People talk about extremism all the time these days, but because the term isn't defined clearly, it has come to mean just about anything. These days, it is increasingly become synonymous with Islam, leaving Muslims in the US constantly accused of tolerating, harboring, or even being extremists themselves. The Oxford Dictionary describes an extremist as "a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action."
By this definition, the accusation that the Muslim community is made up of people who tolerate, harbor, or are themselves extremists falls flat. To whatever extent that extremism exists in the Muslim American community, it has been disowned by our organizations, given no refuge in our mosques (particularly after 9/11 and 7/7), and is relegated to the margins of our community and the Internet. In the few mosques that have been linked to extremism, individuals have used the facilities to conceal their activities from worshippers and the public at large. For all the complaints that people have about extremism among Muslims, you'd be hard pressed to find one that will unabashedly declare their views to all.

However, the same is not true when it comes to those whose unabashed hatred of Muslims lead them to defile the very foundation of this country.

When right-wing pundit Dennis Prager penned a column that said that newly elected Muslim congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) "should not be allowed" to take his oath of office on the Qur'an, he revealed something disturbing about himself and the thousands that rallied to his side. Because the Constitution strictly prohibits "religious tests" being used on elected representatives, and the Bill of Rights has a strict protection of the freedom of religion, this issue pits the legal and moral foundations of this country against irrational hatred. Praeger and his supporters have chosen the latter, and we now have thousands of people who claim to not be held to the tenets of the Constitution and Bill of Rights when it comes to the pursuit of their Muslim foes. (Thankfully, many thoughtful conservatives - despite having no love for Islam or Muslims - have defended the rights of Muslims in this case.)

Ultimately, Muslim extremists in the US are few and marginalized, with both Muslim and non-Muslims united against them. To think that elected Muslim representatives, or a population making up some 1% of America, could enforce sharia law by surprise - as some prophesize - is laughable. But the real extremists, who seek to discard the legal foundation of this country and set up a Taliban-style "morals police" to enforce fealty to a state religion, are getting stronger each day. Which one is more of a threat to our society?

Some pundits, unable to find actual Muslim extremists in the US to argue with, seem intent on manufacturing them. CNN�s host Glenn Beck warns that if Muslims aren't "lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head", then they will end up "behind razor wire." Put another way, Beck issued an extremist threat against Muslims if Muslims don't engage in extremist actions against extremists. If this were actually to happen, it is reasonable to assume that Beck would respond by claiming it as proof of the maxim that Muslims don't believe in civil society and rule of law, and resort to violence first. How could this ever be taken seriously? But as Beck's ratings will attest to, it is.

It is easy to find bloggers, commentators, radio talk show hosts, and many others who state very clearly that Islam should be "dealt with" or "confronted". They are on some of the most-listened to radio shows, the most-read op-ed columns, and the blogs with the highest traffic. But what do they mean by this? Tellingly, each can speak or write forever about the "threat" that Muslims in the US pose, but they have hardly a word about the "solution". (It would be informative if the media, when bringing these people on the air, would ask that simple question.) They leave no room for "moderate Muslims", no respect for Islam as a legitimate faith, and do not want Muslim Americans - more than half of whom were born in America and know no other home - as neighbors. Perhaps they haven't yet bothered to take their rhetoric through to its logical conclusion (the amount of time they devote to this obsession makes it unlikely). They are only responsible for whipping people into a frenzy. What happens next is in the domain of the lynch mob. And we all know where that gets us.

Again, what is the more extremist threat in America? The Muslim bogeyman in America that everyone talks about but nobody can seem to find? Or the thousands of Americans who daily declare their intent to fight their Muslim neighbors with no shame or guilt, and accompanied by silence on the part of our fellow Americans? I believe in the goodwill of Americans, and truly believe that the vast majority would not allow Muslims to be swept aside in violation of the laws that make our country special. What worries me, however, is that it may take many innocent Muslims being put behind razor wire - or worse - for the country to wake up to the threat of the real extremists among us.

Abuafak, you are completely mistaken when you make the statement that this country was founded by New Testament adherants.

"As the Government of the United States of Americais not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."~Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 (drafted by Washington, signed by Adams)

Do I want Shari'ah law? Yes. Do I want it for you, the common layman who has nothing to do with Islam? no. Before British invasions, we all too often forget the pluralistic nature of Islamic society. If you were a jew, with a jewish wife, and you wanted a divorce, you would end up in jewish court. Crime was handled by a state institution, and many courts made it an objective to find any loophole possible for a person to escape from any strong shari'ah punishment, but the punishment was still on the books as a strong deterrent: this is how many view Shari'ah as it should be.

I find it rather funny that anyone would be insulted by Ellison's wish to swear in on a Qur'an, seeing as he is making an oath on a book he feels is divinely inspired. What worth would it be to swear in on anything else? What I also find interesting is that Jesus in the sermon on the mount and Paul later in his epistles strictly say that the worst than any person can do is swear; so it's quite anti-Christian and a smack in the face of anything you hold dear if you swear in on a Bible, let alone swear to tell the truth in a court on a book that tells you never to swear.

Salam: You can find some very interesting information about what kind of religion this country's Founding Fathers followed (primarily Deism) in an informative book called American Jesus by Stephen Prothero. Let's not forget that Thomas Jefferson took a razor to the Bible and "edited" out parts he did not like. This interesting factoid is found in the above-mentioned book.

As a Muslim I personally would not support instituting Sharia and I don't believe many of my friends would either. Why? Because it is subject to the interpetation of men who are influenced by culture and patriarchy rather than the character of the Prophet and the word of Allah. I have no faith or trust in most religious leaders to put their own personal cultural interpetations aside, when supposedly dispensing justice. We can see the gross misuse of sharia in a multitude of situations across the Muslim world. The government of a multi-cultural society must remain secular, I have yet to see any religious institution (of any faith tradition) that could be an adequate, just and fair dispenser of justice to all people.

>> Because it is subject to the interpetation of men who are influenced by culture and patriarchy rather than the character of the Prophet and the word of Allah ...

But what is shariah? Is it the opinions of jurists on matters that fall outside the background and intended use of an original law? People proclaim themselves as custodians of shariah. But it seems to me that they end up dictating very personal and subjective rules and laws with no understanding of its long term impact on differing environments.

A loose esample .. Certainly the punishment for a murderer is the entitlement of the murdered persons relatives to choose a death penalty. But when that penalty is extended to the execution of a drug dealer .. that is a subjective extension of what the rule means. The one forms the shariah of our Nabi (SAW), but does the other necessarily form part of shariah just because we've rationally extended the meaning of the rule? I think not.

Muslims, I think, would not choose shariah because it would not be shariah in the hands of politically motivated or socially biased legislators, jurists and judges.

Abuafak, you are completely mistaken when you make the statement that this country was founded by New Testament adherants.

"As the Government of the United States of Americais not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."~Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 (drafted by Washington, signed by Adams)

That treaty was written to PLACATE muslims, and even in that expression does NOT say this country wasn't founded by Christian Adherents.
It just says the USA Isn't a Christian Country

You didn't compare apples to apples


Do I want Shari'ah law? Yes. Do I want it for you, the common layman who has nothing to do with Islam? no. Before British invasions, we all too often forget the pluralistic nature of Islamic society. If you were a jew, with a jewish wife, and you wanted a divorce, you would end up in jewish court...."Pretty messy/Unfair wouldn't you say?

The accused Rapist in the Islamic court needing 4 witnesses against him... and in the Jewish and secular ones... a DNA sample?

You can't use a Holy Book as modern working document, and least of all Unreformated Islam (as aopposed to Christianity). The Koran was Arab Tribal Justice.
Good/progressive for it's time but long since, having enshrined INequailty and brutality for many groups.

The Treaty of Tripoli is really/mainly/classically used/Misused by people who want to deny the Christian Context of the nation and it's founders.
On the other side there are thousands of documents and an incredible amount of undisputed History.



As to the Treaty of Tripoli and the Christian Nature of the USA I suggest:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5
"...Treaty of Tripoli

by David Barton

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular. We have received numerous questions from people who have been misled by the claims that are being made, namely, that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Advocates of this idea use the Treaty of Tripoli as the foundation of their entire argument, and we believe you deserve to know the truth regarding this often misused document...

The balance at link above

Also Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
- - - - - - - - - - --

The Founders of this Country/Constitution drafters were devout Christians ("adherents" as I said), but being wise, and having fled persecution tried to separate church and state. But have no doubt as to their own faith.