If anything, the timing was quite interesting (and suspicious). Just as it seemed nothing could stop Barack Obama from capturing the Democratic nomination for President, grainy videos of Rev. Jeremiah Wright - Obama's former pastor, spiritual guide, and mentor - were released showing him condemning America and spewing incendiary, offensive rhetoric from the pulpit.

"The government gives them drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America'," said the Rev. Wright in a 2003 sermon. He then continued, "No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people." On September 16, 2001 - the Sunday after 9/11 - the Reverend said, "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye." He also said, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Immediately, the Obama campaign scrambled to distance the Senator from the comments of his old pastor, and it led the Senator to deliver a landmark speech about race in America, in which he repudiated the comments of Rev. Wright, but not the man. Despite the relative success of the speech, the Rev. Wright's comments have clearly damaged the Obama campaign, and it remains to be seen what effect, if any, the Reverend's comments will have on Obama should he be the Democratic nominee.

Yet, there is one thing that is undeniable in this entire controversy. No Muslim leader in America - in his or her right mind, that is - could ever say, "God damn America, that's in the Qur'an for killing innocent people." No Muslim in his or her right mind could make the statement that Hurricane Katrina is "God's judgment" for the sin in New Orleans, as conservative pastor John Hagee said to NPR's Terry Gross. Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal's $10 million donation to New York after 9/11 was rejected by then Mayor Giuliani when Al-Waleed suggested the attacks were an indication that the United States "should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause," a sentiment similar to that of Rev. Wright.

Why is this? Why the double standard? First of all, I do not bring this up to suggest that there is nothing the matter with Muslims saying "God damn America," and calling Hurricane Katrina "God's punishment." I bring this up, rather, to highlight a sad, yet important truth. Muslims are still considered "foreign," outside of the American mainstream, and the antithesis of what it means to be American.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whatever one may think of his comments, is accepted as genuinely American in the minds of all. By virtue of his experiences, his ancestry, and the history of his people, Rev. Jeremiah Wright is as authentically American as George Washington. Thus, although many people would cringe and reel from his comments and angry tirades against America, no one would even fathom of calling for the surveillance of his church for seditious activity. No one would call for the deportation of Rev. Wright to Africa. No one would accuse Rev. Wright as materially supporting the enemies of America. At least not in the America of the 21st Century (I hope).

Muslims, however, are not considered as "genuinely American," even though Islam has been part of the fabric of America since before its very founding. Islam is still considered a foreign transplant, an alien faith coming out of an alien tradition. Very few non-Muslim Americans see Islam as coming directly out of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Most Americans would probably reject the notion that Islam is the culmination of Judeo-Christian sacred history. This is largely due to a fundamental ignorance about the tenets and basics of Islam on the part of the overwhelming majority of people in America. The incessant bad press and the wilful distortion of Islam by a small, yet vocal minority of Americans does not help matters, either.

As a result, any anti-American statement would immediately be considered tantamount to sedition. Had an "Imam Muhammad" in some suburban mosque been filmed saying "God damn America, that's in the Qur'an for killing innocent people," there would be an enormous outcry. American Muslims (including this one) would roundly "condemn," "reject," and "repudiate" his comments as fundamentally un-American and un-Islamic. The Imam could very well be arrested and charged with "material support for terrorism." His mosque would be scrutinized for any "links" to Al Qaeda, or other foreign terrorist organizations, and the mosque itself would probably be vandalized, if not burned to the ground. Further, his comments would be used as proof by anti-Islam forces in America that Muslims are a fifth-column, seeking to destroy America and are not to be trusted. Most people can stomach criticism from one of their own, however disliked he may be; but criticism from an outsider is utterly intolerable.

Herein lies one among many of the challenges the American Muslim community faces, namely to increase its engagement in the greater American society. For too long, American Muslims were isolated from the larger society, and it has done both Muslims and their non-Muslim neighbors a disservice. The less isolated American Muslims are in society, the more they come to be seen as part and parcel of the American fabric. When fellow Americans see their Muslim neighbors engaged in local politics, neighborhood watch committees, PTA meetings, and the like, they will come to realize that Muslims are as American as they are, except they follow a different faith tradition (that is really not that different at all).

The end result of an engaged American Muslim community is not the safety to spew angry rhetoric from mosque pulpits. Such speech is useless and counterproductive, serving to only further isolate the American Muslim community. Rather, an engaged Muslim community can then join hands with their non-Muslim neighbors and come together as one people, living in one nation, working as one body to help promote economic security, social justice, civil rights, and civil liberties for all, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. America can only become a better nation because of it, and I have the audacity to hope that such a vision can one day become reality.

I don't recall such immense outrage when Pat Robertson called for Hugo Chavez's assassination, or any of the other outrageous statements by America's war mongering hate preachers. Is it anti-American to speak the truth now? Pastor Wright is a brave and principled man in a sea of hypocrites and liars.

In the speech Barack Obama made to address Rev. Wright's controversial remarks, he asks Americans not to judge Rev. Wright by the snippets of film that have repeatedly been shown in the media, but at the same time Obama makes negative commentary about the Palestinians that are based on the biased snippets of film shown in the media.

Barack Obama may have done a good job in addressing the race issue, but he could have done a better job discussing 9/11 and U.S. foreign policy.

The book Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire was written by a white guy (Chalmers Johnson)

There is also David Ray Griffin, a white Christian professor of religion. He has written the books: The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie and Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

I certainly disagree with the words the Rev. Wright used to express his ideas, but his beliefs regarding 9/11 and U.S. foreign policy are not unique to the black community.

Martin Luther King Jr. did a better job than Rev. Wright in condemning U.S. foreign policy in his speech “Beyond Vietnam — A Time to Break the Silence.”

I think there's a clue in the words actually used - the preacher said WE bombed Hiroshima. Would/could a Muslim say the same? I doubt it.

More bluntly, given that Islam wants to rule the world and fundamentally change the constitution of every country, it isn't surprising that Muslim leaders damning America would be about as welcome as Communist leaders doing so in the 1950s.

Who is this "Islam" you're talking about? Are over one billion people in this world now one entity that can make proclamations? Can you point to any Muslim in this country (who is not a fringe crank) that says what you claim?

As a born and bred American, I can say "we" every bit as much as you can. So can the 50% of Muslim Americans who were born here.

Woll,

Why do you leave out the fact that the United Stats had recruited, funded, and trained Muslim extremists to fight its proxy war against the Russians? The defeat of the Russians facilitated the collapse of the Soviet Union; this resulted in the United States becoming the number one super power in the world. In the meanwhile, millions of Afghans had been killed, Afghanistan's infrastructure had been destroyed and the United states did nothing to help in reconstructing the country.

RAWA [Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women] has pointed out that there were several democratic-minded groups the U.S. and other countries could have supported if they had wanted to drive out the Communists and help restore independence to Afghanistan. Why did these countries instead back the fundamentalist Mujaheddin? RAWA member Sajeda told Said lt magazine in August that pro-democracy groups would have refused to act as "puppets" for other countries, and would have made it difficult for those countries to "maintain their economic and political interests in Afghanistan."
from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Women/RevolAfghanWomen.html

Shahed, I admit I know more about British Muslims than American Muslims, but isn't it an article of faith for Muslims everywhere that Islam must rule the world? Whether individual Muslims treat this this is as merely a pious hope or as a real-world task specifically for them does differ, I agree - but in an ideal Islamic world there would be no US Constitution, would there?

RandallJones - I'm not at all defending the foreign policy record of the US. I'm giving a possible explanation for the phenomenon that a Christian American can "get away with" saying things that a Muslim (or Communist, for that matter) American might not.

It is the Americans and their junior partners who are trying to take over the world, Woll. If the Muslims wanted to take over the world as your conspiracy theory goes, you would have been invaded and enslaved long ago. American terrorism and global hegemony is the biggest threat to world peace.
You lot project your own criminality on others, and play victim. Its beyond dishonest.

Dear Woll,

"...but isn't it an article of faith for Muslims everywhere that Islam must rule the world?"

No it is not - articles of faith only inlcude such things as affirming the uniqueness of God and the 5 pillars, etc. The rest of the doctrines are specific articulations of the above and have arisen due to socio-political contexts over time and therefore are contingent on material conditions.

Yes, the Quran emphasizes that Islam is the only religion that God accepts in terms of salvation, just like in any other religion. However, this emphasis has not led the orthodox "center" of Islam, namely, Islamic Law to call for forced conversions and wholesale replacement of the law of non-muslim lands. Premodern Islam accepted the laws of other religious communities to regulate themselves. Having said this 1400 hundred years of human history is not without its blemishes.

Socio-political manifestations of the call for the political dominance of Islam are currently present, however, it is only fair that judgment be reserved until the debate (that does exist) on these positions resolves it-self.

As for Islam changing the constitution of every country - trust me, it can't. Islamic thought has almost never produced a workable theory of governance. Even if Islamist parties come into power anywhere and apply their half-baked theories in governance they will eventually have to resort to western constitutional theory and law.

Cheers

Asifsheikh, are you saying that the only means of governance comes from following a western model? That sounds like a recipe for disaster as westernized elites have brought nothing but misery in third world nations. People can find their own way without constant foreign interference and forced globalization.
According to the history books of the Muslim Prophet, the first Constitution in the world was the Charter of Medina. Muslims are not like Westerners, crazy for power, whose motive is to dominate everybody else and who are very bad losers! Islam is not about power. The West just CANNOT get that. It hurts to admit it - because of its blindness to its own manic obsession with power. I liked the explanation given by the Edward Gibbon in the 18th Century for the unstoppable spread of Islam - its "moral authority".

BTWFMBGNOI:

Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. Certainly, in the modern context one cannot help but fall back onto western political models because Modern Islamic political theory still has ways to go.

If we look at pre-modern Islam, Imperial Islam (i.e. the power of emporors, sultans and the rest) certainly does not exemplify a lack of desire for power.

But the "Chickens coming home to roost" comment was initially made by a Muslim, namely Malcolm X.

AsifSheikh,
Thats simply untrue. Western political models are based on western culture and Eurocentric views of the world. From what I have seen these models are prevalent all over the third world, and have failed miserably because you can't impose an alien set of values through direct imperial control or westernized elites(who despise their own people by internalizing the attitudes of their masters). The claim that the "West is the best" is the simplistic and colonialized mindset of the mentally neutered. I'm from a South American nation , and have no desire to see what happened in our neck of the woods by Uncle Sam used on other peoples.
I don't know where you get to demarcate modernity in Islam. Unfortunately, the ruin of the Muslim realm was compassed through the agency of the very people whom the Muslims had tolerated and protected through the centuries when Western Europe thought it a religious duty to exterminate or forcibly convert all peoples of another faith than theirs. However, let no Muslim seeing this imagine that toleration is a weakness in Islam. It is the greatest strength of Islam because it is the attitude of truth. Muslims and other non-westerners don't need or want pre-fabricated western "solutions," let people live and find their own solution without constant foreign interference.

BTWFMBGNOI:

What's not true? That pre-modern muslims were not hungry for power or that "in the modern context one cannot help but fall back onto western political models because Modern Islamic political theory still has ways to go".

I think we're talking about different issues here. My original point was that Islamic thought consciously did not produce a practical & well thought out theory of governance, unlike modern Europe & America. And so muslims, no matter what, eventually will have no choice but to fall back on western political theory...until such time as we produce something workable from our own tradition. This is the reason why Maududi coined the term "theo-democracy".

That we have western governments and elites manipulating third world populations is a separate issue. And yes, I agree, "let people live and find their own solution without constant foreign interference."

Well. Can we really call an Islamic Political Model to be a successful model??? I'm afraid the early evidence is not exactly heart-warming. The Qur'an and Hadith do not seem to leave a lot of information behind on something as important as running a state. The impetus seems to me to be more "tableeghi jamat" in style, establish salat and zakat and work on personal spiritual development and everything else will take care of itself.

This impetus resulted in some horrible scenarios very early in the Islamic Republic, certainly during the "classical" period of Islamic polity if one is to consider even the mere first 100 years as classical. For example:

- Head of State gets murdered (Uthman)!
- Murderers are not brought to justice!!!
- Infighthing between the Prophet's own family members
results in Civil War!!!!
- Companions promised paradise die in the ensuing conflict!
- Next Head of State is stabbed also (Ali)!
- Later, Prophet's own grandson is murdered in cold blood.
- Caliphate quickly morphs into a Kingship.
- Then there is a revolt against the Caliphate-Kingship, and
Abu Bakr's own grandson is killed in full public. In Mecca,
no less.
- 50 years have barely passed and a person of exceptionaly low
moral character (Yezid) is elected Caliph!!

I could go on and on, but I think the above will do. Fraud and Fornication are one thing, but civil wars and lack of ability to settle matters of state without resorting to killing en masse do not seem to me to suggest a workable system of politics.

Almost seems to me the Sahaba were reluctant recruits in running matters of state. They probably be rather praying all nite and fasting then running around dealing with all the political crap. Some people argue, the Islamic State just grew and became so big so quick per chance. Sort of like the Taliban. These things happen often in history, when large swaths of land come under the control of a bunch of monks and fakirs due to a vaccum of corruption and administrative negligence among neighbouring states.

the author asks, "Why is this? Why the double standard?"

this is a disproportionate equation-
african americans have incidences for several hundred years of overt oppression and persecution to recount-
our system imprisons more people than any other country on the planet-
overwhelmingly african american men-
the injustices over time are huge-

so their complaints and angers are more than justified-

if we weight the actions against african americans against muslims in america-
the scales fall over with the heaviness towards the african americans-

but this is a fox news version of the speech by reverend wright-
the entire speeches contain exhortations to follow the path of peace with god-

that violence begets violence-

here is the speech that most have seen the 10 second soundbites from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

that was something of an icomplete thought-

my point is that muslims in america don't have the same personal history- or reason to say similar thing.

we're speaking of muslims in america- not experiences in other countries.

not that there hasnt been any prejudices or injustices against muslims in america- there has- but one greatly outweighs the other-

Allah is all powerful ... yes?
Cannot Allah destroy the infidels Himself?

Is the call for the good to destroy the infidels logical or a HUMAN manipulation?

just a literary note-

brian- infidel comes form the latin infidelis- and means unfaithful-

it was a term used by the crusaders to describe all non-christians, (muslims and jews in jerusalem)

it is counterintuitive to ask if ALLAH cannot destroy muslims.

AsifSheik,
You still haven't told up what the "pre-modern Muslim" is, I think the term is absurd and the product of ignorance. I've pointed out your inaccuracies and assumptions in my previous post. The works of Islamic thinkers and scientists are what gave the Europeans their Renaissance. Maududi was just one post-colonial thinker, and has the right voice his discontent psuedo-democracies westernized elites bring. The only reason the West has dominated the last 500 years is through the use of firepower and organized violence and terror, not "advanced" political models of governance.
The myth of the White world as a superior model for other, darker nations should have been shattered long ago. A cursory look at the cultural and political history and behavior of the West should be enough to yank aside the curtain hiding the old, white fraud who's been working the levers of the scary magical electronic machinery in Oz.

The white west has been terrorizing Muslims for 500 years?
Please elaborate....