took over the leadership of the SIOA political group. The populist campaign attracted angry individuals in the United States, just like it did in Europe. In the United States, the SIOA marches became angry shouts and epithets, with SIOA supporters harassing even Egyptian Christian Copts at the 9/11 protest.
One SIOA Facebook supporter, who relished in the depravity of the images by SIOA supporters there attacking Muslims, stated: “I am glad to know we have some capable of being able to reach them on the only level they seem to understand; total debasement.” This is the campaign that some Anti-Islam supporters seek, which has nothing to do with culture, nothing to do with human rights, and certainly nothing to do with human dignity.
At least three of the images in the video by the terrorist Breivik are identical to images that have been on the SIOA Facebook page for over a year – theyarestill there at the posting of this article, a month after Breivik’s terrorist attack.
Whether the terrorist Breivik got these violent images from the SIOA Facebook or another Anti-Islam source is unknown. But today, a month after the Oslo terrorist attack that killed 77, the images of violence and hate in Breivik’s video, remain on the SIOA Facebook website today.
The SIOA supporters have freedom of speech to make such foul comments and postings, whether we like them or not. That is a freedom that we all have. But all freedoms come with responsibilities of accountability and even association – fair or unfair. It is the responsibility of the SIOA to demonstrate that their campaign rejects hate and rejects violence.
In addition, the SIOA Facebook site even became a magnet for those making death threats against those who would challenge their Anti-Islam views. When I discovered one such threat, I anonymously alerted the SIOA leadership and someone removed the posting (I also contacted the threatened individual and law enforcement). SIOA leaders also removed the member from the Facebook site.
The challenge for the SIOA, SIOE, and the Anti-Islam movement is not “isolated” extremists in their groups, it is a consistent message of anger, hatred, and venom against Muslims that is an extremist message that resonates with angry and violent people. That is where the NEXT Anders Breivik will come.
Mr. Spencer no doubt rightly states that he objects to the violence by the terrorist Breivik. But it remains troubling that he has been so silent about the images of violence on the SIOA Facebook web page, as he is aware of the photos page, and made his own postings there. It is troubling that he has been so silent for those calling for violence, even among his own writers, on his own website. Our intentions must be supported by our deeds. I hope that the SIOA leaders choose to reconsider their position on the comments and images by their supporters.
I regret to any group that I have to point to these embarrassing and ugly instances among their supporters. I can only imagine how I would feel if they pointed such instances out to me, and I genuinely feel sorry for them. But if even a casual viewer can see these, surely their leaders must be able to do so. They need to consider the consequences of pursuing such a path of negativity – both to our shared security and our human rights.
Such attractions of anger and hate have been facilitated by an ideological view that prioritizes “culture” over “human rights,” and that has been a consistent problem for such political groups as the SIOE and SIOA. The European parent group SIOE is proud of its slogan “Islamophobia is the height of common sense.” Three years ago, the SIOA website three years ago urged American activists that they should not worry about being “nice.” The original SIOA leader DL Adams stated that “Multiculturalism, tolerance, and ‘niceness’ are destroying the foundations of our cultures…”; this is the same DL Adams that the terrorist Breivik quoted in his manifesto against Islam and multiculturalism.
Let us never lose the ability to respect one another, no matter how much we disagree with one another.
When we prioritize the defense of a single culture over human rights, and when we allow human hate, not human rights, to become a voice for our campaigns, then we should question where we are going.
It would be optimistic to view that the Breivik terrorist attack was a wake-up call on the Anti-Islam extremism. I don’t believe it has been. We have had plenty of other warnings before this and acts of violence by Anti-Islam supporters that have also been ignored. Foolishly, some have sought to associate such violence only with the “right-wing,” which has mired this debate in political finger-pointing. We need to realize this problem is not limited to Breivik and not limited to only certain groups.
We have to challenge the Anti-Islam rejection of human rights and human dignity, by being consistent on these issues ourselves.
Christian leaders cannot look only to Muslim communities to challenge the extremists in their faith; Christian leaders must also own that same responsibility.
3. The Silence on Bin Ladenism
Shortly after Breivik’s terrorist attack on July 22, another accused terrorist Naser Abdo was arrested for allegedly planning a terrorist plot to kill soldiers at the Fort Hood Texas base. Naser Abdo’s case, like others, has been on the opposite end of the spectrum where individuals have rationalized violence and hate based on their extremist views of Islam.
Mr. Naser Abdo was a member of the American military who sought to reject his service because he is a Muslim. Whether you agree with the tactics, strategy, and actions of the American military in Afghanistan, let us be clear once again on who the Taliban are, and what they represent.
These terrorists are not acting on behalf of Islam or on behalf of Muslims. They are acting on behalf of their own ideology of violence and death, including killing fellow Muslims. They are acting on behalf of an ideology that rejects human rights and human lives.
I understand the need to be sensitive to the feelings of Muslims on this issue, and for the purposes of this article I have described what Dr. Jasser calls as “Islamists” as “Bin Ladenists.” We have debated the lexicon and terms we should use for such extremists, whether it should be “ta’assub,” “irhabis,” “Islamists,” “extremists,” “radical Islam.” Years ago, I questioned if such lexicon debates were sensible if they led us to be in denial on real problems. Still, I underestimated how such hurt feelings might also prevent such a necessary dialogue. I urge Christians to start hearing about “Christian terrorists” and see how it makes them feel. But while we argue over lexicon, the two extreme ends of the spectrum on this issue continue to recruit followers. We need a national dialogue and lexicon for this debate in the United States, where many Americans do not know Arabic and terms like irhab and Hirabah are not understood.
I propose we consider something simpler such as “Bin Ladenism.”
If we look at the Bin Ladenist view of the world, that ideology also seeks to position the world through the defense of a religious extremist culture of its own. The failure by responsible leaders to challenge that ideological and human rights threat has left this largely to the vocal Anti-Islam advocates.
But the Bin Ladenist view not only rejects human rights and human dignity for non-Muslims, it also rejects them for Muslims as well.
One of the great historical failures has been the unwillingness of traditional human rights groups to aggressively take up the cause for women’s rights, religious freedom, in the face of groups, ideologies, and even nations that would justify stonings, “honor killings” of women, gays, and abuse and murder of people of all faiths – simply because of their identity. It has been and is a great moral wrong to ignore the ideology of the Bin Ladenists around the world.
Silence is not and must not be the answer.
Even when Bin Ladenist terrorists in the U.S. seek to plot attacks, such as Naser Abdo, we have silence. And the world wonders why such cancerous silence has metastasized into a political Anti-Islam movement?
