Protocols of the Elders of Mecca: Hints of Anti-Semitic Playbook in Glenn Beck’s Islamophobia

A solemn Glenn Beck pauses between stanzas of "Die Wacht am Rhein."

The Plaintiff

Haroon Moghul. Called, by Robert Spencer, the “Alfred Rosenberg” of Islam; by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a possible “Medina Muslim.”


The Defendant

Glenn Beck.

Author of six New York Times bestselling books, all presumably his. TV personality. Commentator. Entrepreneur.

If you cannot afford an attorney

Haroon: Hi. I’m calling to see if you’ll be carrying Glenn Beck’s new book, It IS About Islam. It’s being released tomorrow.

Strand Bookstore: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. (Embarrassed gasp for air.) Hold please. (Sounds of clicking; customers nearby.) It seems we have a copy.





It IS About Islam: Exposing the Truth About ISIS, Al Qaeda, Iran, and the Caliphate Glenn Beck Threshold Editions (August 18, 2015)

Haroon: Already? The website says it won’t be out until tomorrow.

Strand: It could be a review copy returned to us. Would you like it on hold, so someone else doesn’t—(fails to suppress laughter)—buy it first?

Haroon: Yeah, uh, sure, because it’s for, a, like a friend. Of which I have many.

Strand: We’ll need your friend’s name and credit card.


Allegations include:

That Islam is not, like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism, a “great religion,” but a toxic death cult; that Muslims can only be peaceful “moderates” who work to reform their toxic death cult, or menacing “Islamists” who love their toxic death cult; that this conclusion is grounded in extensive interviews with numerous Muslims and significant travel through Muslim communities (which are actually zero, and none, respectively); that a book making no original contribution to the existing literature should nevertheless be published, because f–k trees; that it’s not unseemly for the world’s most militarily powerful nation to be scared of the world’s most impoverished nations; that an argument that Islam is more violent than anything else can be established by noting only those instances of violence in which Muslims do the killing, because comparative claims do not call for comparative analysis, or even, I don’t know, evidence.


Few people can make universal literacy seem like a dubious achievement, but Glenn Beck has done it. There’s nothing in this book that hasn’t been published before in another volume from the “we don’t hate Muslims, we just hate Islam” section of your local bookstore. I’m not even sure why this qualifies as an original work and not public domain. But here it is.

Beck alleges that all Muslims are either “moderates” or “Islamists.” Moderates are the Muslims he likes, who work to reform a religion that is fundamentally defective.

I asked Rula Jebreal—an author, journalist, award-winning filmmaker and frequent television commentator—to help. She said we are frequently “blind to the diversity and nuances within Islam,” and that those who offer us sweeping generalizations about Islam and Muslims aren’t just wrong, but are doing us a disservice:  they offer “no approach to defeating extremism.”

Jebreal believes these folks are “putting forward their own favorite Muslims as the solution, even when they have no credibility or weight against extremism.” His favorite Muslims are the ones who denounce Islam. Which is Islamism.

Who are the “Islamists” in Beck’s schema? They are Muslims who don’t believe the existence of Islam in the world is a problem that needs to be solved. Most experts—people who believe that, before saying something, you should know something about that topic—define Islamists entirely differently, and don’t confuse them for jihadists. Or Islam.

I turned to Shadi Hamid to help me through this, not only because Hamid is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution Center on Middle East Policy, but because he’s the author of the widely praised study of Islamist movements, Temptations of Power: Islamists and Illiberal Democracy in a New Middle East. Hamid did not mince words: “To conflate Islamists and jihadists seems almost an analytical crime.” As he put it, “Islamists believe that Islam and Islamic law should play a central role in public life, and organize around those goals in the public arena. Jihadists believe the creation of an Islamic state or caliphate is possible only through the waging of war against both Muslim and non-Muslim targets.”

“Islamists,” Hamid went on, believe in “gradualism,” meaning that they work slowly, peacefully and often democratically, towards their desired outcome. The current Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, who are in any real analysis Islamists (not jihadists, as Beck alleges), have shown a “willingness to work within existing state structures, even secular ones.” Hamid explained: “The vast majority of Islamists are not jihadists.” Not only that, but “jihadists, in particular ISIS, consider mainstream Islamists to be unbelievers.”

