Muslim leaders allege hate crime in Detroit
November 28, 2006
By Niraj Warikoo
Free Press Staff Writer
In what Muslim leaders are calling a hate crime, a
51-year-old Arab-American Muslim said he was beaten up
at his Detroit home by a group of men who repeatedly
swore at him and told him to "go back to where you
Shafik Shoaib, a U.S. citizen born in Egypt, was
allegedly attacked at his home in Detroit on Piedmont
Monday night, said Dawud Walid, executive director of
the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic
The assailants were a group of about 10 people who
were white, Walid said. While beating him, members of
the group used slurs and swear words, saying things
such as "You're a (expletive) Arab," "You're a
(expletive) Muslim," and "You're not a (expletive)
At one point, one assailant said that his "great great
grandfather was born in America...you're not an
American," according to Walid.
Walid said he was with Shoaib when he told his story
to Detroit police today.
Shoaib's wife and kids were in the house during the
attack, Walid said.
They also threatened to burn down his house. According
to Walid, Detroit police are investigating the case
and have made one arrest.
Shoaib said some of the people in the group, which
included men and women, had been loitering around in
the area in the past, smoking and drinking.
Shoaib was taken to Oakwood Hospital in Dearborn for
treatment before police arrived at the scene. Shoaib
said that his family had called Detroit Police five
times during the attack, but no one responded before
the ambulance took him to the hospital.
"Based upon the slurs that were stated during the
attack, it appears these people have deep-seated
Islamophobia in their hearts," Walid said. "We're
extremely concerned about the assault, but we're also
troubled by the extremely slow response time from the
Detroit Police department."
Walid said that Shoaib suffered head contusions,
lacerations, a busted nose, blackened eyes, torso
bruises, and sprained knees.
Contact Niraj Warikoo at nwarikoo@...
Hypocrisy abounds in Salah/Ashqar prosecution in
November 27, 2006 01:10 PM
The kangaroo court taking place in Chicago
By Ray Hanania
So far, after 10 weeks of trial, all that the U.S.
Government can say about Mohammed Salah and
co-defendant Abdelhaleem Ashqar is that they opposed
the Oslo Peace Accords and that they didnt believe
that their Muslim children should mingle in peace with
Actor Mel Gibson and comedian Michael Richards said
far worse about the Jews and they havent gone to jail
for their anti-Semitism or racism. And in case anyone
hasnt noticed, the Oslo Peace Accords were a
miserable failure in part because Israels governments
dragged their feet on making real concessions in what
was supposed to be "land for peace."
Well, the government did have the testimony of one
Judith Miller, the proven professional liar at the New
York Times whose exposes on Iraqs "weapons of mass
destruction" are lies that are far more criminal in
nature than anything Salah or Ashqar have been proven
to have done.
Miller admitted that her access to Salah was
facilitated by the Israeli MOSSAD and Government. In
other words, Miller has even less credibility on this
case than she does on the issue of WMDs.
Lets not get into the time she spent in jail for
lying about the outing of the wife of a diplomat who
criticized President Bushs Iraq War policies.
Salah is from Bridgeview, someone I have known for
years. Ashqar is a university professor from Virginia.
Supposedly, according to FBI testimony, they got
together 13 years ago in Philadelphia to discuss ways
to "oppose" the Oslo Peace Accords. Ironically, Salah
was in an Israeli prison when the alleged "secret
meeting" that was a highly publicized anti-Oslo summit
But dont let the facts get in the way of truth when
the issue is the failed American response to the
FBI agents testified that Salah, Ashqar and others at
the Philadelphia meeting came together to explore ways
to oppose the Oslo Peace Accords. And, they admitted
that no acts of violence were discussed or planned.
Isnt the planning of violence a key component in a
federal terrorism charge? Obviously not in this case.
Questioned under cross examination by attorneys for
Salah and Ashqar, the FBI agent admitted he was
unaware many Israeli leaders, like former Israeli
Prime Ministers Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon,
also opposed the Oslo Peace Accords.
That testimony is what I found the hardest to believe.
It suggests that the FBI agents, according to the
testimony of one of their Middle East "specialists,"
dont read newspapers, watch TV or listen to the
Whats really taking place in the Chicago federal
court room is that the Bush Administration refuses to
back down from its mistakes. Mistakes that are of the
very kind that allowed Sept. 11 terrorism to occur.
We knew al-Qaeda was engaged in trying to attack the
United States. They tried to destroy the World Trade
Center in 1993. They tried to kill Americans. And
there was ample evidence that terrorists even planned
to use hijacked commercial airplanes as suicide
But, the best the government can do is arrest a
Palestinian who has said bad words about Israel
hasnt every Palestinian said bad words about Israel
one time or another? (And hasn't every Israeli said
something bad about Palestinians, too?) But, Salah and
Ashqar have NEVER threatened violence not only against
Israel but against the United States.
The Federal Government under former U.S. Attorney John
Ashcroft were so embarrassed and taken by surprise by
the Sept. 11 terrorism that they had to run out and
arrest the very first person they could who was
disliked enough by the public to brand as a "Sept. 11
Salah was arrested in Israel and sentenced to five
years in prison there, where he served. He was
released and he entered the United States because
Salah was not considered a terrorist threat, despite
the Israeli conviction. Salah lived with his wife and
children in Bridgeview and the fact also is that
despite Israeli claims he was engaged in terrorism,
they set him free.
That was before Sept. 11 and the failures of the
Federal Government were so embarrassingly exposed by
al-Qaeda terrorists operating out of a cave in
The tragedy is that justice has been sacrificed for
Salah is not guilty of terrorism. Whether he supported
Hamas or not is a non-issue. Many Palestinians support
Hamas in part because Hamas is a creation of Israels
refusal to make genuine peace.
When Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin did make
peace with the Palestinians, it wasnt a Palestinian
who murdered him. It was one of Netanyahus rightwing
And, when Salah was even involved in speaking in
support of the politics of Hamas, Hamas was NOT
designated a terrorist organization. In fact, the
evidence linking Salah to Hamas chronologically takes
place BEFORE Hamas was officialy designated a
terrorist organization by the United States.
What is happening in a Chicago courtroom for the past
10 weeks is a moral shame and a corrupt judicial
travesty. Salah and Ashqar are not defendants in a
They are political prisoners in a kangaroo court that
has shunned justice and the rule of law in favor of
political whim and a public opinion that is driven by
a public ignorance of the real facts.
Salah and Ashqar are political prisoners in the
American Gulag of political oppression, persecuted in
the same way the Soviet Union once persecuted Jews for
criticizing the Soviet Government.
The people who should be standing trial today are
Judith Miller, all of the FBI's so-called witnesses,
and most of all, U.S. Attorney John Ashcroft for
making the pathetic, false accusation that Salah and
Ashqar were engaged in terrorism when all they were
engaged in was the very free speech that this country
claims is every citizen and non-citizens right.
Rather than being prosecuted, this case should have
been thrown out long ago.
But thats only something one might expect if they
were living in a real Democracy.
(Ray Hanania was named the 2006/2007 Best Ethnic
Columnist by New America Media. He can be reached at
Flying while Muslim
Palm Beach Post Editorial
Thursday, November 30, 2006
US Airways is standing by the decision of one of its
crews to kick six Muslim clerics off a flight last
week in Minneapolis because some passengers believed
that the men behaved suspiciously.
Some details about the incident remain murky, but two
points are clear: More than five years after 9/11,
Americans still have little confidence in how the
government screens fliers; and Americans know so
little about Islam, and are so quick to reach for the
worst stereotypes, that even acts of prayer can take
on sinister interpretations.
The six imams were heading home from a conference and,
before boarding a flight to Arizona, unrolled rugs in
the terminal and said their evening prayers. Some
passengers claim that the men then talked about the
war in Iraq and spoke critically of the United States.
Some of the men had bought one-way tickets and checked
no bags. Once onboard, some moved from their assigned
The captain refused to fly them. An airport police
officer and a federal air marshal agreed that the
circumstances were suspicious and escorted the six men
off the airplane in handcuffs. The imams were
detained, and US Airways refused to honor their
tickets or buy them new ones. All other passengers
were taken off the plane and rescreened. Authorities
eventually released the imams, and they flew home on
Given the heightened screening procedures in recent
months, it's hard to imagine what plausible threat the
six men - one of whom is blind - posed to the other
140 people aboard the plane. Fliers have to clear
security lists, surrender shampoo bottles, stand in
bomb-sniffing booths and walk shoeless through metal
detectors. Would even strip searches be enough to make
some jittery travelers trust the system? In terms of
subtlety, the imams' behavior was hardly something out
of the terrorism playbook. Their public expression of
faith was also an expression of innocence that some
passengers chose to ignore.
Superficial profiling does not enhance security. The
most dangerous terrorist groups, among them Al-Qaeda,
know how to use profiles to their advantage by
recruiting against type. Security officials always
will have to make some close calls to protect the
public, and so will airport and airline employees.
Mistakes are inevitable, but afterward it's important
that the victims of mistakes are at least made whole.
The refusal of US Airways to assist the imams after
they had been conclusively cleared is unacceptable.
Terrorism is the ultimate expression of intolerance,
and Americans not only must remain vigilant against
the threat of attacks but also about how we decide who
is dangerous and who is just different.
Residents use pig races to deter building of mosque
By Ted Oberg
(11/29/06 - KTRK/KATY, TX) - There's an awful lot of
exciting news when you round the corner on Baker Road.
One of two big yellow signs announces a new neighbor
is coming soon.
K.I.A., that's the Katy Islamic Association, plan to
build a mosque here.
"It's not an appropriate place to have a mosque or
church," said resident Barbara Simpson.
It isn't going over real well.
"As a house of worship, they shouldn't be disturbing
the peace and tranquility of 15 homes," said resident
Neighbors tell us they're concerned about traffic and
drainage and a little fear of the unknown. Some of the
homeowners even offered to buy the land back for more
than a million dollars. The K.I.A. doesn't seem very
interested in the offers.
"We're not going anywhere," said Katy Islamic
Association member Alvi Muzfar.
So it seems the community at the end of Baker Road has
a pretty good fight. But this fight has gone much
farther than many between two neighbors. You see in
these fights, sometimes neighbors throw mud at one
another. In this instance, they're wallowing in it.
Craig Baker owns pigs. He's the guy behind the second
big yellow sign on Baker Road. That's the one
announcing Friday night pig races.
"What does it matter, I can do whatever I want with my
land right," asked landowner Craig Baker.
Sure can. But aren't pigs on the property line racing
on a Friday night a little offensive to a Muslim
"The meat of a pig is prohibited in the religion of
Islam," said Katy Islamic Association member Youssof
Allam. "It's looked upon as a dirty creature."
Yeah, there's that and also that Friday night is a
Muslim holy day.
"That is definitely a slap in the face," said Allam..
Now before you go thinking Craig Baker is unfair, or
full of hate, or somehow racist, hear him out.
Baker has long roots here. His family named the road
and when the new neighbors moved in, he tells us, they
asked him to move out.
"Basically that I should package up my family and my
business and find a place elsewhere," said Baker.
"That's ridiculous, they just bought the place one
week prior and he's telling me I should think about
That new owners deny they ever said anything like
that, but Baker isn't budging.
Baker admits the pigs are a message he is not leaving.
The 11-acre property is sandwiched between a pricey
subdivision and Craig Baker's business.
K.I.A. eventually plans to build a mosque, a gym and a
school there. There's no date for the groundbreaking
ceremonies, or the first pig race.
(Copyright © 2006, KTRK-TV)
Michael Smerconish | YO, TERRORISTS: MAKE OUR DAY
Posted on Thu, Nov. 30, 2006
DO WE need a nuclear deterrent to terrorism?
Nelson DeMille makes the suggestion in his new book,
"Wild Fire," whose sales are spreading like, well, its
title. It debuted at No. 2 on the Times bestseller
list, No. 1 at the Wall Street Journal and No. 1 at
It's another work of fiction by the man who already
has more than 30 million books in print. But this one
has people talking about a very real subject: How to
stop Islamic extremists from attacking American
"It sounds radical, but what
we're trying to do is keep Washington, D.C., and
midtown Manhattan from being nuked. We're not trying
to obliterate another part of world because we don't
like them. But we have between 10-20,000 nuclear
weapons, we're the most powerful nation on the planet,
and, in the history of mankind, and we're being bogged
down by guys with AK-47s and plastic explosives. We've
got to rattle nuclear sabers. Not because we're bad
guys, but because we're good guys," DeMille told me.
Remember MAD? Mutually assured destruction was the
cold war policy that if either the United States or
the Soviets launched a nuclear strike, the other would
respond in kind. That secured the peace.
Wild Fire, the plan that the book is named for, is a
version of MAD for the new millennium.
Like MAD, Wild Fire eliminates a president's need for
moral choices. If there were to be a nuclear strike
against an American city, it would prompt an automatic
response. The weapons once trained on the USSR would
thunder down on the Arab world.
"Wild Fire is a pro-active response. It is a gun to
the heads of Islamic countries - a gun that will go
off if they fail to keep their terrorist friends from
going nuclear," DeMille writes.
"This is a great deterrent because nobody wants to end
the world as we know it," he told me.
"In 'Wild Fire,' I pose that we have something very
similar to MAD. Meaning, that if a nuclear bomb went
off in America, the presumption of guilt against
Islamic terrorists would be very strong; we wouldn't
need the proof, we'd never have the proof.
"We would automatically launch against the nation of
Islam, specifically against the cities of Mecca and
Medina, and other places like Damascus where we don't
care for the government, and this would be a deterrent
against a nuclear bomb going off in America."
Under what circumstances?
"It would almost have to be nuclear. Chemical and
biological attacks are scary and will kill a lot of
people but don't rise to the level of nuclear. It's
the 800,000-pound gorilla that would obliterate
midtown Manhattan or Washington, D.C., even a small
"In the book, I mention that there are 67 Soviet
suitcase nukes missing from Soviet arsenals... What
happened to them, we don't know. Maybe it was just bad
record-keeping by the Soviets."
In the book, DeMille explores the possibility that
suitcase nukes end up in hands of Islamic terrorists,
and if they do, why wouldn't they use them? Well,
maybe because Wild Fire threatens to blow up their
"Even the most radical Islamic terrorist would not
want to see the revered holy city of Medina go up. It
would be like losing the Vatican in Rome," he told me.
As he says in his author's note, "As for the secret
government plan called Wild Fire, this is based on
some information I've come across, mostly online, and
can be taken as rumor, fact, pure fiction, or some
blend thereof. I personally believe that some
variation of Wild Fire (by another code name) actually
exists, and if it doesn't, it should."
I told him that sounds like the stuff of his alter
ego, former NYPD detective John Corey.
"I was there on 9/11. Every New Yorker was there in a
sense. My suburban town lost 11 people, and I was in
Manhattan the first time, in February of 1993, when
the towers were attacked.
"As a citizen of this country and the world, we are
trying to keep it from happening, and the only way is
to say, 'If it happens, we will retaliate in a nuclear
way.' What else can we do, say we will launch an
investigation and find out who blew up midtown
"That is a game we have played for too long. We never
played that with the Russians, why play the same silly
game with Islamic terrorists? Some say they don't have
a country, but that is not true, they know where their
homeland is and so do we."
Michael Smerconish can be heard weekdays 5:30-9 a.m.
on the Big Talker, 1210/AM. Contact him via the Web at
Newly elected Muslim lawmaker under fire
Posted 12/1/2006 6:58 AM ET
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON The first Muslim elected to Congress
hasn't been sworn into office yet, but his act of
allegiance has already been criticized by a
In a column posted Tuesday on the conservative website
Townhall.com, Dennis Prager blasted Minnesota Democrat
Keith Ellison's decision to take the oath of office
Jan. 4 with his hand on a Quran, the Muslim holy book.
"He should not be allowed to do so," Prager wrote,
"not because of any American hostility to the Koran,
but because the act undermines American culture."
He said Ellison, a convert from Catholicism, should
swear on a Christian Bible which "America holds as
its holiest book.
If you are incapable of taking an
oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."
The post generated nearly 800 comments on Townhall.com
and sparked a tempest in the conservative blogosphere.
Many who posted comments called the United States a
Christian country and said Muslims are beginning to
gain too much influence. Others wrote about the
separation of church and state and said the
Constitution protects all religions.
Dave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was
unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the
online Minnesota Monitor, "The Constitution guarantees
for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever
book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of
religion is all about."
Colling said Ellison's office has received hundreds of
"very bigoted and racist" e-mails and phone calls
since Prager's column appeared. "The vast majority
said, 'You should resign from office if you're not
willing to use the book our country was founded on,' "
"Requiring somebody to take an oath of office on a
religious text that's not his" violates the
Constitution, said Kevin Hasson, president of The
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Members of the House of Representatives traditionally
raise their right hands and are sworn in together on
the floor of the chamber. The ritual sometimes seen as
the swearing-in is actually a ceremonial photo op with
the speaker of the House that usually involves a
"They can bring in whatever they want," says Fred
Beuttler, deputy historian of the House.
Prager, who is Jewish, wrote that no Mormon elected
official has "demanded to put his hand on the Book of
Mormon." But Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon,
carried a volume of Mormon scriptures that included
the Bible and the Book of Mormon at his swearing-in
ceremony in 1997.
Prager, who hosts a radio talk show, could not be
reached for comment.
Lawmaker to take oath on Koran, faces flak
By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 1, 2006
Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to
Congress, will take his oath of office on the Koran,
not the Bible.
Although some have criticized the Minnesota
Democrat's decision, his campaign manager cites
historical precedent in describing it as a nonissue.
"Well, he will be the first to do it with the
Koran," Dave Colling said. "But most members do not
even take an individual oath with any book. Keith
Ellison will be taking his oath in the chamber with
the other members of Congress."
House members are sworn in en masse in the
chamber, and no Bible or other religious document is
used for the oath. However, several incoming House
members use Bibles for their individual swearing-in,
which is administered by the House speaker and takes
place after the official group oath.
Mr. Ellison has been criticized by some Christian
organizations and conservative radio host Dennis
Prager, who say that even if the law allows him to
take an oath on the Koran, he should adhere to what
they call the historical tradition of taking the oath
of office on the Bible.
"In your personal life, we will fight for your
right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for
your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But,
Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book
its public servants take their oath," Mr. Prager, who
is Jewish, wrote in an online column.
The American Family Association (AFA) posted an
"Action Alert" on its Web site requesting that
supporters urge lawmakers to pass a law requiring that
the Bible be used in congressional swearing-in
ceremonies. "What book will America base its values
on, the Bible or the Koran?" the AFA posting said.
"The premise of the attack is false," Mr. Colling
said, adding that Mr. Ellison has not refused to take
an oath on the Bible, because his refusal would imply
that such a requirement exists.
According to the Library of Congress, Theodore
Roosevelt became the first and only president to take
an oath without a Bible in 1901. In 1961, John F.
Kennedy took his oath on a Catholic (Douay) version of
the Bible. Several Jewish members of Congress have
taken their oath on the Torah. Article VI of the
Constitution specifies that "... no religious Test
shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States."
In 2005, a North Carolina judge refused to allow a
Muslim woman to take her oath on the Koran before
testifying. Guilford County Superior Judge W. Douglas
Albright cited state law in the case, which reads that
oaths are to be made upon "Holy Scriptures," which
analysts agreed is a reference to the Bible.
However, in 1997, a federal judge hearing a
terrorism case in Washington allowed witnesses to make
such an oath to Allah.
"This is a tempest in an Internet teapot," said
Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Center for
American-Islamic Relations. "With the rising level of
Islamophobia in America, you have some people who see
the empowerment of any Muslim as a threat to the
Constitution. In reality, they should see the
empowerment of such an individual as strengthening the
Joyce Howard Price contributed to this article.
It is a sign of desperation on the part of America's
most vicious Islamophobe, Steven Emerson, to resort to
deception and defamation to try to undermine CAIR's
work. It troubles him to see a growing number of
Muslims and Jews working together on issues of social
justice, religious tolerance and civil rights. The
more we directly talk to each other, the more
irrelevant extremists like Emerson are going to be.
CAIR representatives regularly speak at synagogues.
Rabbis and people of the Jewish faith continue to be
invited to speak at mosques and CAIR events. CAIR
spends a great deal of time conversing and exchanging
ideas with the Jewish community. Some of most ardent
supporters of CAIR and champions of human rights for
the Muslim community are Jewish.
For the record, CAIR never did and will never sponsor
any event that promotes any form of racism, including
anti-Semitism. Specifically, as Emerson was told
repeatedly, CAIR has no connection, direct or
indirect, to the event he referred to in New York.
If anything, CAIR has repeatedly spoken against those
who resort to negative stereotyping in order to
comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict, such as when we
criticized an Arab newspaper that published excerpts
from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Claiming
that CAIR or I are anti-Semitic will be found
ridiculous and offensive by CAIR's many Jewish members
and donors who include rabbis among them. Information
and not misinformation is the first step on the path
to dialogue, mutual respect and trust and cooperation.
When I needed to learn more about the Jewish
community, I went to The Jewish Federation and to my
Jewish friends. I did not go to the KKK.
I invite you to learn more about Islam and CAIR by
visiting www.cair.com and more about me by visiting my
blog at www.hussamayloush.blogspot.com and not from
the hate-mongering of Emerson or Pat Robertson.
I know that we are not always going to agree on all
issues, including the Middle East conflict. However,
dialogue is the only way forward toward a just
resolution of the Middle East conflict.
I am confident that most of us would like for our
debate and even disagreement to remain within the
civil and compassionate boundaries taught to us,
respectively, by our great teachings of Judaism and
Islam. It is time for all of us to reject the
extremists who insist on deciding on our behalf that
there is no common ground among us.
CAIR Southern California
THE JEWISH JOURNAL welcomes letters from all readers.
Letters should be no more than 200 words and must
include a valid name, address and phone number.
Letters sent via e-mail must not contain attachments.
Pseudonyms and initials will not be used, but names
will be withheld on request. We reserve the right to
edit all letters. Mail: The Jewish Journal, Letters,
3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1510, Los Angeles, CA
90010; e-mail: letters@...
; or fax:
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com