“It’s disgusting,” said Dawud Walid, director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who has lead the charge against what he sees as an irresponsible and dangerous book.

Every mention or depiction of Muslims or Islam in the book titled “We shall never forget 9/11″, is accompanied by the word “terrorist” or “extremist” and there are no counterbalancing images or references to the Muslims who were killed in the attacks or were among the first responders searching for survivors, Walid said Tuesday.
AFPBy Mira Oberman |
Nor does the book mention that the vast majority of Muslims in the United States and around the world condemn terrorism, he added.

“It’s silly to think that a young person who colors that book who has no contact with Muslims would come away with anything but fear of Muslims and thinking that Muslims are bad people,” Walid told AFP.

Really Big Coloring Books publisher Wayne Bell insists that the book is an honest portrayal of events.

“We tell this truth and tell it in black in white,” Bell said in a telephone interview from his St. Louis, Missouri office.

“This book is about 19 evil terrorists who murdered 3,000 people,” he said. “It just so happens that the people who flew those planes into the buildings were radical Muslim jihadists.”

The book was released earlier this month ahead of the 10th anniversary of the attacks and comes after the specialized publishing house had seen customers search repeatedly on its websites for coloring books about the attacks.

“We did a lot of research, talked to a lot of parents and the recurring theme we heard was do not make a book that’s politically correct and is going to whitewash this event,” Bell said.

People also wanted a book that would be patriot and focused on a theme that became the book’s title: “We shall never forget 9/11.”

Subtitled “The Kids’ Book of Freedom,” the book teaches children that “freedom-hating radical Islamic Muslim Extremists” attacked America because they “hate the American way of life because we are FREE.”

Walid said this overly simplistic and populist interpretation of events is simply not true.

He pointed to statements made by Osama bin Laden and the conclusions of the US congressional 9/11 commission which found the attacks were rooted in a belief that American foreign policy and its ‘immoral’ culture are at war with Islam and Muslim countries.

The cartoon of bin Laden hiding behind his wife as he is shot by a Navy SEAL is also not a true depiction of events, Walid noted.

Bell dismissed the criticism as an attempt to exploit an “innocent book” to promote a political agenda.

The controversy has had a positive impact: all the headlines have spurred sales.

By Mira Oberman |

Leininger is not widely known outside of Texas, but inside the state he is seen as a pioneer of political donations to conservative politicians and causes. The conservative activist made his millions selling hospital beds, and since the 1980s he has pushed a mix of religious right fervor and pro-business activism, which is now reflected in the politics of all major Texas Republican figures, particularly Perry. Since 1989, Leininger, who is worth more than $300 million, and his wife have donated at least $6.9 million to political parties, political action committees and state and federal candidates, according to data obtained by TransparencyData.com, a site run by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit that aims to increase government transparency. He has also created a host of nonprofits, most prominently the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), to advance his conservative political agenda.

“James Leininger has been the sugar daddy of the far right in Texas,” said Kathy Miller, the president of the Texas Freedom Network, a nonprofit supporting religious freedom and individual liberties in Texas. “He is probably one of the biggest donors to the Republican Party of Texas’ move to far-right extremism.”

Leininger has been particularly helpful to Perry over the years. In 1998, Perry was in a close contest for Texas lieutenant governor with Democrat John Sharp. In the waning weeks of the campaign, Perry and Sharp were neck-and-neck, and Perry was running low on funds. Leininger stepped forward with a $1.1 million loan to the campaign, enabling Perry to increase advertising when many voters were just beginning paying attention. Perry won that race by a hair. Since then, Leininger has donated more than $250,000 to Perry’s gubernatorial campaigns. A request put into Leininger’s office for comment was not returned by Saturday morning.

A report released on Wednesday by Texans for Public Justice documented the many ties between Perry and Leininger. Of particular note, Perry and Leininger have participated together in a number of financial transactions, including investments by Perry in one of Leininger’s companies.

Andrew Wheat, research director for Texans for Public Justice, told The Huffington Post, “What puts the relationship between Perry and Leininger apart is these personal financial deals.”

According to the report, Perry made a quick $4,500 from a stock purchase and sale in Leininger’s Kinetic Concepts, Inc., the hospital bed manufacturer that made Leininger a millionaire. Perry’s stock purchase came after meeting with Leininger and immediately before an investment group started buying up Kinetic Concepts shares, driving up the price of the stock. In total, Perry would wind up making $38,000 off of Kinetic stock investments.

continue reading full story

Abdulkadir Omar, 22, filed his federal lawsuit July 15 in Seattle against Sacramento-based American Patriot Security, seeking back pay and unspecified damages for emotional pain and loss of enjoyment of life, among other reasons.

“Growing up in this country, where the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion, I was let down,” Omar said Thursday at a press conference.

According to the lawsuit, Omar was hired by a local manager of the security company in May 2009 and earned $9 an hour guarding a FedEx warehouse in Kent, Wash. He said he started the same day he was hired, and was not told about the clean-shaven policy.

In November 2009, a supervisor from headquarters told him he had to shave his beard because of company policy. Omar responded that his beard is part of his religious beliefs and refused. He was suspended, and then fired the following spring, the lawsuit said.

A representative from American Patriot Security declined to answer questions.

“Everyone in the company is clean shaven,” Omar said. “And I chose not.”

Omar filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which found that he was wrongfully terminated and had the right to sue, according to a press release by the Council for American-Islamic Relations.

“There’s no policy that can go against the law of the land,” said Arsalan Bukhari, executive director of the Washington state chapter of CAIR. “Civil Rights Act trumps any (company) policy.”

Bukhari said companies need to accommodate someone’s religious beliefs unless it’s an “undue burden.”

Mary Fan, a law professor at the University of Washington, said that there are very limited exceptions to the protections provided by the Civil Rights Act against employers impinging on a person’s religious grooming.

“If the company is worried about customers who don’t like people who have beards and look Muslim — that’s exactly what the law is set to protect against,” she said.

Omar, originally from Yemen, immigrated to the U.S. when he was 10 years old. He said he’s a naturalized citizen. His beard covers his face and doesn’t extend past his chin.

Omar said he learned about the security guard job through his brother, who worked for the company as well. Asked if his brother experienced similar difficulties or if he still worked for the company, Omar declined to answer.

He did say that he doesn’t want his job back because found a better job.

Asked if he’s ready for the attention the lawsuit will bring, Omar said he was ready, but didn’t allow photographers to take pictures of his face.
..

This first axiom states that there is only one true reality. Everything else — the universe and all it contains — derives from it. What we call “realities” are in fact non-realities dressed up in fancy clothes.

In the language of Islamic theology, this axiomatic notion is called tawhid (pronounced “toe-heed”), meaning “the assertion of unity,” that is, the unity of the ultimate reality, which is commonly called “God.” Any close reading of the Quran (and the works of practically any Muslim theologian, Sufi or philosopher) will show that tawhid is taken as self-evident to any healthy intelligence. If people miss it, the problem is “forgetfulness,” the outstanding characteristic of the human race. According to the Quran, Adam did not “sin”; rather, “He forgot” (20:115).

The second axiom of the Islamic worldview is that Muhammad is God’s messenger and the Quran God’s message. No matter how important this axiom may appear, it hangs on the axiom of God’s absolute unity.

Neither Muhammad nor the Quran is God. Both dwell in the realm of contingency and questions. Anyone who has delved into Islamic literature knows that every word of the Quran is open to interpretation. The very expressions used to designate the ultimate reality, God’s “most beautiful names” — such as Merciful, Knowing, Alive, Powerful, Forgiving, Majestic, Wise — need to be explained. Explanation and understanding are human attributes, which is to say that they are riddled with forgetfulness.

Literally, the word tawhid means to say one, to make one, to assert one, to declare one. Theologically it means to declare that the ultimate reality, by whatever name it may be called, is one. In this bald form, the statement is unremarkable, not least because it is found in practically all religious traditions and most pre-modern philosophy.

The grammatical form of the word tawhid shows that it is an assertion on the part of an asserter. The asserter is not the reality whose unity is asserted. Tawhid involves two, and that is precisely the problem. On our side, we have a constantly changing self, immersed in forgetfulness and barely aware of what it is saying. On the other side, we have an absolute and infinite Reality, fully conscious of all that exists.

Tawhid is a human act. Its purpose is to provide an orientation for understanding ourselves and the universe. It points to the dimensionless center of the circle of existence, or to the infinite, all-encompassing sphere — both symbolisms are commonly employed.

Once tawhid is accepted as the first axiom of thought, the goal of life becomes bridging the gap between the asserter and the asserted. In the language of Muslim piety, the goal is to achieve “nearness” (qurba) to God.

As created, contingent things, people dwell in dispersion, disarray, disharmony, dissonance and discord. Practically all human endeavor aims at escaping from these qualities. In the Quranic view, adequate paths of achieving integration, wholeness and unity have been provided by the prophets, beginning with the first, Adam. On the basis of divine instruction, they set down guidelines that can lead to conformity with the One Reality on the three levels of activity, thought and love.

As for love itself, as soon as Muslim scholars addressed its nature, they pointed out that it is essentially indefinable, as most everyone knows. Nonetheless, it has many symptoms and signs, the most basic of which is yearning for togetherness and desire for nearness. This is obvious in all its forms: romantic love, mother love, my love for my cats, your love for baseball, the soul’s love for God.

Love, in short, aims at communion, union, unity. Tawhid is the assertion of oneness and unity, but it is only an assertion, not the reality. Love is the energy that drives the quest for integration. The assertion of unity and the transforming energy must work together to overcome disjunction and disarray, to achieve togetherness and harmony, to actualize oneness and union. Tawhid provides the orientation, love the force. Without tawhid, love is dispersed and scattered; without love, tawhid is empty talk.

That the word “love” expresses the goal of tawhid is a common theme in the literature. Many explain it in terms of “the sentence that expresses unity” (kalimat al-tawhid). That is, the four Arabic words “(There is) no god but God,” the foundation of the Islamic creed.

Achieving the goal depends on overcoming the illusions set up by false realities, aberrant loves and misleading desires. In the language of Sufism, the false realities are called “others,” meaning everything that distracts the heart from the Absolutely Real. Rumi explains that love actualizes tawhid in these terms:

Love is that flame which, when it blazes up,
burns away everything except the Everlasting Beloved.

It drives home the sword of “no god” in order to slay other than God.
Look closely–after “no god” what remains?

There remains “but God,” the rest has gone.
Bravo, O great, idol-burning love!

“I’ll vote Democratic because I always have.”  Or… “I’ll vote Republican because I always have.”

From first-hand experience interviewing people in America’s two largest religions — Christianity and Judaism — about 50 percent of Bible and Torah believers often don’t let their faith influence their voting. It’s more about party affiliation and the economy.

Considering the battle over abortion and gay rights in the past two decades, there are liberal candidates who may not have won past elections without a portion of Jewish and Christian votes.

In the November 2010 election, abortion, gay marriage and party played less of a role. Religion in this election was about asking the president and legislators to value the American peoples’ voice, including those who believe in God.

For example, in 2008, a large base of the American Jewish community supported Barack Obama, the man with the Arabic-sounding name. This was surprising, due to the ongoing war-torn relationship between Israel and Arabic/Middle Eastern countries. But, like everyone else, they wanted change.

From mid 2009 to the present, a chasm became obvious in this base. Prominent Jewish parties began to express discontent with President Obama. These incidents served to weaken Jewish confidence:

* His association with Jeremiah Wright’s church; some Jewish organizations feel that Wright routinely disparaged Israel

* Obama’s post-election speeches and policies, which they interpreted to favor Palestinian goals

* Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being allowed to speak in the United States, under Obama’s presidential watch, about the Holocaust being a hoax and calling for the destruction of Israel

By November, the Jewish population in Florida may have expressed their discontent by helping to elect Republicans Rick Scott (for governor) and Marco Rubio (U.S. Senate) over Democrats Alex Sink, Kendrick Meek, and independent Charlie Crist. The latter three supported Obama policies.

Although the majority of Jewish Democratic senators retained their seats, the upset of Russ Feingold in Wisconsin was surprising.

The only Jewish Republican in the House of Representatives, Eric Cantor of Virginia, kept his seat and might be considered for majority leader.

Religion was also used as a smear tactic in at least three campaigns:

* According to an AP report at Yahoo! News, Jack Conway claimed his opponent, Rand Paul, was in a secret college society that made fun of Christianity and worshipped some kind of “Aqua Buddha.” It didn’t work for Conway. Paul won the Kentucky U.S. Senate seat, and stated he hoped to see an end to religious attacks of this type.

* Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell was accused by opponent Chris Coons of being a witch for admitting she dabbled in witchcraft years ago. She was also battered about a 1998 appearance on Bill Maher’s show where she stated evolution was a myth — a suggestion generally associated with Christians. These, and bad judgment in the advertisement she chose to repudiate the decades-old evidence, contributed to her loss.

* In Florida, U.S. House Democratic candidate Alan Grayson claimed his Christian Republican opponent, Daniel Webster, took the Bible so far as to whip women into submission (words often misinterpreted from Ephesians 5, New Testament). Webster’s campaign website carries evidence proving Grayson edited Webster’s words.

Grayson lost favor for labeling Webster “Taliban Dan.” This probably didn’t impress American Muslim voters either. Webster won the seat.

In one way or another, religion did play a part in November’s election. It’s a wait-and-see as to how the growing Muslim population (now the third largest religion in the country) and other faiths may carry more weight in 2012.

IN PICTURES: Pope Benedict XVI

While officially consecrating Barcelona’s Sagrada Familia church as a basilica on Sunday, the pope continued his push.

“The Church opposes all forms that negate human life and supports everything that supports the natural order in the realm of institution of the family,â€

But the low turnout to see Benedict XVI on his second visit to Spain as pope seemed to illustrate his concern that Europe is shedding its Catholic roots.

Crowds of in the tens of thousands sometimes seemed to only slightly outnumber the vast security detail that closed off much of Spain’s second-biggest city, and many streets along the papal route were nearly empty. Also, small, unusual protests such as a gay “kiss-in” by couples as Benedict XVI waved from his vehicle drew the ire of loyal Catholic followers.