What Beck has done is like confusing socialists for Stalinists. Sure, some of the goals, the rhetoric and the intentions are similar, but, seriously? The former are willing to work within the system, even if sometimes to significantly transform it, and can therefore be voted for or against, engaged with or debated, while the former is just looking to kill you. And me.

Most Muslims—easily the majority, I’d argue—are neither Islamists nor jihadists. They don’t want the Islamization of the state, or the conquest of territory. American Muslims, specifically, don’t fall into these political categories nearly at all. We’re more likely to be—gasp!—Democrats, or Republicans. Actually, mostly Democrats. (See also: Ben Carson.)

So why do some people keep confusing these very different categories? And assuming American Muslims are all potentially ISIS fighters? “Many of the people and politicians who make sweeping generalizations about Islamists have never actually had a proper conversation with a real-life Islamist. We don’t have to like Islamists, but we do have to understand them.” Hamid concluded: “That requires talking to them.”

I should add that Hamid later asked what motivated our exchange. I mentioned Beck’s book, and he responded: “When I heard he wrote a book about Islam, I was a bit dumbfounded. That’s like me writing a book about Confucianism.” He then dropped the mic.

Leading the witness

Beck isn’t just an Islamophobe. He’s compelling evidence that Islamophobia is, as Gil Anidjar argued in Semites: Race, Religion, Literature, an extension of anti-Jewish bias to new targets (without necessarily abandoning the old ones). How embarrassing then that some Muslim and Jewish communities have become safe harbor for those with some of the worst views of the other.

In 2013, I went to Jerusalem to study with the Shalom Hartman Institute. It was not an interfaith program but an educational program offering American Muslims the chance to experience the same curriculum Hartman has provided to Jewish and Christian leaders. But because of what happened, and continues to happen, to Palestinians—their displacement through a colonial project, and ongoing occupation and dispossession—just my agreeing to participate was extremely difficult.

I returned from the program properly ambivalent. On the one hand, having seen firsthand the deteriorating and harrowing conditions Palestinians are subjected to, and the increasingly pervasive structures of the occupation, I was more convinced than ever that a one-state solution was the only realistic and peaceable option. But I also grew to see how academic and cultural boycotts were not only frequently unhelpful, but actually harmful. Not only because of my positive experiences studying with Israeli academics. But also because of how some Americans (including American Muslims) responded to my going.

Most were respectful, even enthusiastic. Some were respectfully critical. Others were openly astonished. They perceived my willingness to sit down, listen and learn with scholars whose perspectives and political orientation were, admittedly, very dissimilar from mine, as at best cooptation, and at worst a kind of treason. But some of these critics happily and frequently traveled to Muslim-majority countries with odious human rights records, took money from those governments, and not just for foundations or grants but their entire salaries, while objecting to my travel to Israel.

That may not be anti-Semitism. It may just be Muslim chauvinism. Either way it was surprisingly bold in its hypocrisy and problematic as a strategy. Having spent years combatting and challenging anti-Muslim bigotry, I could not now in good conscience sit idle in the face of anti-Semitism. There is a difference between substantive criticism of Islam and bigotry. Likewise, there is a difference between substantive criticism of Judaism and bigotry. Beck has not only erased that border, he couldn’t find it if you built a wall over it, which he then walked into and banged his head against.

Beck claims Islam is uniquely, essentially and perpetually violent. In fact, however, he only demonstrated that some Muslims, and some Islamic causes, are extremely violent. In order to make his argument, he’d have to demonstrate that all other religions, ideologies and cultures are not historically prone to similar kinds of brutality as Islam. But of course he does no such thing, hoping instead that you’re too stupid to notice (or, perhaps, equally stupid?). When it comes to Islam, this kind of disingenuousness is remarkably common. Though I don’t claim it is exclusive to Islam.

