Opponents and supporters of ‘Ground Zero mosque’ clash at hearing

A demonstrator holds a sign during a Landmarks Commission's hearing on the proposed Cordoba Mosque to be built near the site of the former World Trade Center in New YorkA city hearing yesterday on the historical significance of the downtown Manhattan site of a proposed mosque quickly turned into a raucous – and at times ugly – debate about whether an Islamic center should be located so close to Ground Zero.

About 150 people crowded into the Hunter College Auditorium in Manhattan for the Landmarks Preservation Commission hearing, held to see if the 152-year-old building at 45-47 Park Place in lower Manhattan had the cultural or architectural consequence worthy of being landmarked.

Those who opposed the construction of the 13-story mosque and community center, called the Cordoba House, accused their opponents of being unpatriotic and insensitive to the thousands who died on 9/11. But attendees who want to see the $100 million project completed accused their challengers of being racist and encouraging conflict with Muslims.

One protester, shouting, “Down with this McCarthyistic witch hunt against Muslims,” was escorted out after interrupting speakers against the mosque.

Joseph Reichling of Ridgewood, Queens, said, “Our forefathers are turning in their graves. Have we forgotten what happened on 9/11? We must never forget 9/11.” Andrea Quinn echoed his sentiments. “The plan to build a 13-story mosque on that site is ludicrous,” said Quinn of Queens. “Not to preserve this building is to allow for a citadel of Islamic supremacy to be built in its place.”

Zead Ramadan – who said his wife was a first responder on 9/11 – testified for the mosque. “We are picking and choosing which houses of worship can open at which streets and we are opening a can of worms,” he said, adding, “It’s called Islamophobia.”

Rozanne Delgado said, “I’m ashamed of the racism. There’s lots of hatred here.”

New York Post, 14 July 2010

US airline worker sues former employer

A Pakistani-American airline engineer from Brooklyn is suing his firm for allegedly allowing co-workers to taunt him by calling him “bomb-maker.”

Jamil Akhtar, 51, said he complained to his bosses at NorthAmerican Airlines that other employees derided him with derogatory names like “Packy,” insulted his Muslim religion and threatened him.

His suit, filed yesterday in Brooklyn state Supreme Court, charges that when he complained to superiors, he was threatened with the loss of his FAA license.

Akhtar said he took a two-week leave of absence in 2007 and when he returned, a supervisor smiled and said, “What are you doing here? You’re fired.”

The engineer quit in 2007. He is suing for back pay and other damages.

New York Post, 10 July 2010

New Jersey: Muslim woman sues hospital over religious discrimination

Rona Mohammedi went to Somerset Medical Center the night of Feb. 11 with severe chest pains. After hearing she would need an electrocardiogram, she asked for a female to conduct the test.

A Muslim, Mohammedi wears traditional garb, including the hijab, or head scarf. The Basking Ridge woman believes it is her religious duty to maintain modesty before strange men, and an EKG calls for wires to be applied to the chest, shoulders and wrists.

Instead of heeding her request, officials let her languish in the emergency room for five hours until 3:10 a.m., when her husband sought a transfer. She is suing the hospital for discrimination and violating the Patient Bill of Rights.

The complaint filed May 14 in Superior Court in Somerville raises the question of how far hospitals must go for religious accommodations. The rights listed in state statutes say patients can expect treatment without discrimination, and respectful care consistent with sound medical practices.

Mohammedi’s lawyer, Tariq Hussain, said the hospital failed those basic tenets. “According to the patients’ bill of rights that exist in New Jersey, hospitals are required to make reasonable accommodations for patients for various reasons,” he said. “Patients should not be denied service or discriminated against based on religion.”

NJ.com, 11 July 2010

Australian Muslims condemn media misrepresentation

Australian-Muslim families have good relations with other Australians, and feel safe and happy here. But they are furious with the media for depicting Muslims as terrorists and criminals, a report for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship reveals.

“The families felt strongly the media was gunning for Muslims; it was a huge concern for them,” said Ilan Katz, the director of the Social Policy Research Centre at UNSW, and a co-author of the study. The research is part of a wider project commissioned by the department to understand the concerns and needs of Muslim Australians.

Sydney Morning Herald, 12 July 2010

Houston store still suffers abuse over ‘9/11 martyr’ photo that went viral

Houston store sign

Sajid Master wants the phone calls and angry letters to stop. He wants people to quit coming into Perfume Planet in west Houston to yell at his workers. He’d especially like folks to stop castigating his landlord.

Nearly a year after the Internet painted Master as an Al Qaida sympathizer, outrage toward the store at the Harwin Central Mart shows no sign of waning. “They’ve threatened to kill me; sometimes they’re cursing when they call,” a resigned Master said Thursday in his shop.

Trouble is, all the indignation is the product of a massive misunderstanding, illustrating the awesome – and sometimes damaging – power of the Internet. Master, who describes himself as a proud American citizen, isn’t a terrorist sympathizer. He’s just a shopkeeper who inadvertently touched a very raw nerve.

It started when the Muslim merchant posted a sign at his shop during Ramadan explaining the store would be closed Sept. 11 to remember the death of Imam Ali, a sacred Muslim figure. Master failed, however, to explain that Ali, who is remembered on a different date each year during Ramadan, died in 661 A.D. and was in no way related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Someone snapped a picture of the sign and started sending it around online, claiming Imam Ali was one of the Sept. 11 hijackers. Before long the photo went viral, showing up on countless conservative Internet forums and prompting statements like this one that appeared at 2Aforum.com: “Picket, protest, and through lawful means, strangle their business.”

Soon the phone calls started, befuddling and overwhelming store manager Hasan Kolsawala, who tried to explain that no offense was intended. People also called Master’s cell phone to denounce him.

He probably could have shrugged off the incident as a temporary annoyance, but 10 months later the consequences of that sign still reverberate. Phone calls to Perfume Planet often come in waves as people send around new e-mail chains urging recipients to voice their anger.

Houston Chronicle, 8 July 2010

Irrationality and anti-Muslim stereotyping

The demonization of Islam as a religion and of its adherents as individuals has reached the level of hysteria within the United States.

Although the fear of Muslims is usually cloaked in condescension or indignation, the source of this most recent version of bigotry is transparent and utterly predictable. There must be a nameless, faceless, sinister “other” upon whom we can hang our deepest anxieties and frustrations as a people. This kind of paranoia is not unique, but as its perpetrators on right-wing radio, FOX “News” and the far-right blogosphere can attest, it still works like a charm.

I would offer to Americans that if you’ve come to believe that it’s Islam that’s the source of our problems, you might as well pack it up and go home because the terrorists have already won.

Cynthia Boaz at the Huffington Post, 6 July 2010

Bob Lambert on the government’s flawed response to 7/7

BusBritain’s fight against terrorism has been a disaster, because its “flawed, neo-conservative” direction alienated Muslims and increased the chances of terrorist attacks, a former leading counter-terrorism officer has told the Guardian.

Speaking to mark today’s fifth anniversary of the 7 July attacks in London, Dr Robert Lambert said the atrocity had led the Labour government to launch not just the publicly declared battle against al-Qaida, but a much wider counter-subversive campaign that targeted non-violent Muslims and branded them as supporters of violence.

Lambert, now an academic, served for 30 years as an officer in Scotland Yard’s special branch, dealing with the threat from Irish Republican terrorism through to the menace from al-Qaida. He was head of a counter-terrorism squad, the Muslim contact unit (MCU), which gained intelligence on violent extremists, and won praise from Muslims, even those who have criticised police.

Lambert said the Labour government adopted a “flawed, neo-con analysis to react to 7 July. The view was that this is such an evil ideology, we are entitled to derogate from human rights considerations even further.”

The effect of this, said Lambert, was to cast the net too wide: “The analysis was a continuation of the analysis after 9/11, which drove the war on terror, to say al-Qaida is a tip of a dangerous Islamist iceberg … we went to war not against terrorism, but against ideas, the belief that al-Qaida was a violent end of a subversive movement.”

Lambert said this approach alienated British Muslims, as those who expressed views such as opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, also held by non-Muslims, feared that holding such beliefs made them suspects. “The best way of tackling al-Qaida is to reassure the communities where it seeks support and recruits, is to show those communities that their grievances can be expressed legitimately,” Lambert said.

He said the fight needed to focus solely on the terrorists, and not on those who may share some of their political views, but who will express them peacefully. He said that British policies handed the terrorists propaganda victories. Such policies included the Iraq war, civilian casualties in Afghanistan, the torture of terror suspects at Guantánamo and elsewhere, rendition, the muted response to Israel’s attack on Lebanon and the attempt to hold terror suspects in the UK for 90 days without charge.

Guardian, 7 July 2010

Banning the burqa compromises the very principles that we value

The European Convention on Human Rights is the basis for our rights and freedoms. Crucially, it provides for freedom of expression, the right to protest, to stage controversial political theatre or to write an independent article. It also protects the right of individuals to choose their religious beliefs.

For this reason, I cannot support calls in the UK and across Europe to ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa or other garments that cover the entire body in public.

Have we become so arrogant as to believe that every woman who would wear a burqa is necessarily oppressed? Or so fearful that we see a potential terrorist behind women who cover themselves out of religious belief?

Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, in the Independent, 7 July 2010