Universities, long esteemed institutions for the free exchange of ideas, seem to be on the endangered species list thanks to a growing number of radical Muslim student associations. While thousands of students run the gauntlet to be accepted to some of Southern California’s top schools, the irony of it is that once there they seek to inhibit the inherent call for tolerance and free speech that develops the so-called ‘educated mind’.
Unfortunately for an increasing list of So Cal colleges, Muslims students, marginal MSA agendas, and future Islamists in the making, are serving as impediments to education rather than assets to their university and community group.
I initially experienced this first hand during open-air assaults and marches pitting UCI’s 2001-2002 Muslim Student Association against a larger student body through campus wide protests against – what else, Israel. Clearly the situation escalated beyond UCI as newer generations not only held campus-wide protest and lunch-time brawls, but starting inviting speakers who outside groups found to be controversial.
While there’s the question of what duty a university has in all this, the majority of Muslim students continued exercising their First Amendment right to congregate and speak freely. More recent developments show this basic right to assemble, clearly exercised with the MSA, is found offensive by Muslims if a group or individual speaks unfavorably of Islam or Muslims in any context. Sound familiar. It should.
This is the classic case of “do as I say not as I do” that’s been surfacing nationwide and beyond. Dozens of cases continue to surmount where Muslims protest against any act of speech found as subjectively offensive. Muslim measures to constrict non-Muslim free speech are evident in the rise of Islamist activity taken by Muslim interest groups; note the lack of any real internal opposition here.
These violations of free speech, the failed logic of free-speech-inspired protests to limit free speech, are surfacing with alarming frequency within university walls - and with little to no proactive efforts from university officials.
As recently as September 22, 2009, Whittier College faced an onslaught of protests for hosting Nonie Darwish, a Muslim born Egyptian who converted to Christianity. Whether Muslims found the conversion offensive and/or her open criticism of sharia law, the fact remains that herein was another case of open protests and pressures against a higher learning institution to regulate our First Amendment rights.
Now, just over a month later, USC faces a similar problem. At 7 pm on November 4th, by invitation of the USC College Republicans, David Horowitz is expected to speak on the “genocidal incitement of the prophet Mohammed that calls on Muslims to exterminate the Jews as the condition of their redemption.”
Citing a violent quote as a hadith posted on the official USC website courtesy of the USC Muslim Student Union, the entanglement began when the incendiary words were removed by university officials (only to reappear courtesy of the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement). [see full text]
Apparently, for USC Muslims groups, freedom of speech is a privilege that is only available to them. And though the initial removal of the quote incited fury among this lot, there were apparently no qualms when so-called activist Alex Sham dispersed the following propagandist leaflet on tomorrow’s event – a leaflet charged with defamation of character of both Horowitz and the USC College Republicans:
This by the ironically labeled USC Progressive Alliance, with their little terrorist logo in the bottom right corner, is beyond absurd. I wonder how many USC Muslim students found this offensive, and how few of those if any will speak out against it. Through creating and circulating this flyer, the USC “Progressive Alliance” is ripe for a considerable number of lawsuits. Beyond that, they prove they are no better than the stereotypes allotted to various Muslims Student Associations.
The flyer is manipulative, insulting, and untruthful. It directly contributes to racism and stereotypes by associating what appears as a jihadi with a “progressive alliance”. The boldly marked words “HATE MUSLIMS? SO DO WE!!!” incites violence, and misleads the reader into thinking that the affiliate group and speaker quote ‘hate Muslims’. The flyer is ripe for a libel lawsuit.
As a Muslim, I am disgusted by the continued opposition to free speech and free congregation guaranteed to us by the First Amendment. I am deeply offended by this flyer and the racism it peddles against Muslims, against Jews, and against Republicans.
The people behind the USC Progressive Alliance, and the monstrously ignorant flyer produced by them, are both symptoms of a primitive mind – proving that just because you went to school doesn’t mean you’re educated.