When Ben Carson said he doesn’t believe Muslims should be President, he explained that this was because Muslims believe Shariah law must be paramount; Carson confuses all Muslims for some extremist groups. Who said Islamism is Islam (or the plausible interpretation of Islam), and that it isn’t, for example, a very recent, very modern, very problematic interpretation of Islam—one most Muslims likely do not adhere to? It’s not dissimilar to how some anti-Semites, Muslims included among them, confuse the actions of Israel for the mandates of Judaism. They might argue then that all Zionisms are equal—that Peter Beinart is Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira—which is what Beck does to Islam. Conflation, confusion, and collective judgment.

I’m not saying this because I want to be politically correct.

I’m saying this because I want to be correct.

Pleading the fifth

Anti-Semites and Islamophobes sample the worst instances of their other’s actions, mostly without context, and never subject their own tradition to the bad faith with which they approve others’. As such, they’ve not really proved anything: They’ve done a comparative analysis without the comparative part. Real analysis produces nuance, sophistication, shadings, implications, demands to hold others accountable—with demands to hold ourselves accountable.

As I read Beck’s book, all I could think was: This is like early-stage Nazi propaganda. Don’t believe me? I’ve called Beck as a witness against himself, using a find-and-replace exercise. I selected some of Beck’s more odious passages, swapped out only the most critical words—“Muslim world” became “Israel,” and “Islamism” became “Zionism”—and the end result is, well, read for yourself:

  • “There are, however, moderate Jews—and while I know this comes off as being overly politically correct, it’s not an exaggeration to say they are our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends and our family members. They are the reformers who seek to make Judaism compatible with our individual liberties and freedoms and with a twenty-first century society.”

Well, many people probably think and say that about Beck and his supporters, but he hasn’t evolved to a point where he can understand irony.

  • “Zionism cannot coexist with freedom in any meaningful way. Votes may be held, and constitutions may be written, but societies that insist on a truly Jewish foundation for their political authority do not allow for straying from what’s demanded by the Torah and the Talmud.”

All Zionism? Or some kinds of Zionism? Beck never distinguishes Islamisms, either. ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is the same as Tunisia’s Nahda Party, which won a plurality in Tunisia’s first democratic election, governed in a coalition, subsequently lost its plurality in the next election and peacefully stepped aside. In both cases, the majority of Tunisians—overwhelmingly Muslim—voted for other parties, not the Islamists.

Beck would have you think they’re not really Muslim, or too stupid to understand a religion whose primary sacred language they speak and read and write in, and he does not, because he cannot.

  • “We’ve allowed political correctness, fear, and simple ignorance to mask basic truths about Israel. These truths need to be confronted in order to defend ourselves, our families, and our country … We hear lies about Israel nearly every day, in nearly every place, in nearly every manner. They usually originate with elites in the media, in Washington, D.C., and in Hollywood.”

It is rather amazing that only two words in the above passage have been changed. There’s a reason why the Netanyahu administration’s preferred partners in the United States do not have the support of the majority of American Jews. Like American Muslims, they see right-wing racism up close and personal, and run far, far away in the other direction.

  • “There’s no question that evil does exist. But it has a name: Zionism. Saying that Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism is like saying that a particular cut of beef has nothing to do with a cow. They are inexorably linked; one grows inside the other. There are plenty of ways to practice Judaism—and plenty of choices in cuts of steak—but they all come from the same place.”

Are you comfortable with this kind of rhetoric?


  •' maliban says:

    go ahead and read the protocols. but remember, numerous people have gone insane from reading that book.

  •' cmbennett01 says:

    Looking for hints of Nazi sympathies in Glen Beck is like looking for a needle.. in a box of needles.

  •' DeathTrip73 says:

    Glenn who?

  •' Gray Liddell says:

    Is there a historical record one can point to that shows Muslims to be always peaceful and eminently assimilable?

  •' DavidHarley says:

    Or Christians? Or Hindus? Or even Buddhists?

  •' TruthNeedsFreedom says:

    “Islamists believe that Islam and Islamic law should play a central role in public life, and organize around those goals in the public arena. Jihadists believe the creation of an Islamic state or caliphate is possible only through the waging of war against both Muslim and non-Muslim targets.” Thank you Hamid for this definition. You might add that both groups sincerely believe they are devoutly following the prophet in all of his teachings.
    Meanwhile, several million people are in flight leaving the chaos created by Islamists and Jihadists in their homelands. Where are they headed to? The peaceful states of Christian Europe. What is the big cause of this problem? Yes, It is all about Islam.

