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.

We only need to look at the history of the exapnsion of the Englsih Empire Brian.

I hope we can look FORWARD to putting the past in the past and concentrate on harmonizing differences now, while living as individuals; that is what I do daily.

We all pray in harmony to the same God; we all are charged with one individual soul which is our ultimate responsibility! Watch out for self and help guide the ones you love.

By the way,,,, England is now highly populated with happy Muslims.

BTWFMBGNOI:

I'm not a historian such that I can give a definition of a pre-modern muslim, which by the way, as I use it, is a descriptive term and not a judgmental term.

But if I have to, I would say that pre-modern Islam, politically speaking, is the era of Imperial Islam from the period of the end of the period of the rightly guided caliphs to the end of the Mughal and Ottoman empires.

From the standpoint of intellectual tradition, pre-modern Islam is that era and form of Islamic thought which was based on neo-Aristotelian thought (which has been the case for most of Islam's history), i.e. before the impact of Descartes, Kant, etc. appearing in the thought of muslim modernists / liberals and to some extent, the Islamists.

At the risk of repeating my-self again, pre-modern Islam was not able to provide a good wholesome, practical theory of governance until it came into contact with the "white" West. Again, this was because the ulama of orthodox Islam largely concerned themselves with the affairs and spiritualities of the masses rather than on politics. My point on Maududi was to provide an example of an Islamist who had to, in large part, fall back on western models of governance and as most Islamists do, had to reclaim the concept of "shura" as being akin to democracy, or rather, to "theo-democracy". To the extent that Islamists depend upon the impractical guidance offered by pre-modern ulama on governance, their models do not work. They must rely on western models which work and are suited for modern times. Here, I do not mean to imply that western models and institutions are the best, even though I do admire American democracy, I am merely stating a fact.

If as you say, based on your unique South American experience, models of governance in South America are better than western models, then I say that South American Islam has much to offer the rest of the ummah.

Finally...repeating my-self again...I do not disagree that western nations have manipulated other nations and their people - but Imperial Islam and pre-modern Islamic thought was no different and not without its blemishes. Certainly, Imperial Islam was disastrous for Prophetic Islam, exemplified by the religiosity of the Prophet Muhammad and other prophets. I also think the notion that Muslims in effect caused the Europeans to produce their renaissance is very apologetic on the part of muslims and has to be reexamined more deeply.

Finally, finally, for a good characterization on the difference that pre-modern Islam (Aristotelian tradition) and "modern" Islam (Kantian) has on its adherents, you should go through the first chapter and introduction of a book by Prof. Saba Mahmood called "The Politics of Piety" which is an absolutely beautiful book examining the religiosity of a women's mosque movement in Egypt.

Cheers

>> They must rely on western models which work and are suited for modern times. Here, I do not mean to imply that western models and institutions are the best, even though I do admire American democracy, I am merely stating a fact. <<

I would be very interested to know how much of a role DEBT has to play within the modern Western political models. I was under the impression, that the wars in Europe during the renaissance were mostly financed by taking on debts from rich European Jewish financiers of the time. Paper currency and Government bonds and Central banking are possibly the backbones of modern Western political systems. They allow undemocratic government projects that if were to be financed by taxation, would possibly result in much more popular unrest.

Not sure what is so admirable about American democracy! I find the idea that 300 million people get to elect a President based entirely on media coverage of the person to be most absurd and undemocratic. How can millions of people who have never lived in the same city, forget the same community, as this person make a sound judgement about his/her character and capability? Based on capitalistic media outlets? Talk about conflict of interest. Atleast electing the President part of American democracy is a complete joke. I dono about the rest of it.

What's coming up constantly in discussions is that Muslims view the West with some form of blinkers on and Westerners see the Muslim world as monlith too. Forgive the generalisation but I think my point is valid. Thats why someone like Brian can still tout "infidel" ideology and some sort of "forget the past, focus on your screwed up present" form of discussion.

We see westerners as mostly being a single destructive monolith of Christo-Judeo religious fanaticism, coupled with Western Rational power politics and almost pagan attitudes to ethics and Morality. Similarly, we are being seen as political Islamists with Fascist political agendas and internally governed by repressive "spititualist" moral codes. The truth in a world of 6billion people with power centers spread aross many groups of people is obviously far from this view.

>> They must rely on western models which work and are suited for modern times. Here, I do not mean to imply that western models and institutions are the best, even though I do admire American democracy, I am merely stating a fact. <<

Dude LOL :-D thats funny. They are suited to the times because these institutions dictate the terms of these times. Thats blatantly obvious.

>> From the standpoint of intellectual tradition, pre-modern Islam is that era and form of Islamic thought which was based on neo-Aristotelian thought (which has been the case for most of Islam's history), i.e. before the impact of Descartes, Kant, etc. appearing in the thought of muslim modernists / liberals and to some extent, the Islamists. <<

I have to agree. Most conservative Muslims aren't even aware that their Islamic moralisms are actually stimulated by western philosophy in many ways. That's why people say silly things like Islam supports ethically governed capitalism, without even realising that they've adopted this premise from westerners and haven't actually understood the internal dynamic present at the time of the Prophet (SAW).

Ghulam:

Point well taken.

"They are suited to the times because these institutions dictate the terms of these times. Thats blatantly obvious."

The myth of the White world as a superior model for other, darker nations should have been shattered long ago.

So you agree that Islam would want to replace the US Constitution, and that therefore there's nothing very strange about the idea that a Muslim would be less welcome by non-Muslim Americans if s/he was to "damn" the US?

I think this isn't just a Muslim, non-Muslim issue. There is religion, race, citizenship and class. For example, in Sherman Jackson's Third REsurrection he talks about how the U.S. Constitution provides enough freedom for Muslims to basically practice their religion.

Also, an African-American like Jeremiah Wright or Malcolm X, who comes with the baggage of hundreds of years of slavery, Jim Crow and segregation saying "damn America" is somewhat different from say, a Pakistani doctor who "just" arrived in the US, is pretty well off, and might leave the US further down the road saying "damn America" or criticizing democracy even as an ideal.

Thank you, AsifSheikh. I still disagree with your methodology but appreciate your time in responding with expansion of your views. My point is western values are not universal, nor will they ever be.

Brian, Europeans have been terrorizing the Muslim and non-Muslim word for 500 plus years, yes. Read some history books. Claiming that Britain is full of happy Muslims is a white wash of the reality of Britian today.

>So you agree that Islam would want to replace the US Constitution, and that therefore there's nothing very strange about the idea that a Muslim would be less welcome by non-Muslim Americans if s/he was to "damn" the US?<

No I don't "agree" with your straw man argument at all, Woll. That's your twisted interpretation of what I posted. According to your own C-grade President, the US Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper." I would think a defender of the US constitution like you would be more outraged at how its been rubbished over the last several by your own leaders, then by the anti-Muslim conspiracy theories Americans are so fond off. The fact of the matter is Anti-American is logical response to decades of American terrorism all over the world. You don't have to be a Muslim to say "God DAMN America," the brave Reverend Wright is living proof of that.

Well, since my last posting wasn't posted, I can only assume it seems that some people here are afraid of the N-WORD even when used by an African American. In this posting, the actual N-WORD will be substituted with, N-WORD. You need to listen to the whole sermon rather than these 30 second clips to understand why he said it. You are all looking at this from a different angle than most African Americans. For the caucasion American Patriotism has a different meaning than it does for a black person here in America. You too might say God damn America, I know I have. My parents still talk about a time when a man was murdered for being accused of simpley looking a white womans underware hanging on a clothes line. Another hung for accidently touching a white womans hand when giving her money for a soda. Another black man was murdered for supporting the idea of civil rights and working for the NAACP. So yes, the words God dam America come to mind when you wonder what could these people have contributed to the world if they had lived? Why did the American Government allow these crimes to happen to innocent people? What cousins and family would I have had if they had not been murdered and what would we have been able to achieve? The promise of the American dream is limited to only a few people and denied to many. This idea of absolute freedom and liberty seems like a scam to people who are taking a beating from systematic racism. The reverend came up doing a time when the Goverenment sponsored the Tuskegee experiment on syphilis and used black people as guiney pigs without their knowledge and when Emmit Till was murdered. He also was a US Marine that went to war to defend freedom in another country and when he came back he wasn't allowed to expierence the freedom he was defending. He faced racism, being called a N-WORD, and being denied the right to basic respect after fighting for his country. Think about it, if you were in his shoes what would you say?

SCRAY1,

The Rev. Wright should have mentioned all of the things you have mentioned instead of using the language he did.

This remind me of when the singer Sinead O'Conner had tore up a picture of the Pope when she was on the television program "Saturday Night Live." There was a lot outrage over that.

If you want people to listen to what you are saying, you have to explain things clearly and logically, not shock them with insults and nasty actions. Don't assume that people know about the same things you do; you need to educate people, but not in a condescending manner.

As I mentioned in a previous comment, Martin Luther King does a better job in condemning US policy in his speech "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence" I'll quote part of it here:

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

King says "...the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government," but then he goes on to explain things clearly and logically the reasons he is saying this.

People who criticize Martin Luther King holiday will bring up his infidelities but you never hear them bring up this speech because he does a very good job listing the United States crimes and does not resort to name calling.

