Speaking at DePaul University

Last Thursday, I had the privilege of addressing 150 students of my alma mater, DePaul University, in a speaking event organized by UMMA (United Muslims Moving Ahead), the school's Muslim student club. The topic of the speech was "American Jihad: The Struggles of American Muslims," followed by a lively Q&A. Kudos to UMMA on their meticulous planning of this event including the beautiful hall, the diverse turnout, and the logistical preparation.

A Voice of Reason: Assyrian Leaders Respond

A Couple of days ago, I blogged about the experience and reflections my staff and I shared while protesting with the Chicago Assyrian community against Al Qaeda's murder of innocent Iraqi Christians. See: Beyond the Comfort Zone: Passion and Peril at a Pro-Christian Rally.

It seemed that the blog post was shared widely on Facebook. It was also published by the American Muslim, and the Chicago Tribune faith blog, among others. I was heartened to see that our humble gesture was embraced and echoed by Muslims and Christians alike from Chicago to London to Sydney.

Earlier today, I was even more heartened to receive an email response from the national Assyrian American leadership.  See our email exchange below (published with permission).

Ms. Waleeta Canon wrote to me on behalf of the board of directors of the Assyrian American National Coalition to graciously thank me, to express her empathy for any inconvenience (although she did not have to) and to tell me that we are on the exact same page in our firm resolve not to let the violent, the hateful, and the divisive define our relationship as communities and human beings, and that together we shall rise above the hate and come together as one.

In these difficult times where violent thugs pose as men of God, where hate-mongers pose as defenders of freedom, where agents of intolerance and division pose as heroic patriots, it gives me great faith and hope to see we the people say "thanks, but no thanks" to all of the above. Indeed hate is a self-addressed envelope. God-fearing and Conscientious people of any faith or disposition cannot reciprocate hate with hate. You cannot defeat fire with fire. You can only douse fire with water.


The ignorant and morally-vacuous can defeat us ONLY if we allow them to. But if we stay firm in our trust in God, and firm on our course of mutual respect, love, and compassion, affording our fellow human beings the same dignity and value we so desire for ourselves - regardless of race, ethnicity, or faith - our harmony will be indestructible.

The Christian populations of the Middle-East are indigenous. Their faith choice is theirs. It should not only be respected, it should also be protected. I think most Muslims who know something about their faith will agree with me when I say that this is a faith obligation on us Muslims. As such the Church attacks are an affront to all Muslims no less than had they been Mosque attacks. Our prophet's first political act was to declare the St.Catherine monastery in the Sinai as a protected site. It was the first letter sent in his own handwriting. This the legacy we inherited and its the one we crave. Al Qaeda and their ilk are imposing an unIslamic alternative that we reject in the strongest of terms.

From: Waleeta Canon
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 1:27 PM
To: Ahmed Rehab
Cc: Elmer Abbo; margaret; christine; martin
Subject: Thank you



Mr. Rehab,



On behalf of the Assyrian American National Coalition, we want to sincerely thank you and the rest of the CAIR-Chicago staff which attended Monday's protest of violence against Iraq's imperiled Christians. It spoke volumes to the Assyrians who were present that we had Muslim Americans stand with us, as a reminder that terrorism affects all the people of Iraq, and when one group is targeted, indeed, we are all targeted. This has been an emotionally difficult week for the Assyrian Christians in the US, and we have felt especially vulnerable and helpless as we watch our defenseless brothers and sisters attacked and murdered.



We understand you had overwhelming support from the attendees despite some problem from individuals who felt it necessary to take their anger out on Islam, and on you and your colleagues. Thank you for staying and marching with us despite any discomfort you may have felt. We warmly welcomed your presence, and hope we see you at our future events here in Chicago and nationwide.



Sincerely,
AANC Board of Directors

---------------------------------------------------------------------

>>On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Ahmed Rehab wrote:

Dear Waleeta,



Thank you so much for your warm words of gratitude. I would like to ask permission to share this beautiful message with my community.



As I wrote on my blog, my staff and I walked back feeling that the Assyrian community with its good and bad is OUR community. Also, as I made clear in my blog, the Assyrian brothers and sisters that were there were largely welcoming, kind, and appreciative.

This experience has brought us closer and I hope we can build on that. There are those who wish to divide us through violence. Others who wish to divide us through ideological polemics and smear campaigns.

We are committed to finding common ground that enriches our common humanity and not give an inch to the agents of violence, hate, and divisiveness. Please know that we honor your community, and I do not just say that as Ahmed Rehab but as a Muslim whose sentiment is shared by many other Muslims.