Certainly a large portion of this is understandable embarrassment and protectiveness in the Muslim American community. But we need to have this dialogue in a way that we can debate this issue without blaming all Muslims and all of Islam for such extremists, so that interfaith leaders, human rights groups, and government agencies can play a responsible role.
It is true that any human rights issue has a struggle to get attention – from the genocide in Sudan, the concentration camps in Communist China and Communist North Korea, the killing of gays in Uganda, and the abuse of women in the Congo. All these and many more struggle to get the limited attention of busy people who wish they could do more, and many who have no idea such abuses are going on.
It is also true that every religious extremist group has their human rights areas of shame from “Hindu” “honor killings” in India, Christian extremist terrorists of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Africa, the oppression of minorities in Uganda, and groups such as the Hutaree and the Westboro Baptist Church, who rationalize their hatred based on their extremist views of “Christianity.”
But few of these see the silence that we have seen with the oppression of minority Muslim sects and non-Muslims in too many “majority Muslim nations.” Two wrongs don’t make a right – and the media, the United Nations, human rights groups, and our governments remaining silent on these abuses – is another moral wrong.
We must challenge what is not only isolated cases of Bin Ladenist cultures but large numbers of individuals that seek to deny human rights for others – in any religion or any identity group.
About three years ago, I decided that I would develop the R.E.A.L. coalition on human rights where we would be consistent on these and other human rights issues. The week before one of our first event on International Women’s Day at the U.S. Capitol on March 2009, in Chechnya, the Chechen President brought a series of “loose women” out into the streets and had his police gun them down. The Chechen President claimed that his extremist view of Islam entitled him to kill such women in the streets. In Russia, they looked the other way. But not just in Russia, most of the world looked the other way. He committed murder in broad daylight to no objections, no world outcry, no marches or demands by feminist groups.
I and a few women stood in front of the U.S. Capitol and we were the only protest in the world.
We must not abandon our brothers and sisters around the world – of any identity group, any religion – to those who would rationalize violence, hate, or murder – based on their claim that their view of a religion justifies murder and oppression. That is not defending or respecting a culture. That is abandoning our shared identify as human beings with universal human rights.
We must refuse to let either anger or fear allow us to forsake our fellow human beings, their human rights, and their human dignity.
4. Our Shared Human Rights Are Greater Than Individual Cultures
We need to challenge extremist groups without accusations that there is a monolithic view of any religion as responsible for the actions of extremists. It is as absurd to claim all Muslims or all of Islam is to blame for specific extremists, as it would be to blame all Christians or all of Christianity is to blame for specific extremists. The world cannot move forward with such arguments that deny dignity, respect, and religious liberty for all. Our religious liberties exist – but abuse to our universal human rights remain the same – no matter where they are done or who is responsible for their abuse.
This argument for our universal human rights is so clear that both the Anti-Islam movement and the Bin Ladenist movement have rejected such shared human rights, and have chosen instead only defend “cultures” where they can decide who deserves freedoms, life, and liberty. In the United States and Europe, the Anti-Islam movement seeks to close mosques. In Indonesia and Egypt, the Bin Ladenist movement seeks to close churches. They seek to create closed societies, closed cultures, that will prohibit free choice, free thought, free speech, and free lives.
But we do not have a free world and a slave world. We do not have a “Muslim World” and Christendom. While some may perceive that we have a world of divisions, the reality is that we live in a world of unity. We breathe the same air, see the same sun and moon, have the waters of the world that eventually touch us all in some way. We live together on this shared Earth, where universal human rights are the right of all people in every part, no matter who seeks to deny them.
We are not the divisions or labels that some would have us wear. We are complex individuals with individual lives and aspirations. But while are unique and special individuals, we are also a singular human race, with a singular human destiny – both for good and bad. We are accountable for our actions, just as we are entitled to our freedoms.
History has shown that every cage will eventually be broken. Those who seek to build new cages, new closed societies to defend only “one culture” fail to understand that we are not many. We are one. We are humanity.
We are not a mere collection of diverse cultures, but we are human beings with shared bodies, brains, joys, sorrows, and even dreams.
We can dream, like others have before us, of the day when we set our divisions aside, and we all recognize that we are truly all “free at last, free at last, free at last.”
But if every journey requires an initial step, let us start here. Let us stop hating one another. If we let go of the rocks of hatred, we can begin to stop building artificial walls to divide one another. Let us resolve to end hate as a cancer that will close our minds to the infinite possibilities of hope, joy, and unity that we can have together.
We stand in sympathy and shared mourning with the people of Norway over their loss in the horrific terrorist attack of July 22, 2011 in Oslo. We can only imagine the pain of parents who have lost their children, and the pain of families that have lost their loved ones. They are not just numbers or statistics, but they were unique and special human beings who loved and were loved. As I am writing this, some of the first funerals have ended, and those families and friends have gone home to remember their loved ones.
While we may want to “make sense” of such horrific terrorism against innocent children and people, the truth is there is no rational reason for the monstrous actions that Anders Behring Breivik has confessed to committing.
But as the world watches the courage of the Norwegian people after this terrorist attack, we must also find the courage to urge our society to make changes that would discourage inspiring such individuals as Mr. Breivik. Too many have known too much for too long, and not done enough to stop the rise of hatred in our world. Our sympathies to the Oslo families must not be half-hearted regrets, but must be full-hearted commitment to find ways to change, including standing up for our responsibilities to one another.
We have many freedoms as human beings. But with great freedoms comes great responsibilities. Any cause or campaign for human rights must understand these basic aspects of human society.
Those who work in the vital and passionate cause of human freedom must also remember that the struggle for such universal human rights are for all people. That includes human rights for those we may disagree with, as common brothers and sisters in the human race – the only race that matters.
It has been my privilege to preside over a coalition of individuals passionate about human rights that periodically come together for different human rights issues, coordinated by Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.). We address different human rights issues for people of all nationalities, religions, races, and genders, because equality and liberty is a right for all. When equality and liberty is denied for some, it is our problem as fellow human beings.
Our slogan has been “Choose Love, Not Hate. Love Wins.”
I was surprised to discover how controversial that slogan would be. A number of people have told me how weak it sounds, and how they did not find it sufficiently inspirational to “fight” for human rights. But we are not “fighting,” we are reaching out. We may challenge anti-freedom ideologies, and we may even confront organizations’ activities, but our goal is to reach out to our fellow human beings everywhere for consistency on the cause of our universal human rights.
