Submitted by : Ayesha Khan Registration # : 54465 Submitted to : Ali Mujahid Submitted on : 16-September-10

ISLAMOPHOBIA
Islamophobia is getting even worse in the west and oftenly Linked to Discrimination and racism against Muslims . Eurozone spearheads the Islamophobia where Islam is unfairly Linked to Terrorism and mistreatment , Muslims are denied Job opportunities and are forced to undermine their religious believes in the Name of Nationalism , Mosques are Spied on and Muslims with beards and with Islamic Names are discriminated and treated unfairly no matter they were born in Eurozone or not which Must END !

UN rights body narrowly passes Islamophobia resolution

By Hui Min Neo (AFP) Mar 25, 2010 Ref : http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/03/25/104041.html#000 GENEVA The UN Human Rights Council on Thursday narrowly passed a resolution condemning Islamophobic behaviour, including Switzerland's minaret building ban, despite some states' major reservations.

The resolution, which was criticised by the United States as "an instrument of division", "strongly condemns... the ban on the construction of minarets of mosques and other recent discriminatory measures." In a November referendum Swiss citizens voted to ban the construction of new minarets, a move that drew criticisms worldwide. Such measures "are manifestations of Islamophobia that stand in sharp contradiction to international human rights obligations concerning freedoms of religions," said the resolution. Such acts would "fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences," it charged. Some 20 countries voted in favour of the resolution entitled "combating defamation of religions", 17 voted against and eight abstained. The resolution also "expresses deep concern ... that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

It "regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatising them and legitimising the discrimination they experience." Putting forward the resolution on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said that the specific references to Islam, the only religion mentioned in the text, "reflect the existing regrettable situation in some parts of the world where Muslims are being targeted." Babacar Ba, who represents the OIC in Geneva, also told reporters that the resolution was a "way to reaffirm once again our condemnation of the decision to ban construction of minarets in Switzerland." "This initiative breaches religious freedom and rights of Muslims to build their places of worship as they wish to," he added. But while all countries agreed on the need to combat religious discrimination, debate on the resolution was intense as some were against the resolution on fears that it could be used to curb freedom of expression. Mexico for instance said it was against the resolution as "part of its orientation touches upon political and social principles" which were against principles of the freedom of expression and the question of secularism. The European Union also pointed out that the concept of defamation should not fall under the remit of human rights because it conflicted with the right to freedom of expression, while the United States said free speech could be hindered by the resolution. "The European Union believes that reconciling the notion of defamation with discrimination is a problematic endeavour," French ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei said on behalf of the bloc. Eileen Donahoe, US ambassador to the UN, also slammed the resolution as an "ineffective way to address" concerns about discrimination. "We cannot agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, because we continue to see the 'defamation of religions' concept used to justify censorship, criminalisation, and in some cases violent assaults and deaths of political, racial, and religious minorities around the world," she said. "Contrary to the intentions of most member states, governments are likely to abuse the rights of individuals in the name of this resolution, and in the name of the Human Rights Council," added the US envoy.

Islamophobia Now in American Childrens Textbooks ?

Abdus Sattar Ghazali - Published 2010-04-19 Ref : http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=38502 True, the demonizing of Arabs and Muslims in America began well before the terrible tragedy of September 11, 2001 but, what is new post-9/11, is that now demonizing Muslims and Islam is not only more widespread but also considerably more mainstream and respectable. In short, Muslim-bashing has become socially acceptable in the United States, notes Abdus Sattar Ghazali. As if the adult medias vitriol wasnt enough, the seven-million strong American Muslim community, is now being faced by the alarming publication of a series of children's books, containing misleading and inflammatory rhetoric about the Islamic faith. The 10book series - entitled the "World of Islam," is published by Mason Crest Publishing in collaboration with the Philadelphia-based pro-Israel and pro-war Foreign Policy Research Institute. Anti-Islamic sentiment pervades the entire series, portraying Muslims as inherently violent and deserving suspicion. It encourages young readers to believe Muslims are terrorists, who seek to undermine US society. For example: The book "Muslims in America", says that "some Muslims began immigrating to the United States in order to transform American society, sometimes through the use of terrorism." The cover of Radical Islam features a machine gun and a Muslim head scarf, with what looks like bloodstains underneath the scarf and the title word Radical. The book is rife with incorrect information and fear mongering and ultimately seeks to paint a picture that Muslims in America are to be treated with suspicion and that they all have links to terrorism. The text titled Islam, Law and Human Rights begins and ends with the same thing, that Muslim majority nations are the only ones that violate human rights laws set forth by the United Nations for some reason China and North Korea are exceptions to that rule. The History of Islam offers only a stunted glimpse of Islamic History and focuses primarily on extremism and contains an outrageous quote: Today, the great majority of Muslims accept the idea that jihad means a struggle against non-Muslims to increase the area under the rule of Islam. Another book shows an image of two 7-yearold girls wearing head scarves under the heading "Security Threats." The book Islam in Europe states that Muslim immigrants are the source of all social conflict and that Europe is in serious danger because of Muslim immigration. A chronology in the book starts with 1988 and lists 10 events, seven of which involve extremist Muslims participating in bombings, hijackings or other violence. It is a common knowledge that Muslims have been in Europe for hundreds of years.