Most importantly, I want to take this opportunity to directly express to you and your fellow leaders my deepest condolences and sorrows for the loss of your loved ones. We will continue to raise our voices condemning, ostracizing, and disempowering those who claim to be part of our faith and yet engage in senseless brutality that we find to be an affront to the creator and his creation.


Ahmed M. Rehab
CAIR-Chicago

---------------------------------------------------------------------

>>On Thu, November 11, 2010 2:48 PM Waleeta Canon wrote:



Dear Ahmed,



We would be honored for you to share our message with your community. Like you, we share the sentiment that together we stand on much more solid ground, and that no group in the Middle East is an island. We are all part of the vibrant fabric of the Middle East, and we all want it to stay that way, despite the horrific attempts by any extremists to divide us and make us enemies.


Thank you for your kind words and condolences. We look forward to the opportunity to work together in the future.



Warm regards,


Waleeta Canon
Executive Board
AANC

A Model Anti Israeli Occupation Protest

Touching and Beautifully choreographed protest and video. This is how all anti-occupation protests should be. Peaceful, civil, yet profound. I hope that other college students can learn from ASU's creative example. Kudos to ASU, SJP and Saiaf Abdallah.

Beyond the Comfort Zone: Passion and Peril at a Pro-Christian Rally

Yesterday, CAIR-Chicago staff and interns participated in a rally alongside the Assyrian community of Chicago to condemn violence against Iraqi Christians. The rally was organized in response to the massacre of dozens of Assyrian Christians in Baghdad on October 31st.

It was a tricky decision for us. We knew that there could be anti-Muslim sentiment at the rally that would put is in a precarious position, but we decided that our disdain for the heinous acts of Al Qaeda far exceeded our concern for personal inconvenience.

We decided that the right thing for us to do was to act on our values and our sincere feelings of camaraderie with our fellow human beings in times of anguish. We wanted to raise our voices as Muslims in support of the Assyrian community and against terrorists who purport to act in the name of our faith.

Al Qaeda does not have reverence for any innocent life, including those of Muslims. It is a fact that they have bombed many more Mosques in Iraq than churches.
While we were weary of the possibility that some people at the rally could lash out at us, Muslims-at-large who condemn terrorism, we were not interested in seeing ourselves as victims. The only victims we were prepared to recognize were the 52 innocent souls that were claimed by the recent church bombing, and the many others - Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and otherwise - claimed by terrorism.

And so we set out with signs including "An Attack on Your Church is an Attack on my Mosque," "American Muslims, Iraqi Christians, One Blood," "My Brother is an Assyrian," "We Stand with Iraqi Christians," and "Muslims for Peace."

We held our signs up high and marched in solidarity with the predominantly Assyrian Christian crowd.

The reaction we got was mixed.

In an interesting scene that summed up my experience, I was asked by one man if I was a Muslim. I said "Yes, I am." He then asked, "Am I impure?"

I joked, "I don't know did you shower this morning?"

He dismissed the joke and asked me if I thought "his blood was impure." I told him, "why would you expect that, you've never met me, I am here supporting you, what about me leads you to ask me such a question?" He told me, "You said you are a Muslim." I told him, "so what?" He said that Muslims believe this sort of thing. I told him that he had been grossly misinformed, "you're blood like all innocent blood is holy to me."

Another man interjected and started yelling that I was "unwanted" there, motioning with his arms for me to leave. As he continued to yell at me, my attention was drawn to something that touched me. A young woman a few yards away leaned down on a stroller she was pushing and started to sob uncontrollably.

At first, I thought it had nothing to do with us but my intuition told me otherwise. I asked here, "what's wrong, why are you crying?"

She said unable to hold back her tears, "I am so sorry you and your friends have to deal with idiots like that, this man does not represent us, I am so embarrassed. This is so wrong."

Here I was standing before a stark display of contrasts, extreme animosity on one end and extreme compassion on the other.

In a single powerful moment, I was reminded yet again at the absurdity of those who generalize about any one group of people. Here were two people of the same religion, color, and ethnic background standing side by side rallying for the same cause -- and yet they could not be any more different.

I hugged her and tried to comfort her, "Trust me, I know, we have our share of idiots too, everyone has them, most people here have been kind."



And it was true. Many in the crowd were genuinely happy - almost relieved - to see Muslims standing with them at this rally. Some smiled, some nodded, others simply said "thank you!" It reinforced my feeling that our participation was extremely important.

While there were other incidents - one lady held a cross up to my face and told me I was a "bad Muslim" for condemning terrorism which is "in my Quran", two people told us that we are going to hell for not accepting Jesus as our Saviour, some guy yelled profanities and was held back by a girl half his size, another called for reciprocal violence - in every single instance, someone else would take a strong stance, telling the others to back off and apologizing.

