COLORADO BILL STIGMATIZES MUSLIMS
G. Waleed Kavalec
Proposed student visa legislation refers to "Islamic terrorism"
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 5/5/03) - A prominent national Islamic civil rights
and advocacy group today called on the Colorado General Assembly to
modify proposed legislation that it says stigmatizes Muslim students in
that state and falsely links the faith of Islam to terrorism.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said Bill 03-322, which
passed through the state Senate last week, requires state-sponsored
institutions of higher learning to verify the visa status of foreign
students from countries with links to "Islamic terrorism." The bill now
goes to the Education Committee in the House for final approval.
GO TO:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/inetcbill.nsf/ExtendedSearchScreen
Search using the term "Islamic."
The bill has garnered criticism from state representatives like Sen. Ken
Gordon (D-Denver), who described the legislation as "needlessly
slanderous of a religion." (AP)
"It is unfortunate that the Colorado General Assembly would link the
faith of Islam, followed by millions of Americans and one-fifth of the
world's population, to terrorism. If passed, this legislation will
stigmatize all Muslim students in Colorado's universities and will
further harm America's image in the Islamic world," said CAIR Executive
Director Nihad Awad.
Awad added that if the bill moves forward toward a signature by the
governor, any references to Islam or Muslims should be removed.
G. Waleed Kavalec
--------------------
"Evil is just plain bad! You don't cotton to it. You gotta smack it on
the nose with the rolled-up newspaper of goodness! Bad dog! Bad dog!"
-The Tick
Count 1
> passed through the state Senate last week, requires state-sponsored
> institutions of higher learning to verify the visa status of foreign
> students from countries with links to "Islamic terrorism."
> The bill has garnered criticism from state representatives like Sen. Ken
> Gordon (D-Denver), who described the legislation as "needlessly
> slanderous of a religion." (AP)
> "It is unfortunate that the Colorado General Assembly would link the
> faith of Islam, <snip> to terrorism.
Terrorism is a political term used to describe actions tending to bring
about political change. Differences in terrorist's objectives are broad
enough to allow a descriptive modifier in the term. "Islamic Terrorism" is
predicated on a different basis than, say, IRA Terrorism and / or Tamil
Tiger Terrorism and / or some kind of weird Japanese cult terrorism. Why
not have a term for all of them? The Oklahoma bombing is an act of
"Domestic Terrorism", but no one hears of the maids and butlers of America
being offended at having their profession so maligned ;).
Islamic Terrorism is a real thing, different and disctinct from other forms
of terrorism we see around the world. As long as there are Muslims who
continue to use their religion to justify their actions and later state;
'God almighty hit the United States at its most vulnerable spot' and 'They
came out to fight Islam in the name of terrorism.' (10/7/01) then the term
'Islamic Terrorism' applies.
However just because a term has geo political signifigance does not mean it
needs to be included in the language of a bill. The unfortunate thing is
the intent and effect of the bill won't change anyway. People coming to
America to study, learn, and develop intellectually might be made to feel
less welcome. (I wonder if they really are?) I'm of the opinion that if
the Saudis spent their money on sending people to universities in America
and Britain the overall state of Islamic - Western relations would be much
better today than it is. Intercultural connections and exchanges are the
best way to overcome prejudices.
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:b98ise$gjk29$1...@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de...
> Islamic Terrorism is a real thing, different and disctinct from other
forms
> of terrorism we see around the world. As long as there are Muslims who
> continue to use their religion to justify their actions...
As we have discussed numerous times Count, reality is not in the labels
people wear or the banners they wave.
Islam is defined by the Qur'an, not by demagogues, and not by the media.
And by that CORRECT definition the term 'Islamic Terrorism' is as meaningful
as 'snowy flames' or 'the aroma of the vacuum of space'.
Oh, yes we all know what is MEANT in the former case; but we also know that
it FEEDS the false dichotomies and hatreds between Islam and 'the West'.
In my humble opinion real-word pending legislation like this, clearly
spitting in
the face of both the US constition AND 7+ million Americans, doesn't get
worded such by accident.
G.
EAC
> Islam is defined by the Qur'an, not by demagogues, and not by the media.
> And by that CORRECT definition the term 'Islamic Terrorism' is as meaningful
> as 'snowy flames' or 'the aroma of the vacuum of space'.
"Peaceful Terrorism"
Yes. It sounded like "snowy flames".
But then again, we got people like this calling "Freedom Fries"
(formerly known as "French Fries"). So we can't really expect much,
other than to inform them the error of their ways, politely and
subtly.
> Oh, yes we all know what is MEANT in the former case; but we also know that
> it FEEDS the false dichotomies and hatreds between Islam and 'the West'.
That's what the devil planned. To create a division and hatred between
people. One of the devil recent works is "Freedom Fries", it created a
gap between the people of the USoA and the French people.
> In my humble opinion real-word pending legislation like this, clearly
> spitting in the face of both the US constition AND 7+ million Americans,
> doesn't get worded such by accident.
>
> G.
Personally, I found that the devil is quite tricky in adding extra
meanings to a word or term that the originial meanings become lost or
obscured. One of the common methods used is to take a word that is
foreign to a particular community then insert some new meanings into
it.
For example, the word "Aryan", where we get the word "Iran", used to
mean the following:
"
1. Indo-Iranian. No longer in technical use.
2. A member of the people who spoke the parent language of the
Indo-European languages. No longer in technical use.
3. A member of any people speaking an Indo-European language. No
longer in technical use.
"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=aryan
Now those things are 'no longer in technical use'.
Instead we get this below:
"
4. In Nazism and neo-Nazism, a non-Jewish Caucasian, especially one of
Nordic type, supposed to be part of a master race.
"
The devil sure is quite tricky in putting new meanings to a word or
term.
And by the way, do you know what "Nazi" is short for? "National
Socialist" ("Nationalsozialist").
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=national%20socialist
Now when you think about it, "National Socialist" (Nazi) doesn't look
so 'scary' at all, doesn't it?
Then there's "communism", which basically involves the community.
Socialist, community. These are nice words, but the devil are
diverting the originial meaning of the word.
If you are calling a person that he's a national social person and a
community person, that sounded positive.
But if you called a person as a Nazi and a Communist, it kinda sounded
negative, at least toward the 'brainwashed' community.
Then there's "Muslims". The meaning of this term as we know is too
already being perverted.
In its originial meaning, "Muslims" means "those who are peaceful",
and that includes a lot of people.
Now. Some people are claiming that people who are "National Socialist"
and "Communist" don't believe in God.
Is that true? I don't think so. A national social person and a
community person can believe in God, though there are also a national
social person and a community who doesn't believe in GOd.
In relation to that, even "Muslims" can include atheists, if an
atheist adopt peace as his religion.
What? An atheist has no religion? Does this mean he has nothing to
rely on? Don't you think that it's kinda odd a person has nothing to
rely on? Nothing to believe on? Remember, atheist is too a religion, a
religion that doesn't acknowledge the existence of God.
There... You got another word or term that the devil has perverted,
"religion", it means "something that you rely on", but instead it has
narrow down to a "belief in God".
So... As you can see, the devil is trickery in the master of word
play.
Count 1
> people wear or the banners they wave.
Not totally. The banners they stand under and the labels they give
themselves do indicate some factors of their 'reality'.
> Islam is defined by the Qur'an, not by demagogues, and not by the media.
> And by that CORRECT definition the term 'Islamic Terrorism' is as
meaningful
> as 'snowy flames' or 'the aroma of the vacuum of space'.
I disagree. Terrorism has a motivation and there are instances were Islam,
the quran and sunnah, are twisted to justify these motivations. I am not for
a second saying 'that is Islam'. Demogoguery and emotionalism need to be
removed from the process in concluding what Islam is or is not.
WRT the definition of Islam I humbly submit it is also defined by the
actions of its people. The fact is a vast majority of those people are
peace loving, politically moderate, and spiritually content. However others
are not and we don't really know how many and to what degree they identify
with the cause and means of action forwarded by various groups.
> In my humble opinion real-word pending legislation like this, clearly
> spitting in
> the face of both the US constition AND 7+ million Americans, doesn't get
> worded such by accident.
Well, we can agree that legislation in the West should not include religous
based modifiers. Would you agree with this legislation if that term was
removed? Should Americans be spending more energy and time investigating
the backgrounds of people based on their country of origin? And do these
countries represent a larger threat?
Alf
forms
> of terrorism we see around the world. As long as there are Muslims who
You are putting (or using?) the label in the wrong place. Suppose what
you said is correct, then using your analogy, what is your opinion towards
the priests who are convicted of pedophiles. These priests profess they
are man of God in front of their audiences, and on their spare times they
have used their religious reasoning to get into their victims. After all,
all religious people always use their religion as a reason to do
something, right?
Now, what would you think if in the rest of the world, the media put
the headlines "Christian pedophiles running rampart", or "Christian
pedophiles captured", or "Christian pedophiles are planning..."
or "Police crackdown on local Christian pedophiles" or here's my
favorites, "Local Christians are being questioned regarding their
potential involvements on recent arrest of Christian pedophiles priests."
So using your own analogy, it will be okay for me from now on
to write "christian" along with those associated in the crimes.
Johnny
> So using your own analogy, it will be okay for me from now on
> to write "christian" along with those associated in the crimes.
Rather Christianity terrorist/terrorism or something like
Christianistic terrorists/terrorism, because they use the word
"Islamic" and not just Muslim.
It amazing, when Hindus, that is absolutely strict practising and
believing Hindus, brutally killed over 2000 Muslims in Gujrat,
including babies and women, the media did not refer to them as "Hindu
terrorist" and did not refer to the acts as "Hinduism/Hinduistic
terrorsim". Similarly, when believing and practising Christians kill
others, that is not referred to as "Christian terrorism" or
"Christianity terrorism" by the media. There is no disection and
critical analysis of these religions to ascertain what led their
followers to kill others. Similarly, when believing and practising
Jews, who believe they are God's chosen people, kill innocent
Palestinians, that is also not referred to as "Judaistic terrorism",
"Jewish terrorist", or "Judaism terrorism". Of course no media can
afford to make this mistake as they will probably be out of business
for doing so, and no disection and critical analysis of Judaism is
carried out to ascertain why the believing and practising Jew acted
the way he/she did i.e what did he/she read in the Torah or the Talmud
to kill others? The point is that no religion is blamed and critically
disected into bits and pieces and the people as a whole are not
labelled as terrorists. But when it comes to Islam the doors are open,
Muslims as a whole are portrayed as terrorists, Islam itself is
clearly portrayed as terrorism and of course a number of "analysis"
and disections are carried out to find out what passage within the
Muslim scriptures and religion "must" have informed or forced the
Muslims to act the way they did.
G. Waleed Kavalec
<snip>
> I disagree. Terrorism has a motivation and there are instances were Islam,
> the quran and sunnah, are twisted to justify these motivations.
Cleverly worded. You don't make the mistake of saying
that Islam was the motivation, but it sounds SOOOO much
like that's what you really mean (and don't want to get
caught saying).
> WRT the definition of Islam I humbly submit it is also defined by the
> actions of its people.
No sir.
THE PERCEPTION OF ISLAM is, sadly, defined by the actions
of its people. Absolutely.
But Islam itself is defined by God. Whether you choose to
believe or not.
> Well, we can agree that legislation in the West should not include religous
> based modifiers. Would you agree with this legislation if that term was
> removed?
Would I agree to not give grants to prospective students
with ties to terrorism?
It would be real easy to agree with that. But its a trap.
Remember Joe McCarthy? Do you want to live in HIS America?
I *am* still an American, Count. I'm sure a kid down the road
has an uncle who's a Grand Dragon.
He should still get to go to UT... unless you show me that
he himself participated in KKK crimes.
Ties to Islamic Terrorism. Ties to Christian Terrorism.
Show me PARTICIPATION. Or aidind and abetting.
I have a closet full of ties.
John Berg
whether this law is anti-Islamic or not. Several brought up the terrorist
angle and others may not like the reputation they have.
The Colorado law may not, and under the Constitution can not, ask for
Muslims to register. Indeed there would be no way to know who registered as
a Muslim when he wasn't and who didn't register when he was. The law does
ask citizens of specific nations (and the countries are named) who are here
as guests and who are subject to rules as guests, to register. Greg made
the next inference that this stigmatizes Muslims. Why this should be
considered such has not be explained nor has any subject country said the US
has no right or legal position to do so.
Some guests may have reason to withhold their fingerprints from their host
but they have no legal basis for doing so. Some guests may have already
broken rules which were observed so laxly before 9/11. US Citizens are
making sure of their own safety. Greg and the CAIR may be suggesting that
it's a good thing we're finally do so.
I sure that Greg and the Americans in CAIR join me in asking God to bless
America and to thank Him that we live here.
John Berg
"G. Waleed Kavalec" <gr...@kavalec.com> wrote in message
news:004201c31363$50375740$f221a218@medina...