Military Chaplains Endorsed by Who?!

It looks like someone is - finally - taking a long, hard look at how the American military checks out chaplains. Muslim chaplains, that is.

Don't have a stroke: I don't 'hate Islam;' this isn't a rant about those awful Muslims/foreigners/whatever; and I think it's a good idea to learn if any sort of chaplain thinks that, say, Hamas is a charitable organization.

'They Wouldn't Print It If It Wasn't True?'

I take what I read in the news "with a grain of salt." In some cases, several truckloads of salt. Like the howler I discussed today in another blog:

• "NASA, Extraterrestrial Life: and Titan is a Moon of Saturn, not Mars"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (December 1, 2010)

I'm inclined to think that the hapless science reporter who wrote about the Martian moon, Titan, should be cut some slack. (Titan orbits Saturn, not Mars, by the way.) FOXNews probably hired some wunderkind who got passed through America's public school system. Which is part of the reason that my kids are home schooled from 7th grade up. And that's yet another topic. (A Catholic Citizen in America (May 20, 2010))

That was an "Air & Space" article - and I've gotten used to clueless, inept, ill-informed 'science' reporting in news media. I think it's a cultural thing. It's important, in America, to know that the Super Bowl is not a basketball game. That Titan circles Saturn, not Mars? Not so much.

Chaplains Endorsed by ISNA? What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Anyway, here's something else that appeared in FOXNews today. It's not that I entirely trust the company: but this article has citations, and somebody was brave enough to have their name in the byline. Odds are that it's factually correct:

"...In a letter sent earlier this month to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, former Inspector General Joseph Schmitz outlined what he believes is the potential risk to national security posed by the military’s current chaplain vetting system.

"Among the concerns Schmitz outlined in his letter, which was obtained by FoxNews.com, are:

"- Reports that Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, accused of 13 counts of murder in last year's Fort Hood massacre, acted as a Muslim lay leader and received training from one of the approved civilian religious groups involved with the Defense Department chaplain program.

"- The identification of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), one of two endorsing agencies used by the U.S. military in its approval process for Muslim chaplains,as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.

"- The naming of the ISNA's former endorsing agent, Dr. Louay Safi, as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2003 trial of Sami Al-Arian, who pleaded guilty to one count of fundraising for the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Safi is also the subject of a whistleblower investigation.

" 'The November 2008 criminal conviction in Texas of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) as a front for Hamas, naming of the DoD's Chaplain Endorsing Agents, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), as an unindicted co-conspirator (among others), suggests that terrorist organizations can and do disguise themselves as charitable organizations,' Schmitz wrote to Feinstein.

" 'The November 2009 Fort Hood massacre by a commissioned Army officer who served as a lay Muslim leader at Fort Hood demonstrates that international terrorist organizations can also try to disguise their agents as chaplains and religious lay leaders,' he added.

"In a statement to FoxNews.com, Feinstein, D-Calif., said:

" 'We recently received the letter and staff is reviewing it carefully and making inquiries into how all chaplains are vetted by the Defense Department. Certainly chaplains should be carefully interviewed and backgrounds checked, regardless of their religion.'..."
("EXCLUSIVE: Former Defense IG Raises Concerns About Military Chaplain Vetting," Jana Winter, FOXNews (December 1, 2010))

ISNA seems to be under the impression that Hamas is a charitable organization. I've written about ISNA before.

ISNA may or may not actually be involved in terrorism. However, trusting ISNA to endorse chaplains seems to make about as much sense as trusting the Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka). (November 26, 2007)

If this sounds harsh or intolerant: consider a hypothetical situation.

Would it make sense for the American military to accept Christian chaplains, based in part on the endorsements of a group which appears to support white supremacists, and portrays the KKK in the fifties and sixties as a misunderstood political action committee? I don't think so: and I don't think that folks in America's dominant culture would, either.

As for how big a problem the chaplain vetting process is? I don't know. We'll probably learn more, as time passes.