While we may disagree with the ideas, words, and activities of some, as human beings we must reach out to offer love and our shared human rights to all, including those who would call themselves our enemies. Some may wonder how can we love those who view us as their enemies? But the real question is: how can stand for universal human rights and NOT love our fellow human beings? Our greatest defense for these rights is not our passion for campaigns and causes, but it is our compassion for one another as human beings.
There are some who believe that they can work for human rights, just for one culture, one religion, one race, one group, and not others, because they believe that only their group deserves such rights. That perspective negates the very term “human rights.”
Confessed terrorist Anders Behring Breivik may have believed that human beings in only some groups, religions, and cultures are entitled to human rights, and even life itself. But those who believe in human rights must always reject such exclusionary and supremacist philosophies – and we must never forget the grim results of such thinking. We must always remember that all human beings have human rights, including Mr. Breivik.
The challenge our society faces is how to balance our disagreements with dignity and compassion. For some and in some instances, this may be difficult. But we are reminded by the terrorist attack in Oslo, what happens when we do not make love and dignity for our fellow human beings our first priority.
————————-
This will be continued in “Oslo and Finding the Courage to Change — A Commitment to Change Our Dialogue (Part II).”
Kentucky: Plot Where Planned for Florence, Kentucky Mosque (Photo: Fox 19 News)
On July 25, 2010, the North Kentucky Enquirer reported that that “Boone County Assistant Zoning Administrator Mitch Light said there has been no such public response to this plan. ‘We have not heard from anyone opposed to the project,’ Light said.”
Kentucky: Florence Mosque Illustration (Image: Islamic Center of Northern Kentucky)
Apparently this has now changed. According to the August 16, 2010 Kentucky Courier-Journal, the mosque proposal is now receiving “a strong reaction from some in the community,” including calls to Forence city officials, a flier being distributed in Florence neighborhoods.
FOX 19 News reports in its story “Neighborhood flyer rejects mosque”: “A flyer left on doors and mailboxes in a Florence neighborhood is stirring up more attention around a mosque being built nearby. Neighbors we spoke with had mixed feelings about the mosque, but everyone had the same concern, who is circulating the flyer and why didn’t that person/group want to be identified.”
According to the Courier-Journal, the anti-mosque flier states: “Cayton Road is in your neighborhood… Everyone needs to contact Florence City Council to have this stopped. Americans need to stop the takeover of our country.” FOX 19 News has images of the flier including its statement urging protesters to “Do your part to stop the take-over of our country of our country. Use your voice to speak out. If anti-American people do not like the way we are, they are free to leave. We are the United States of America, not an Islamic nation.” The fliers were anonymous, but appears to have the same image as an individual’s Facebook page photo background graphic, with a web site protesting the mosque.
Kentucky: Anti-Mosque Flier Being Circulated (Photo: Fox 19 News)Kentucky: Anti-Mosque Flier Being Circulated (Photo: Fox 19 News)
The Courier-Journal quotes Joshua Wice, community/business development director for the city of Florence who states that he is not surprised that people have questions, but all of the questions are being answered to people’s satisfaction.
The Courier-Journal also states: “”Much of the criticism has focused on city or county officials for allowing the project to go forward or not holding public hearings, but undue scrutiny or unwarranted efforts to impede the project might well have violated federal laws. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is often described as federal zoning for religious uses.”
Kentucy Mosque Protester "The Vigilante" Mark Hallenberg (Photo: Facebook)
The Kentucky anti-Islam, anti-Mosque website called “The Vigilante” describes “Enemy One” as “Islam.” The anti-mosque website is led by a Christian, Mark Hallenberg, in Kentucky who views the anti-mosque campaign as part of promoting “Christian values” and attacking a “Marxist-Socialistic agenda.”
In his protest against the planned mosque and “Northern Kentucky Rising,” Mark Hallenberg claims that he contacted two dozen Boone County residents about the planned Florence, Kentucky mosque, with 50 percent opposing it (according to him). Mr. Hallenberg also calls for an investigation into the funding of the mosque and into Mercy Foundation. He also repeats claims from others that “Islam declared war on the United States.”
Kentucky Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) Supporter Mark Hallenberg Started Recruiting Anti-Islam, Anti-Mosque Supporters for Kentucky in May 2010 (Image: Facebook)
On Mark Hallenberg’s Facebook page, he states that he is a member of the Northern Kentucky Tea Party. R.E.A.L. has contacted the Boone County representative of the Northern Kentucky Tea Party for comment, and received the following response: “The Northern Kentucky Tea Party is not involved in any way with a protest of a planned mosque in Florence, or anywhere. Our issues are those which impact free people of all faiths: Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government, and Free Markets.””
Staten Island Mosque Stopped - Images of Protests (Photo 1: NYT, Photo 2 WCBS)
Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) Executive Director Pamela Geller stated in response to the Archdiocese of New York’s decision: “SIOA Executive Director Pamela Geller said in a statement: ‘Congratulations to all the free citizens of Staten Island who stood against this extremist mosque project despite official indifference and harsh criticism from the mainstream media. This is now a textbook case on how to fight extremists.'” “SIOA has published a practical guide for activists who wish to fight against terror-linked and extremist mosques in their localities, and is in the process of expanding this guide. The church’s decision today demonstrates that such activism can be successful.”
Father Keith Fennessy, pastor of Saint Margaret Mary parish on Staten Island, announced in June that after careful consideration he was withdrawing his support for the planned sale of the parish convent to the Muslim American Society.
The trustees of the parish have met, as legally required under New York State law, and voted to ratify the pastor’s decision.
The Muslim American Society has been informed that the sale of the convent will not take place.
The Archdiocese of New York has enjoyed a good relationship with the Islamic community in the past, and looks forward to continued dialogue, friendship, and understanding in the future.
It is also our prayer that unity will now return to the parish and to the Midland Beach community.
Screenshot of SIOA Facebook Leader and Supporters Comments on Decision to Stop Building Sale for Staten Island Mosque
=======================================
Responsible for Equality and Liberty (R.E.A.L.) supports our universal human rights to freedom of religion, freedom of worship, and freedom of conscience for all people of all faiths. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
On the Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) Facebook page, SIOA supporters are promoting articles seeking to legally ban Islam in the United States of America, and one SIOA supporter seeks Americans to “close all mosques while there is still time!” The SIOA supporters discussions are on the “legal guidelines for the criminalization of Islam in the United States.” One of the SIOA supporters seems resigned however that “As long as there will be people who will argue that they have religious freedom they will be protected.” This was posted on the SIOA Facebook page on Sunday, July 18, 2010.