The 10-volume series includes volumes by Barry Rubin on "The History of Islam," the late Michael Radu on "Islam in Europe," Anna Melman on "Islam, Law and Human Rights," John Calvert on "Divisions within Islam," and Alan Luxenberg on "Radical Islam." The Foreign Policy Research Institute suggests that the books should be a mandatory purchase for all public libraries that support middle and high school curriculum on Islam. Tellingly, none of the authors in the series, designed for middle and high school students, are Muslim and a number happen to be Jewish. The books cited a well-known Islamophobe, Daniel Pipes, who received the "Guardian of Zion" award, in May 2006. The award is given annually to a prominent supporter of the state of Israel, from the Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. Not surprisingly, Pipes circulated his own e-mail to defend the controversial series. The books also cite anti-Islam activists such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a fan of Geert Wilders, an infamous Dutch lawmaker, renowned for being a rabid Islamophobe. The Pennsylvania chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has begun a public awareness campaign against the books. "This is not about Muslims being offended," Moein Khawaja, the chapter's civil rights director, told a news conference on March 17, 2010. "Filled with incorrect information and deception, these books are contrary to the education mission of schools and libraries." "The overall theme of the books is that Muslims are inherently violent, that Islam is a second-rate religion and that one should be wary of Muslims in any society," Moein Khawaja, said adding: "These books do not fulfill the mission of a school, which is to educate." CAIR called on schools and libraries to exchange The World of Islam for Introducing Islam, with another series published by Mason Crest that was written in cooperation with scholars of Islam and is more accurate. Khawaja said complaints from council chapters across the country lead him to believe the World of Islam series are on bookshelves in about two dozen states. Alarmed by the campaign against the World of Islam, right-wing authors and groups have attacked the CAIR which is a leading American Muslim civil advocacy group. They have accused CAIR of being a front for the Palestinian Hamas faction and of receiving funding from the Arab world. Stephen Schwartz Alan Luxenberg, Vice President of the Foreign Policy Research Institute and author of "Radical Islam," circulated comments of Stephen Schwartz, the Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism in Washington, DC. His comments were disseminated under the headline: Muslim Leader Praises Mason Crest-FPRI Series on Islam. Before divulging on Schwartzs comments on the controversial text books let us see who this person is and what is the agenda of his so-called Center for Islamic Pluralism? The agenda-driven Center for Islamic Pluralism (CIP) was established in 2005 with the seed money provided by Daniel Pipes to promote so-called moderate Islam, oppose the influence of so-called militant Islam among American Muslims, in the America media, in American education and with U.S. governmental bodies.

