Members of a Muslim family whose house was shot at during a drive-by Thursday evening think they were targeted because of their faith.

Tuesday, a stranger driving by Allie and Maryam Taghavi's home in southwest Oklahoma City stopped and asked their 21-year-old son the family's religion.

A large sign hung on the porch and visible from the road said, "as-salamu alaykum," an Arabic phrase often used by Muslims meaning "peace be with you."

Without any suspicion, their son told the stranger they were Muslim, Allie Taghavi said. The stranger then drove away.

Then, two days later on Thursday evening, Allie Taghavi was home with three of his adult children when shots were fired around 7:45 p.m. from a car driving south on S Olie Avenue near their home at SW 30. "I screamed when I heard the shots, but it was so rapid ... like firecrackers," he said.

Allie Taghavi ran from his bedroom into his 23-year-old daughter's room where a bullet had come through the east side of their house, piercing a wall a few feet away from where she was sitting at her computer desk.

Seconds later, shots were fired into the bedroom just to the south where Allie Taghavi had been. One bullet crossed the width of his bedroom and passed into a bathroom where it lodged in the wall.

No one was injured in the incident. The family fled its home after police cleared the scene a few hours later. Family members said they don't plan to return.

Police Master Sgt. Gary Knight said Oklahoma City's gang unit is investigating the incident because it was reported as a drive-by shooting. Police responded to a call about multiple rounds being fired into the home from a car driving south on S Olie Avenue.

Two bullet holes were found in the home. No one had been arrested as of Friday evening.

NewsOK, 2 February 2013

See also "CAIR-OK seeks bias probe of shooting attack on Muslim family's home", CAIR press release, 1 February 2013

View the Original article

Most Australians think multiculturalism works well, with only occasional problems.

A Galaxy poll of 1000 people run exclusively for News Limited revealed people's attitudes in the run up to Australia Day to the sometimes divisive issue.

One in 10 said multiculturalism worked very well and made Australia what it is, while just over half said it worked generally quite well, causing only the occasional issue.

One quarter said multiculturalism generally did not work very well and seemed to create more problems than the benefits it brought. Thirteen per cent said it caused lots of cultural issues and problems.

Australian National University immigration expert Dr James Jupp, who worked with the late Jerzy Zubrzycki, the Polish-born sociologist often called the father of Australian multiculturalism, said the result was good news after the damage John Howard did when he abolished the position of minister for multicultural affairs as prime minister.

He said Australians' growing love of travel had helped open up minds to different cultures. People had always travelled to Bali, but were now expanding their appetites to places like China, Burma, Vietnam and Sri Lanka, Dr Jupp said.

"People are going to and coming from practically every country in Asia, except North Korea, and that's really very different from 15 years ago," he said. "And it's mostly young people."

Dr Jupp said racist elements existed in the community, but they were a minority.

A spokeswoman for Immigration Minister and Acting Multiculturism Minister Chris Bowen said migration had made an enormous contribution to Australia's culture, economy and social fabric. "Australians are overwhelmingly very tolerant and the majority of Australians appreciate the benefits of our diversity," she said.

Of Australia's 22 million people, about 44 per cent were either born overseas or one or both of their parents were born overseas.

News.com, 24 January 2013

View the Original article

Australia, in common with other "Western" countries, has something of a track record when it comes to scaremongering over the Islamist organisation Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the threat to civilised society it supposedly represents.

Back in 2005 the then prime minister John Howard announced that the government was considering outlawing HT, although nothing came of this due to the absence of any evidence from the security services that could justify a ban. That wasn't good enough for New South Wales premier Morris Iemma, who in 2007 called on the government to illegalise HT on the grounds that "it wants to declare war on Australia, our values and our people".

Later that year the Australian Strategic Policy Institute published a study that found HT to be a "potential threat to the nation", although it concluded that "a ban on HT is not yet justified". This didn't prevent the Jewish Council of Victoria from calling for a ban in 2011 on the grounds that HT was "the sort of group that would encourage home-grown terrorists".

Last month the Australian think tank Future Directions International made a further addition to this anti-HT campaign by publishing a study titled "Hizb-ut-Tahrir in Australia: Urgent Need for International Engagement and Counter-Narrative". It asserts:

"The radical Islamist organisation Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HUT) could pose a socio-cultural threat to Australia in the short term. It may instigate an increased level of small-scale sectarian violence in the medium term and may indirectly instigate terror attacks by affiliated groups or individuals and create a deeply divided community in the long term."

The author, Mirza Sadaqat, works at the Bangladesh Enterprise Insititute in Dhaka. In 2011, at the launch of the BEI study "The State of Terrorism in Bangladesh, 2009-10", it was claimed that of all Islamic organisations in the country it was HT that posed the greatest threat to the state. HT has been banned in Bangladesh since 2009.

HT's response to Sadaqat's paper was scathing: "Riddled with errors of fact and scant of anything that can be called analysis the paper simply regurgitates a tired and discredited narrative about Hizb ut-Tahrir. The 4-page article based entirely on secondary sources, primarily newspaper articles, reads more like a high-school essay completed in a rush rather than a think-tank paper." They characterised the paper as "bad research at best and cheap propaganda in the name of independent analysis at worst".

In an article posted on his Islam, Muslims, and an Anthropologist blog Gabriele Marranci subjects the FDI paper to a more detailed analysis and and basically endorses HT's judgement. He writes:

"It is clear that the methodology is based on secondary sources, and the secondary sources are extremely weak. So, what we are reading is not an analysis paper or a report, but rather an opinion piece that is no different to that which you may read on blogs, in forums or in the editorial section of newspapers and so forth."