How the Exchange Between CAIR and ACT! For America Highlights the Importance of Free Speech and Conservative Values. On July 11, 2009, the San Diego Public Library hosted CAIR's SD Director Edward Hopida's presentation on Islam. During the presentation, Mr. Hopida took a moment to list a number of authors whose work he felt should be avoided because (according to him) they possessed “no expertise” on Islam and were published because they were exploiting 9-11. The list included Steven Emerson, Hirsi Ali, Noni Darwish, Brigitte Gabriel, Robert Spencer, and an array of other writers whose work is of a controversial nature within the Muslim community. Whatever one's opinion may be of these writers, we cannot ignore the grand irony of suggested book banning in a public library - an event that, at the end of the day, was sponsored by tax payers. Hopida’s actions also ignore the efforts dedicated to Islam pre 9-11. His dismissal of Ali, Darwish, and Gabriel draws attention to a larger problem of the failure of such associations and ‘experts’ to value women as witnesses. Having attended Hopida’s presentation, San Diego ACT chapter leader Mike Hayutin took it upon himself to offer a counter argument. He approached San Diego Public Library Director Deborah Barrow and requested the same time and sponsorship to speak of radical Islam. Unlike Hopida, Hayutin was not on a payroll and invested his own time and resources to exercise his belief in balanced representation. The request was initially reluctantly received by Barrow, who had likely perceived CAIR as a civil rights group and was unaware of the controversy surrounding them. However, considerable community pressure, as well as a call from the mayor’s office, facilitated Hayutin’s request. Hayutin was finally granted his opportunity to present a two hour presentation on radical elements in Islam. His appearance however was not appreciated by CAIR, which filed a complaint letter and submitted a one-sided press release on their disapproval of Mr. Hayutin's presentation, as well as his association with ACT, which Hopida cited as peddling stereotypes by labeling Islam as incompatible with the West. Somehow he seemed to forgotten CAIR's own dodgy associations. Hopida also contacted the library and insisted they put a “Muslim expert” on the podium with Hayutin, rather than Hayutin hosting the event on independently (as Hopida did). The alternate seminar, accurately entitled "Caliphate or Republic", took place August 15th from 2-4 pm at the San Diego Public Library. The auditorium was packed and a healthy debate ensued, mixed with both hard core conservatives and local Muslims attempting to make the case for Islam. For the most part the Muslim representation was quite positive, and I had the opportunity to speak with a few of them post event. However, my advice to them is two-fold: 1) Don't ambush the speaker; it makes you look desperate, and 2) if you get the chance to speak, present a solid counter argument rather than promoting your Muslim bake sale or food drive; no one is going to come to your bake sale if they still think you're a terrorist. All in all the event went smoothly, brought together a diverse mix that still at the end of the day agreed to disagree on most issues. A standing room only crowd also indicates an audience the library may have been overlooking. The presentation and the subsequent talks that carried on well past the event, reflected the delicate system of equality in America where both sides have a right to the soap box, to assemble freely and have their case be heard - to have a tolerant ear even if not a sympathetic one. However, in light of the struggle for local resident Mike Hayutin to secure the podium, and in light of Reuters picking up CAIR's press release and passing it as 'legitimate' news (with no attempt to contact the other party), the clear issue is the increasing fragility of our right to free speech and the increasing subjectivity of news agencies. The business of subjective information from authority sources doesn't just rest with the media. When asked why Mr. Hayutin took an interest in radical Islam, he noted attending a local university panel on yet another chapter on the entanglement between Palestine and Israel. The panel, hosted by three well-respected professors and attended by hordes of students, was (according to Hayutin) completely bias in nature and presented the case in a most politically appeasing pro-Palestine way with absolutely no counter argument. Appalled and concerned for the lack of balanced information, Hayutin took it upon himself to be a source of alternate information. Meanwhile, Hopida's attempts to regulate free speech at a public forum is another demonstration of Muslim interest groups attempting to regulate what can and cannot constitute as valuable discussion. In short, anything that is subjectively offensive is considered insensitive and racist. As the track record shows, particularly among such Islamists, if it doesn't favor a marginal Muslim agenda and if it in fact challenges Islamism in any context, it cannot be extended any measure of freedom. As we have seen time and time again, through protests, petitions and outright violence, if an act is critical of any element in Islam, it is not tolerated. In San Diego, via hundreds of angry So Cal residents and at the behest of the mayor, free speech prevailed...today. However, one must stop and consider the environment we would be in were this a caliphate in which no alternate view was tolerated. This is not such a far fetch considering the contortionist movements by law makers (both in the states and in Europe) to extend discriminatory version of 'equality' to Muslims - acts that immediately segregate communities and outrightly discriminate against non-Muslims. Lawmakers insist on cultural and religious sensitivity, but since when did anything get achieved through sensitivity and mass mollycoddling? So what is one to do when faced with a very real wolf but with no one hearing your cries? You start with those who are willing to listen. Start with think-tanks who don't believe news should be fictional story telling, with well-networked lobbies, and the few remaining academics that are not easily swayed by university politics. Connect with a political party that appreciates the issue and doesn't grey-wash threats as paranoia of hazy near-forgotten days of 9/11 - a recent past that somehow has been shuffled so far back in history that it's cataloged with myths of minotaurs, mermaids and other fantastical creatures; a reality that has been been butchered by perception into a non-reality. However, if as a society we continue to stomp and stampede, with banners of equality rattling in air, we ensure the inevitable forfeit of freedoms that are the touchstone of not just Republican or the Democratic ideals, but are the sacrament of what it means to be American.