Related posts:

• "Arkansas Recruiting Center Shooting, the Right to Remain Silent, and War"
  (January 22, 2010)
• "Major Nidal Malik Hasan, Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, and Common Sense"
  (November 11, 2009)
• "Holy Land Foundation Sentencing: It's About Terrorism, Not Islam"
  (May 27, 2009)
• "FBI, CAIR, and Hamas - This is Interesting, but Not News"
  (January 30, 2009)
• "ISNA, Hamas, Obama's Inaugural, and the Usual Suspects"
  (January 19, 2009)

In the news:

• Jana Winter, "EXCLUSIVE: Former Defense IG Raises Concerns About Military Chaplain Vetting" Jana Winter, FOXNews (December 1, 2010)

Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi, Pakistani Imam: Denounced Suicide Attacks, Killed

The first three paragraphs of a CNN article tell most of the story:

"A moderate Muslim cleric who denounced suicide attacks as forbidden by Islam was killed Friday in a suicide attack on his mosque in Lahore, authorities said.

"Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi was the first imam in Pakistan to issue a fatwa, or religious edict, against suicide attacks in Pakistan.

"On Friday, a suicide bomber approached Naeemi as he left the Jamia Naimia Mosque and religious school. The bomber detonated his explosives, killing Naeemi and four others, police said. Another 10 people were wounded in the attack...." (CNN)

I am grateful to Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi, for the having the courage to issue that fatwa. I don't know how much effect it will have, particularly now that he's dead.

But, at the least, I think this shows that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not necessarily typical of Islam, any more that Timothy McVeigh was typical of Americans, or the KKK of the sixties was typical of Christianity.

Every group has its crazies. And, perhaps what happened to Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi gives some insight into why imams tend to keep a low profile, if they aren't the sort who preach hate against 'those people over there.'

I hope that the wisdom and courage of Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi spreads.

Related posts:

• "Using a Kid to Bomb a Mosque: Non-Western Cultural Values, Just Plain Evil, or Something Else?"
  (June 12, 2009)
• "Blowing Up Pakistan Mosque: Not the Best Idea for Taliban"
  (June 8, 2009)
• " 'Islamic Mercy:' Roxana Saberi Free, Returning to Fargo, North Dakota"
  (May 11, 2009)
• "Another Minnesotan Dies in Somalia: Not Your Stereotype African"
  (June 7, 2009)
• "Right-Wing Extremists Really Are Terrorists, Sometimes"
  (June 6, 2009)
• "U. S. Bombed Mosque: Iran Official - 'When in Doubt, Blame the Americans' "
  (May 29, 2009)
• "Canadian Mosque's 'Specialized De-Radicalization Intervention Program' - Sounds Good"
  (February 26, 2009)
• "Pro-Islamic Ads Coming to New York City Subways: There's a Real Danger Here, of Becoming Informed"
  (July 21, 2008)
• "With Friends Like These, Does Islam Need Enemies?"
  (January 22, 2008)

In the news:

• "Blast kills cleric who denounced suicide attacks"
  CNN (June 12, 2009)

Iraqi Imams Declare Al Qaeda False Holy Warriors

Imams setting off violence by making proclamations in mosques is just another example of Islamic fanaticism, right?

Not this time.

Near Samara, in northern Iraq, imams stated that Al Qaeda should be expelled from the area. They said that members of Al Qaeda were false mujahadeens, or false holy warriors. Fighting broke out after that, killing 16 terrorists.

Ideally, after being identified as false holy warriors, the Al Qaeda fighters would have had a sort of epiphany and renounced terrorism: somewhat along the lines of Jamal al-Badawi in Yemen, but with more plausibility.

That didn't happen, but there are at least 16 of Al Qaeda who won't kill again.

And, there's another part of the Islamic world where imams have spoken out against Al Qaeda.

I'd say this is good news.

Elsewhere in Iraq, responsibility for handling security has been handed off to the Iraqi government or the Kurdish regional government in seven provinces. Karbala will be the eighth province this Monday.

That makes eight handed off, ten to go.

Provinces handed off to Iraqi control:

• 2006
  • Muthanna
  • Dhi Qar
  • Najaf
• 2007
  • Maysan
  • Dahuk (1)
  • Irbil (1)
  • Sulaimaniyah (1)
  • Karbala

(1) The Kurdish regional government controls these provinces.

President Bush said that security for all the provinces would be in Iraqi hands by November. That isn't going to happen.

This post has two purposes.

1. Point out that there has been real progress. It hasn't happened as fast as I'd like, but it's still good news.
2. Briefly discuss reality, editors, and what we see in the news.

I do not think there is some sort of conspiracy to slant the news. In fact, the Associated Press article I took this information from was relatively even-handed about presenting facts.

However, Iraqi imams preaching against Al Qaeda, and a steady progression of Iraqi provinces being turned over to Iraqi authorities is not the emphasis of the article.

These three paragraphs, leading the article, set the tone. And, for someone skimming through the news, it might be all that was read.

"U.S. forces will turn over security to Iraqi authorities in the southern Shiite province of Karbala on Monday, the American commander for the area said, despite fighting between rival militia factions that has killed dozens.

"Karbala will become only the eighth of Iraq's 18 provinces to revert to Iraqi control, despite President Bush's prediction in January that the Iraqi government would have responsibility for security in all of the provinces by November.

"But the target date has slipped repeatedly, highlighting the difficulties in developing Iraqi police forces and the slow pace of economic and political progress in areas still troubled by daily violence."

Take a look at these phrases:

• "...despite fighting between rival militia factions that has killed dozens."
• "...only the eighth of Iraq's 18 provinces"
• "...despite President Bush's prediction in January that the Iraqi government would have responsibility for security in all of the provinces by November."

Biased?

One argument is that the AP has merely presented the facts. Just facts. And, that it's mere happenstance that a discussion of White House failures and a death toll of dozens leads the article.

Another is that those "despite," "only," "despite" phrases are intended to denigrate American accomplishments in Iraq, and emphasize the problems that still exist.

Take your pick.

Bottle-Thrower and the Flying Imams

Hate Crime! Chemical Warfare in America! Anti-Muslim Attackers!

Or maybe irresponsible kids with too much time on their hands in August.

The Reuters headline read, Arizona mosque targeted in "acid bomb" attack" - what the article actually said was that a couple of guys in a red car threw a soda pop bottle with "pool cleaner and strips of tin foil" in the general direction of a mosque in Glendale, Arizona.

The soda pop bottle hit a sidewalk (or maybe a street- more of that later) around 20 to 25 feet away (about 7 meters) from one of the "Flying Imams" or "Minnesota Imams" and another man.

Police sergeant Jim Toomey said that there have been five other soda-pop-bottle attacks in or around Glendale over the last three days. This attack on a mosque and/or one of the Flying Imams is the only one with a religious connection.

"The bottle ruptured in front of them and they smelled a strong chemical smell when it went off," sergeant Toomey said in the article. "We are treating it as a hate crime. We are taking it very seriously ... Until we know (the reason), we are going to assume that (the mosque attack) was religiously motivated," he added.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said the Flying Imams and their lawyer have had death threats: and that the Glendale police should those threats as part of their investigation.

As usual, I've got quite a few opinions about this event.

• "The Flying Imams" would be a good name for a rock group
• The Glendale police deserve commendation for including religious motivation in their investigation
• With 5 other attacks like this one, except on non-religious targets, in the last 3 days, this "acid bomb" attack might not be religiously motivated
• Reuters was remarkably, low-key and vague about just what the Flying Imams did to get themselves inconvenienced
• The Reuters article doesn't mention where the car was, relative to the mosque

azcentral.composted an Arizona Republic article with information that Reuters considered unimportant.

• The bottle bomb hit the street, not the sidewalk, according to the A.R. article
• The mosque was a "converted mobile home" with no markings to show that it was a mosque
• Back in 2004, there was a suspicious fire on the outside of Al Sadiq Mosque in Glendale
• That mosque had no markings to show the nature of the building
• The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is "grateful for the attention being given by Glendale police," according to the Arizona news source.

Ibraham Hooper, CAIR national communications director in Washington, D.C., said, "We appreciate the professional response of the local law enforcement authorities and urge the FBI to add its resources to the investigation," quite a different impression than the one left by Reuters.

The no-hate-crime-here statement about the 2004 fire came from Deedra Abboud, a former Arizona CAIR chapter.

If there is a lesson to be learned here, it may be that two reports of the same incident can state only objective facts, and still give two very different impressions of the incident.

Minnesota Imams Change Lawsuit Hit List

The six "Minnesota Imams," also called the "flying imams," have changed their minds. They say their civil rights were violated last fall when they were removed from a US Airways flight in Minnesota.

They still say that they're victims of something, but they've changed their minds about who is to blame.

Originally, they were going to sue the airline and the passengers who tattled on them.

Now, the Minnesota Imams have decided to drop the passengers from their give-me-money list. They are, however, going to sue the airline employees and police officers who they say are responsible for handcuffing the Imams and making them miss their flight.