Pipes, who created Middle East Forum (MEF) in Philadelphia in 1994, has long campaigned against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and several other national Islamic groups. Not surprisingly, the top agenda of the CIP is to discredit and dislodge major American Muslim civil advocacy group such as CAIR and Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Other Muslim and Arab organizations on the hit list of CIP are: the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), the Muslim Students' Association of the U.S. and Canada (MSA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), as well as "secular" groups, including the Arab-American Institute (AAI) and the American Arab AntiDiscrimination Committee (ADC). Schwartz, a former Trotskyite militant who says he became a Sufi Muslim in 1997, begins his comments on the controversial books with a tirade on CAIR. He says: The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is the leading Islamic extremist organization in North America. CAIR pretends to be a civil liberties group but has a long record of promoting radical ideology and of flimsy complaints of discrimination against Muslims. About the Mason Crest-FPRI Series on Islam, Schwartz says: These texts are neither prejudicial nor ideological; they represent established historical opinion and accurate reporting on present-day challenges affecting Muslims and non-Muslims alike. CAIR is attempting, as often in the past, to reinforce its claim to be a privileged interpreter of Islam in the United States. In the post-9/11 America, the Mason Crest-FPRI controversial Series on Islam are the latest episode in the reinforcement of Islamophobia which may be defined as alienation, discrimination, harassment and violence rooted in misinformed and stereotyped representations of Islam and its adherents. No doubt the new series on Islam reinforce Islamophobia through misleading and inflammatory rhetoric about the Islamic faith. Americans' attitudes about Islam and Muslims are fuelled mainly by political statements and media reports that focus almost solely on the negative image of Islam and Muslims. The vilification of Islam and Muslims has been relentless among segments of the media and political classes since 9/11. Politicians, authors and media commentators are busy in demonizing Islam, Muslims and the Muslim world. In the post 9/11 America attacking Islam and Muslims became the fashionable sport for the radio, television and print media. While print and electronic media continues unabated campaign to smear Islam, radio talk show hosts are busy in spewing out venoms against Islam and Muslims. Surprisingly, even a higher court rules that a letter calling for killing Muslims is protected by the freedom of speech. The events of 9/11 were used as an excuse to greatly magnify the hostility toward Muslims and cloak it in pseudo-patriotism. This reminds me of the Muslim-bashing campaign at the US campuses in 2007, when some bigots seized the opportunity to create hatred against Islam and Muslims. In a bid to spread fear and hatred under the guise of patriotism and freedom of speech, David Horowitz, a neo-conservative polemicist, launched an Arab/Muslim-bashing campaign at campuses across the nation in October 2007. Borrowing from President Bushs terminology Islamo-Fascists, Horowitz packaged his anti-Arab/anti-Muslim campaign as Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week. Horowitz asked students participating in the campaign to disseminate presentations, such as The Islamic Mein Kampf, (meaning the Quran). In a throwback to McCarthyism, right-wing students were encouraged to issue press releases condemning those who refused to sign for the Islamo-Fascist week. It means either you are with us or with our enemy. The irony is, that fascism is a European concept, that gained a strong following in the early 20th century. Yet hundreds of thousands of volunteer Muslims, now conveniently

forgotten, fought against this creation of the civilised world, alongside the allies in the Second World War. Today, those opponents are remembered as Nazis, yet they were in fact, largely Christian Roman Catholics and Lutherans. They wore religious insignia such as the Iron Cross. Today, it would be patently wrong and preposterous to lambast wholesale, these mainstream Christian groups. No such empathy for Muslims though! But just who are the Islamic fascists? According to Horowitzs FrontPage magazine, they include the Muslim Student Association, which has chapters on hundreds of U.S. campuses--and the Council on American Islamic Relations, which advocates for civil rights and tracks hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims. There was a collection of bigots and crackpots that Horowitz had recruited to speak for the Oct 22-26 2007 Islamophobia week. Islamophobe right wing columnist Ann Coulter was one. Other luminaries included: Rick Santorum, a former US Senator, who has compared homosexuality to incest; Robert Spencer who claims Islam is "the world's most intolerant religion"; and noted anti-Arab commentator and Islamophobe Daniel Pipes who once said that "Palestinians are a miserable peopleand they deserve to be." Some other well-known Islamophobe speakers were: Dennis Prager, Sean Hannity and Wafa Sultan. More intellectual takes came from such neoconservative icons of Middle East policy as Michael Ledeen, who seeks to apply Machiavellian principles to the modern world. Surely such a notorious lineup of racist, bigoted, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and Machiavellian speakers did not serve to educate but to promote hatred and spread misinformation and lies. Unfortunately, interested groups are now trying to promote a prejudiced view about Islam and its adherents in our classrooms to poison the minds of our young generation. The cult of hatred against Islam and Muslims is manifesting in different sectors of society. True, the demonizing of Arabs and Muslims in America began well before the terrible tragedy of September 11, 2001 but, what is new post-9/11, is that now demonizing Muslims and Islam is not only more widespread but also considerably more mainstream and respectable. In short, Muslim-bashing has become socially acceptable in the United States.