Of course making a good case for your views doesn't stop people from hating you, but at least your speaking the truth.

>> So you agree that Islam would want to replace the US Constitution, and that therefore there's nothing very strange about the idea that a Muslim would be less welcome by non-Muslim Americans if s/he was to "damn" the US?

Islam doesn't want to do anything. Muslims do want to live in peace and promote justice in their societies. Where do people like you come from? Its like half of the time we have to convince you that we are human beings. *Insert Shylock type monologue here*

>> The promise of the American dream is limited to only a few people and denied to many.

Listened to the speech and it was great. But this promise has become foreign policy. I find sometimes that people who share lots of common ground end up arguing a lot more over a lot less.

Ahh. The beauty of censorship in the Muslim Comunity. Randall I hate to say it like this, but the audience he was speaking to knows these things and knows where he's coming from. He doesn't have to mention "ALL THOSE THINGS" because the average black person already knows it. The problem is that not every non black person knows about these things. These things aren't taught in schools and receive no exposure in the white community. The average non black person in America has no connection to the incidents I mentioned and if you ask them about them they either have never heard of them or have no one to tell them. These things are passed down from generation to generation in the black community. And although you did mention Martin Luther King, there's a lot more to black history than this one man. That, by the way; was an interesting book but if you look around current America his principles no longer work for modern African Americans. MLK wouldn't last 5 minutes with the average ghetto drug dealing thug of today. Across America every evening at 6PM you get the chance to see these people on the evening news in every city. At least twice a week you see black on black crime for petty reasons. I have to admit, as a black person I'm ashamed to see what the black community has become today when compared to the unity that it once had in the 60's.
If you notice, in almost every history book you only see the major events, you hear about the peace marches and for the most part even that is left out of these books. Now here is where things get interesting, to find out the real truth you have to ask old people, the people that would be old enough to remember being called boy when they were adults, the N word and experienced the real America first hand to explain to you what it's like. They're not hard to find, look them up. But remember this; you have to want to know the truth. For the most part the people that are complaining about Rev Wright either don't want to know the truth or are scared of it. Much like in the days of Nat Turner (a man that tried to start a slave revolt) most white folks don't want to want to know about the negatives. Look at the Native American reservations, the majority white run government here would like to keep them on the reservations despite the problems of drug and alcohol addiction, suicide, poverty and unemployment they are facing. Out of sight, out of mind. The perfect recipe for plausible deniability and a guilt free conscious. You can also compare this with the plight of the Palestinians. Try telling the average Christian white person that Israel is wrong for stealing Palestinian land and see what kind of reply you get.

The BIG, BIG difference between Rev.Wright saying something against America and 'Imam Mehmood' saying the same thing: None of Rev. Wright's flock went out and bombed anything. Imam Mehmood's flock cannot be trusted to be as non-violent.

Before you 'Google scholars' dig up examples of Black panthers and such, remember, Ilive in the present and I am talking of today. Not 40 years ago, not 1400 years ago or not even 500 years ago.

Weisskopf,

Funny that you mention the present. I am no supporter of Iran's theocracy or Ahamadenajad. But, remind us again who has started the premptive war in Iraq and still occupying that country? Tell us which of the recent wars was started by Iran (proxy wars don't count unless you want to include all the proxy wars US has waged in the last 50 years)?

So, by your standard, current US president is less trustworthy than Iran's president. Then you have neoconns and McCain advocating bombing Iran. Sad, sad, sad.

Who said anything about the US president or the Neocons or the Proxy wars....by the way you are right on all those counts.

The point I made was that a Muslim imam cannot say what Wright said and get away, because the Muslims who speak of violence in the world today are people who actually practice violence; where as fiery black priests do it for no more than to collect more money for their parish.

I see altmuslim has once again lowered its standards by allowing typical judeofascists to spew their bile here. Weissputz, you sound like a standard JTF looney. Violence, one need look no further then Israel, the IDF, the shaggy men of its clergy with apologists the world over to see supporters and practitioners of violence and terrorism.

From the sound of it, the totally 'non-violent' DrM is trying out his brand-new suicide-bomb-vest and is ready to blow himself up; and start enjoying life - the 'real' life of 'pious' muslims, that is!

Was that a comeback, Shlomo? Seems to me that violent jewish terrorists(a bottleneck population of East European Khazars) born in Brooklyn and Kiev living 5000 years in the past want to live and occupy in Palestine, at US tax payers(thats shabbos goyim) expense of course. That and the peaceful jewish life of murdering innocent men, woman and children. Thats the Blight of Nations for you. Just don't go spending that US welfare check on the same illegal settlement.