Not Funny: Death Threats Against David Letterman

The SITE Intelligence Group is reporting that David Letterman has been targeted for his comments about Ilyas Kashmiri. While I have some misgivings about SITE's credentials, methodology, and motivations, they are generally not wrong about their internet chatter. While I doubt that David Letterman is in significant danger at this time, the threat should be considered genuine and he should be given protection. As the original poster on the al-Shumukh forums also called on American Muslims to kill David Letterman, I call on American Muslims to NOT kill David Letterman and also openly repudiate such stupidity.

From the article in the NY Daily News,

"I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears, one of the lowlifes of the Jews, and one of their pigs, mocking one of the leaders of the mujahedeen," writes the author, who calls himself Umar al-Basrawi.

The obsessive anti-Semite provides would-be assassins a dated photo of Letterman bearing his trademark gap-toothed grin and wire-rim glasses, describing him as "a sick Jew with defined features."

Anti-Semitism and Islamic fundamentalism are mutually inclusive. The joke of course is that David Letter is not Jewish, but that doesn't matter to a fanatic. Throughout the course of this blog, I feel fairly confident that I will somewhere along the line be accused of being some crypto-Jewish international financier by a Muslim fundamentalist. Accusations of being Jewish probably come in the mail with free samples of Tide in the Muslim world.

"Don Borrelli, former assistant special agent in charge of the FBI-NYPD joint terrorism task force, and senior vice president with security firm the Soufan Group, said the rhetoric is no joke.

"In general, you can not write any of these off as a non-viable threat. These Internet threats have been a rallying cry to 'have the guy's head,'" Borelli said. "If I am the guy targeted in one of those things, I would be taking it seriously and hunker down."

It is imperative threats such as these be taken seriously and the posters be tracked down and prosecuted should they happen to be posting from Western countries. 

Endodontic Relief Is Mine

This past week, I've been struggling with a particularly awful toothache, and between that and moving I really haven't had much time to lavish on the blog. Fortunately, I was able to finally see an endodontist and it was truly worth the wait.

Now, back into the fray...

Human Rights Watch Expresses Outrage in Indonesia

The Ahmadiyya are a minority religion and typically considered to be not Muslim by most Sunni Muslims. They share this distinction with other groups such as the Alevi and as a result are persecuted for it. This particular case has been ongoing with some international interest as it is a test of Indonesia's religious tolerance. In this matter, Indonesia has failed to show that it is a pluralist government and has further shown a blind eye to outright murder. In fact, many very mainstream voices in Indonesia have called for the Ahmadiyya movement to be banned. If Muslims feel that the Ahmadiyya are in error, I implore them to discuss their reasons for this in an open manner with an Ahmadi to bring them into the fold of mainstream Islam. If they refuse, you should respect their freedom to worship and their freedom to adopt new prophets.

To drive home the point of why I feel this way, I would especially like my Indonesian readers (of which I have quite a few!) to view this video of three Ahmadis being stoned and clubbed. They're already dead, mind you, the crowd had previously killed them and also beat/cut/assaulted 21 other men in a house owned by an Ahmadi leader. Please take caution with this video, as it is extremely graphic. It's important for us to accept that while we may not believe as these men do, they received no judgment from a court, they received no mercy, and they were killed not in self defense but in cold blooded murder. The insult to injury is that no one has been charged with murder in this incident, and yet a member of the Ahmadiyya was charged with assault for self defense.

Indonesia Ahmadiyah attack: Outrage over victim jailing from the BBC

"The court jailed Ahmadiyah member Deden Sudjana for six months, a heavier term than many of the attackers received.

Three Ahmadiyah members were bludgeoned to death in an attack by a 1,000-strong mob of hardliners in February. No-one was charged with murder."

For what reason was the mob not found complicit in the murder of these men? Because they were "apostates"? Because their religion is not formally recognized in Indonesia?

"US-based Human Rights Watch said Sudjana's sentence was appalling.

"It seems like the Ahmadiyah face blatant discrimination not just from Islamic militant mobs, but also from an Indonesian court," said the group's Elaine Pearson."

Indeed. Either Indonesia is a pluralist state or it isn't. I understand that very few religions are recognized as valid in Indonesia, but the Indonesian constitution also guarantees freedom of religion. It's one or the other. Either Indonesia recognizes the validity of all faiths in the secular sphere or Indonesia is a country with Islam as the state religion.