Marranci also checks out the credentials of the author of the FDI paper, Mirza Sadaqat, and finds that he "is not an expert in the field and has little knowledge, beyond a couple of newspaper articles and an old 2007 report published by another Think Tank, about the subject his writing about. The analysis and paper must be rejected since it would be substandard even for a level one course essay at any university."

The 2007 think tank study used by Sadaqat is the ASPI publication mentioned to above, which is even sketchier than his own. It contains no references at all, and the only authority it cites (as "the leading analyst of HT") is Zeyno Baran of the right-wing US think tank the Hudson Institute, who notoriously described HT as a "conveyor belt" to terrorism. It is also worth noting that one of the newpaper articles referenced by Sadaqat – "Jihadist group a threat to us all" – is by none other than mad Melanie Phillips. Some scholarly apparatus!

Marranci asks how a reputable organisation like Future Directions International could think it appropriate to publish such a shoddy piece of work. He relates this to a general problem with think tanks, which aim to "provide a fast, public friendly, easy to use policy support for difficult decisions" and prioritise this over any concern for "ethical issues, ethical conduct of research and often methodology". There is in addition a more specific problem when think tanks address issues related to the Muslim world: "In a majority of such cases, the engagement is aimed at sensationalism, where fear mongering reigns sovereign."

For an example Marranci refers readers to his critique of Denis MacEoin's 2007 report for Policy Exchange, The Hijacking of British Islam. It should be added that Marranci's doubts about the reliability of this study were subsequently confirmed when it was revealed to be based in part on forged documentation.

Marranci urges Future Directions International to withdraw the "Hizb-ut-Tahrir in Australia" paper in order to "avoid compromising the quality of their information, publications and work". He also argues that an understanding of HT Australia requires "substantive and extended academic research" which is so far lacking. As Marranci points out: "Academic research has (in the majority of cases) the benefit that it is public, clear in its scope and aims, and normally based on ethical, methodologically sound research."

View the Original article

This week, so-called 'secularists' were declared official winners in Libya's parliamentary elections – and yet they support a constitutional place for Islamic sharia values. This seeming contradiction in Libya belies Western stereotypes about the incompatibility of Islam and democracy.

Amyn B. Sajoo writes in the Christian Science Monitor, 19 July 2012

View the Original article

Over the weekend, Jerry Boykin was interviewed on a radio program out of Bakersfield, California ahead of a scheduled appearance at a local church early next week where he will undoubtedly promote his anti-Islam conspiracy theories.

During the interview, Boykin warned that every serious Muslim was determined to enshrine Sharia wherever they lived and that they were making great progress in establishing it in America. This prompted one of the co-hosts to ask Boykin about Dearborn, Michigan which he claimed was "almost one hundred percent Muslim and operating under Sharia law now," a statement with which Boykin agreed, adding that "if you walk down the streets, you would think you were in Beirut or Damascus".

Right Wing Watch, 26 June 2012

View the Original article

Nathan Lean reports that one of the oldest and most influential US conservative think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), has announced that its resident scholar Michael Rubin will join Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch on a 10-day tour of Turkey, which has been organised by the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Lean writes: "Do Rubin and the AEI really want to be bedfellows with people like Spencer? Espousing staunchly conservative worldviews is one thing, but abandoning the right side of the political spectrum to flirt with anti-Muslim fanatics is another. It is evidence that the Islamophobia industry is becoming dangerously infused into a discourse that should be working to exclude such blatant bigotry."

Truthdig, 21 June 2012

View the Original article

Jesus Christ is one of the Holy prophets sent to earth by Almighty Allah to spread Christianity and teach people morals, forgiveness and let them know more about Allah.  He was there when God created Adam and Eve. Jesus was a chosen slave of Allah, just like other Prophets who were assigned by Allah. All Prophets have various qualitative attributes, but the attributes of Jesus distinguishing him from other prophets. According to Islam Jesus was neither killed nor crucified or die but he disappeared, and it has mentioned in Qur’an as well that Allah raised him up.  In the Holy book, the whole life story of Jesus can be found easily.

Jesus life is full of teachings. His Mother was Virgin Mary, and this point is really very unique about Jesus. However Jesus disappeared from His tomb, he will definitely return, because God said that He will be the sign of the Day of Judgment. Qur’an said that Jesus, the Prophet and Messiah is alive and in the near future he will return to the earth. His noble morality and miracles are can be seen in history.

Undoubtedly, Muslims believe in Jesus and love him as well. So they have a belief that He will come back to the earth again and His purpose will be to save the humanity. In fact, Muslims are eagerly waiting for Jesus that He will come back to earth and solve the problems of humanity. This is also a fact that in every age or period, Allah answered the calls of His people, so it is also a believe that in the coming era, for the sake of humanity and save them from injustice, He will hold his people in the coming era. In fact He is still holding.

In today’s age anyone can observe the situation of the world. We have an understanding about good and bad, right and wrong but still we are moving towards the wrong path. The future of the world’s people can be seen as dark. But with the appearance of Jesus, this Dark Age will automatically convert into the shiny people and Jesus will save people from all kinds of bad deeds and injustice.

There is an examination in the Qur’an, which indicates that Jesus will surely return to earth. Different verses are the witness of this reality about Jesus. Jesus will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. He will be a messenger of Allah, who come to return to earth. Because throughout history, Allah sent His messengers to many people, so it will happen in the coming period as well.

With the return point of Jesus, the Christ era will also return and this is the believe of the Christian people. Now-a-days, it has become the slogan that what would Jesus do on His return to earth. But the question of this answer has already presented in the Holy Book.

View the Original article