As we made our way back to the office, we were chased by two girls. "Can I ask you a question?" one of them said. "Can I just give each of you guys a hug?"

We met back in the office for an evaluation.

I learned that my colleagues' experience mostly mirrored mine.

Despite the bigotry of some, we all felt strong solidarity with most people. We felt as if the Assyrian community, with its good and bad, was our own.

It is of no surprise to any of us that there are some negative feelings among some Arab and Assyrian Christian communities regarding Islam and Muslims. Part of it is understandable to us, given the ugly acts by saboteurs claiming to act in the name of Islam. Part of it is due to the opportunistic work of preachers like father Zakaria Boutros who make a living out of telling Arabic-speaking Christians that Islam is an evil religion. Part of it still is due to the lack of dialogue and engagement between our faith communities, and that was the part we resolved to try to change.

Assyrians have a long and proud history that goes back to one of the earliest civilizations in the world. They live as a religious minority in their indigenous homeland. For centuries, they have coexisted peacefully with their Muslim neighbors. But at other times, especially now, the instability and violence is leaving them feeling frightened for their loved ones and overall vulnerable. Some of them blame Al Qaeda, others demonize all Muslims, and others still blame the United States and its wars.

One thing we must never allow is for the bad amongst us – terrorists, extremists, ideologues of exclusion and hate – to succeed in turning the rest of us against each other. We must condemn them, ostracize them, and disempower them. The way to do that is to strengthen our relations, and stand with one another. That is the only way to spell defeat for the agents of hate.

We must emerge from our comfort zones and stand together as one against all forms of violence, ignorance, and intolerance.

When Christians are attacked, they should NOT have to rally alone. We must rally along with them. When Jews are attacked, they should NOT have to rally alone. When Muslims are attacked, we should NOT have to rally alone.

Update: The Assyrian National Leadership Responds

Muslim Vote Decides Illinois Gubernatorial Election

Now that the dust has settled on the 2010 midterm elections, political analysts and pundits alike are obsessing over the headlines while eschewing some of the less obvious but equally important revelations of this elections cycle.

First the obvious:

There is little doubt that this election was a referendum on the Democratic leadership of the last two years, just as the Democratic ascent to power two years ago was a referendum on the Republican leadership before it. The pendulum trajectory that our electoral culture seems to be chartering is somewhat problematic since it reinforces the notion that the out-of-power party should hold back, waiting and hoping for those in power to screw up. This breeds an attitude of divisiveness and ill-will, one that makes it hard for any important issue to move forward.

Two years ago, President Obama and the democrats were swept into power with a mandate handed to them by more than 50% of the voting populace. Obama received 7% more popular votes than McCain and a whopping 53% more electoral votes. Democrats swept House and Senate, earning a clear majority in each. And yet the Democrats failed to act boldly on their mandate by leveraging the dizzying enthusiasm in their base. Instead, they took compromising positions on key issues that dissipated enthusiasm within Democratic voters while failing to win over conservatives who grew in their bitterness and ire. Indeed, the enthusiasm shifted to the other side, the Tea Party organized with as much passion in 2010 as the Democratic base had done in 2008. Independent voters, forever the decisive wildcard, did what they do best and voted for change.

The results, the Republicans swept back to power claiming the House with a clear majority.

But all is not lost for the Democrats. The Democrats did manage to hold on to the Senate --and to the Tea Party's chagrin I am sure, they even managed to hold on to the "face of Obama's policies," Senate majority leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) who has been receiving the lion's share of conservative ire.

So now there is something of a power share leaving commentators wondering if Obama is going to be a Clinton or a Carter.

But, the headline aside, there was much more to how this election cycle panned out:

While the Tea Party's fever-pitched enthusiasm definitely helped the Republicans, the Tea Party is not all powerful. Several Tea Party candidates including Christine O'Donnell, the most talked about candidate of 2010, and anti-Islam mouthpiece Carl Paladino, flopped.

Despite the ugly rise in Islamophobia and anti-Muslim rhetoric nationwide, Both Muslim congressmen, Keith Ellison and Andre Carson were easily re-elected. Ellison who faced a viscous anti-Muslim campaign by the Tea Party, received one of the highest total number of votes in any congressional election in the country.

Ellison was not the only won to disappoint anti-diversity sentiment. Hansen Hashem Clarke won a US congressional seat. Hansen who is half Bangladeshi, half African-American, of Muslim and Catholic background, and married to a Korean born woman raised by Jews, quickly vowed to fight racial and religious profiling.

