Minaret of Freedom Institute Press Releases.
SUNNI-SHI’A
DIALOGUE TO BE HELD AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
(Washington, D.C., 2/11/07) The Minaret of Freedom Institute and the
American University
Muslim Student Association announced today plans to host an event on
“Sunni-Shi’a
Differences: Realities, Myths, and Challenges” at American University
on February 22nd, 2007.
The event will bring together the Washington area Muslim community in a
constructive dialogue
on the real and perceived differences among Sunni and Shi’a Muslims.
Speakers at the event will
include Imam Abo Fazel Nahidian of the Manassas Mosque, a Shi’a mosque
in Virginia and
renowned Sunni academic from Howard University, Prof. Sulayman Nyang.
Dr. Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, President of the Minaret of Freedom Institute
explains the impetus
behind the event: "The well-being of the Muslim community in both the
East and the West is
severely threatened by the depths of misunderstanding between the Sunni
and Shi’a schools of
thought. In many Muslim nations it is manifested in overt hatred and in
Iraq it has exploded
violently. In America, the problem is not overt, but it is very real,
manifested by silent contempt
and a divided, and therefore weak, community.”
Dr. Ahmad continues, “Just as interfaith dialogue leads to greater
understanding between
different religions, we at the Minaret of Freedom Institute firmly
believe that intra-faith dialogue
can also lead to better understanding. We are eager to use our
intellectual and educational
resources in service to the Qur'anic admonition: 'As for those who
divide their religion and break
up into sects thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is
with Allah: He will in the end
tell them the truth of all that they did' (6:159).”
The event, which is free and open to the public, will give Sunnis and
Shi’as an opportunity to
tackle stereotypes, myths, and real differences between the two groups.
“This will be a great opportunity to hear religious leaders approach
something that has been
pushed under the table for far too long, says Nafiza Shepherd, the
president of the Muslim
Student Association at American University. “This is also an
opportunity for young Muslims to
learn about our brothers and sisters and continue to have open healthy
dialogue on our
campuses. The greatest benefit that can come from the event is just the
simple improvement of
our knowledge of one another as we will be the future leaders of our
community and contributing
citizens to our countries.”
The event will be held from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm on Thursday, February
22, 2007 in the
McDowell Formal Lounge at American University. Facilities will be
available for prayers before
and after the event.
The Minaret of Freedom Institute is an Islamic think-tank based in
Bethesda, MD that promotes
liberty and free market as well as being dedicated to countering
distortions and misconceptions
about Islamic beliefs and practice.
-30-
MUSLIM
THINK TANK HAILS FATWA AGAINST TERRORISM
Washington,
DC (July 28, 2005). Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad,
president of the Minaret of Freedom Institute (MFI), a Washington, DC
area
Islamic policy research institute, today hailed the fatwa against
terrorism and
extremist violence issued by the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA).
“For
years we have been explaining the reasons that Islam opposes violence
against
civilians and bemoaning the lack of coverage of the official
denunciations of
such acts of violence as the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center
issued by
countless Muslim organizations,” Dr. Ahmad stated. “We can only pray
that this
fatwa issued by a body of recognized scholars in the West will make it
clear
that Islam is opposed to terrorism,” he added.
Dr. Ahmad criticized both
inflammatory demagogues who have asserted that Islam promotes violence
and
Muslim apologists whose defense of Islam as a peaceful religion has
given the
impression that Muslims try to pretend their religion is pacifist. “The
overwhelming concern of the holy book of Islam, the Qur’an,” Dr. Ahmad
said,
“is justice. Killing is prohibited in Islam except as punishment for
murder or
for terrorism (called hirâbah in Arabic). Even in a state of
war,
non-combatants are not to be targeted. Islam had a theory of just war
before it
was developed in the Western world. It is our hope that this
denunciation will
prevent the seduction of our youth into unIslamic responses to
injustices
against Muslims.”
The Minaret of Freedom Institute
(MFI) is dedicated to research and educational efforts regarding
Islamic law
and Muslim history.