Make it possible for the Qudosi Chronicles to continue providing insightful analysis of the issues that affect you. Show your support today.
Anaheim, CA – In April of 2009, a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department round table on terrorism featured a unique opportunity for Muslims to discuss terrorism. The discussion drew attention to the perception gap on terrorism and the ways in which even a compact Muslim community differs in their understanding it. The event, presented by the LACSD Muslim Community Affairs Unit (MCAU) and hosted at Access California head office in Anaheim, was headed by Sergeant Mike Abdeen. The MCAU, a first-of-its-kind outreach effort fostering an open-door policy with local groups, routinely invites the Muslim community into forums as an opportunity to ask questions of law enforcement officials; the MCAU also views the exchange as an occasion to educate law enforcement on the Muslim community. Their end of April round table on terrorism was lead by guest speaker Lieutenant John Sullivan, a political scientist and political economist with a background in counter terrorism, insurgency, and law enforcement. Post introduction, Sullivan defined terrorism as “indiscriminate attacks against civilian targets”. He continued on, discussing the political undertones that accompany acts of terrorism with a segue that allowed attendees to voice their opinion. Local socially and politically active Muslims of multiple ethnic backgrounds then raised several relating issues, including racial profiling and Western imperialism. One local college student and political science major asserted colonialism had upset the balance of things in the East, implying that prior to such interference Arab nations faced no real upheaval or internal dilemma. After further adding that Greek and Western political definitions were imposed on Eastern/Arab nations, the student soon found himself cornered by two others who rebuked the claim as unfounded. The underlying premise moving the discussion forward was that terrorism was “instrumental violence to influence political discourse”, and that religion was the vehicle through which it was carried out. Sullivan condensed the understanding of terrorism as political violence and an extension of politics used by someone not in power, to seek power. While participants engaged in the dynamics of terrorism, any link between Islam and terrorism proved to be a tabooed association. Attendees cited all types of terrorism from the IRA to Christian right wing extremists, but no one mentioned the obvious connotation under which a group of diverse Muslims would decide to gather on a Tuesday evening to discuss terrorism, and that being “Islamic terrorism”; and if that is deemed offensive, then “religious terrorism”, “Islamic fundamentalism”, “radical extremism”, or any combination there of. The general agreement among the group was that terrorism is a political movement. Yet, the framework in which the issue was defined was limited in scope if we view the context in which terrorism is discussed today. While it is true that terrorism exists across the map in diverse groups, the fact remains that America is fighting a very specific war against terror. It is not spending billions of dollars or waging political campaigns fighting the IRA or the Christian right-wing groups; it’s fighting Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and a dozen other factions of Islamic radicals stemming from Wahhabi ideology. And while these radicals are seeking political shifts, the fact remains many of them do see their cause as divinely inspired. In light of this, it becomes imperative that Islam itself is scrutinized and understood in order to fight terrorists that equate Islam with force, domination, and ultimately, justified violence. The question of identifying Islam as a motivating factor in terrorism is a battle of words that has been waging across major think tanks and political structures. The Consortium for Strategic Communications had called for shift from war terminology to language infusing criminal terminology, with the arguments that:
Criminal language is easier to manage
Criminal language decreases the terrorist recruitment legitimacy
The war on terror is a global crime problem rather than a U.S. centered war
Criminal language separates parties from religious connotations, such as "jihad"
