Sunday, February 5, 2012
In this article, members of the Muslim community in Des Moines Iowa were upset earlier this week. They were upset because Arvinder Singh was sent into mosques around the Des Moines area to gather intelligence for the FBI. The FBI wanted Singh to spy in the mosques to see if there were any signs of terrorism.
Singh stated that he was chosen by the FBI because he appeared to be of Middle Eastern dissent and that they needed his help for the war against terror. Singh jumped at this opportunity because he had been indicted for criminal activity while trying to become a citizen of the United States. Singh claims that the FBI said that if he would spy on the Muslim churches they would grant him citizenship. Singh went around to Muslim mosques pretending to be interested in converting to Islam. He did this for seven years. The FBI supplied him with pictures and names of certain individuals that they wanted to investigate.
Dr. Hamed Baig, the president of the Islamic Center of Des Moines said, "That was really surprising, very sad that somebody would come or the FBI or Homeland Security would send somebody here to pretend to be Muslim and try to find out what goes on here". He felt that the actions were unnecessary. Anis Rehman, an executive board member of the Islamic Center of Des Moines stated that he feels violated. He feels that the intrusion of someone within the mosque for any other purpose besides prayer or socializing makes him feel embarrassed. Some people within the Iowa Muslim community feels as if their civil rights were violated. Rehman also expressed that their community is small and tight knit and is known around the Des Moines area proving that they are good people. They do not think that the September 11th attack could warrant such an intrusion by the FBI on their small religious community.
Weysan Dunn, a FBI special agent says that the agency does not confirm or deny that they hired Arvinder Singh and they expressly denied that they gave Singh a deal. The FBI states that they are determined to prove innocence just as much as they are determined to prove guilt and that if they did launch an investigation they are solely interested in finding out the truth.
I believe that the members of the Islamic community were violated. Although there is no privacy clause expressly written in the Constitution, within the Supreme Court's jurisprudence they have declared that citizens of the United States do have the right to privacy. In my opinion, I do not think that the FBI had enough probable cause to infiltrate multiple mosques within the Des Moines area. Broader implications that can stem from this invasion of privacy is that anytime the FBI or Homeland Security has a hunch that someone is doing something illegal they could send someone to spy on anyone they want, even when these intrusions are not warranted. I think that the FBI should have found other ways to gather information prior to trampling on people’s rights based only on hunches and speculation.
Just because these people are Muslims doesn't mean that they had something to do with the September 11th attack or are terrorists. Spying on any American, even Muslim Americans, without probable cause that criminal activity is afoot is not only unconscionable it is, more importantly unconstitutional. The FBI has every right to gather information to prevent terrorism, they just have to do it legally. If the Constitution does not protect Muslim Americans from this type of intrusion it may not protect Methodists, Catholics, Jews or any other religious group that may become the target of an FBI investigation.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
If you do not remember the “Ground Zero mosque” that was a media sensation, in early 2009, let me refresh your memory. A community center was proposed to be built near the site of the Ground Zero, where the World Trade Center used to stand. When this story was brought to the forefront people were defending and opposing the building of the community center-given its close proximity to such an emotionally tumultuous area. Ironically, the community center was near the site, but not within the 16-block radius labeled Ground Zero.
According to Time Magazine, “nearly 70% of Americans in a CNN–Opinion Research Corporation poll say they oppose a Ground Zero mosque.” I find it hard to believe, that almost three-fourths of the population did not approve the notion to build the center, having been presented with all the facts. I think this is due to the huge amount of general islamophobia in our culture as well as the one-sided news coverage often presented.
Mike Bloomberg, New York City Mayor, says, "We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else." On the flip side, Inayat Bunglawala, a supporter of Muslim rights, states,
“Ultimately, we need to try to get to the point where our press apply the same standards to Muslims as to any other faith group or any other minority group community. Currently, no other faith group is treated with this barrage of inaccurate and often downright malicious misrepresentation in the national press. It is, of course, understandable that in view of the al-Qaeda terror threat we have seen in recent years that newspapers will often touch on the issue of Muslims and Islam in their reporting. That is, however, absolutely no excuse for their lies and incitement.”
I would agree with Inayat Bunglawala. Muslims, arguably more than any other group, is heavily persecuted not only by the members of our society, but by the leaders of our country in government and most often in news media. To avoid further potential conflict, I think legislation should review and limit the representation of minority religious groups in the country. This country is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian favoritism and this is no longer an accurate representation of the people of the United States.
To reiterate, essentially, I think the infamous ‘Ground Zero mosque’, was an example of islamophobia in the twenty-first century. I would also like to point out the parallel of religious persecution of colonial religious groups, like Quakers and Protestants, and modern day religious groups like Muslims and Mormons. It is another perfect example of how scare tactics are used in the United States as a form of control. There was no legitimate “threat” in the building of the community center, but because Islam is a heavily debated issue in the context of time and place, it is easily misconstrued and shown in a negative light.
Although this case study does not directly coincide with new legislation, it does greatly involve the larger issue of religious freedom in this country.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011400,00.html#ixzz1kwinDI4f
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2012/1/29/islamophobia-and-the-press.html
Preston L.
http://www2.mysanantonio.com/PDFs/MedinaValley.piopinion.pdf .
Although it has been nearly fifty years since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decisions removing state-sponsored prayers in public schools, it still remains hot topic today. A lawsuit was filed in Texas on June 1st 2011 by an agnostic family against Medina Valley HighSchool. The Schultz family urged the courts to ban prayers at their son’s graduation ceremony claiming that “the inclusion of prayers at Medina Valley High School graduation ceremonies violates the Established Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”. They also claimed their son would “suffer irreparable harm if the prayers are not enjoined”. The U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery ruled in favor of the Schultz family ordering the school district to remove the words “invocation” and “benediction” and replacing them with “opening remarks” and “closing remarks” on the program for the ceremonies. The students and speakers were also ordered to reframe from asking those in the audience to “stand”, “join in prayer” or “bow their heads”. The Attorney for the Schultz family argued that the prayers at the graduation ceremonies were not student-initiated, but government –sponsored, and that it put pressure on audience members to participate against their beliefs. Following Judge Beery’s ruling, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an emergency appeal at the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of allowing prayers at the graduation ceremonies. A Dallas-based Liberty Institute also filed a lawsuit on behalf of Angela Hildenbrand,(the valedictorian that was set to pray as part of the speech she had prepared ) in Castroville, Texas, asking the 5th Circuit Court to overturn Judge Biery’s ruling before the school’s commencement ceremony that Saturday. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ended up dissolving Judge Biery’s injunction, ruling that the Schultz family had not persuaded panal of judges “that the individual prayers or other remarks to be given by students at graduation are, in fact, school-sponsored”.
1. Engel v. Vitale (1962)
2. Wallace v. Jaffree(1985)
3. Lee v. Weisman (1992)
4. Santa Fe Independent School v. Doe (2000)