-30-
MUSLIM THINK TANK NOTES JAMIL AL-AMIN TRIAL
FITS
PATTERN OF DELEGITIMIZING MUSLIM CRITICS OF AMERICAN POLICY
Washington, DC (January 4, 2002). Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, president
of the Minaret
of Freedom Institute (MFI), a Washington, DC area Islamic policy
research
institute, today joined eight other Muslim and Christian speakers at a
press
conference calling for a fair trial for Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin who
has
been indicted on thirteen counts for alleged involvement in a gun fight
with
two Fulton County sheriff’s deputies on the night of March 16, 2000
that
resulted in the death of one of the deputies. Al-Amin has
consistently professed
his innocence and another man at one time confessed to the crime.
Dr. Ahmad expressed his concern that Al-Amin is just
one of many Muslim
critics of American policy who have been targeted by neoconservative
columnists
and commentators. In recent weeks Palestinian professor Mazen
al-Najjar
has been incarcerated on secret evidence despite a judge’s order that
previously
secured his release after over three years of unexplained detention
without
charge and University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian was
fired
from his tenured faculty position after having been assaulted with a
list
of long-refuted allegations on the O’Reilly Factor television
program. While
each case is different (Al-Amin earned a reputation as a fiery activist
during
the civil rights movement as H. “Rap” Brown, before his conversion to
Islam;
al-Arian is an intellectual who has been an effective advocate for the
Palestinian
cause; and Al-Najjar is quiet man whose only claim to fame is that he
is
Al-Arian’s brother-in-law), there is a pattern in the efforts of
neoconservatives
to de-legitimize Muslims who believe that political activism is a
necessary
part of being a good religious person.
The events leading to Jamil Al-Amin’s arrest took
place roughly one month
after a National Review article appeared including him in a list of
American
converts to Islam whom the author, Daniel Pipes, felt had turned
against
their country. While William O’Reilly, host of the television
program that
precipitated the firing of Prof. Al-Arian has objected to the firing of
Al-Arian,
Dr. Pipes has challenged the suggestion that there is a connection
between
his mention of Jamil Al-Amin and the events that followed. In an
e-mail
clarification to Dr. Ahmad, he stated that he thought it was
“self-evident”
that he was discussing a philosophical challenge to the American way of
life
rather than a security issue. “Be that as it may,” concludes Dr.
Ahmad,
“such rhetoric creates a climate of hate and fear and facilitates
persecution.”
“I have always respectfully disagreed with Imam
Jamil’s claim that injustice
is an inherent part of the American system of government,” Dr. Ahmad
said.
“I earnestly pray that this trial will be conducted in a manner that
shows
that I am right and he is wrong. In particular, I pray that all
the exculpatory
facts will be admitted into evidence.” The exculpatory evidence
includes
the fact that another man had confessed to the crime, the fact that the
deputy’s
description of the assailant’s eye color does not match Al-Amin’s, the
fact
that the police had originally claimed to have wounded the assailant
while
Al-Amin was discovered unwounded, and the fact that the vehicle shot-up
in
the incident had been repaired, with all the bullet holes removed,
despite
a judge’s orders to preserve the evidence.
-30-
MUSLIM THINK TANK JOINS CHRISTIAN AND
JEWISH
REPRESENTATIVES
TO EXPLAIN THE FAILURE OF MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
Washington, DC (December 11, 2001). Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, president
of the
Minaret of Freedom Institute (MFI), a Washington, DC area Islamic
policy
research institute, today joined Rabbi Yisrael Dovid Weiss of Neturei
Karta
International and Dr. Robert Paul Younas at the National Press Club to
share
ideas from their respective perspectives (Muslim, Jewish and Christian)
as
to why the “peace process” has failed. The following is an
abstract of Dr.
Ahmad’s remarks:
Since 1993 the American–brokered attempts to promote
a peaceful resolution
to the dispute between Israel and the Palestinian people has been
centered
on the foundations of the Oslo agreement signed between the principals
to
the dispute. It is generally agreed that this process has failed
spectacularly,
and that failure is attested to by the current violence in which many
Israelis
and many more Palestinians have died.
The failure of this process was inevitable because
it relied on an agreement
that made no mention of any expectation that both sides should abide by
international
law. Instead, the agreement gave the impression that somehow
peace would
naturally follow from an interim agreement to establish certain
confidence-building
measures, while the actual root of the problem, the failure of Israel
to
abide by international law would be deferred to the final stages of the
negotiations.
In this failure, the United States must take its
share of the blame.