  •' TruthNeedsFreedom says:

    The goal of Islamists and Jihadists is to establish Sharia Law. If it was truly a system of peace and prosperity, people would throng to embrace it and there would be massive migration towards the lands that have it already instead of the ugly mass refugee flight we see tonight.

  •' Janfrans Zuidema says:

    “When I heard he wrote a book about Islam, I was a bit dumbfounded. That’s like me writing a book about Confucianism.”

    An Islamophobe writing a book about Islam is like a Jew writing a book about Nazism.

  •' TruthNeedsFreedom says:

    I’m not Catholic, but I do want congratulate Pope Francis on his historic message to Congress to day. He got his message right: America is the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. A concept that seems to be quite incompatible with Sharia Law advocated for by Islam.
    On the other side: my heart is sad today for the many innocent Muslims killed or injured today by the stampedes in Mecca and the suicide bombers in Yemen, Nigeria and Baghdad.

  •' nightgaunt says:

    You must live a sheltered life. Very sheltered.

  •' nightgaunt says:

    Judaism-Christianity-Islam are all related very closely. Sharia Law came directly from Leviticus Law. And they both took it from the Jews. So they are all of the same cloth, though the offshoots-Christianity and Islam added their own weaves to it.

    The Crusades, Inquisition and witch finders came from Christianity and was picked up by various fascist groups with the Nazis being the most prominent and memorable. I think the US is one country ripe to become a Holy American Empire any time soon. (I hope it doesn’t, but it should be watched out for.)

  •' nightgaunt says:

    Ethos similarities are there. Very easy to see. One doesn’t have to hunt for them. They just pop up when you read them and cogitate what they mean. Dashing babies’ head against rocks, rape, mass murder, torture it is all there. Like a rule book for barbaric totalitarian organizations.

  •' nightgaunt says:

    That chaos created by outside sources of a Christian nature including the USA, NATO and a few others. So they didn’t just turn that way, they were made.

  •' nightgaunt says:

    Or a Nazi/KKK/Neo-Confederate writing a book about pluralism.

  •' nightgaunt says:

    All depends on who is writing it of course.

  •' Jamil M Chaudri says:

    Let me explain why several million people are in flight. They are fleeing Afghanistan on account of American barbarism: killing of millions and rendering millions refugees. They are fleeing Syria on account of American barbarism: getting their surrogates to kill thousands and render millions refugee. They are fleeing Libya on account of American barbarism: thousands killed by America (and its collation partners) and millions rendered refugees. They are fleeing Aden on account of American barbarism: getting their surrogates and mental correlates to kills hundreds and render hundreds-of-thousands refugees. The list of countries can be extended, but the culpability of America is always: first degree murders or second degree murders.
    Who is the Jihadist then: America the unbridled capitalist and hegemonic warriors.

  •' Jamil M Chaudri says:

    These people are being driven out of their own countries by the actions of America and its collation partners. America has recruited killing-partners (e.g. NATO allies) and stooges (referred to as liberals/intellectuals/etc) from within the countries that the refugees are fleeing. People who are now flee, tried to resist against “America mental occupation (i.e, alien ideologies) ” within their countries, but were driven out! If in the WW2, French resistance was good, then people fighting a alien ideologies are/were onto a noble cause too!
    Are all Americans of the same ideological hew? Specifically, do they all believe in unbridled capitalism? Do they all believe in invading foreign countries, militarily too weak to stand up against American predatory rades? Do all American believe in destroying other nations, because they do not follow American ideology?
    In countries predominantly Muslim, why should a majority not want paramountcy of Islamic Law? Why is that America thinks it has the right to do regime-change in other countries, while other countries are not even allowed to do anything even when America abuses them and their institutions?