SIOA Supporters Call for Ban on Islam in USA (Photo: Facebook)
The SIOA leadership is not unaware of such postings on the SIOA Facebook page.
That same morning, Sunday July 18, 2010, the SIOA Executive Director called for Jewish Americans to support the “English Defence League – Jewish Division,” along with a new media video report of Ms. Geller speaking on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) News about the plans to protest the Park Place mosque in New York City.
SIOA Executive Director Posts on SIOA Facebook on Morning of July 18, 2010 - AFTER FB Posts Calling for Criminalization of Islam
On Sunday July 18, 2010, the SIOA Executive Director of the Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) group called for Jewish Americans to support the “English Defence League – Jewish Division.” Another SIOA supporter stated that a “there is a group like this starting in the US!” The SIOA Executive Director Pamela Geller has promoted the efforts of the English Defence League (EDL) numerous times on her Atlas Shrugs website.
SIOA Executive Director Promotes English Defence League (EDL) Group (Photo: Facebook)
In June 2010, the Jewish Chronicle reported how the English Defence League (EDL) is seeking to recruit new Jewish members. Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, told the Jewish Chronicle: “The EDL’s supposed ‘support’ for Israel is empty and duplicitous. It is built on a foundation of Islamophobia and hatred which we reject entirely. Sadly, we know only too well what hatred for hatred’s sake can cause. The overwhelming majority will not be drawn in by this transparent attempt to manipulate a tense political conflict.”
Clashes: English Defence League protesters break through barriers during a demonstration through the streets of Dudley (Photo: Daily Mail/PA Wire - David Jones)
On July 19, 2010, the Birmingham Mail reported on another EDL violent protest in Dudley. According to the Birmingham Mail, “Violence flared as police attempted to get the protesters back on to buses at the end of the demonstration with EDL supporters throwing bricks and metal security fences at riot police.” According to the Mail, “Several shops and cars in the town were damaged and police said they would trawl through hours of CCTV footage to find the offenders.” The Dudley News reported that “A total of 21 arrests were made during the day, including 17 for violent disorder, two for affray, one for a public order offense and one for possessing an offensive weapon.” Dudley council leader Anne Millward condemned the EDL protesters and stated “We are saddened Dudley has again been targeted by the EDL… Yet again this group of outside extremists have shown they are incapable of demonstrating peacefully and have brought public disorder and violence to our town.”
=======================================
UPDATE:
On July 22, 2010, British police arrested English Defence League leaders on suspicion of a plotting a bomb attack on a British mosque.
“ARMED police opened fire on a van as they swooped on a far-right group suspected of plotting to blow up a mosque. Cops used special tyre deflation rounds to disable a Ford Escort van driven by English Defence League official John Broomfield. Officers smashed a window and hauled the suspect out while he was stuck in traffic near the picturesque tourist spot of Corfe Castle, Dorset.”
“Police then raided Mr Broomfield’s home in nearby Swanage and seized computer equipment, mobile phones and passports. Five more English Defence League members and another person were also arrested in simultaneous raids at several addresses. The suspects were questioned about an alleged conspiracy to bomb a mosque in Bournemouth. All were later released without charge.”
…
“Police confirmed details of the arrests. A spokesman added: ‘At this stage there is no indication that mosques in Dorset are under threat of attack.'”
======================================= Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) condemns such calls for hatred against any identity group, any religion, and R.E.A.L. rejects calls by those who seek to deny anyone’s freedom of religion and freedom of worship. R.E.A.L. rejects those who call for violence and who support violent protest organizations.
We urge all those who hate to release the burden of hate from their hearts, and respect their fellow human beings and our universal human rights.
We stand in support of our universal human rights of freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of worship for all people.
The “Stop Islamization of America” (SIOA) group has organized a June 6 protest in New York City against stopping a future “ground zero mosque.” While there have been plenty of angry editorials and petitions on this subject, the specifics of the actual “mosque” in New York City and the human rights impact of protesting a house of worship has received limited reporting. Moreover, few seem to realize that this “mosque” has already been in place as an active worship center since at least December 2009. This article will address five connected topics: (1) the reality of the “ground zero mosque,” (2) the priority of our universal human rights, (3) why denial of human rights affects everyone, (4) the plank of hate in our own eye, and (5) the important choices facing Americans.
I share this information not to criticize those who are concerned about this issue, but to ask them to seriously reflect on the consequences of protesting a place of worship in America, and the message that it sends to the world. As human beings, we are all imperfect and have made choices and mistakes that we regret, as I have and we all have. But the grand message of the human experience is not only in where we have been, but most importantly where we are going to – and this is where our choices continue to allow us to shape our destiny, our future, and define our responsibility for equality and liberty.
The Reality of the “Ground Zero Mosque”
In December 2009, I first read about the July 2009 purchase of the former Burlington Coat Factory building on 45 Park Place in New York City by the Cordoba Initiative, led by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan. Both the New York Times and Der Spiegel reported in December 2009 how Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf had purchased the aged building and told the NYC mayor in September 2009 that they planned to convert it to a worship center and a cultural center. According to the NY Daily News, the idea that Feisal Abdul Rauf has is to renovate the building based on a NYC YMCA style structure. But the idea is not some “new” development. Cordoba has owned the building for nearly a year, and the NYC mayor has known about this for 10 months. NYC Muslims have already been holding worship services there for 6 months and presumably continue to do so today. So the idea of NYC protests to “stop” Muslims from having worship services is about 6 months too late.
Back in December 2009 (and presumably today), the former Burlington Coat Factory was nothing more than an outwardly grimy and dilapidated building, where some NYC Muslim worshipers (including street vendors) go during the day to pray. In all of the dramatic Photoshop “graphics” of what this mosque and cultural center might look like someday, there has been very little reporting on what it actually is today. So I have prepared a collage of some actual photographs, not graphic sketches, of what it actually looks like (based on published photographs in the NYC and world media from December 2009). It is certainly possible some changes may have been made in 6 months, but as 45 Park Place has not yet been renovated, these photographs should essentially represent the reality today. Americans deserve to know all of the facts to make balanced decisions.
NYC: 45 Park Place – the Reality (Left – Photo AP) and Idea (Right)
To those who plan to protest this on June 6 – is this really what you want to be protesting?
Do you want the world to see Americans protesting against what is today a dilapidated old building where some NYC Muslims have already been praying for the past 6 months? Is this how you plan to honor yourself, your freedoms, and your country?
With the world watching, it is essential for Americans to use their resources and time to publicly demonstrate their commitment to our universal human rights – not to show the world that Americans are just as willing to deny such human rights of freedom of religion religion as others.
To those who are wondering where is “Ground Zero” in any these photographs, that’s a good question. It’s not there, because the fact is that 45 Park Place is a good two blocks away from “Ground Zero,” or as one person has calculated about 600 feet (that’s roughly about two American football fields). In the dense concrete jungle of New York City, two blocks might as well be a mile away in terms of visibility. In terms of “hallowed ground,” it is a fact that a piece of landing gear from one of the 9/11 jets fell on 45 Park Place. But in terms of preventing Muslims from praying in that area, the fact that Muslims have been praying there since December 2009 already shows that it really is impractical to decide where someone has the right to pray or worship. Even if 45 Park Place was taken away from the Cordoba Initiative who would prevent Muslims from praying anywhere else in the area, even in cabs, as they go by the Ground Zero area?
The SIOA has a different picture of the area, one based on graphics artistry, rather than actual photography, designed to show the future plans for the 45 Park Place building with a backdrop of the attack on the World Trade Center buildings. Now that you have seen the actual photographs as well as the planned redesign for 45 Park Place, let’s look at the SIOA graphic. Apparently, according to the image by the SIOA graphic designers, the message they seek to convey is that people at the top floors on what the SIOA calls the future “monster mosque” at 45 Park Place will be able to look down upon the wreckage of the World Trade Center when they pray. Let’s ignore the obvious point that the World Trade Center is supposed to be rebuilt, and let’s set aside the question of whether (and when) people praying at a rebuilt 45 Park Place would be able to “look down” on any WTC wreckage two NYC blocks away. For the moment, let’s assume the SIOA is correct on all of the points of their argument.
If Americans “stop” Muslims from praying at 45 Park Place, what is to prevent them from praying at any other place in the “Ground Zero” area, or looking down on “Ground Zero” from any other part of the nearby NYC area buildings? The answer is obvious. There is nothing to prevent Muslims from praying anywhere at any time, or to prevent them from doing so in the sight of any part of “Ground Zero,” just like Muslims have already been praying at 45 Park Place for the past 6 months (without protest).
SIOA Graphic Dramatizing 45 Park Place with Graphic of WTC Attack - NOT showing it is Two Blocks Away
So what exactly is SIOA protesting to stop? Muslim worship services that have been taking place? If the SIOA is only protesting that a larger mosque and cultural center is planned on being built, does that mean that they have been fine with the Muslim worship services that have already been taking place (and presumably continue to take place) since December 2009? Or is it all of New York City that some seek to ban the building of mosques and Muslim worship, indeed all of America? The reality is that extremist views on seeking to deny religious freedom ultimately break down into an absurd rejection of our universal human freedoms that even a totalitarian nation such as Communist China is ultimately incapable of consistently enforcing.
The facts are that no matter how much some protest, we cannot and we have no right to tell others how, where – and to who – they will pray. Those who reject, disrespect, and defy such unqualified, universal human rights do not change the rights of all people, everywhere to such universal human rights.
Where Our Universal Human Rights Apply...
Our Strongest Weapon in the War of Ideas – Our Universal Human Rights
You don’t sacrifice what is important for what is not. If we are ever to honor the losses of Americans with diverse races, religions, and backgrounds who died on 9/11, we must stay focused on undermining the tactics of terrorism by unflinchingly staying on the front lines of the war of ideas. Our fallen Americans deserve such commitment by us on the issues that really matter.
There are those who think that we will successfully struggle against terrorist tactics only by tactics of our own, whether they are military, law enforcement, immigration, foreign policy measures, or counterterrorism; such individuals continue to be unable to see the larger picture and the strategy that requires our consistent defense of our universal human rights and pluralism in a global war of ideas. We cannot fight our way out of this global ideological struggle simply by bombing terrorist compounds, arresting criminals, deporting individuals, and appeasing religious extremists for counterterrorist intelligence. We can’t negotiate our way out of this with those who play double-games with us and the enemies of freedom. This existential struggle requires more than anger, muscle, or even cunning; it requires compassion, thinking, and our hearts. It is that serious. We can’t afford to keep bungling around with nonsense tactics while we continue to lose the war of ideas in America and around the world more and more every day. Our world is at war, not just militarily, not just with terrorism, but the world is at war over the very idea of human freedom and human rights itself.
If we want to show respect to those who died on 9/11, we must understand that terrorist attacks continue to happen around the world every day to someone else, somewhere else in the world. Such terrorist attacks are not a series of random, disconnected “isolated incidents,” as our tacticians would have us believe. No matter who is the terrorist actor, such attacks are consistent in one important way – they are all based on hatred, and they are all based on defiance of our unqualified, universal human rights. But whether it is a Christian church burned in Malaysia or a Muslim mosque burned in America, hate is hate, and those who defy our universal human rights seek the same ends – to force others to deny their freedoms. Freedom of religion is not “a luxury,” it is a part of our strongest weapon of universal human rights in a world war of ideas – and in too many parts of the world, it is a defining human right that differentiates us from the enemies of our human rights.
If hate and denial of our universal human rights is the consistent message of our enemies, then if we choose hate and denial of our universal human rights for others here in America, we become no different than they are. We become what we are fighting against.
Church Burned Down in Malaysia, Mosque Burned Down in United States
What we can’t afford is to is throw away our strongest weapon in this war of ideas – our universal human rights that guarantees freedom of expression, that ensures freedom of the press, that demands equal rights for women, and that insists on freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and yes, freedom of worship – not just for those like us and those we like – but for all people, not just in America – but everywhere.
To Americans, these are not “just” universal human rights, these are the very definition of America itself – “we hold these truths to be self-evident” that all men are created equal and that our inalienable human rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is what it means to be an American; it is the declaration of our identity. If we want to do something about 9/11, if we want to effect change in the world, the first place to show that change is with ourselves and our lives. We must live to show that we not only hold these truths to be self-evident, but that we will defend such truths of our universal human rights, and that our lives will show that we are responsible for equality and liberty – not just for some people, but for all people.
If we want to honor the 9/11 fallen, then it is our obligation to stay on the front lines of this struggle to consistently defend such universal human rights, and not allow ourselves to succumb to the weaknesses of fear and hate. We must be stronger than that, we must be more American than that.
United We Must Stand – not only in our national defense of America’s homeland, but also in the defense of America’s identity and in defense of the rights that are inherent in our identity as human beings.