I'd like to invite my Indonesian readership to comment on this to give some perspective on why this is happening in Indonesia, and how you feel the government should address the matter. From my wife, I have heard that the Ahmadiyya themselves engage in practices against mainstream Muslims. So far though, I have not seen conclusive evidence of discrimination from them. Please let me know if I, as an outsider, do not have the whole story. 

I've Been Away...

My move to New Orleans has been completed, and I'm back home after 6 years of exile in Texas. On the ride back home, I got to enjoy my first rainfall in 4 months. It's a very different place to be from Texas, and a very different culture to have been brought up in. When I last visited roughly 6 months back, I went to jum'ah twice at two different masajid (mosques) in the city. As much of my readership is native to New Orleans, it might be interesting to get some of their input on the masajid, as well perhaps some advice on where to meet friendly Muslims.

The first, Masjid Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, is a small free standing building that housed well over 500 men when I sat in for the khutbah. It was conducted entirely in Arabic, and I was the only non-Arab or non-South Asian present. The feeling was quite conservative, though that didn't make me feel especially out of place. No one greeted me, though they did return my greetings. The other was the Islamic Center of New Orleans, which is a run down two story building in a bad part of town. Curiously though, it borders the French Quarter. I doubt there are many attendees who go out for cocktails after, but who knows? This was a much more mixed and "American" crowd with a large number of black converts as well as a few other (cab driving) nationalities thrown in. Despite the humble appearance, I felt much more at home here and the khutbah was in a language I have fluency in. People actually greeted me with the salaam here, and helped direct me to the washroom.

In the coming weeks, I may document my experiences at these and perhaps some other masajid in New Orleans. There aren't many here, unlike Houston, and the facilities are nowhere near as well maintained. Still, I'm optimistic I'll find a place I feel comfortable going to on Fridays.

NPR Posts An Expose On David Yerushalmi

Yesterday, I read an article on NPR's site that was essentially a primer or expose on David Yerushalmi, legal counsel extraordinaire to the counter jihad. (Hat tip to Bruce) As my long time (as in two weeks running) readers know, I'm highly critical of the adoption of the shari'a as a legal system anywhere. Of course, the shari'a encompasses far more than just a code of laws, barbaric penalties, and keeping women covered up like ninjas or beekeepers. When I get up and brush my teeth, that's "shari'a". It's simply part of the code or way by which I must conduct myself as a Muslim. Where it gets to be difficult is the fact that many Muslims think that the shari'a should encompass a binding legal system for everyone, everywhere and that the penalties to be given are from the immutable word of God.

As such, I am of two minds when dealing with a figure like David Yerushalmi. I sympathize with a desire to preserve secular values, and I further believe that secular governance is the only fair system of governance anywhere. Even in a country that professes to be 100% Muslim would I oppose the shari'a as the sole legal system or as a competing legal system. First, it's simply impossibly that any country could ever be completely Muslim. What if just one person were to become an apostate? Would that person's head be sawed off in accordance with the shari'a? Undoubtedly. So we must give people the option of leaving Islam if they so choose. If we're so convinced that Islam is the truth, this should be plain for all to see. They should seek to come to Islam by their own free will, not because they have been extorted and otherwise intimidated.

Muhammad (sallahu aleyhi wa sellam) is quoted as saying in Sahih al-Bukhari by 'Ikrima , "Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"


This hadith is narrated in what is one of the most authoritative texts in all of Islam. I reject it, as I reject all forms of barbarism enacted in the name of God in the modern era. Islam is far from alone in its death penalty for apostates, the difference is that only Islam practices that TODAY. Consider the Bible and Moses with regard to his treatment of the apostates who worshiped the golden calf.


And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:) Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to day to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day. Exodus 32:25-29


Or St. Stephen, who was martyred according to the King James Version of the Bible for "blasphemous words against Moses and God" Acts 6:11


Obviously, Jewish law once had a death penalty for apostates. When is the last time this was actually enforced? Quite some time ago. Somewhere between now and then, Jews and their Christian heirs made a decision to stop executing apostates. Such executions were still ongoing among Christians not but a few hundred years ago, so how is it that Christians and Jews have managed to shed this business but Muslims still have those among them who hound for it?


Secularism. That's the sole difference between the two. It is for this reason that I argue that the difference between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism is not their texts... because they aren't different in that respect, but they are different in their modern approach to secularism. It is secularism that has essentially neutered the worst portions of extant religious law for these faiths. There is a problem today with Islam that needs to be addressed by Muslims with a mind to rejection of medieval penalties. 