  •' Jamil M Chaudri says:

    This is an effort to use a America ideological phrase uttered by the Pope to DISTORT HIS MESSAGE. A FREE PEOPLE do not ENSLAVE others; A people with a HOME do not destroy other peoples homes. Perhaps you believe in FREEDOM to distort the Popes message. Sorry, this is not an American freedom.
    Let me disabuse your notions of Sharia Law: America constitution is ESSENTIALLY IN COMPLIANCE with Sharia Law. Except for bigotry in the hearts of a some misguided Americans, all American would be EQUALLY enjoying freedoms that is the birth-right of all American citizens.

  •' Camera Obscura says:

    Oh, so the Nazis were inspired by the Jews.

    I was going to say that all haters and hate groups come from the same country and all speak the same language and your comment is a totally predictable demonstration of it.

    The Nazis were explicit haters of all things Jewish, including Jesus and his followers named in the Second Testament, they were in the process of trying to destroy the Christian religion in Germany and Europe, they hoped to do that through propagandizing the young through the Hitler Youth which was vehemently and viciously anti-Christian as well as antisemitic.

    Neo-atheism is as openly and clearly all about hate of religion and religious people as can be, as are such cults recognized for what they also are, right-wing hate cults like Beck’s.

    “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”
    Leviticus 19:34. That, alone pretty much destroys your contention that the Nazis were inspired by Leviticus. Not to mention the entire range of verses on how the poor and those unable to work were to be treated, such as 25:35
    “If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you.” Which would destroy the Republican-right-atheist-right version of the gospel of hate you are pushing.

  •' Jim Reed says:

    The danger of that is getting lower. When Bush came to power, almost all the Democrats were afraid of not seeming patriotic enough, and were willing to follow Bush into war of choice against a non-enemy, and even allow the torture. We were united, and the Republican party was dragging us toward the edge of the cliff. Now the nation is deeply divided, and it has become an unbridgeable split. We are going to let the Republicans fall off the edge and we don’t want to be dragged over with them. The Holy American empire will die with the Republican Global empire.

  •' Jamil M Chaudri says:

    I am not too sure as to whether the Nazis were about to destroy Christianity, but for sure, recent developments in America, clearly show that Americans are FULLY EQUIPPED and WILLING to destroy Christianity in America, and replace it with Capitalist Hedonism (long time ago, in South Africa, the Dutch Reformed Church had become known as the MUCH DEFORMED Church; I see shades of that in the current Christian scene in America, although the deformities are of a different type).

  •' Camera Obscura says:

    In the United States a good part of the reform tradition turned into the United Church of Christ, one of the most liberal institutions in the country.

    I think the pseudo-Christian right is more of a political entity based on the successful manipulation of regional and class resentment than anything to do with the Gospel of Jesus or the Mosaic Law.

  •' Jamil M Chaudri says:

    In America we are creating a TOTALLY pseudo civilization. The Rich grow rich at the expense of the poor. Right is wrong; and wrong is right; whether pseudo-Christian or true Christian (or even dyed in the wool Christian), they all claim to be ORIGINAL Christians: However the credo is: Praise the Lord and Pass the Buck!

    America is not a Moral Nation – America is Nation of Law. There is no law prohibiting (what you call) manipulation. Our belief is
    derived from the newest of Gospels: The Gospel of the Dollar, and the Law of Success (which is not derived from Cannon Law). Freedom to manipulate others is the most precious Freedom we enjoy. It is not
    substance, but form we teach in Schools. Look at all the “Teach Yourself” books, most of them teach the reader how to create favourable PERCEPTIONS. To win elections, it is not what/who YOU are, but what the voters want. Manipulation is the life-blood of the American Democracy.

    At the moment the nation most closely adhering to the Law of Moses is Saudi Arabia: an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth ……… . Now, that might even annoy you. I am sorry.

  •' nightgaunt says:

    The German Nazis were certainly a cult in the worship of Hitler as the “new messiah” but most of the German Christian churches joined the Nazis willingly.
    Their hatred of Jews,as in the scape goat, which was long a part of Christian Europe. It was said that if they didn’t have Jews they would have made some to fuel their propaganda mills. Rarely did a Christian country protect the Jews. One such was Poland. Usually Jews found protection in Muslim countries till recently.

    Funny thing is the way Hitler and company acted you would think they wanted to be “the chosen ones” by eliminating the “Chosen People”.

    What are “neo-Atheists” and how do they differ from the older type? Is it the fact that they stand up and talk about the vileness of such religions. The mass slaughter, the totalitarianism, the anti-republicanism, the anti-democratic aspects of them?

    I am a accomodationist. If I can find some. Since Atheists make up so small a percentage of human beings it seems prudent to do it. It would help if such religions would purge their own writings of the most dangerous aspects that fuel the fire of Inquisition and jihad.

  •' Camera Obscura says:

    I’d like some kind of verification that Hitler was seen as a “messiah”, explicitly using that term or anything like the religious term. None of the rest of your comment has anything to do with what I said in response to your ridiculous claims concerning Leviticus. You compound it by using the term “chosen people” as if the Nazis saw themselves as being favored by God when what they thought they were favored by was biological forces under natural selection.

    Your obvious desire to associate Nazis with Jews, Christians and Muslims is dishonest in the extreme.

    Atheism has nothing, whatsoever, in it that identifies anything like the Inquisition, what has come to be called “jihad” or even such violence as that of the Nazis or antisemitism in general as being objectively evil. Atheism is amoral, you have to exit from atheism to even find a moral objection to any of those things, it is hardly a rational frame to use to make that criticism of religion. The crimes of the Inquisition (even in their non-exaggerated reality as opposed to the ahistorical and wild fantasies promoted by atheists) were crimes undertaken against the moral teachings of Jesus and primarily for political purposes. The rational basis from which to condemn them is found in the Gospel of Christianity.

    Neo-atheism is the aggressive form of atheist bigotry that most of the atheist comment on Religion Dispatches are a good example of. I never had any real problem with atheism or atheists until I encountered the neo-atheists, reading their various claims over the past dozen years, checking their claims against primary documentation has led me to the conclusion that atheism and, especially, materialism is not only logically and philosophically incoherent and self-contradicting but, also, really dangerous. I have come to the conclusion that the uniform character of atheism with political control since the late 18th century of bloody, violent dictatorship is no accident but is a result of the amorality of atheism.

  •' SDK says:

    Perhaps if someone had offered the former colonies of Europe a constitutional democracy rather than pro-Western dictators, the West and its ideals would have more cache. When Islamists claim that Islam is the answer to economic crisis, human rights abuses, lack of political freedom and widespread (like, really widespread) corruption, they are doing it against a background of dictators who claim to be “Western”. So we have a very unfortunate marketing problem for our values.

    We know that separation of church and state works because we’ve lived that reality for >300 years. We embraced the idea because we saw what the violent jihad between Catholics and Protestants did to Europe for 300 years. And it works. I stand by it. I think that every country would benefit from it. But all I can do is offer the idea. You can’t enforce democracy or Western values through a corrupt dictator.

  •' SDK says:

    Every Muslim country has minorities — whether Shia / Sunni or religious minorities or simply people who are secular and do not wish to follow a specific religion. Why should the government, which must govern the entire country, support one religion over another? Our constitution protects minorities from the religious control of the majority. This is why a girl in American can wear the hijab freely even though many Americans would prefer otherwise.

    Let’s say for one person is a Pakistani Sunni Muslim. They don’t want Hindus to have equal rights in Pakistan. But they do want Muslims to have equal rights in India. So that person is a hypocrite. That’s just rooting for your team. It is not governance.

    Lots of Americans do not support regime changes. But we do support our Constitution.

  •' SDK says:

    How is it that many people support a one-state solution for Israel / Palestine but never a one state solution for India / Pakistan? If religious-ethnic states are, by definition, illegitimate, fundamentally undemocratic, or at least a bad idea, why is it that Israel is the only religious-ethnic state that falls into the “fatally flawed” category, while every other religious and/or ethnic state evades scrutiny? The partition of India and the establishment of Israel saw the same number of people change sides, the same number of refugees flowing in and out, for exactly the same reasons (fear of living as a minority on the “wrong side”, state actions, and mob violence). Yet no one today calls for a one-state solution to Kashmir.