Denying Human Rights for One, Denies Human Rights for Us All
One might read this thus far and believe that I completely agree with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan, who are behind the Cordoba Initiative’s efforts to renovate 45 Park Place. In fact, I don’t agree with them on a number of key issues.
But when it comes to their universal human rights, it simply doesn’t matter. That’s the point – one that all Americans and those who respect our universal human rights should understand. Our basic human rights, as Americans and as human beings, extend to all of our fellow Americans and human beings – whether we agree with them or not. When seek to support denial of universal human rights to some, including freedom of worship, we deny such universal human rights to all. That is the point of “universal” human rights. We can’t think that we can select who does and does not have such rights, without undermining such rights for everyone.
Perhaps next time it might be you and your faith that someone disagrees with and seeks to deny your freedom of worship, as we see in many parts of the world today. If we support universal human rights, but we can’t set an example to defend them, who will?
For those who will inevitably ask, I have a number of disagreements and concerns with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan. Self-criticism and willingness to consistently defy religious extremists essential in any meaningful interfaith dialogue. Such self-criticism of our views with which we seek to shape the world is not a weakness; it is our greatest strength in building relationships with our fellow human beings. Such defiance against religious extremists is not a treason to our religions, but it is the foundational building blocks in a pluralist society. If they seek interfaith relations, we need to see such self-criticism of Muslim views and defiance to religious extremists more often from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan.
In too much of the world, people’s human rights are suffering under Muslim religious extremists’ interpretation of “Sharia,” which in the Qur’an simply refers to choosing the “right path.” “Sharia” is open to the interpretation of Muslim religious scholars and “students” from the Taliban (which means “students”) to those Muslims promoting secular democracy and human rights. But when we hear about those who seek to implement “strict Sharia” invariably we hear from those who seek to deny our universal human rights. This global issue between some Muslims’ religious practices and our universal human rights is an issue that all Muslim clerics and scholars should be addressing as their top priority. In April 2009, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wrote a short article for the Washington Post trying to clarify it, but briefly dismissed the interpretation of Sharia by the Taliban and too many others in the world in one sentence as merely the views of ” ‘firebrand’ clerics.” He then went on to explain how Sharia is comparable to the U.S. Declaration of Independence and is something that we should not fear.
If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is serious about “reforming” Sharia (my word), which may be one of the critical problems for Muslims in America and the world in terms of interfaith relations and addressing human rights, then this should be a focus of his. Instead, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf dismisses the endless reports of human rights abuses rationalized by those under Sharia, with a very brief statement which essentially states “trust us” on what is likely the largest issue in interfaith relations in the world. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf ‘s “trust me” approach on Sharia is not enough in a world where violence and oppression continues every day rationalized by Sharia, nor is “trust me” enough in his calls for a “religious” solution in Afghanistan, where women continueto be oppressed byreligious extremists and where Christians and other religious minorities are persecuted, including a reported recent call by an Afghan parliamentarian to kill Christians converts.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has also stated that we must understand how terrorists think, and has blamed Christians as ones who have been responsible for mass causality attacks, stating: “The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.” If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is concerned about building interfaith relations and respect for Muslims in America and around the world, he should be less defensive and less focused on what type of “methods of war” is blamed on different religions, and more focused on the methods of peace and human rights that we can all achieve together. There are those in every religion that have been involved in war and violence. There are those in every religion that have been involved in denying human rights. But the question we must ask as human beings is where are we going in the future together in peace and in human rights?
Those promoting tolerance must reject a defensive style of appearing to appease those who would deny human rights and reject freedom. Tolerance and pluralism is based on our shared, unqualified, universal human rights. In September 2008, I wrote about the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, whose study resultscalled for American engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood (whose motto is “jihad is our way”), whose study called for “engagement with political representatives of armed and activist movements,” whose study called for U.S. engagement with the FTOs Hamas and Hezbollah, and whose study stated that the U.S. should not expect that governments based on Sharia law would have limitations in human rights. This study was endorsed and promoted by Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress, during the Bush administration. Members of the leadership group that developed the recommendations for this study, included Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, along with 32 others from various religions, political views, and professions. But in September 2008 as today, there has been little concern or debate on this study, its conclusions, or its bipartisan endorsement.
Daisy Khan also leads the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), founded by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, whose mission is “building bridges between Muslims and the American public.” So in January 2009, it surprised me when I saw Daisy Khan’s summary of ASMA’s Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow (MLT) meeting to include the following poll results: “Are there Islamic values that are in fundamental conflict with Western Values? 61% – Yes.” How is publishing this promoting bridges between Muslims and the American public? In January 2009, the CSM had a follow-up news report on the ASMA MLT meeting where MLT members told the news media comments such as “it’s not an Islamic value to have absolute freedom. Islam puts boundaries on you,” and “It is freedom not to submit [to God’s will] that gives value to submission itself.” While every religion puts “boundaries” on our activities, are these the types of message that Muslims want to send to the world on freedom – especially from its future leaders?
The same news report also reported ASMA’s Daisy Khan’s comments on the Muslim response to 9/11 as: “ASMA’s Khan said that after 9/11, Americans wanted to know why Muslims’ denunciations of the terrorist attacks were so muted. Although hundreds of Islamic religious leaders did condemn the attacks, they were not heard clearly because Islam has no central leadership, like Roman Catholicism’s Vatican.” Is this an effective response to too many of those who distrust Muslims in America and around the world? Rather than bemoan the lack of a “Vatican” for those of the Islamic faith in America, doesn’t it make more sense to call for build a responsible group of Muslims in America whose voice and leaders consistently reject violence, hate, and those attacking our universal human rights?
As I have pointed out, there are plenty of areas where I disagree with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan. But whether I agree with them or not (and whether or not they agree with me), I respect them as my brothers and sisters in humanity. I will defend their universal human rights, just like we must defend the universal human rights of all of our fellow human beings, including the right to freedom of worship.
I don’t have to agree with others to respect their religious freedoms and their right to worship. Whether I agree with them or not, whether or not I share their religious views, whether I am critical of their positions or not — all of these have nothing to do with defending their universal human rights. They have a right to their religious center at 45 Park Place, whether I like it or not, whether I agree with them or not, and they have the same religious freedoms as every other American and every other human being.
In April 2010, I saw Muslim leader Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser appear in a conference on diversity and human rights at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC. Dr. Jasser spoke of his background and his experiences in America, but also about his commitment to challenging what he calls “political Islam.” Dr. Jasser spoke of his commitment to challenging those who believe Islamic religious views should be imposed on governments and legal systems. Dr. Jasser leads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) whose mission is “building the the future of Islam through liberty and freedom.” His group is not the only one in the United States. Other groups include the American Islamic Congress (AIC) that champions women’s rights, religious freedom and pluralism, and the Center for Islamic Pluralism.
To those who believe that Americans can start calling for the banning of mosques and who plan to protest against the building of mosques, I assert that we can’t afford to deny such universal human rights to American Muslims. What next, will some call for banning the religious freedom of other Muslims such as Dr. Jasser, AIC leaders, and the CIP leaders? And who has the right to decide what Muslims’ house of worship, we will call to ban and those we will not?
When we starting denying freedom of worship for some, we start denying freedom of worship for all. There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world who are watching to see how Americans will act on this. In the global war of ideas, we need to show that we stand behind the courage of our convictions in our human rights and freedoms. We must demonstrate that those of us committed to such human rights will stand with our Muslim brothers and sisters in defending their right to freedom of religion and worship.
Washington DC: Muslim Mohamed Yahya and Christian Jeffrey Imm Stand in Solidarity to Challenge Genocide and Support Our Universal Human Rights
The Plank in Our Own Eye
While some are anxious to criticize Cordoba and its Muslim leaders for its plans at 45 Park Place in NYC, there is plenty of shame and disgrace among non-Muslims that we must not be silent about.
I have seen similar comments of hatred in blogs and by anonymous posters, including one comment (still there) on a New York Post news story on its web site by a poster “Truthful” who states that “I say let them build it and when that expensive beautiful building is built, someone should blow it up… 9when it is filled with people… What a fitting tribute to 9-11.” Nor has such blatant hate and open calls for terrorism been restricted to cranks and anonymous Internet posters.
On May 26, 2010, on American radio station KPRC-950 AM, radio broadcaster Michael Berrysaid regarding 45 Park Place, “I’ll tell you this — if you do build a mosque, I hope somebody blows it up,” and then restated this again, “I hope the mosque isn’t built, and if it is, I hope it’s blown up, and I mean that.” (audio file). What type of nation is America becoming when open calls for terrorist attacks on houses of worship are being treated as unimportant? Promotion of hatred has consequences.
Hate in America: Florida Mosque Being Attacked by Bomber (L), Tennessee Mosque Burned Down by Terrorist (R)Tennessee: Hate in America defacing Mosque with "Christian" symbols and hate message (Photos: The Tennesseean)
Is this type of cowardly hatred, what we will tolerate in the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Or will we say “enough” to hate? Will we say “enough” to attacks on houses of worship?
In the 21st century, an important way for us to speak out is via the unregulated Internet. We must recognize that some are using the Internet to promote hate and violence against all of our fellow human beings. Such antagonism begins with the consistent promotion of intolerance of those of various religions, races, and other identity groups on too many web sites.
But there is no one calling for closing these houses of worship, and even these houses of worship are protected with their universal human rights of freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of worship.
But we must defend the universal human rights of freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of worship even of those houses of worship that are a “plank in our eye” as well. While I may disagree with the racist views of the Abundant Faith Fellowship or the “Christian Identity,” I may disagree with the anti-Semitism and praise of violence by the Westboro Baptist Church, and I may disagree with anti-Muslim hate of the Dove World Outreach Center — my disagreement with their views does NOT give me or anyone else the right to deny their universal human rights — whether it is freedom of expression or freedom of religion and worship.
Our universal human rights apply to everyone, everywhere. That remains the heart of our argument in the world war of ideas with extremists and those who seek to deny our human freedoms – no matter what their religion is.
We can’t fight hate with hate. We can’t fight intolerance with intolerance. We can’t address human rights abuses by denying human rights for others. Two wrongs don’t make a right. This is something we all logically realize. But we need to know this more than an surface level, this knowledge must be internalized into who we are and how we live our lives – responsible for equality and liberty.
The Choice to be Responsible and Uncompromising on Our Human Rights
There are important choices for Americans and our other fellow human beings on these issues. To those who are frustrated by the seeming lack of defiance to extremist views and the apparent lack of action on those who defy our universal human rights, there are actions that you can take. Activist groups regularly have events and volunteer opportunities were our passions can be productively challenged to help change our world and educate our fellow human beings.
But the most important choice to effect change doesn’t begin with reaching someone else – it begins within ourselves.
The crisis point in the world war of ideas attacking freedom and human rights demands that we make a decision about ourselves as individuals. Will we surrender to fear and hate, and seek to find “security” by denying others the rights that help define our very humanity? Will we avoid such responsibilities as human citizens and simply hope that someone else does our job for us? Or will we choose to stand up for our universal human rights – for all people – to demonstrate to the world what freedom is really about?
Our world, our fellow human beings, our future cries out for all of us to stand up and choose to be responsible for equality and liberty. Our destiny as a human race demands that we recognize that there is no future in compromising on our unqualified, universal human rights. We cannot compromise on our freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of worship – no matter how much it might make some feel temporarily satisfied.
We will never be empowered by denying our fellow human beings their universal human rights, because what we take away from them, we also take away from ourselves. We must not compromise on such human rights.
Living in Washington DC, I have seen more than my share of people compromising on our universal human rights, while the city has many monuments with marble inscriptions promoting such human rights. The assumption that many people make is that such people who compromise on human rights are “bad guys.” But that’s not true. Many are decent individuals, even well-meaning individuals, who started off by making one compromise, then another, then another, and after a while, they came to believe that compromising on human rights was the way things got done. Some believe that being uncompromising on universal human rights is not “practical.” Some have even come to believe that compromising on human rights is the only way to lead and the only way to be popular.
But New Yorkers and all of us can choose another path. While the 9/11 terrorist attacks still traumatize New Yorkers (as they have Washingtonians), and destroyed a symbol in New York’s skyline, another symbol of NYC’s skyline still stands proudly – the Statue of Liberty. It is a symbol of liberty that stands for all people, of all ethnic backgrounds, all races, all genders, and ALL religions. It is a symbol of our universal human rights that stands as a beacon and as an invitation to the world.
When you come to America, the first symbol you see is not crossed swords, but these outstretched, open arms of equality and liberty for all. This is the America that so many of us are struggling to protect and defend. Never forget that this is what we are really fighting for – not just American economic needs, not just American political or territorial needs – but the very truths that we hold self-evident that all human beings are created equal, with the universal human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Yes we lost the World Trade Center and 3,000 of our fellow Americans to hate and intolerance, and we mourn their loss. But let’s not also lose the symbol of freedom to the world, and let’s not lose the war of ideas against our human rights and freedom that defines not just who we are, but also who we will be.
The heart of the world war of ideas is a challenge by those who seek deny such unqualified, universal human rights, and instead seek to promote “relativism” of freedom of religion, “relativism” of freedom of conscience, and “relativism” of freedom to worship. This struggle of ideas against religious extremists seeks to deny such universal human rights and inalienable human freedoms for all people around the world. We can never defeat those who seek to only offer “relative” human rights, by only offering “relative” human rights to others ourselves.
The world is watching to see if we really have the courage of our convictions on human freedom, or if our support for universal human rights is nothing more than lofty “words.” In this war of ideas, never forget that history will not just judge those who fought against our universal human rights in other parts of the world and from extremist thinking, but history will also judge those of us who were too possessed by hate and by fear to defend our universal human rights and who knew better.
We must show the world that we will not live controlled by fear and hate.
We must show the world that we will choose love, not hate.
We must show the world that yes, we will stand fearlessly, with the courage that only compassion can inspire, as individuals responsible for equality and liberty.
In the United Kingdom, we are concerned about the recent protests and violence by protesters among the English Defence League (EDL) on April 3 and on May 2, 2010, and their efforts to block the mosque in Dudley. While the EDL is pleased with their success in blocking the creation of a mosque in Dudley, the larger question that must be asked is what is the message the EDL is sending to the world on British commitment to freedom of religion?
Clashes: English Defence League protesters break through barriers during a demonstration through the streets of Dudley (Photo: Daily Mail/PA Wire - David Jones)
On May 28, 2010, the UK Guardian newspaper also reported on plans for future EDL protests at “Muslim centers,” including East London Mosque, Tower Hamlets, and Bradford this summer. The May 28 reports highlight a growing sense of anti-Muslim hatred, rage, and violence which is growing in the United Kingdom and which is targeting Muslims and Islamic houses of worship.
The UK Guardian reports and videos on an “undercover investigation” of the EDL shows supporters calling for hate against all Muslims, with chants such as “We All Hate Muslims,” use of racial slurs and profanities, and threats. The reports allege that the EDL is increasingly becoming infiltrated with others who hate, including Skinheads, Combat 18 Nazis, and other racists. Hate attracts hate.
UK Mosque in Cradley (Photo: Express & Star) -- UK Mosque in Eccles (Photo: Manchester Evening News)
Any struggle or protest against religious extremism that uses hate and violence, attacks houses of worship, and attacks all individuals of one identity group without respect to diversity and individual views, is nothing less than a mirror image of another form of religious extremism.
Another group in the United Kingdom and Europe that is protesting mosques is the “Stop Islamization of Europe” (SIOE) group. The slogan of the SIOE group is that “Islamophobia is the height of common sense.” In the United Kingdom, the SIOE has had two protests in front of Harrow Central Mosque in September 2009 and December 2009. In the September 2009 SIOE protests at the Harrow mosque, there was violence between supporters and counter protesters, as SIOE protest supporters went to the mosque chanting “Muslims out.” In the December 2009 SIOE protest at the Harrow mosque, the SIOE reportedly refused the opportunity to dialogue with leaders of the Harrow mosque.
Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) shares the concern of challenging those who support abuse against women or any abuse of our universal human rights. But we understand that two wrongs do not make a right, and that seeking to protest houses of worship is not the way to gain the support of others on human rights issues. In fact, protesting houses of worship is a sure way to attract those committed to hate and violence.
According to TV2 NORD, the Nazi DNSB group sought to raise its own banner with the Nazi swastika as part of its participation in the SIOE / SIAD protest against the Aalborg mosque. An embarrassed SIOE leader Anders Gravers then sought to remove the Nazi swastika banner from the protest march, which led to a scuffle.
Denmark: SIOE/SIAD March "No Mosque in Our Streets" Leads to Support by and then Confrontation with Denmark Nazi Group when Nazi Swastika Banner Raised
Certainly, anyone who has ever been involved with a public activity or protest is aware of the challenges of unwelcome participants who may seek to “hijack” an event. However, the lesson that SIOE should have learned is that its messages that “Islamophobia is the height of common sense” and “no mosques in our streets” are viewed as messages that Nazi groups can support. This is why those who challenge religious extremist and anti-human rights activities must have a human rights message, human rights leadership, and human rights consistency, that groups like the SIOE and the EDL will never offer the public.
What has the SIOE learned from this humiliating experience? Has it learned not to promote “Islamophobia”? Has it learned that hate only attracts hate? Has it learned that human rights issues cannot be addressed by promoting intolerance and hate? Unfortunately, all that the SIOE has learned is that it needs to have another protest against the Aalborg mosque because the May 21 march was not satisfactory. Like the EDL, the SIOE also has other protests against mosques planned for the summer of 2010, which it calls “hatecentrals,” while they cannot recognize the hatred in their own activities. SIOE plans another protest against a mosque in Copenhagen on August 28, 2010.
SIOE’s leader Anders Gravers, whose Denmark event attracted the support of the Nazi party, will also be coming to America to join in a New York City protest on June 6, 2010 against a mosque in NYC.
Human Rights Begins with Human Freedoms
Both the EDL and the SIOE groups claim to be protesting such existing and planned mosques to protest “radical Islam,” and in the case of the SIOE on behalf of “democracy.”
But who is the “radical” when they seek to stop others from having freedom of worship? What are the “democratic” values in seeking to intimidate others from seeking the right to believe at mosques? How can anyone be promoting human rights by seeking to deny freedom of conscience at a house of worship?
Since many such protesters claim to be Christian, what type of example do they think they are setting for those oppressed Christians in other parts of the world whose churches are regularly protested, worship services disrupted, worshipers attacked, and even churches targeted for terrorism? Are they determined to prove that they can be just as intolerant and disrespectful of our universal human rights regarding other people’s freedom of religion?
There is no caveat to these inalienable human rights, no asterisks, no qualifiers. Those who promote religious extremism of any kind may not respect these inalienable human rights. But those who reject, disrespect, and defy such universal human rights do not change the rights of all people, everywhere to such universal human rights.
If we are to defend such human rights, we must be consistent in our convictions for all people, not just for some people. We don’t have to like others, agree with others, or support other faiths – to recognize that the only way to fight for human rights is to be consistent in defending human freedom for all people, everywhere. People that we like and people like us are not the only ones with a right to believe and a right to freedom of worship. People we don’t like and disagree with have a right to believe. We either support universal human rights or not – there is no “relative” human rights just for some people, some times, in some places. But remember, even if we choose not to support such universal human rights, all people will still be entitled to them.