Islamophobia can be cured with a dose of tolerance

IkhwanWeb - Saturday, April 10,2010 08:25 Ref : http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=24124 Despite the recent United Nations Human Rights Council adopting of a resolution slamming Islamophobic behaviors by some countries, hints of rejection are still relevant. The UN had described Islamophobia as an "instrument of division". The resolution stressed that the discriminatory measures practiced by some contradicted international human rights obligations concerning freedom of religions. Unfortunately Islam has been frequently and mistakenly associated with terrorism and human rights violations. The recent effort by Obama's' administrations lifting of the travel ban on Muslim scholar and professor Dr Tarek Ramadan has been met with some apprehension by numerous organizations including Judicial Watch who criticized the consent given by Hilary Clinton. The group argued that Ramadan openly supported the Palestinian resistance group Hamas. For the record so do many nonMuslim groups who have witnessed the aggression and siege which has continued by the Israeli entity. Does that categorize these supporters on the most wanted Terrorist list? Academics, both Muslims and non Muslims have argued that this moderate scholar has in fact much influence with his liberated views, but Islamophobic tendencies seem to be the rule once the word Muslim is associated with any issue. A lack of tolerance is evident and a decision seems to have been made not to listen to reason especially after the September 11 attacks in America. The rise of Islamophobia could also be attributed to the negative coverage of Muslims in the media, and the violent street mobilisations of extreme rightwing organisations worldwide. The biased documenting, and articles published have added fuel to the West's fear. To fully understand Islam time has come to educate and spread its peaceful attributions but to learn people must first unlearn what information they erroneously have about Islam and Muslims. Hence the importance of broadmindedness. Ramadan's call for interaction with the West has been interpreted to mean know your enemy which in fact is quite the opposite. The Swiss born Muslim has been tried without even given a chance simply for being the grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan El Banna. The Egyptian based group in fact is renowned for its call for peaceful and legitimate reform advocating peace, tolerance and forbearance and respect for human rights and freedom exactly as Islam preaches. Any evident attempt to listen to Islamists will always be a thorn in the sides of antiMuslim diehards and patience is needed by Muslims to demonstrate to the West that in fact Islam simply represents peace and submission to the divine rule. Ikhwanweb :: The Muslim Brotherhood Official English Website

Europe's Islamophobia

By Jeanne Kay for FPIF - Saturday, April 10, 2010 Ref : http://www.fpif.org/articles/europes_islamophobia

When the Swiss voted last year to prohibit future construction of minarets on their soil, political commentators in neighboring European countries were quick to express their moral outrage. The vote of shame, headlined Liberation in France. Belgiums Le Soir deemed targeting the towers in order to aim at the population below them to be hypocritical and fallacious. The London Times predicted international embarrassment for Switzerland. In the following days, however, the European media's focus turned inwards to ask the inevitable question: Would this happen at home? Newspapers informally polled their readers and found out that they supported the Swiss stance, with unequivocal scores on major newspaper websites: 80 percent for Spain's El Pais , 79 percent in the German Die Welt. In France, the polling institute IFOP found that more citizens favored rather than opposed a ban on minarets. European approval of the Swiss referendum result is more than anecdotal. It reflects the current unfurling of Islamophobia on the continent. The IFOP poll in France didn't stop at the minaret question. It also revealed that a relative majority (41 percent) also opposed the construction of new mosques a dramatic increase since 2001, when that number was 22 percent. Placed in the context of the state-launched debate on national identity, which sanctioned the unleashing of latent anti-immigrant now synonymous with antiArab sentiment throughout the country, the trend inscribes itself in the bigger picture. A sea change has occurred in how Europeans view Islam in Europe. The Rise of the Right European far-right parties are rejoicing to see their favorite campaign themes in the forefront of public discourse. Elections this March have shown how the populist rights of Europe are benefiting from the cross-continent Islamophobic tide. Geert Wilders' Freedom Party became the second leading political force in The Hague in municipal elections, after running on an unmistakably anti-Islam platform. Meanwhile, Jean-Marie

Le Pen's National Front, which had been declared moribund after French President Nicolas Sarkozy's successful wooing of its voter base managed a surprising comeback in the first round of the regional elections in France, gathering close to 12 percent of the votes (and 19 percent in the north). In last week's regional elections in Italy, the Northern League, which campaigned in the Arezzo region by distributing free soap samples to use after having touched an immigrant, took over Veneto and Piemonte. Luca Zaia, whose campaign emphasized his anti-Islamic stance and ambition to push immigrants back into the sea, became governor of the Veneto with a landslide.

The populist right of Western Europe shares a common contempt for elite politicians whose commitment to political correctness, populists claim, leaves them out of touch with the realities of the people who have to live with the results of a lax immigration policy. The far right's discourse has shifted away from a racist line that excludes all nonwhites and toward a stricter focus on Islam. This has broadened the audience to include those who dont consider themselves racist, but decry Islamic fundamentalism in the name of general values or the preservation of a monolithic national culture. Using alarmist rhetoric to raise fears over the loss of a national identity, allegedly stifled by ever-pervasive Islamic culture, far-right leaders select highly symbolic issues as their campaign banners. In France, the National Front jumped on the case of a fast-food chain that chose to use only halal meat in restaurants located in districts with large Muslim populations. Marine Le Pen, the daughter of National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen and the groups new ambassador, expressed her indignation that these restaurants' customers would be obligated to pay a tax to Islamic meat certification companies and called for the consumer's right to choose. But the populist right doesn't hold a monopoly on the clash-of-civilization narrative in Europe. Parties of the moderate right have jumped on the Islamophobia bandwagon to gain political capital from the sordid national identity debate. They are sometimes even joined by social democrats under the banner of liberal values. Mainstream politicians most often invoke Enlightenment values to stigmatize features of Islam. In the Netherlands, the alleged incompatibility of Islam with the country's historic gay-positive culture is a critical argument in anti-Islamic rhetoric. But co-opting liberalism is particularly prominent in the debate over the veil in public spaces, a hot issue across western Europe. Last year, Nicolas Sarkozy's declaration that the full-body veil was not welcome in France launched a nationwide debate, which is now likely to turn into a legislative effort. The Socialist Party, meanwhile, was unable to take a strong critical stance

because of its commitment to feminism and historic defense of republican secularism. Legislation to ban the burqa and niqab in public places is also on the table in the Netherlands, while Denmark already instituted such a law this past January. Belgian representatives are expected to pass a bill in mid-April that, although not containing any reference to Islam, prohibits individuals from covering their faces in public. Such a law has already been in practice in Italy since 1975, but the Northern League is advocating for it to be amended to specifically mention the veil. Region-wide Identity Crisis? Critics of Nicolas Sarkozy's government's initiative to launch a country-wide debate on defining national identity suggested that a more useful debate would tackle the issue of European identity. Although the European Union continues its course toward tighter political and economic integration, a general apathy if not outright distrust toward the EU remains among the general population. Fostering a sense of a shared multicultural identity, which could result in increased European civic interest and engagement with EU politics, is hindered by the Right's exploitation of people's fears over loss of sovereignty and national identity. When Poland entered the Schengen Space in 2004, Western Europe feared the "Polish plumber invasion" the massive westward migration of low-wage worker. Now Western Europeans are rallying against the entry of Turkey into the EU. The European Commission's 2007 Eurobarometer showed that only 28 percent of European citizens favored Turkey's integration. The prospect of a wave of Turkish immigrants adding to the 15 million followers of Islam living in the EU is a deep-rooted fear among Western populations. The War on Terror and the international obsession with anti-terrorism have certainly played a role in catalyzing European anti-Islamism. Yet the core problem seems to be the failure of traditional models of integration to handle ever-growing South-to-North migration in this age of globalization. While the French are still clinging to the assimilation model, a legacy of its colonial past, Geert Wilders is warning the Netherlands about the dangers of cultural relativism and declaring point blank the inferiority of Islamic culture. In the same way that it's failing to offer a clear alternative to neoliberal hegemony in economic policy, the social democratic left remains unable to propose a concrete alternative model of integration based on genuine multiculturalism. Europe must make a choice. It can hold onto its antiquated model of Christian-inflected secularism. Or it can make space for new peoples and cultures, and become stronger and more vibrant as a result. Jeanne Kay is a student at Antioch College, a former intern at Institute for Policy Studies, and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), where this article first appeared and is reprinted with permission. Europe's Islamophobia | Eurasia Review

Refuting Islamophobia Under Hutaree's Un-Christian Shadow

Zahra Khan - April 8, 2010 03:10 PM Ref : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zahra-..._b_530622.html On the same day as anti-Islamic rhetoric intensified in the wake of a train blast by terrorists in Russia, the FBI was unraveling a scheme by another terrorist group, the Hutaree, as its members plotted to kill several US police officers in Michigan. The Hutaree's name, literally translating to "Christian warrior," sent shockwaves through mainstream Christians who preferred to denounce the group as a "fringe anti-government cult" instead of using the cringing "Christian terrorist" label, which by word connotation maligns the image of the entire faith. This reaction is reminiscent of numerous Muslim objections to negative media labels of Islam. However, the Muslim voice is constantly muffled in the public forum. Why? Although Islam is a religion, not a race, the majority of the six million modern-day adherents in the US are primarily ethnic persons. They form a vulnerable racial minority before a Caucasian-controlled media that has a carte blanche to insult the religion's ancient name, "Islam," by using it as a root word within the modern media-coined "Islamist" label for cult militant activities.

