Muslims In America Are Just As American As Everyone Else — And We’re Afraid Too

5a8c2e3f210000c300601c28When I look in the mirror, I see short dark hair, brown skin, big eyes and probably a leather jacket. I’m pretty impressed with that woman.

But you know what a lot of other people see? A terrorist. Someone to be feared. Someone uneducated. Someone oppressed. Someone who can’t be trusted.

They see … a Muslim.

The sad fact is that many Americans are afraid of Muslims. After the terror attacks that have been associated with Muslims ― 9/11, the Boston Marathon, San Bernardino, to name a few ― it’s no surprise that Muslims are seen as bomb-hugging monsters. In movies, on TV, in the media, we are the bad guys. And if you are presented with the same image over and over again, it’s bound to stick.

Is it fair to blame all Muslims for the acts of a few bad people? No, of course not. Muslims in America are just as American as everyone else. We have the same hopes and dreams, the same fears and worries. To be brutally honest, we actually have more to worry about than other Americans.

Why? Because along with having the same fears as everyone else, we have the added fear of being Muslim in America.



Churches’ bells ring out for Al-Rawda mosque attack victims


The Coptic Orthodox Church announced that the churches bells ring out today at 12:00 o’clock Cairo local time، in solidarity with the brothers in the homeland، Extra News said.

The church offered condolences to the families of the victims.

Al-Rawda mosque in the town of Bir al-Abed in Al Arish was targeted during Friday prayers when a number of militants set off a bomb and opened fire on people attending prayers at a mosque in the country’s north Sinai region on Friday. the attack left 305 killed and 128 injured.


Muslims are Often the First Victims of Muslim Fanatics

EGYPT-UNREST-SINAIThe terror in Egypt on Friday is only the latest grim reminder that Muslims are often the first victims of Muslim fanatics.

 The massacre of at least 235 people attending a Sufi mosque in Bir al-Abd on the Sinai coast is being attributed to a local affiliate of the Islamic State, known as Ansar Beit al-Maqdis. This slaughter was particularly venal. Gunmen waited for ambulances and first responders to come to the mosque after an initial detonation and sprayed bullets into the survivors and those dispatched to save them.

An anonymous Muslim cleric told the New York Times that he was shocked the killers would attack a mosque. Prior targets for the terrorists in the Sinai included Coptic Christian churches and a Russian airliner in 2013.



Religions not responsible for terrorism: Speakers

International-peace-Conference-minhaj-university-day-1-11-112017-6LAHORE – Leading figures belonging to five religions have unanimously rejected as mere propaganda the assertion that religions are responsible for acts of terrorism in the world.

The participants of a two-day conference on “Religious Pluralism and World Peace”, which concluded on Sunday, recommended holding of dialogue among the followers of all religions to iron out misunderstandings and chalk out a strategy for world peace.
Dr. Rohan Gunaratna, an expert in terrorism from Singapore, Dr. Paul Rohan from University of Jafna, Sri-Lanka, Dr. Adrian Feldmann of Australia, Dr. Andre Wehrli-Allenbach of Switzerland, Dr. David James Bamber and Dr. Cedric Aimal Edwin were among the international speakers at the conference organized by Minhaj University in collaboration with Punjab Higher Education Commission. Scholars of various religions including Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism and Islam sat together to talk about the present challenges of the world –the main purpose for which the conference was organized.

Reading out declaration in the conference, Minhaj University’s Deputy Chairman Dr. Hussain Mohayyuddin said that no form of terrorism and violence had anything to do with world religions and it must be condemned at all levels. He said misuse of religion and its misunderstanding by general discussions must be stopped, suggesting that it should only be limited to the competent scholars with concept of religious doctrine, beliefs and practices.



How interfaith solidarity can help defeat the evil of terrorism

rauf8e-1-webAnother terrorist outrage has rocked the United States, this time New York City. American Muslims denounced the attack. The international press registered their distress.

And headlines, like this one in England’s Independent, state the obvious: “New York Suspect’s Muslim Neighbors Express Their Disgust: ‘We Have Nothing To Do With This Guy.'”

Of course they don’t. Nor has genuine Islam anything to do with Sayfullo Saipov’s terrorist ideology. God proclaims to Muslims, “I have made you a moderate people (ummatan wasatan)” (Quran 2:143). The Prophet himself warns against extremist religiosity. But is anyone who needs to hear this listening?

All Muslims need to know, but especially those tempted by terrorism, that America is already a deeply religious country in ways that Islam unequivocally affirms.

America has its own Muslim-friendly answer to terrorist violence. It’s to see the world from God’s perspective. That’s a move that beats terrorist ideology at its own game. It outdoes all false religiosity. But to convince the potential terrorist of that, all Americans need to remember God’s perspective.

Whether we’re religious or not, God’s lookout places us high above the fray. We’d be like the astronauts who take the earth in whole from their orbit above. Viewed from space, the Earth is one. So are its inhabitants.



Challenging the notion that religion fosters violence

file-20171024-30587-rfjuhcIs religion violent?

It’s a common question that arises when discussing religion, politics and world crises, particularly apparent terrorist attacks of the type that played out in New York City on Tuesday.

Islam in particular is branded as a violent faith, but others argue Christianity deserves the same assessment.

But behind the question is a whole host of problems, and so it isn’t surprising some scholars suggest that classifying any religion as violent is problematic and unreliable.

As a scholar of religion, I also question whether calling oneself “religious” really says anything meaningful about one’s identity. Given the diversity of religious groups, the term “religion” is not only extremely general, but it has a long history.

Learning about the origins of the word can help us understand better the myriad social groups that come together around shared histories, texts, traditions and experiences.

According to the scholarly work of theologian Daniel Boyarin and historian Carlin Barton, in ancient Rome the term “religion” was not at all separate from everyday experiences such as “eating, sleeping, defecating, having sexual intercourse, making revolts and wars, cursing, blessing, exalting, degrading, judging, punishing, buying, selling, raiding, revolting, building bridges, collecting rents and taxes.”

Religion alone does not explain violence

Today, the term “religion” gets separated from political, social, economic and cultural life. And so if we’re pondering whether religion is inherently violent, then we’re probably interested in why an individual or group acts violently. So is religion really something we can compartmentalize and blame for the violent actions of individuals or groups?

Not at all, argues William Cavanaugh in his 2009 book The Myth of Religious Violence. While society often makes clear distinctions between religion and secularity, Cavanaugh argues religion is a poor category to use when trying to understand why individuals or groups act violently.



Terrorism charges are only reserved for Muslims

cpt111385833.jpg.size-custom-crop.1086x0Prosecutors announced recently that Alexandre Bissonnette will go straight to trial on a slew of charges arising from his attack on a Mosque in Quebec City earlier this year. Despite killing six and wounding 19 in the brazen assault on worshippers, he is not charged with terrorism.

The announcement came on the heels of the Las Vegas massacre where 59 were killed and 527 injured. No terrorism charges there either, even though it meets the Nevada state definition.

No doubt that in both cases people were terrorized. Yet, the terrorism label is sparsely used.

Technically, because there no universally accepted definition, authorities can selectively apply it. Indeed, one person’s terrorist may be another’s criminal or freedom fighter. To many observers, the term appears to be reserved for “others.”

Stephen Paddock was not a terrorist, according to Las Vegas Sheriff, Joe Lombardo, who immediately labelled him a “local individual” and a “lone wolf.” Similarly, Bissonnette may have been “disturbed.” And of course, they were both “sick” and “demented.”

If they were Muslims, they would be “homegrown” terrorists committing “jihad” or “Islamic terrorism.” Mental health or personal issues would not have factored as much.

The Criminal Code defines terrorism as an act committed, entirely or in part, for political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause that has “the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public with regard to its security.”

There are plenty of reports documenting the Laval political science student’s journey from a moderate conservative to someone with far-right sympathies and connections, though this may not satisfy strict evidentiary requirements.