So that, in a nutshell, represents some of the core problems with the shari'a as a legal code. It will be enforced on Muslims and non-Muslims alike with potentially damaging effects. In this respect, I sympathize with Mr. Yerushalmi's work. However, I feel that focus on Islam as the sole source of religious indoctrination and attempts to subvert secular governance is misguided. Further, there is absolutely no danger of the shari'a being implemented in any fashion that leads to severed limbs, stoning, and other more graphic atrocity in America. It's ludicrous, we represent 1% of the population, even if we wanted to do this how would we manage to do so? With what political clout? Keith Ellison? 


So in the end, it amounts to conspiracy theory. Shari'a as a legal system is an extremely pressing matter in places like Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (where the United States supported a shari'a enshrined constitution!), and other Muslim majority states. America is not today and not even in 100 years in danger of achieving an Islamic majority or even a sizable Muslim MINORITY. It's a bit similar to fears during the French Revolution about "Jewish France". Conspiracy theory concerning an Islamic global take over is hardly different from very old anti-Semitism. 


I'll close with a video I watched some time ago featuring Mr. Yerushalmi discussing the differences between halacha and shari'a. It's interesting to see, because there's certainly a strong comparison between the two. He makes an excellent point that Jews are not interested in enforcing halacha on gentiles, and that's a key difference. Is it as big of an issue as he's trying to make it? 

Whole Foods: Ramadan Kerfuffle?

The past day, there has been flurry of commentary about some rather old news concerning a planned (or not planned?) Ramadan promotion by Whole Foods, purveyors of toothpaste that doesn't fight cavities and other paycheck absorbing goods. The problem supposedly began some two years ago, when Debbie Schlussel blogged about imaginary links to terrorism through Whole Foods' halal supplier, Saffron Roads. It may be possible that Ms. Schlussel believes that any Islamic company is suspect a priori. I'm not Debbie Schlussel, so I can't answer for her. What I can say is the obvious: this was a business decision on the part of Whole Foods and not some grand Islamic conspiracy to alter the way vegans eat.

Criticism of Muslim dietary habits is not uncommon in the counter jihad domain of the blogosphere. Robert Spencer has criticized attempts by businesses to cater to Muslim customers with halal here, here, here, and here. He's not alone, of course, stories like this are often picked up as an example of the changing demography found in the West laden with fears about no longer being able to purchase pork at your favorite eatery. Fair enough. I suppose from reading these blogs one might imagine that this is new ground, never before trodden by the West. However, the existence of chain restaurants that serve foods with supervision for religious dietary concerns is nothing new at all.

Consider the existence of numerous kosher Dunkin Donuts outlets. These are largely private franchises who have made a smart business decision to appeal to Jewish customers. However, Dunkin' Donuts held a double standard for a Muslim franchisee who didn't want to carry pork products. Huh? I just don't get it. Incidentally, that Muslim lost his suit with Dunkin' Donuts.

Consider also the fact that a large amount of products on U.S. shelves are certified kosher. According to one source I found, it's as high as 50%, though more reliable sources from kosher supervision providers themselves offered figures of closer to 25 to 33%. This is completely a nonissue. The sky has not fallen because the average person pays .00001 cents a year more due to the costs of kosher supervision. As a Muslim, I'm HAPPY that such supervision exists because it helps me to make food choices. While I would certainly like to have halal supervision for foods as well, that's something that Muslims will have to convince businesses is every bit as smart a business decision as kosher certification. Of course, these facts and considerations are moot to the other spectrum of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists.

Muslims really do exist as a minority population in the West and we have dietary considerations that we're willing to support with our paychecks. If that's an issue for some people, I really cannot fathom it. A stance against Muslims adopting free enterprise while clamoring for our assimilation is nonsense.

Aceh Police Arrest Three For Eating During Fasting Hours

Occasionally, I will report on matters from Aceh since my wife is from that region of Indonesia. Aceh is a regional hotbed for the implementation of the shari'a in Indonesia, and it's important to discuss and document how such implementation is going in addition to analyzing the reasons behind it and the larger Aceh independence movement. In this particular case, the details are rather scant.

There are many reasons why one might break a fast including your health and menstrual cycles. Regardless of the "legality" of this for Muslims, enforcement of such law in a secular society by police is absolutely horrid. If someone doesn't want to fast, Allah (subhana wa t'ala) knows his intention. Believers should certainly ENCOURAGE fasting, they should make it easy on those who are failing to do so. Invite them over for iftar, talk to them, reason with them... don't frickin' lash them.