This spurious terminology confuses a public that by word association commingles the values of the cult with the mainstream. The impact of identifying each terrorist by his faith is equivalent to hypothetical headlines stating, "Caucasian bank robber, member of church XYZ, shoots Mr. X"; or "In US, one woman every 12 minutes suffers domestic violence by Christian man"; or, "Jewish Madoff swindles countrymen"; or "Black Christian gang member kills five." These bigoted headlines would correctly create an outrage for implying that the disclosure of racial and religious information is relevant to a criminal action. Yet for mainstream US Muslims, these types of racist headlines are a daily reality. The media's use of terminology like "Islamic extremists" and "Muslim terrorists" is scripted to stereotype general Muslims under the umbrella of cult activists. This discriminatory reporting is most glaring when juxtaposed with coverage of non-Muslim-related acts of terrorism. So, recently, when in a single horrific instance an ethnic US army officer, Major Hasan, killed several of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, the media quickly explored his Muslim roots. In contrast, when it came to reporting on several Christian soldiers, like Sgt. John Russell, who shot uniformed comrades, the media -- correctly -- not only never used the word "Christian" but also attempted to explore those actions under the human backdrop of "post-traumatic stress disorder" rather than religious background. Comparable to the outlawed "Muslim Taliban," the KKK is a legalized US organization, which, despite its deadly history of religion-justified violence, is identified as a "white supremacist" group rather than a "Christian terrorist" group. Analogous to the 9/11 scenario, a February suicide plane attack on an IRS building by an infuriated antigovernment protester, Joseph Stack, is called "crazy" but not a "Christian terrorist act" on US soil. Muslims who become unruly in expressing political dissent earn a "terrorist" status, unlike the merely "uncivil" label for the perpetrators of last week's hate-fest against pro-health care bill senators, who were hounded by death threats and vandalism. The local nature of the Hutaree reminds me of another domestic terrorist act, the Oklahoma City federal building bombing, fifteen years earlier. I lived in an educated East coast community, working amongst some of the elite business professionals of the region. I mistakenly hoped for tolerance in this "intelligent" society. Yet within the first half-hour of the Oklahoma crisis, my angry and emotional supervisor menacingly addressed me in the presence of our lead manager, "Hey, you know what! We are going to find those terrorists, and when we do, we will bomb that country to shreds. Just you wait." The next week the hunt was on for a local white man, Timothy McVeigh, who, despite being hated by the public, has never been labeled a "Christian terrorist." In recent years, I have been residing in a Bible Belt state, where amongst Christian outreach and kindness are reminders of Christian insularity, a behavior that rejects diversity. Emblazoned in my memory is a particular time when my daughter was six. I had chuckled as she asked during the Christmas season, "Mommy, everyone at school keeps saying Jesus Crises, Jesus Crises. What is wrong with him, Mommy? Is he in trouble?" As believers in Jesus, I had previously taught her the Muslim reverence for the Islamic concept of Prophet Jesus but had never used the term "Jesus Christ." Once the mystery was clarified to her, my elated child returned to school, sharing with her classmates the fact that she now understood what they meant by "Jesus Christ!" A few days later, I was not laughing as she sobbed, recounting how a few kids at recess said that their "parents don't want them to play with someone who did not know who Jesus Christ was." Whether in the "cosmopolitan" East coast or the "God-loving" South, this insular mentality exhibited at work, at school, and in homes becomes the foundation for bias, building walls amongst our fellow citizens by eventually blinding opportunities to

defend one another's civil liberties. The media capitalizes on this public complacency, receiving a carte blanche to insult certain groups without impunity. Yet the emotional damage suffered by Muslim families, harassed at work and school by a public whose media-enabled prejudices foster a culture of broad-brush hate, is devastating. So this week I was able to relate to my Christian neighbors, who, because of the Hutaree saga, all of a sudden felt painfully attacked and defensive of a religion that helps them to lead more fulfilling and loving lives. Upstanding Christians made the correct media appeal to refrain from using the "Christian terrorist" label to refer to a fringe element that is actually "un-Christian." These same individuals should better appreciate the emotional scars inflicted by the name-calling media upon the mainstream American-Muslim community, in the spirit of the Christian golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself." It's time to work together to end Islamophobia, too.