Locally in Illinois,  anti-immigrant congressman Mark Kirk managed to squeeze past Alexi Giannoulias in a tightly-contested election to claim Obama's old Senate seat. But the immigrant vote poured in large numbers and was largely organized, helping to determine many other local and national important elections including Reid, Boxer, Bennet, and Murray for the US Senate (Reid won 90% of the Latino vote, to Angle's 8%).

The Muslim vote, which largely caucuses with the immigrant vote, was in of itself a key decider in this election as well. It is safe to say that the Muslim vote was the single difference between Bill Brady losing and Pat Quinn given that only 19,000 votes separated the two (Brady has yet to concede but will). Had the Republicans and Bill Brady paid as much attention to Muslim issues (which include anti-bigotry but also things like healthcare and education) during the campaign as the Democrats  and Pat Quinn, they may have been celebrating Illinois' first Republican governor since George Ryan.

I will close with this take home lesson for future candidates: Muslims may be small in number but we are organizing. We are voting at much higher rates and as a bloc, we CAN decide important elections, and we WILL.

MSNBC: Olbermann Calls Out Bill O'Reilly, Steven Emerson

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's worst persons in the world list yesterday included Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly (with a clip of his interview with yours truly), topped off with the discredited shadowy operative Steven Emerson who was recently exposed in an article in the Tennessean - along with internet sociopath Robert Spencer and others - for cashing in big bucks off of spreading hate and fear of Muslims.

Speaking at Major Islamic Conference in Chicago

Today, I was happy to attend an all-day Islamic conference in Chicago organized by the Council of Islamic Organizations of greater Chicago and  The Muslim Public Affairs Council, two phenomenal organizations leading the Muslim community in civic engagement.  The conference brought in many organizations and luminaries from the American Muslim community. I spoke in three sessions including the opening session which itself was about civic engagement. The other two sessions I spoke at where about the Media, and Islamophobia.

Here were the sessions I spoke at:

Intro Session – Civic Engagement: Our Duty, Our Opportunity
When/Where: 10:00 – 10:45 AM in ROOM 5
Moderator: Mohamad Nasir
Speakers: Dr. Zaher Sahloul, Dr. Salam Al- Marayati, Ahmed Rehab, Hatem Bazian, Safaa Zarzour, Dr. Aminah McCloud, Abed Ayoub

Workshop: How to Make Yourself Heard in Media & Deliver an Effective Message
When/Where: 10:55-11:55AM in ROOM 5
Moderator: Kiran Ansari
Speakers: Edina Lekovic, Ahmed Rehab, Sadaf Syed
Synopsis: Using a case study of the anti mosque climate, this session will demonstrate how to frame issues effectively and address attacks on Islam.

Roundtable: Addressing Islamophobia – Local and National Experiences

When/Where: 4:45 – 5:45 PM in ROOM 6
Moderator: Dr. Zaher Sahloul
Speakers: Abid Malik, Prof. Cherif Bassiouni Ahmed Rehab, Salam Al-Marayati, Dr. Hatem Bazian, Safaa Zarzour

Synopsis: National and local leaders will be discussing their experience in proactively addressing Islamophobia.

Neo-Communication: The Amazing World of Viral Videos

The nature, mediums, and reach of communications are ever-evolving. Once upon a time, candidates running for public office could only speak to small mobs of people at makeshift stages making their way from town to village. News traveled as slow as their entourage and only as fast as the printing and distribution of fliers and newspapers.

Several technologies later - Radio, Television, the internet, and now Youtube - the communications revolution is in full effect.

Only hours after a TV campaign commercial is broadcast for Christine O'Donnell, a group of young talented artists are able to create a hypnotic musical version and upload it to even larger audiences. Before anyone knows it, the spoof itself becomes the story. Thanks in part to the artists' raw talent, their video quickly becomes an instant hit and goes viral. Before you know it, another group of equally talented young people takes the first group's now famous tune and creates a cover for it that quickly attains its own fan club. Now you are two levels deep in commentary, each level reaching millions.

Call it the phenomenon of meta-commentary in an age a democratized media in which anyone has access to everyone and information travels at lightening speed.

But what are the pros and cons of this phenomenon?

Sure, information exchange is now subject to free market rules of supply and demand more than ever before. Is that a good thing or bad? As this phenomenon grows and edges corporate media out of the lion's share of the media market, will we better off  for it or worse off?

How about in this case, should Christine O'Donnell worry about the ridicule, or does she benefit from the massive free exposure and the notion that no publicity is bad publicity?

The talented work of the Gregory Brothers and their famous Autotune the News project:


A catchy cover of the first one by another talented group (from Sweden) by the name of Roomie:


The original campaign ad by underdog Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell:


The Gregory brother's most famous autotune is the bed intruder song that targets an otherwise low profile local news story, earning them 34 million hits! Their song was also covered by roomie among hundreds of other covers (This one played on only two strings is fascinating).

Internet Sociopath Robert Spencer Wants to Debate Me

These days, the internet is booming with shady characters raking up big bucks in the Bash-and-Cash Islamophobia business.

One such person is an individual by the name of Robert Spencer who runs an amateurish website by the name of JihadWatch.org.

Spencer claims to be a scholar of Islam, Islamic Law, and Theology but holds no degrees in any of those subjects and has never even published a single peer-reviewed paper. Actual scholars see him as something of a joke.

Spencer is actually an anti-Muslim advocate with no interest or capacity for objective scholarship. He spends his time cherry-picking the internet for evil acts or bad behavior by Muslims (whether they do it in the name of Islam or not) and then laundry listing them as representative of normative Islam. That's all he does, day-in day-out, same exact procedure.

The fake scholar has built up a cultist presence on his blog that acts as an echo chamber of gullible angry people who believe anything their little leader tells them.

Now comes the humor. Apparently this guy heard me on the Michael Medved show earlier today where I disagreed with Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar for storming off the stage during a debate with Bill O'Reilly. It is something I would not do. Spencer who had invited me to a debate before, ran to his blog and put up a piece complaining that if that is the case then how come I "ran away" from debating him.

Surfing through JihadWatch.org, it doesn't take much to figure out that Spencer is an odd fellow. His rhetoric ranges between the sensational, the simplistic, the superficial, and in many cases the delusional (such as in this case). yet still, until today, I thought he was smarter than that.

Apparently Spencer does not know the difference between storming off from a debate, and never gracing the debate with your presence in the first place.

Spencer, I never agreed to debate you in the first place, and it is highly unlikely that I ever will. If I did for some odd reason, I assure you I would stomach your delusional diatribes throughout the length of the debate and not storm off.

I have debated people in the right wing. So Spencer is probably wondering why I am ignoring him? Well, it's pretty simple really.

There needs to be three criteria present for me to actively want to set up a formal debate with you:

1. That I disagree with you. (Why would I want to debate someone I agree with?) Spencer Check.
2. That you are a reasonable individual who is a truth-seeker. Spencer Fail.
3. That I respect you. Spencer Fail.

Debating people who are divorced from reason and for whom I have no respect is a waste of my time. So Spencer will just have to keep telling himself it is because he is so wonderfully right that I am afraid to debate him. He can conveniently ignore the fact that I have debated many people from the right that are actually famous for doing something and that are much more formidable opponents.

But wait, there's more comedy: In order to convince me to debate him, Spencer decides to give us a preview of the deep intellectual skills he is capable of and that I would have to look forward to. Those skills consist of:

1. An allegation that I wear lipstick and eyeshadow.
2. A surprisingly immature "na na na" school yard song (that he apparently thinks is so clever).

I am serious folks. This is real. Now, does that sounds like the sort of respectable scholar you would run to debate? More like a creepy overgrown child desperate for attention.

And now for some irony. Spencer, you are claiming you are ready to debate anyone but that alas no one wants to debate you because no one can. But, is this actually true? Does the name Danios of Loonwatch ring a bell Spencer? You may be burying your head in the sand hoping no one will notice, but a simple Google search on "Robert Spencer debate" reveals your hypocrisy. How come you are ignoring an invitation from another blogger who has challenged you numerous times and whose articles shredding your arguments to pieces are all over the web without a peep of a rebuttal from you? Are you conceding defeat? Are you "running away?"

For the full monty on this sociopath, visit Spencerwatch.com

FOX News Rewards Juan Williams with $2 Million

It's official, Juan Williams' transformation from respected, objective journalist to sensationalist infotainer is complete.

In the immediate wake of the anti-Muslim comments that saw Williams fired by NPR, he has been offered a $2 million contract with FOX News, leaving no question as to where the network lies when it comes to prejudicial language against Muslims.

Had Juan Williams made the exact same comments about Jews or most other groups, there is little doubt FOX News would have distanced themselves. But he makes them about Muslims, and the next day he joins the dozens of other pundits and characters who have cashed in big for bashing Muslims.

And that's not all, so as to leave no shadow of a doubt as to how ecstatic FOX News is with Williams' views, Williams is not only a repeat guest on the O'Reilly Factor tonight but he is hosting the show himself tomorrow.

Meanwhile conservative attack dogs including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich have come after NPR. The same Palin and Gingrich and co. who were either dead silent or who applauded CNN's firing of Rick Sanchez for furthering stereotypes about Jews in the media.