However, because terrorists claim a religious imperative, the language used in discussing this problem has to reflect the situation truthfully. Islamic terrorism is a reality, and while it does not encapsulate the totality of terrorism, it is relevant and necessary terminology in a discussion on the issue. This point, when finally raised during the round table, was not well-received by the audience and the observation was ultimately pointed out as “clumsy” by Sullivan – when in fact it’s “clumsy” to ignore the obvious. A free use of language must be tolerated if any real discussion is to ensue. The window of opportunity to do so is growing dangerously smaller in light of the recent CIA counter-terrorism community backlash and a U.N. resolution criminalizing critical analysis on Islam. Those looking to move the conversation forward must recognize the elements within Islam that create, give power to, and justify terrorism. A failure to recognize this basic premise will lead to a failed discussion on any subsequent issue, and ensures that we fail in this subject altogether. The issue of defining terrorism, particularly as discussed among Muslims, is not something that can be achieved in one sitting; but the result of one sitting can yield remarkable results and produce fresh ideas if participants use language to advance a conversation rather than manipulate it. The MCAU event was an attempt at finding a uniform definition of terrorism, and if any conclusions can be made, it’s that three distinct views were offered:
Terrorism as a vehicle for political control
Terrorism as a reaction to Western control and influence
Islamic terrorism as a religiously-based reaction to sociopolitical movement.
However, was language entertained freely, the direction of the discussion would have proven highly insightful, if for no other reason than to witness the counter arguments defending Islam from radical association. While the LACSD Muslim Community Affairs Unit round table on terrorism didn’t offer any clear solutions, it did highlight a critical need for such a group. Based on the event, one of the added strengths of the unit goes beyond linking the Muslim community to law enforcement, but in linking community members with each other through a discussion that clearly emphasized strong undercurrent attitudes to such a sweeping topic.
Please help make it possible for the Qudosi Chronicles to continue providing insightful analysis. Show your support today.
Since 9/11, the FBI has emphasized identifying domestic national security threats while at the same time fostering an open door policy with local Muslim communities. In March of 2009, the bureau discovered the door had been slammed shut. The Southern California Islamic community was in an uproar over findings that the FBI had placed ex-con Craig Monteilh as an informant at the Islamic Center of Irvine. Monteilh, assigned in August of 2006 to infiltrate the community under the guise of a Muslim convert, worked to undercover individuals who might be threats to U.S. security by developing personal relationships among his new circle of friends. The developments became public soon after Monteilh handed over a tapedconversation with 34 year old Ahmadullah Niazi. Niazi, a naturalized U.S. citizen of Afghan descent, was recorded praising bin Laden in repeat conversations. This prompted local agents toarrest and question Niazi on multiple grounds, including naturalization fraud and failure to disclose that Niazi’s brother-in-law is a high-ranking al-Qaida member. Niazi appealed to CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations), protesting that the FBI threatened him fornot becoming an informant in light of the evidence held against him. As a reaction to the bureau’s use of informants to infiltrate mosques and at the alleged intimidation of Niazi, local Muslims groups (including CAIR) advocated endingoutreach efforts with law enforcement agencies. The incident here is not an isolated one. “Across the nation, such grass-roots relationships between Muslims and the federal government are in jeopardy.” This per a coalition of Muslim groups, represented by the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections, is in response to “increasing government surveillance in mosques, new Justice Department guidelines that the groups say encourage profiling, and the FBI’s recent suspension of ties with the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights group, the Council on American Islamic Relations.” The call to cut community relations with the FBI ignores the real threats that continue to thrive in these niches. Considering that mosques are an ideological gathering place, the probability that they are breeding grounds for Islamist recruiting is a harsh reality that Muslim communities do not recognize. The FBI has a critical role to play which they cannot carry out without conducting low-key surveillance. The failure of Muslim coalitions to recognize this handicaps the FBI’s ability to work toward the best interest of all American citizens, including the safety of the Muslim coalitions who banded together against the FBI. This raises the question of the bureau’s effectiveness if it’s unable to gain the support of the greater Muslim community itself. The high-profile Niazi trial draws attention to alarming levels of bias in Muslim media against governmental efforts to fight terrorism. In Focus, the most widely distributed Muslim newspaper in Southern California, featured an article attacking the credibility of the prosecutor. Withholding the facts of the case, In Focus questioned U.S. Attorney Deirdre Eliot’s ability as a prosecutor due to her affiliation with the Lincoln Club of Orange County. Accusing the Orange County Chapter of featuring newsletters containing content on fundamentalist Islam and radical Islamists, In Focus asserted that Eliot “runsthe risk of being guilty by association herself for supporting a right-wing group that has promoted anti-Islamic rhetoric on its Websites.” Stanford Knight Fellow and journalist Eugene Kane recognizes the problem here, noting “criticism of the prosecutor instead of dealing with the details of the case doesn't really give readers the whole story. That's where bias is dangerous. If you're skewing the facts of the story to make a point, then it's not journalism, it’s commentary.” Rather than work with local authorities to identify and isolate common threats to national security local Muslim groups have instead chosen to fall back on the rhetoric of victim hood that isolates them from the mutual interests of a collective American society. The Monteilh and the Niazi trials highlight a greater issue the Muslim community faces. By maintaining a policy of double standards used to victimize themselves and criminalize third parties to sabotage investigations, silence criticism of Islamist activity within the community, Muslim leaders enable security risks that one day might harm their own communities. Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Los Angeles Chapter of CAIR, stated “It is a serious flag when a government prosecutor of Ms. Eliot’s position and role is associated with a group that is clearly promoting anti-Muslim bigotry in its most hateful forms,” adding further that “her generous contribution to a group that is spreading Islamophobia and her refusal to repudiate or disassociate herself form its views sends an unspoken yet strong message on how she views Muslims and about her possible personal biases in driving this case against members of the Muslim community.” However, these groups and these leaders do not recognize their own self-contradiction when the community failed to distance itself from Niazi after evidence revealed that he had praised Taliban leaders and likened bin Laden to an angel. Reversing the In Focus argument against Eliot, Muslim groups also 'run the risk of being guilty by association' by refusing to 'repudiate and disassociate' themselves from Niazi. Not only do they fail to distance themselves from such people, they also endanger a larger community by protecting those individuals who authorities have legally asserted as a national security risk. Furthermore, recent expert recommendations for the U.S. Government to step away from terminology linking Islam with violence become ineffective measures if community groups themselves cannot directly disassociate from terrorist sympathizers.
Please help make it possible for the Qudosi Chronicles to continue providing insightful analysis of the issues that affect you. Show your support today.
Orange County, California – A crowd of a hundred Muslims shuffle into Orange Crescent Mosque to listen to the evening’s lecture on “Forging an American Muslim Agenda”, hosted by MANA (Muslim Alliance in North America).
A video projection on a nearby wall casts the image and rhetoric of Malcolm X. With this introduction, and with two speakers missing in action for the evening, Imam Qasim Khan attempts to salvage the small fundraiser. According to the video, MANA, which stands for the Muslim Alliance in North America, is a “Muslim group dedicated to bringing American Muslims together to address the needs of inner city Muslims."
Guests learn of MANA’s chief goals, which include community activism, the rehabilitation of formerly incarcerated Muslims, and masjid (mosque)/leadership development. Imams Muhammad Abdul Malik, Ismail A. Alam, Abdullah Madyoun, Musa Azam, and Siraj Wahhaj are all shown giving endearing testimonies of MANAs efforts.
Post video, Director of Events and Fundraising and former Christian preacher, Imam Khan extends the message by announcing the dangers humanity is suffering. As many agree, there is a crisis in the Muslim community, and per Imam Khan, it’s “not that we don’t care, but that we don’t get it. We’re only human, so we can’t see everything that’s going on."
With a few wayward words about deen (loosely translated to religion or way of life), prayer and a duty to charity, Imam Khan shares his experience during Hajj (holy pilgrimage).
He describes handing out money to the orphans, where within seconds both the children and the money are gone. He recalls solemnly that when he looked down, he saw a small one armed one legged girl clutching to his ankles, crying “What about me? Are you going to ignore me just because you can’t see me?”
With the parallels of that story, he relays the importance of helping those we can’t see. Giving credit to other Muslim and non Muslim charities or activist groups, Imam Khan points out that despite their efforts there are still those who are forgotten – Muslim in the inner cities, the “unseen in America”. It becomes clear who these ‘unseen’ are as Imam Khan tells us that there are 300,000 Muslims in prisons in America, and that 3,000 are released daily. He asks, “Who’s going to take care of them?”
With red collection bags beginning to make their rounds, the message of the evening unravels in a mix of poignant statements and religious rhetoric. For those who believe they’ve paid their proverbial dues, Imam Khan reminds the audience “Who told us how much the dues are”. And so begins the plucking of the ‘hell and eternal damnation’ strings, as the speech takes a turn to remind us of the importance of charity.
"Allah is keeping watch and whatever wealth you’re left with when you pass away will be melted in fire and stuck to your forehead, sides, and back”. The idea of death in mind, words vibrate our ears - “We’re praying on a nice soft carpet. We’re ok, but what if the Angel Gabrielle (angel of death) was to pay us a visit?” At this point one person donates $1000. MANA’s goal is $100,000, and we’re reminded, “What would we like our last act to be?”
With all this talk of sudden death, I half expected to be struck by lightening at any moment. Fortunately the tone of Imam Khan’s speech takes a turn for the better, reminding the audience that Allah (God) says we can’t attain righteousness until we give that which we love. He discusses Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his beloved child, Moses’ willingness to sacrifice his staff, and Muhammad’s willingness to leave Mecca for Medina.
The evening nearly at an end, MANA announces raising over $7000 in a two hours time. Imam Khan tells us that Allah (in the Quran) is addressing those who have a potential and that it is in our interest to preserve our potential until the right time. With analogies in tow, and relevantly so, it dawned upon me that I am still waiting for the “American Muslim Agenda”. Thus far, I had heard a few good words but absolutely nothing about an American Muslim Agenda.
Imam Khan beckons for a few more minutes of our time. Alas, I thought, here we go – the point. But no, we are only told more of how Allah is preserving us.
“We all got some crap. We all got some dirt. We all got some bruises on our souls. But Allah is preserving us.” With all this preservation, I was beginning to feel like a pickled plum. Wouldn’t it be better suited the thesis of the evening to talk instead of action? Wouldn’t it be more righteous to talk to the importance of helping fellow man and the importance of giving in that context, rather than luring money out of pockets with the played out Pipe Piper tune of death, hell and an irrational fear of Allah?
Give, but give because you want to – and not because you feel it’ll earn you brownie points in heaven and get you in God’s good books.
But no, none of that. There is a slight moment of hope, a light at the end of the evening when Imam Khan poetically expresses, "if you have a conscience and you haven’t murdered it by ignoring it…then give”. A call to conscience. This is what we need. Finally. But regrettably, this slight sign of hope for leaders who get it is butchered to reality when Imam Khan immediately after state he's made a dawah (prayer) for Allah to give 700,000 blessings for every penny that we give or wish we could give.
What we who call ourselves Muslims need is conscience. Conscience derived from a will and passionate desire for the betterment of mankind, and NOT from a desire for heavenly reward. If any act of charity is done with the hope of reward, it fails to be charity.
And with the evening dwindling to a close, it's ever apparent that a few good words here and there did not make up for the lack of focus of the evening’s presentation. We are still missing the American Muslim agenda, at least from MANAs perspective.
Amidst these last reclusive thoughts in a room still segregated with women in the back and men in the front, Imam Khan gives his final words – final words that are the only insight into what MANA (or at least he) thinks is the Muslim American agenda.
Imam Khan warns that we don’t own anything, that when we die our body goes to the earth, our souls to Allah, and our deeds in the Book of Judgment. From there he relates a story of a fellow Muslim lighting a smoke, much to Imam Khan’s admonishment. Hearing the rebuke, the Muslim brother responded with the phrase we’ve all know and either hate or cherish, “this is America”.
Enraged, his voice hitting the heights of the ceiling and echoing through the cold room, Imam Khan pronounces that “This is not America. This is Islam.”
Seven words amidst hundreds are the only indication of the evening’s promised discussion. With only these words to string together some idea of what is to be a Muslim American agenda, we are left with no other logical conclusion that in fact there is no Muslim American agenda because there is no America - "there is only Islam". This once again draws attention to the issue of whether Islam and America can harmoniously co-exist, at least from a Muslim perspective.
JERUSALEM DIVIDED
The general agreement among the group was that terrorism is a political movement. Yet, the framework in which the issue was defined was limited in scope if we view the context in which terrorism is discussed today. 