It explicitly declared U.N. resolutions requiring Israeli cession of
land
occupied in 1967 (U. N. Res. 242 and 338) to be obsolete, has attempted
to
scuttle attempts to hold Israeli to the Geneva conventions against
torture
and illegal settlement policies, and has blatantly ignored the right of
displaced
Palestinians to return to their homes (U. N. Res. 194 “that the
refugees
wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their
neighbours
should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that
compensation
should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for
loss
of or damage to property which, under principles of international law
or
in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities
responsible.”)
While the spin-doctors have focused on the innocents murdered on their
own
preferred sides, the simple fact that the justice of funding the
Israel’s
violence, apartheid, and occupation policies with $3 billion dollars of
aid
each year to Israel has never been questioned even as the cutting off
of
the much smaller amount of aid to the Palestinians was discussed as a
potential
tool to punish the Palestinian Authority failing to fulfill its role as
the
subcontractors to the Israeli occupation.
The failure of the process was thus predictable and
its continued failure
is also predictable until and unless certain facts are faced.
First, that
the international community’s demand that Israel abide by International
Law
is not an unrealistic demand for “absolute justice” but a highly
pragmatic
requirement for a minimum level of decency. Absolute justice
would require
that all of land expropriated by the colonists be returned to the
indigenous
Muslims, Christians and Jews. At Oslo the Palestinians made the
enormous
compromise of agreeing to settle not for what absolute justice declares
to
be theirs, but for what the United Nations left them after establishing
the
state of Israel. Not all Palestinians agreed with that
compromise, but the
majority accepted it because they thought that peace was worth the
price.
The Israelis are not being asked to abandon anything that is theirs,
but
to only concede to the Palestinians that which International Law has
left
them. They are being asked to give up nothing except injustice,
apartheid,
death and destruction, and to receive sovereignty over most of a land
to
which Jews had legal title to only 6% of at the time Israel was
established.
The real reason why Israel does not want to accept
this generous bargain
is because of the demographic fact that if they recognize the
Palestinian
right of return, they must confront the terrifying question with which
the
late Rabbi Meir Kahane used to embarrass them: “How, logically, can you
have
a Jewish State, that is a democracy, in which most people are not
Jewish?”
Of course we must reject Mr. Kahane’s answer to that question, i.e. to
expel
all Palestinians. But how far removed is the continued exclusion
of the
previously dispossessed from the expulsion of the not-yet
dispossessed?
Further, does not the denial of the right of return set a precedent for
future
dispossession, since this denial does not resolve the fundamental
threat,
but only postpones it? Since the Palestinians have a higher birth
rate than
the immigrant population it is only a question of time until the
Israelis
will be forced to create yet another generation of dispossessed in
order
to maintain the Apartheid State.
It is my earnest hope that sincerely religious
people of all three branches
of the Abrahamic tradition, with our shared concerns for Justice, Mercy
and
Brotherhood, will continue to speak plainly about these issues until a
just
peace is attained.
-30-
MUSLIMS ORGANIZE VIGIL FOR WTC/PENTAGON VICTIMS
MEMBERS OF ALL FAITHS ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND AN PARTICIPATE
Bethesda, MD (September 11, 2001). The Minaret of Freedom
Institute (MFI),
a Washington, DC area Islamic policy research institute today announced
that
a group of Washington area D.C. Muslim women have spontaneously
organized
a prayer vigil to remember the victims of the attacks on the World
Trade
Center and the Pentagon and to show solidarity with all other
Americans.
The vigil will be held at 2 p.m. on Sunday, September 16 at the
Courthouse
Square Park in Rockville, Maryland.
Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, President of the MFI said that
although the women
had approached the MFI and other D.C. area Muslim organization for
support
and assistance, the work of organizing was mainly done by an ad-hoc
group
headed by Tasnim Ahmad of Prince William County, Virginia, of Silver
Spring,
Nellie Hassan of Fairfax County, Virginia, and Jahanara Ali,
Ilhan Cagri
and Sharmin Ahmad of Montgomery County, Maryland. “Women
are healers; we
want to heal,” said Tasnim Ahmad, an attorney-at-law who conceived the
idea.
Ms. Ahmad expressed the hope that non-Muslims would join the vigil, and
volunteers
have been contacting groups like Community Ministries encouraging them
to
send representatives.