UPDATE: One point is important to clarify because there are a lot of people out there using the freedom of speech card to defend Juan's comments:

Of course, Juan is fully entitled to express his views. But remember: freedom of speech goes both ways, Juan can say what he wants, we can say what we want. We would not have it any other way. He was free to stereotype, we were free to criticize him for it.

We did not fire him, NPR did. He was bad for their business, NPR does not pay free compliments to Muslims because they adore us, they do what's good for their business, he was terrible for their image, even before this incident, and I believe they've been looking for an opportunity to end their working relationship with him in order to protect their business.

The AP reports: NPR CEO Vivian Schiller said Thursday that Williams had veered from journalistic ethics several times before Monday's comments. In a memo to her staff and affiliate stations, Schiller said the comments violated NPR's code of ethics, which says journalists should not participate in news media "that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis."

Keep in mind NPR received over 3000 complaints from their listeners about his comments. While Williams was helping FOX gain viewers, he was helping NPR lose listeners. While I hate to see anyone lose their job, I think NPR cannot be blamed for not wanting employees who breech their editorial objectivity and cause them to lose their core support. Juan seems to be faring quite with 2 million reasons not to sulk about it.

So it's a bit hypocritical when those who defend Juan's intolerance under freedom of speech accuse us of intolerance when we use our own freedom of speech to point out that his intellect failed to reign in his irrational fears. Is he free to talk and we're free only to listen and agree. Well for those who believe that, we're always happy to disappoint them.

NPR Fires Juan Williams Over Anti-Muslim Comments

NPR finally realized that Juan Williams, who moonlights as a FOX News paid polemicist, is an embarrassment to the objective professional journalistic standards NPR holds itself to. NPR's decision to fire him was justified in that Juan's controversial comments about Muslims at large on the O'Reilly Factor amounted to little more than pure prejudice anyway you look at it. Even if they were honest, they were honestly prejudiced and ignorant.

By implying that he is somehow justified in feeling "nervous" when he sees an average Muslim on a plane who identifies as Muslim, he is in effect equating all Muslims with terrorists and sanctioning bigotry and prejudice. He was basically saying that a Muslim is scary and threatening by virtue of being Muslim (not by virtue of bad behavior).

One wonders, does Juan Williams also justify white women clutching their purses when they see a black man enter an elevator, just because he's black?

Juan Williams's "fear and nervousness" towards average Muslims is the result of his closed-mindedness and limited horizons; he does not belong with NPR, a respectable news services that seeks objectivity and that caters to a discerning audience.

UPDATE: I saw that there are people debating whether Juan Williams' statements were bigotted. So let me ask you, if Mr. Juan Williams or another NPR senior editor is running around national TV telling people "I feel scared and anxious when I see a Jewish person, looking all Jewish in their Yarmulke and sideburns and identifying as a Jew first," or "I feel scared and anxious when I see a Black person, looking all Black with their afro and Fubu gear and identifying as a Black person first," don't you think the absurdity of those comments would be self-evident to all and we would not be having this conversation. EVEN if that person was genuine and honest and really feels this way and is just expressing an opinion.

That is because we as a society have learned - very well - that negative generalizations amounts to prejudice and that prejudice is ignorant and that people who feel this way need to seek help rather than pontificate on TV. But it seems some are still struggling to see Muslims in that same light due to being desensitized by constant Media vitriol that deems it "still ok" when it comes to Muslims.

Now let me be clear, Juan Williams has as much a right to be prejudiced and to openly share his prejudices just as much as anybody else. But in the same vein, NPR has a right to say thanks but no thanks, this breaches our trust of your character and judgment and our policy that our journalists should represent fact-based analysis not emotional, speculative ones.

NPR Fires Analyst Over Comments on Muslims

By BRIAN STELTER | New York Times

Published: October 20, 2010

NPR has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior news analysts, after he made comments about Muslims on the Fox News Channel.

NPR said in a statement that it gave Mr. Williams notice of his termination on Wednesday night.

The move came after Mr. Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, appeared on the “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”

Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.

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

Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts,” Mr. Williams said.

NPR said in its statement that the remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

The public radio organization said it thanked him for many years of service. Mr. Williams did not immediately respond on Wednesday night to an e-mail seeking comment.

Mr. Williams’s contributions on Fox raised eyebrows at NPR in the past. In February 2009, NPR said it had asked that he stop being identified on “The O’Reilly Factor” as a “senior correspondent for NPR,” even though that title was accurate.

Alicia C. Shepard, the NPR ombudswoman, said at the time that Mr. Williams was a “lightning rod” for the public radio organization in part because he “tends to speak one way on NPR and another on Fox.”

Ms. Shepard said she had received 378 listener e-mails in 2008 listing complaints and frustrations about Mr. Williams.

Inside North Korea, A Fascinating Look

I recommend that after you go home today, you find a quiet corner of your home, and you sit down to watch one of the most fascinating and thought-provoking documentaries you are likely to watch: National Geographic's "An Inside Look at North Korea." [Video Below]

The documentary is not only a rare look into one of the most elusive countries, but a journey into the depth of the human mind and soul.

North Korea represents an intriguing phenomenon on many levels.

It is the world's most isolated nation-state. Virtually everything is state controlled, there is no internet, cell phones, and its borders which straddle mostly China in the North, the Soviet Union in the Northwest and South Korea in the South are sealed shut under heavy military monitoring. No one is allowed to leave or enter without special state permission. The country has very few foreigners and those who are allowed to enter, do so briefly and are escorted under the watchful eye of specially designated state agents at all times. During the last World Cup, North Korea opted to send Chinese actors posing as North Korean fans supporting the North Korean national soccer team, rather than risk exposing their citizens to the outside world, and so risk defection.

North Korean life is rooted in intense regiment and communal submission to the head of state who is something of a God-King. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, as it is formally known, was founded by Kim Il Sung, who introduced the Juche ideology of self-reliance that continues to shape the nation's political and social outlook today. Known as the "eternal president," his son, Kim Jong Il, now carries the torch and enjoys a similar stranglehold over everyday life.

Korea enjoyed independent rule for most of its history until it was brutally colonized by Japan after the 1905 Russo-Japanese war. Following World War II, the North moved toward Soviet-sponsored communism, while the South aligned itself with the US to resist communist rule. The 1950 Korean war raged on for three years and saw heavy casualties but no clear outcome. The North and South today live in a tense and nervous coexistence that represents one of the most stark side-by-side contrasts in any single region in the world today. They two are separated by a heavily militarized zone along their entire shared border that offers many intriguing stories in its own right.

Given the traumatic experience with what the North Koreans saw as brutal foreign enemies in Japan and later the United States, Kim Il Sung's Juche ideology sought to restore pride, dignity, and power to the Korean people through complete self-reliance. But with that came an iron fist that Kim saw necessary in order to maintain total control. The results are more complex than mere fear and tyranny. The North Korean people who can be described as proud, disciplined and productive are likely driven by fear, but not fear alone. North Koreans have also been exposed to a sort of communal brain-washing, the result of long years of meticulously choreographed state propaganda that dominates the public media, the schooling system from a young age, and the workplace. As a result, it is difficult to tell whether the average North Korean simply fears the "dear leader" or is convinced that he is indeed his savior and sustainer. As the documentary posits in its conclusion, the truth is probably closer to a complex mix of both.

One thing is for certain, North Korea runs one of the most brutal systems of mass prisons in the world today that collectively house up to 1% of the total population. These prisons do not only punish those who question the "dear leader" and his regime, but their immediate and extended families as well. While North Korea possesses the world's largest military in the world - not to mention nuclear weapons - the civilian standard of living is very low. Citizens suffer from scarce food sources, poor health care, and very few luxuries that most other states in East Asia take for granted.

As you watch the video, think about the following:

What is going through the hearts and minds of North Koreans today? What motivates them? While the state is undeniably tyrannical and propagandist, do we understand the people's desire for pride, dignity, and self-reliance? While it is easy to demonize them as a people, is it possible to relate to them as human beings who have been put through an entirely different set of experiences and exposed to an entirely different set of ideas from us? Where would we be if we were in their place, living where they are living, and raised as they were raised? What does the North Korean experience say about mass psychology? What are the machinations of such large-scale brainwashing and psychological manipulation, why does it work, how can it be prevented, how can it be undone?



Main Photo Credit: Eric Lafforgue. Visit this amazing photo exhibit of everyday life in North Korea by Eric.

Shilling for the Israeli Occupation: The ADL’s New Mission Statement?

By Ahmed Rehab

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), fresh off of several PR gaffes, recently managed to pull off another head-scratching moment:  It has compiled and released a list of the top ten most influential anti-Israel groups in America.

In other words, an organization that describes itself as “the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency that fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all” is spending its resources decrying American organizations that are not blindly supportive of a foreign government it likes to align itself with.

If that’s not fishy enough, what the ADL’s list really showcases are the top ten most influential groups that take a principled anti-occupation and anti-displacement position and who call for a just peace.

Here are a few thoughts on this list:

• The ADL is slowly but surely shifting its focus from fighting bigotry to doing public relations work for the government of Israel including shilling for its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories.

• The list includes many Jews including some who self-identify as friends of Israel, and yet the report still manages to accuse them of being anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic. This is because the ADL hopes it can convince you that anti-occupation is synonymous with anti-Israel and anti-Israel is synonymous with anti-Semitism.

• This latest stunt by the ADL comes on the heels of several other bizarre decisions, including the ADL’s decision to side with far right-wing anti-religious freedom groups like the notorious SIOA (Stop the Islamization of America) against the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero. So much for “fighting all forms of bigotry and defending democratic ideals and protecting civil rights for all”! The ADL is now trying to backtrack from its position on this issue after a public backlash that seemed to take it by surprise.

• Since this list mostly targets organizations that take a bold moral stance against the illegal Israeli occupation and other inhumane policies carried by the government of Israel against the occupied Palestinians, J Street ought to take a deep long look at itself and ask itself why it failed to make the list.

• Jewish Voice for Peace which proudly made the list wrote an excellent five point response to the ADL. If you were to contrast the morally expedient language of the ADL’s report with the clarion values in the JVP’s response, it is self-evident as to who represents the voice of extremism and who represents the voice of reason.

• Other “disturbingly” named organizations that accompany Jewish Voice for Peace include: Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, If Americans Knew, Students for Justice in Palestine, and US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. Horrifying.

• The list also includes mainstream U.S. Muslim organizations like CAIR. CAIR, like the other organizations on the list, is pro-peace and anti-injustice. CAIR’s work centers on defending civil rights and dispelling misinformation and stereotypes about Muslims – doing for America’s Muslims what the ADL used to do (and should be doing) for America’s Jews. It does not concern itself with the political aspect of the conflict but with the legal, civil and human rights aspects that have repercussions on local constituents here and that are often supported by our tax dollars. CAIR’s position has been one of opposition to the occupation and disenfranchisement of Palestinians. The ADL cannot point to one release from CAIR that can be described bigoted against Israelis as a people, let alone against Jews. CAIR’s releases and rallies have only addressed the occupation and the questionable actions of the government of Israel. But as I mentioned the ADL tries to equate opposition to the occupation and the illegal practices of the Likud government to bigotry and anti-Semitism in order to create a chilling effect.

• The ADL’s report is announced on the front page of the ADL’s website, right above its decision to honor Rupert Murdoch for his “stalwart support of Israel support” (yet another mind-boggling moment from the ADL).  Why would the ADL who claims to “fight all forms of bigotry, defend democratic ideal and protects civil rights for all” turn around and award the man behind FOX News, a network that is notorious for spewing bigoted material and making a daily mockery of the news industry?

Does the ADL really believe that FOX News “fights bigotry and promotes democratic ideals and equal civil rights for all”? Has Abe Foxman watched FOX News coverage of Muslims , Latinos, or immigrants lately? Why would the ADL offer Murdoch its “International leadership” award? Because the ADL’s awardees selection committee is more concerned with where a candidate stands on Israel, even if at the expense of where he stands on bigotry, democratic ideals, and equal civil rights – once again bringing to light the disturbing shift in the ADL’s mission and raison d’etre.

• Lastly, the ADL’s report takes issue with yours truly:

In response to the Israeli Navy's raid of a flotilla of ships heading to Gaza in May 2010, the executive director of CAIR-Chicago accused Israel of a "failure to apply Jewish values"

The Chicago Tribune piece that Abe Foxman is referring to was decidedly pro-Judaism. I received many thank you notes from Jewish friends and strangers including Rabbis. Given the gravity of the Israel violations at the time, many emailed to say that I was gracious and restrained. So why did Foxman take issue with this piece, you may ask? Well, because the piece was decidedly anti-occupation. Another exhibit for the ADL’s changing priorities.

• Salon.com had a good piece on this story. Read it here.

Joy and Whoopi Walk Out On Bill O'Reilly

Bill gets it completely wrong on The View, prompting Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg to walk off stage.

He runs the usual line that: "Muslims killed us on 9/11" therefore Muslims cannot build a mosque near Ground Zero.

In fact, Muslims did not kill us on 9/11. I did not kill us on 9/11. I was coding software that day. My mom did not kill us on 9/11. She was shopping that day. My nephew did not kill us on 9/11. He was cozying up in a uterus that day.

Al Qaeda killed "us." That's right I, my mom, my nephew, and my fellow American Muslims are part of the "us" Bill is referring to - and yet today, American Muslims supposedly can't build near Ground Zero but other "types" of Americans absolutely can.

Do you think America is a society that advocates for first and second rate citizenship depending on race or faith or whatever else? Worse yet, advocates for that type of society claim that this needs to be done out of "sensitivity"? You see something obscenely wrong here?

Coming Soon…

This will be the home of my new running blog...

Welcome to AhmedRehab.Org

Content coming soon. In the mean time, please visit http://www.ahmedrehab.com