Why were the civil rights of these self-described devout Muslims violated so cruelly? They just happened to

• Wear unseasonably bulky clothing
• Change their seat assignments to match the positions of the 9/11 hijackers
• Make anti-American comments about the war in Iraq

How could anyone reasonably think this was suspicious?

In case that question sounds serious, let me suggest a very hypothetical situation.

Let's say that Scandinavian Lutherans had, for decades, been blowing up airplanes, buses, and themselves in what they called a Ragnarokathon. Learned scholars explained that the Scandinavian Lutherans were doing this because western culture didn't appreciate lutefisk and lefse.

Then, in the fall of 2001, Scandinavian Lutherans, mostly from Sweden, blew up the Sears Tower in Chicago. Thousands of people were killed. The skyscraper was destroyed by crashing two airliners into it. The airliners had been hijacked by Scandinavian Lutherans carrying weapons under their overcoats. There were seven hijackers in each plane.

Five years later, at Boston's Logan Airport, one of seven tall, blond, blue-eyed men wearing bulky overcoats say, loudly enough to be heard near the boarding gate, "Ya, vell, hvat can you expect from dem crazy lefse-haters? De so steupid, de probly tink ve eatin' cardboard!"

Another of the blond giants says, "You said it, Sven! Lutefisk forever! Down vit de tasteless Eu Hess Hay!"

Once on the plane, they refuse to sit in their assigned seats, and arrange themselves in the same seating pattern used by the Scandinavian hijackers.

Then, they start singing "Sång till Norden." In Swedish.

Let's say you were a passenger on that plane, and remembered details about the 2001 hijacking. Would you be just a little suspicious? Would you be shocked if someone else was?

(The imams' lawyer says that the homeland security bill discussed last week, with language that would protect people who report suspicious behavior from lawsuits, had nothing to do with his clients' decision.)

(Information from FOXNews.com Imams Removed From US Airways Flight Drop Passengers From Lawsuit.)

Tipster Provision Back in Play

An article in yesterday's Washington Post, "Lawmakers Reach Deal on Security Bill," says that legislation intended to do something about the old 9/11 Commission report is making progress. According to the Washington Post, "negotiators crafted language to satisfy a Republican demand giving immunity from lawsuits to people who report suspicious behavior."

That 'tipster immunity' became an issue when what the paper euphemistically reffed to as six Muslim scholars ... acting suspiciously" were removed from an airliner last fall.

(Reality check: The imam's fellow-passengers noticed that they demanded seat belt extenders to accommodate their rather bulky clothes, re-arranged themselves into the seating pattern used by the 9/11 hijackers, and then began praying, aloud, in a language that very few Minnesotans understand.)

Imagine! someone being suspicious over that! What is this world coming to!

No wonder the Imams are suing the airline, and the passengers who didn't want to get blown up.

If the bill being run through the mangle on Capitol Hill makes it through, it may protect people who would prefer not being participants in the next jihadist exercise in self-expression.

The bill's prospects are looking better. A FOXNews.com article,"Sept. 11 Security Bill to Include Protections for Citizens Who Report Suspicious Activity," says that "John Doe Protections" for people who report suspicious activity stayed in the bill, giving immunity to those who report what they reasonably believe is suspect activity to authorities.

It looks like common sense may have visited this nation's capitol.

At least, I hope so.

Previous post:

• Tipster Protection Provision Blown Away

Tipster Protection Provision Blown Away

With so many lawsuit-happy lawyers and judges running around loose, protecting tipsters sounded like a good idea.

Especially after Minnesota imams who mimicked the 9/11 hijackers filed suit against US Airways and the "John Doe" passengers who reported them. I'm inclined to side with the passengers. I'd be wary if, during a Minnesota summer, bearded dudes in bulky clothing re-arranged their seat assignments and muttering in an unfamiliar language.

The homeland security legislation's provision to protect people who would prefer not to get crashed into the side of a skyscraper as sponsored by a New Mexico Republican.

Congressional Democrats didn't like it, so now it's history. The July 20 Washington Times has more, in Tipster shields lifted by Democrats

I ran into an editorial cartoon at Cox and Forkum, dated July 20, titled Zero Visibility. It shows an airliner going down in flames. Someone inside is saying "And finally we thank Democrats for discouraging you passengers from reporting our suspicious behavior. ALLAHU AKBAR!"

I've wondered how many people on Capitol Hill understand that leaders of the Taliban, al Qaeda, and their merry martyrs, are not very nice people?