In addition to Sharmin Ahmad and Dr.Imad-ad-Dean
Ahmad, participants
will include Abdullah Shamim of the Islamic Society of Maryland, Shaikh
Hassan
of the Islamic Society of the Washington Area, Mrs. Nurjahan Bosc, from
Samhati
Bangladesh Women’s Organization, Habib Ghanim of the Arab Chamber of
Commerce
and Joshua Salam of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
-30-
MUSLIM THINK TANK CONDEMNS APPARENT TERRORIST
ATTACKS
ASKS MUSLIMS TO DONATE BLOOD AND MONEY TO AID VICTIMS AND FAMILIES
Bethesda, MD (September 11, 2001). The Minaret of Freedom
Institute, a Washington,
DC area Islamic policy research institute today condemned the attacks
on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad,
President of
the organization, denounced the attacks and expressed condolences for
the
victims and their families. “For American Muslims the
unprecedented coordinated
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is a triple
tragedy,”
Ahmad said. “As Americans, our country is under attack. As
Muslims, the
tragedy of attacks on noncombatants is anathema to us. Finally,
as the ‘usual
suspects’ in a situation of this type we must be concerned with a new
acceleration
of persecution against us and our families.”
Ahmad noted that a number of Muslim organizations
have already stepped
forward to serve as good neighbors. Both the Islamic-American
Zakat Foundation,
a Bethesda, Maryland charitable organization and the American Muslim
Foundation
in Alexandria, Virginia NGO are organizing blood drives to help out
with
the crisis caused by the violence.
Ahmad also acknowledged the care being given by
local law enforcement
agencies to protect all citizens from violent acts that might be
sparked
by frustration over this morning’s attacks. In particular he
noted special
efforts by the Montgomery County police in Maryland to contact Muslim
organizations.
Ahmad expressed concern that amid recent vilification of the American
Muslim
community by commentators Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, the FBI has
recently
devoted resources to shutting down Islamic web sites when such
resources
might have been better allocated to protect against problems like
today’s
attacks. “I hope the authorities will be able to identify the
planners and
perpetrators of these crimes and bring them to justice,” Ahmad said.
-30-
MUSLIM THINK TANK SAYS SUPREME COURT DECISION ON
PALESTINIANS
MOCKS THE RULE OF LAW
Washington, DC (March 22, 1999). At a press
conference held in the nation's
Capital, an Islamic think tank issued a statement denouncing the
Supreme
Court's decision in the case of Reno v. Arab-American
Anti-Discrimination
Committee to be "a mockery of the rule of law." In that case the
Court ruled
that immigrants may be selectively targeted for deportation in
retaliation
for otherwise lawful activities.
"The specter of people being deported for lawful
activities is frightening,
in and of itself," said Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, President of the Minaret of
Freedom
Institute, "but we are shocked that the Court issued such a decision
after
instructing the attorneys for the immigrants that they would not decide
the
issue of whether such discrimination is permissible. The
immigrants in this
case have not only been denied freedom of speech, they have been denied
due
process as well."
"The Minaret of Freedom Institute is trying to
promote ideas like the
rule of law in the Muslim world," Ahmad stated, but complained that
"decisions
like this from the highest court in America detract from the
credibility
of American Muslims in the eyes of our co-religionists around the
world."
Ahmad expressed hope that the Supreme Court would understand the wisdom
of
allowing a re-hearing in the matter.
The case arose out of a long-standing effort by the
Justice Department
to deport eight immigrants in Los Angeles for engaging in legal
pro-Palestinian
activities. Government documents obtained by attorneys for the
"LA 8" demonstrate
that the defendants engaged in no criminal or violent activity, but
that
they have been selected for prosecution because they are "intelligent,
aggressive
and effective" leaders critical of certain policies of the American and
some
foreign governments.
-30-
ISRAELI TORTURE OF AMERICAN CITIZEN HIGHLIGHTS
PROBLEMS
OF OSLO AND WYE AGREEMENTS
Bethesda, MD (Nov. 9, 1998). A statement
issued today by an Islamic
think tank which is part of a coalition campaigning to initiate public
interest
in the Israeli use of "mild torture" to extract confessions cites the
case
of such torture against American citizen Hashem Mufleh as evidence of
the
problems of the Oslo and Wye agreements. "Israeli contempt for the
International
Law has long been seen in policies which violate the Geneva Conventions
such
as illegal settlements, building demolitions, and deportations of the
indigenous
population," said Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad President of the Minaret of
Freedom
Institute. The rest of the statement reads as follows:
"The willingness of the American government to
tolerate such atrocities,
committeed even against our own citizens feeds perceptions in the
Muslim
world that America is hypocritical in its response to uncivilized
behavior
elsewhere. There is a widespread view that the purpose of Oslo,
reinforced
by Wye, is to insure that the Palestinian Authority serve as a
subcontractor
for such Israeli repugnant policies in the occupation of the West Bank
and
Gaza, in the name of 'Israeli security.' When the Palestinian
authority
engages in such practices, supporters of Israel can have it both
ways. They
can condemn 'Arab savagery' and benefit from it at the same time.
The American
administration may claim that "quiet diplomacy" is the best way to deal
with
such torture in the case of 'good friend' like Israel, but how
can the American
media, which thrives on front page coverage of such cases anywhere else
in
the world credibly explain their silence at this time? What
conclusions
do they think Muslims will draw?"
-30-
BIN LADEN AND CLINTON BOTH SHOW CONTEMPT FOR
THE
RULE OF LAW
Bethesda, MD (Aug. 24, 1998). A policy statement issued today by
an Islamic
think tank cites contempt of the rule of law by both Saudi dissident
Osama
Bin Laden and American President William Clinton. The statement
warns that
both Bin Laden's disregard of the distinction in Islamic law between
combatants
and civilians and Clinton's bypassing of the United Nations and the
U.S.
Congress threaten a "plunge into the law of the jungle."
Here is the full text of the policy statement by
Minaret of Freedom Institute
President Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad: "The statement attributed to Osama Bin
Laden
that Islamic law makes no distinction between civilians and soldiers in
war
is in flagrant contradiction to generally held Islamic jurisprudence.
The
bombers of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania are wrong if they
think
that Islamic law permits the killing of civilian envoys in a third
country
as a means of war against foreign soldiers on their home
territory. Similarly,
Mr. Clinton shows tragically clouded judgement in thinking that
bypassing
international law to bomb a factory in a country against which we have
never
declared war is an effective means of deterring terrorism.
American engagement
in such extraterritorial violence may legitimize it in the eyes of
those
who would hitherto have found the views of Osama Bin Laden too extreme.
We
risk a plunge into the law of the jungle.
"The U.S. government's policy of isolating Bin Laden
after the two cooperated
in the expulsion of Soviet troops from Afghanistan has not had the
intended
effect of diffusing his opposition to American policies in the Middle
East.
On the contrary, stripping him of his Saudi citizenship and provoking
his
expulsion from Sudan has distanced him from knowledgeable scholars of
Islamic
law leaving him to produce spurious fatwas (which are legal opinions,
not,
as incorrectly referred to in the press, "orders"), apparently with
tragic
results for Americans.
"Bin Laden's distance from Islamic law is paralleled
by President Clinton's
disregard for the proper institutions which American law and
international
law have established for dealing with aggression and war. The
President
has declared a protracted war against terrorism, although only Congress
has
the power to declare war. Instead of asking the United Nations to
investigate
his allegations that a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum is producing
ingredients
for use in chemical weapons, he bombed it unilaterally. He denied
the Sudanese
government even the courtesy he has shown to Saddam Hussein. The
message
this sends to the Sudanese, who, in response to American pressure
expelled
Bin Laden is that cooperation with American strategy to combat
terrorism
will be rewarded with destruction of private property, human
casualties,
and extraterritorial violations of national sovereignty. This is an
effective
way to legitimize and accelerate terrorism, not to fight it."
The Minaret of Freedom Institute (MFI) is located
in the Washington,
DC area and is dedicated to research and educational efforts regarding
Islamic
law and Muslim history. MFI’s purposes are summarized in their
brochure
as to "counter distortions and misconceptions about Islamic law and
practice;
demonstrate the Islamic origins of [certain] modern values ...; expose
both
American and Islamic world Muslims to free market thought; [and]
advance
the status of Muslim peoples maligned by a hostile environment in the
West
and oppressed by repressive political regimes in the East." Dr.
Imad-ad-Dean
Ahmad is co-editor with Ahmed Yousef of Islam and the West: A
Dialog (Springfield,
VA: UASR, 1998).
-30-
Return to home page