  •' SDK says:

    Who exactly are the American surrogates in Syria? You lost me there. Yes, Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States, despite the fact that most Americans are not particularly warm to the culture or values of Saudi. How exactly did America cause the civil war in Yemen? Are Muslim countries incapable of rising up against corrupt dictators on their own?

  •' Jamil M Chaudri says:

    Salutations, Madame.
    Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that Islamic Law protests non-Muslims even more than the American constitution. This is why in one of my earlier posts I stated that: “American Constitution is essentially in compliance with Islamic Law”.
    Now, at the practical level, in spite of the lofty goals of the American Constitution (especially the original document, but inclusive of the amendments) the Blacks have BEEN most villainously treated; the Catholics have been discriminated against; Natives of North America were driven away from their land and banished to regions most inhospitable to them; “no Buffalo, no Indian still resonates with some people”; Jews are still discriminated against. the Asians were barred from coming from America – because they worked too; the Muslims are being targeted for “special treatment”. Remember America CREATES new definitions for its acts: when America TOTURES people it is not torture but “STRESS POSITIONS”. Water boarding is NOT torture! The indiscriminate spraying of Chemicals (agent Orange, etc.) destroying Vietnamese countryside for years and years, and killing humans, is also recorded in the annals. These are just a facts. For the moment will these suffice?

    Lastly, every Muslim (Shia or Sunni) (Pakistani or non-Pakistani) is totally committed to honouring the pledge given by the representative of the Prophet at the time of the Liberation of Jerusalem in 637. Moreover, with reference to Islamic Republic of Pakistan, here is what Jinnah said at the creation of the country: “You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the State.”

    For around 180 million citizens of the Islamic Republic, it is indeed a part of their creed and there credo, (being Muslim) that they honour fellow citizens no matter of what faith. A few disillusioned people (either through ignorance or through romance with Western ideology) follow the Western pattern of terrorizing minorities.
    Muslim citizens of USA champion the American constitution because (by and large) it is in compliance with Islamic Law.
    It is an unfortunate fact that some Americans/Westerners equate European Cannon Law with Islamic Law. The two are not equitable. Islamic Law developed out of .desire to honour minorities, and create tranquility, PEACE = ISLAM.

  •' Jamil M Chaudri says:

    How nice of you to raise issues that can readily be responded to.

  •' Jamil M Chaudri says:

    Perhaps you do not know, or perhaps you do not recognize the rights of indigenous peoples.

    When the Brutish occupied India, they grabbed power from its Muslim rulers. Muslims constituted 35% of the population and non Muslims 65%). The British followed a “divide and rule” policy. Having sent the last Mughal ruler to exile in Rangoon (Burma), they started creating antagonism between the Muslim and Hindu communities. By the time, the British packed up their bags to leave, the Muslim (being a minority) sought constitutional safeguards for their communities. The Congress leaders were not willing to provide any protections. So, the Muslim Community decided to seek a country of their own. Here is what Jinnah said:

    “We maintain and hold that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation of a hundred million, and, what is more, we are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of value and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions. In short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life. By all canons of international law we are a nation.”
    Why should India and Pakistan have stayed together? To please the colonialists? To please America? Pakistan should agree to “Anschluss” by India, so that more atrocities can be inflicted on Pakistanis?
    Pakistan and India split on account of the reasons outlined above. It was a split between indigenous people.
    I do not see too many people in Europe or America CRYING over the break-up of the Czechoslovakia

    The case of Palestine is totally different. Here is a European population victimized by European predatory behavour on the basis of religion (Russians, Polish, and German hatred of Jews). Instead of atoning for European sins by creating a Zionist state in Silesian or Pomeranian or Mecklenburg (or even Brandenburg), it suits the European sense of Justice to make the Arabs pay for the sins of the Europeans. It is the European INVASION of Arab Lands that is at the heart of the Palestine Issue. Here is cautionary note: since the European mind is incapable to acting on the basis of fairness, justice , away from self-interest, it is probable that the Palestine situation will get resolved only through military means.

  •' Janfrans Zuidema says:

    Or Wiccans, Satanists and Scientologists…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *