SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
islamophobia
25 Islamic Clerics Urge Muslims Across US to Defeat Trump
"Knowingly enabling someone like Donald Trump to return to office, whether by voting directly for him or for a third-party candidate, is both a moral and a strategic failure."
Oct 07, 2024
Balancing grave concerns over the Biden-Harris administration's support for Israel's yearlong assault on Gaza against the dire prospects of a potential second administration of former Republican President Donald Trump, a group of 25 U.S. Islamic clerics on Sunday urged American Muslims to "consider the broad picture" and vote for Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.
"We are all heartbroken and in deep pain over the war in Gaza and the escalation in Lebanon. We stand with the global-wide outcry to immediately stop the continued genocide against the Palestinian people," the religious leaders, who include numerous imams, wrote in a letter to Muslim voters. "The collective conscience, inherent soul, and sense of justice of all humanity [are] assaulted, disturbing the peace of all. We are all one in our frustration to the point of anger."
"What's popular is not always right and what's right is not always popular. In our estimation, the present-future benefits of voting for Vice President Harris far outweighs the harms of the other options."
"We are taught by our beloved Prophet Muhammad to 'resist becoming angry,' for it eats up goodness and overrides rational thinking," the letter states. "Our lives in these United States of America are not in a vacuum, and as such the election choices, the decisions that we make are not either. They don't just affect us, but all American citizens for years, maybe decades to come."
"We are to be future-oriented, strategic, and rational rather than just focus on the present," the clerics asserted. "Thus, it is an imperative that we elect leaders who have committed to a cease-fire, an independent Palestine, stabilizing our democracy, and who stand with our community."
The letter continues:
In assessing the candidates for president, for us it's not the lesser of two evils. For us, as people of faith, specifically as Muslims, it's the measure or estimate (Qadar) of the Harm (Sharr or Darri) and the Benefit (Khayr or naf'ee). When faced with a choice, we are expected to carefully assess the potential benefits and harm involved, prioritizing actions that bring better and minimize negative consequences...
What's popular is not always right and what's right is not always popular. In our estimation, the present-future benefits of voting for Vice President Harris far outweighs the harms of the other options. Let's consider the broad picture in addition to the one in our immediate vision.
Turning their attention to Trump, the clerics said that "our community is in pain, but we must also remember that we cannot allow our country to return to Jim Crow America, this is not a reality our community can afford."
"Knowingly enabling someone like Donald Trump to return to office, whether by voting directly for him or for a third-party candidate, is both a moral and a strategic failure," they stressed. "Particularly in swing states, a vote for a third party could enable Trump to win that state and therefore the election."
"In 2016, Trump won Michigan by merely 11,000 votes mainly because of votes cast for third-party candidates. This enabled Trump to inflict great harm on our communities and country in numerous ways," the letter says. "Trump is funded by pro-settlement donors who support Israeli annexation of the West Bank, he has promised to give [Israeli Prime Minister Bemjamin] Netanyahu what he needs to 'finish the job' in Gaza, and even promised to deport pro-Palestinian students and activists who he refers to as 'jihadists.' Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, has promised to turn Gaza into 'lucrative beachfront properties.'"
"Given his well-documented history of harming our communities and country, as well as what he has promised he will do to Muslims and Palestinians should he return, it is incumbent upon us not to allow our high emotions to dictate our actions to our detriment," the clerics argued.
Trump's anti-Muslim animus far predates his presidency. In 2011 he said the U.S. "absolutely" has a "Muslim problem." While campaigning in 2016 he said that "Islam hates us" and that it is "very hard" to differentiate between "radical Islam" and the entire Muslim faith.
As president, Trump ordered multiple bans on people from predominantly Muslim countries. The U.S. Supreme Court—three of whose right-wing members were appointed by Trump—upheld a version of the ban. On the international stage, Trump followed through on his campaign promise to "bomb the shit out of" the so-called Islamic State and "take out their families." Thousands of civilians were killed in U.S. attacks on seven predominantly Muslim nations, matching the number of countries bombed by former President Barack Obama and exceeding the six nations attacked during the presidency of George W. Bush.
"We cannot turn our backs on our diverse Muslim community at home and those abroad who are impacted by U.S. policies in our moment of pain and anger," the letter contends. "And we have a responsibility, an amana, not to place our community in harm's way."
The clerics said that Harris and her Democratic running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, "see a new way forward and are not going back."
"We stand with moving forward," they concluded, "and call on other imams and our communities to move forward with us."
The letter stands in stark contrast with the stance of Abandon Harris, a swing state, Muslim-led coalition that says it seeks to hold the Biden-Harris administration "accountable for the Gaza genocide." The campaign endorsed Green Party candidate Jill Stein on Monday.
While the Uncommitted National Movement—a coalition of pro-Palestine, peace, and progressive groups that urged people to vote "uncommitted" in Democratic primaries in a bid to pressure the Biden administration to push Israel for a Gaza cease-fire—is not endorsing Harris, the group stressed that it opposes Trump and that voting third-party "is a mistake."
Keep ReadingShow Less
False Accusation Against Tlaib Also Proves Tapper and Bash Are Very Bad at Their Jobs
Quite justified moral outrage shouldn’t obscure what this episode taught us about the professional quality exhibited by two of CNN's most prominent anchors.
Sep 27, 2024
CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash are taking well-deserved heat for making and repeating a demonstrably false accusation of antisemitism against Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). The story has been widely reported (see here and here, for example) and is also summarized below for anyone who might have missed it. The bottom line is that, in an interview, Tlaib objected to Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s decision to prosecute pro-Palestinian student protestors. In response, Nessel falsely claimed that Tlaib “used her (Nessel’s) religion” to imply she was biased.
Tapper and Bash repeated the Attorney General’s false accusation and accused Tlaib of antisemitism, even after the reporter who spoke with Tlaib tried repeatedly to correct them. The CNN journalists finally walked their comments back, kinda-sorta, but not in a way that absolves them.
It’s ironic. Despite the mainstream media’s much-repeated concerns about “disinformation”—a concern CNN has often echoed—these two media stars participated in a disinformation campaign against the American people. But moral outrage, however justified, shouldn’t obscure something else this episode taught us about Tapper and Bash: they’re also very bad at their jobs.
Ethics and Standards
Don’t take my word for it. Their chosen profession has ethics and standards, by which they must be judged harshly. The Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) states clearly that journalists must “verify information before releasing it,” which Tapper and Bash clearly did not do.
Despite the mainstream media’s much-repeated concerns about “disinformation”—a concern CNN has often echoed—these two media stars participated in a disinformation campaign against the American people.
The SPJ also advises that journalists “use original sources whenever possible.” But Tapper and Bash don’t even seem to have read the original interview with Tlaib, even though it was freely available online. By all appearances, they relied solely on the Attorney General’s angry tweet. That’s shockingly unprofessional.
Journalists are expected to “acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently,” and must “explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.”
“Promptly”? It took days to respond. “Carefully and clearly”? Tapper said that he “misspoke,” and Bash’s walk-back was even weaker. “Tlaib did not reference (the Attorney General’s) Jewish identity,” said Bash, and “her office says that is not what she meant.” But Bash repeated the false accusation when she added that Nessel (who is hardly an objective source) “says she still believes (Tlaib’s statement) is antisemitic.”
The Code of Ethics also states that journalists must “support the open and civil exchange of views,” adding, “even views they find repugnant.”
It would appear that Tapper and Bash have strong views on Israel-Palestine which differ from Rep. Tlaib’s. Nevertheless, they’re obliged to air differing views without slurs or accusations. They failed to do that.
“Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting,” says the SPJ’s code. “Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.”
The last sentence speaks for itself.
“Stop Being Fooled by Misinformation”
“Stop being fooled by misinformation,” one CNN headline reads. “Do this instead.”
I have grave misgivings about the way mainstream media, politicians, and national security institutions want to treat misinformation (getting the facts wrong) and disinformation (deliberate deception). But it’s always helpful to teach critical reading skills. Experts in that field have insights that might prove useful to Tapper and Bash.
The CNN article covered misinformation research by the American Psychological Association (APA), which writes that “psychological factors make people susceptible” to deception. The APA warns readers about “the emotional content of misinformation,” adding: “People are more likely to believe false statements that appeal to emotions such as fear and outrage.”
That appears to be the case with Tapper and Bash, who seem to have let their emotions and prejudices overwhelm their professional judgment.
The media and political elites in this country are interconnected. They collaborate, socialize, and reinforce each other’s biases. They form, not a “conspiracy” as such, but what Gore Vidal called “a conspiracy of shared values.”
The APA also says, “People are more likely to believe misinformation if it comes from in-group sources rather than out-group ones, or if they judge the source as credible.”
The media and political elites in this country are interconnected. They collaborate, socialize, and reinforce each other’s biases. They form, not a “conspiracy” as such, but what Gore Vidal called “a conspiracy of shared values.” They form a community, comprised of people who know one another and see the world in similar ways.
The Michigan Attorney General is a mainstream Democrat and therefore part of that community. Rashida Tlaib is an outsider: left-leaning, brash, and Palestinian—something Tapper couldn’t resist bringing up when he first made his accusation.
Conclusion
Michigan’s Attorney General was guilty of demagoguery. She overrode the judgment of the county prosecutor and chose to file charges against the students, repeating a pattern of selective prosecution seen all across the country. When challenged, she brought religion into the debate—fully aware that Muslim Americans face great bias in this country.
Two prominent media figures then embraced her lie, amplified it, and repeated it even after being challenged. When confronted, they “corrected” themselves without accepting responsibility or explaining their actions. In the meantime, their lie took on a life of its own, as every “Big Lie” does. It’s still being repeated as of this writing.
That’s disinformation, and it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The disinformation campaign around Gaza, Palestine, Israel, and the protest movement has flooded this country with fake stories that range from beheaded babies to “billionaires” and “outside agitators” supplying campus demonstrators with tents and chains. You won’t hear politicians or media corporations weigh in on this disinformation campaign campaign, however, because it doesn’t come from political outsiders or overseas click farms.
It comes from them.
Addendum: What Happened
You can read more about it here and here, but here’s the gist (if you know the story you can skip to the next section): Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) criticized Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel for overruling county authorities and pressing charges against pro-Palestinian demonstrators at the University of Michigan, a decision Tlaib called “biased.”
The write-up of the interview in the Detroit Metro Times originally included this sentence:
Tlaib also criticized Nessel, who is the first Jewish person elected Attorney General of Michigan, for what she believes is a biased approach to the protest.
“Rashida should not use my religion to imply I cannot perform my job fairly as Attorney General,” Nessel tweeted in response. “It’s anti-Semitic and wrong.”
Even a cursory glance at the article reveals nothing to suggest that Tlaib mentioned Nessel’s religion. And yet, after gratuitously mentioning Tlaib’s Palestinian background, Tapper asked Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer if Tlaib’s comment was antisemitic. He doubled down when Whitmer demurred:
“Congresswoman Tlaib is suggesting that she shouldn’t be prosecuting these individuals that Nessel says broke the law, and that she’s only doing it because she’s Jewish and the protesters are not. That’s quite an accusation. Do you think it’s true?”
Steve Neavling, the reporter who interviewed Tlaib, pushed back. “Fact-check,” he tweeted. “Tlaib did not say Nessel charged pro-Palestinian protesters because she’s Jewish.” He wrote a detailed fact-check. He also addressed Tapper directly on X. “You’re spreading lies,” said Neavling.
CNN’s Dana Bash repeated the lie after Neavling’s pushback, claiming on-air that Tlaib had said “the state’s Jewish attorney general was letting her religion influence her job.” That was false.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How a Senate Hearing Designed to Combat Hate Ended Up Exhibiting It
One side wanted to understand the problem of hate and what can be done to understand and arrest its growth, while the other side seemed more intent on pouring gasoline on the fire. It was shameful.
Sep 23, 2024
Our politics and system of governance is in crisis. This was made clear this past week before and during the US Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on hate crimes in America.
The hearing was titled, “A Threat to Justice Everywhere: Stemming the Tide of Hate Crimes in America,” and was designed to examine the dramatic increase in hate crimes and to suggest a whole of government approach to deal with this problem. The expert witnesses invited to present testimony were: Kenneth Stern, Director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate; Maya Berry, Co-chair of the Hate Crimes Task Force at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR) and Executive Director of the Arab American Institute; and Rabbi Mark Goldfeder, Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center. Stern and Berry were invited by the Majority (Democrats), while Goldfeder was the pick of the Republican side.
Even before the day of the hearing, the depth of the divisions plaguing American society were evident. Republicans objected that the hearings were designed to focus on hate crimes affecting all vulnerable communities in the US. What they wanted instead was a replication of the hearings that the GOP-led House had convened, ostensibly focused on antisemitism, but which strayed far afield. A few conservative American Jewish organizations were also troubled by this broader approach.
Republicans criticized Stern, who despite having been an official at the American Jewish Committee and the lead author of the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, has since become a critic of the way this IHRA definition has been used to restrict free speech and its conflation of some legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
Berry is one of the leading researchers on hate crime data on the federal and state levels and the problems encountered in hate crime reporting. She was also the force behind the “Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act” designed to improve federal hate crime reporting. Though highly regarded for her advocacy for all affected communities through her work with LCCHR, she was seemingly targeted by Republicans for one simple reason: She’s an Arab American who has been critical of Israeli policies and of efforts, domestically, to punish critics of those policies.
It was clear from the outset that all would not go well. Democrats made the case that their concern was the overall rise in hate crimes affecting multiple groups, while Republicans derided the entire effort as deliberately sidestepping the “real problem”—antisemitism. For her part, Berry meticulously detailed the statistics of the dramatic rise in recent years in hate crimes against each group: Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Arabs, Jews, Muslims, LGBTQ, and those with disabilities. She then outlined problems with underreporting, the difficulty in reconciling state and federal data, and made specific recommendations for improving reporting and enforcement of existing hate crime legislation.
Stern insisted that universities have an obligation to protect all students and faculty against being “bullied, harassed, intimidated, threatened, or discriminated against,” cautioned Congress against codifying a broad definition of antisemitism, noting it has not been necessary to fight hate for any community. He argued that instead of policing speech— prioritizing one view over another, resulting in an “us versus them” polarization—universities had the responsibility to protect speech and promote civil discourse by challenging students to understand diverse points of view and the people who hold these views. It is the more difficult path to pursue, but, in the end, it is the role of the university to educate not police or punish.
On the other hand, Goldfeder agreed with the Republicans that the hearing should have only focused on antisemitism, arguing that it is not only the most important challenge facing America today, but also that all other forms of hate emanate from it.
True to form, the Republicans who asked questions rejected the broad focus of the hearing, delivering inflammatory remarks against U.S. students protesting the genocide unfolding in Gaza, charging that they were being funded or encouraged by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. Goldfeder agreed saying that the students were either directly serving these entities or were their “useful idiots.”
Others harassed Berry, demanding that she denounce Hamas and agree that statements like “intifada” or “from the river to the sea…” were calls for genocide against Jews. Berry calmly rejected this baiting, saying that she of course didn’t support Hamas as it is a “foreign terrorist organization” and she rejected all forms of violence. This, however, wasn’t enough for one Senator, who continued to badger her, causing her to respond that she was only being asked these questions because she is an Arab-American woman. She went on: “It’s regrettable that as I sit here today, I have experienced the very issue that we’re attempting to deal with today. This has been regrettably a real disappointment, but very much an indication of the danger to our democratic institutions that we’re in today.”
The audience of largely Arab and Jewish Americans, who had gathered to witness the hearing, instead of learning about the rise of hate and the crimes that might result from it, left with heightened passions. It was, as Berry noted, disappointing and an indication of how broken we have become. One side wanted to understand the problem of hate and what can be done to understand and arrest its growth, while the other side seemed more intent on pouring gasoline on the fire and watching it burn—all for political gain.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular