Islam vs Christianity

In the contemporary world, two major religions, Islam and Christianity, hold significant sway over billions of people. While each has its distinct beliefs, practices, and cultural impacts, exploring their similarities and differences can foster greater understanding and tolerance among diverse communities.

Introduction

Islam and Christianity stand as two of the world’s largest religions, with followers spanning various continents and cultures. Understanding the nuances of these faiths is crucial for promoting harmony and cooperation in our increasingly interconnected world.

Origins and Founders

Both Islam and Christianity trace their origins to the Middle East. Islam emerged in the 7th century CE in the Arabian Peninsula, with Muhammad serving as its founder and prophet. Christianity, on the other hand, finds its roots in 1st-century Judea, with Jesus Christ regarded as its central figure and founder.

Holy Texts

The Quran serves as the holy scripture of Islam, believed by Muslims to be the literal word of God as revealed to Muhammad. Christianity, meanwhile, reveres the Bible, which comprises the Old Testament and the New Testament, containing teachings attributed to Jesus Christ and earlier prophets.

Beliefs and Tenets

Both religions espouse monotheism, the belief in one God, yet they differ in their understandings of the nature of God. Islam emphasizes the transcendence and oneness of Allah, while Christianity explores the concept of the Trinity, comprising the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Prophets and Messengers

In Islam, Muhammad is revered as the final prophet, delivering Allah’s message to humanity. Conversely, Christians regard Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the savior of humanity, emphasizing his teachings and sacrificial death for the redemption of sins.

Practices and Rituals

Islam is characterized by the Five Pillars, which include the declaration of faith, prayer, fasting during Ramadan, almsgiving, and pilgrimage to Mecca. Christianity encompasses various sacraments and rituals, such as baptism, communion, and confession, signifying spiritual purification and communion with God.

Places of Worship

Muslims congregate for worship in mosques, while Christians gather in churches for communal prayer, reflection, and fellowship. These sacred spaces serve as focal points for spiritual expression and community engagement.

Leadership and Authority

Islamic communities are led by imams, knowledgeable individuals who lead prayers and provide spiritual guidance. In Christianity, leadership structures vary among denominations, with priests, pastors, and bishops assuming roles of authority within their respective congregations.

Islam spread rapidly across the Arabian Peninsula and beyond, establishing vast empires and cultural influence in regions spanning from Spain to Southeast Asia. Christianity’s global presence was facilitated by European colonialism and missionary efforts, resulting in diverse Christian communities worldwide.

Interactions and Conflicts

Throughout history, Islamic and Christian civilizations have intersected, leading to periods of cooperation, conflict, and cultural exchange. Contemporary issues, such as religious extremism and geopolitical tensions, continue to shape the relationship between adherents of these faiths.

Both Islam and Christianity have left indelible marks on human civilization, influencing art, architecture, literature, ethics, and governance. Their teachings have shaped moral frameworks and societal norms across diverse cultures and epochs.

Within Islam and Christianity, various sects and denominations interpret religious teachings differently, leading to diverse theological perspectives and practices. Contemporary religious reform movements seek to adapt traditional beliefs to modern contexts while addressing pressing social issues.

In Islam and Christianity, beliefs regarding magic vary significantly.

Islam: In Islam, magic, known as “sihr,” is considered forbidden and is regarded as a form of deception and manipulation. The Quran explicitly condemns sorcery and witchcraft, categorizing it as a major sin. Muslims believe that magic relies on the invocation of supernatural beings or forces, which is contrary to the monotheistic principle of submitting only to Allah’s will. Islamic teachings emphasize the importance of seeking protection from evil influences through prayer, recitation of Quranic verses, and reliance on divine intervention rather than resorting to magical practices.

Christianity: Within Christianity, attitudes toward magic have evolved over time and vary among denominations. In general, mainstream Christian theology views magic, particularly forms involving occult practices or manipulation of spiritual forces, as incompatible with Christian beliefs. The Bible warns against witchcraft and divination, associating such practices with idolatry and rebellion against God. However, interpretations of these passages differ, and some Christian traditions may be more permissive or skeptical regarding the existence and efficacy of magic. Nevertheless, most Christian denominations emphasize reliance on prayer, faith, and divine grace rather than engaging in magical rituals or seeking supernatural powers.

Tolerance and Coexistence

Despite historical conflicts, many instances of peaceful coexistence and cooperation exist between Muslim and Christian communities. Interfaith dialogue and initiatives promote understanding, respect, and collaboration among followers of different faith traditions.

Islam and Christianity face challenges ranging from internal divisions to external scrutiny and stereotyping. Addressing misconceptions and fostering dialogue are essential for dispelling prejudices and promoting mutual understanding.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Islam and Christianity, while distinct in their beliefs and practices, share common values of faith, compassion, and moral responsibility. By embracing dialogue and cooperation, followers of these religions can contribute to a more inclusive and harmonious global society.

FAQs

  1. Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?
    • While both religions believe in monotheism, their understandings of God’s nature differ, leading to theological distinctions in their worship practices.
  2. What are some common misconceptions about Islam and Christianity?
    • Misconceptions include equating Islam with terrorism and viewing Christianity as monolithic. In reality, both religions encompass diverse beliefs and practices.
  3. How do Islam and Christianity view salvation?
    • Islam emphasizes submission to Allah and righteous deeds for salvation, while Christianity emphasizes faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice.
  4. Are there similarities between Islamic and Christian ethics?
    • Yes, both religions emphasize virtues such as compassion, honesty, and charity, reflecting shared moral principles.
  5. How can followers of Islam and Christianity promote interfaith harmony?
    • By engaging in respectful dialogue, fostering mutual understanding, and collaborating on shared social and humanitarian initiatives, adherents can bridge divides and cultivate peaceful coexistence.

The Holy Land Five

The Holy Land Five case remains a poignant and contentious chapter in the annals of American legal history, stirring debates surrounding civil liberties, justice, and the treatment of Muslim communities in the United States. Emerging from the ashes of the September 11, 2001 attacks, this case cast a spotlight on the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, once the largest Muslim charity in the country, and its leadership, who came to be known as the Holy Land Five.

Background

The Holy Land Foundation, established in 1989, aimed to provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians in need, focusing on education, healthcare, and social services. It operated as a non-profit organization, garnering support from Muslim communities across the United States. However, amidst the post-9/11 climate of suspicion and fear, the organization came under intense scrutiny from federal authorities, accused of providing financial support to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.

Charges and Trial

In 2004, the U.S. government shut down the Holy Land Foundation, alleging ties to Hamas and terrorism financing. Subsequently, five of its leaders—Shukri Abu Baker, Ghassan Elashi, Mohammad El-Mezain, Mufid Abdulqader, and Abdulrahman Odeh—were indicted on charges of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. The trial, characterized by highly controversial evidence and witness testimony, resulted in convictions and lengthy prison sentences for the defendants.

Controversies Surrounding the Case

The trial of the Holy Land Five was marked by numerous controversies, including the use of classified evidence, questionable witness credibility, and allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. Critics argue that the case was politically motivated and relied on guilt by association rather than concrete evidence of wrongdoing. Supporters, however, maintain that the convictions were justified and necessary for national security.

Impact on Muslim Communities

The repercussions of the Holy Land Five case reverberated throughout Muslim communities in the United States, instilling fear and distrust in charitable endeavors and philanthropic giving. Many felt targeted and marginalized by the government’s actions, leading to a chilling effect on activism and community engagement. The case served as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by Muslims in navigating the complexities of American society post-9/11.

Legal and Human Rights Issues

The case raised significant legal and human rights concerns, particularly regarding due process, freedom of association, and the right to a fair trial. Critics argue that the government’s tactics, including the use of secret evidence and reliance on informant testimony, undermined fundamental principles of justice and civil liberties. The Holy Land Five case thus became emblematic of broader issues surrounding the erosion of constitutional rights in the name of national security.

Appeals and Aftermath

Despite appeals and legal challenges, the convictions of the Holy Land Five were ultimately upheld, with the defendants serving lengthy prison sentences. The aftermath of the case left deep scars on the defendants and their families, who continue to proclaim their innocence and fight for justice. The legacy of the Holy Land Five lives on as a cautionary tale of the dangers of unchecked government power and the importance of defending the rights of all individuals, regardless of their religious or ethnic background.

Media Coverage and Public Perception

The media coverage of the Holy Land Five case reflected the polarized nature of public opinion, with some outlets portraying the defendants as martyrs and victims of injustice, while others depicted them as dangerous extremists deserving of punishment. The narrative surrounding the case was often shaped by political agendas and biases, further complicating efforts to discern the truth and achieve accountability. Website.

Lessons Learned

The Holy Land Five case serves as a sobering reminder of the need for vigilance in safeguarding civil liberties and protecting the rights of marginalized communities. It underscores the importance of robust legal protections and oversight mechanisms to prevent abuse of power and ensure fair and impartial justice. Moreover, it highlights the vital role of grassroots advocacy and solidarity in challenging injustice and promoting accountability.

International Perspective

Internationally, the Holy Land Five case has garnered attention and condemnation from human rights organizations and legal experts, who view it as a glaring example of the erosion of democratic norms and the criminalization of dissent. Comparisons have been drawn to similar cases in other countries, where individuals have been targeted and persecuted for their perceived political beliefs or affiliations. The global outcry over the Holy Land Five case underscores the universal significance of upholding the rule of law and respecting human rights principles.

Continuing Advocacy and Support

Despite the passage of time, advocacy efforts on behalf of the Holy Land Five persist, fueled by a commitment to seeking truth and justice. Organizations and individuals continue to raise awareness about the case, calling for accountability and redress for the defendants. Through grassroots mobilization and legal advocacy, supporters seek to challenge the legacy of the Holy Land Five and address the systemic injustices that underpin their persecution.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Holy Land Five case stands as a testament to the complexities and contradictions of the post-9/11 era, where notions of justice and security often clash with principles of fairness and human rights. It serves as a stark reminder of the enduring challenges faced by Muslim communities in the United States and the imperative of defending their rights and dignity in the face of adversity. As we reflect on the lessons of this case, we are reminded of the enduring importance of upholding the values of justice, equality, and freedom for all.

Two Holy Land Foundation defendants sentenced to 65 years

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

By JASON TRAHAN / Order Dallas Stickers
jtrahan@dallasnews.com

U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis on Wednesday morning handed down sentences that will likely mean two founders of the Holy Land Foundation will spend the rest of their lives behind bars for financing the terrorist group Hamas.

Shukri Abu Baker, 50, of Garland was ordered to serve 65 years in prison as sentencing began for five men convicted on charges in the largest terrorism financing case in American history. Another founder, Ghassan Elashi, 55, of Richardson, was sentenced to 65 years in prison.

Elashi maintained his innocence even as he was sentenced.

“What motivated me to this charitable work was seeing in the press, media images of Palestinians’ homes being demolished, seeing the indiscriminate arrest of Palesitnians,” he said.

“Nothing was more rewarding than … turning the charitable contributions of American Muslims into life assistance for the Palestinians. That’s what motivated me.”

Speaking to the audience and ignoring the judge, Elashi continued: “We gave the essentials of life – oil rice flour. The occupation was proving them with death and destruction. And then we are criminals. The Holy Land Foundation was to assist the Palestinians in their steadfastness against the brutal apartheid regime” of Israel.

The judge warned him to address the court and not the audience.

After Elashi wrapped up by saying that this was an “unjust political prosecution,” lead prosecutor Jim Jacks argued for the maximum sentence.

“There’s been no acknowledgment by any of these defendants regarding their connection to Hamas,” he said. “They haven’t been deterred. Their entire sentencing presentation is (that) they’re being punished for providing charity. It’s important for the court to impose a sentence that says this is not a case about punishing people for doing nice things.”

“I did it because I cared, not at the behest of Hamas,” Baker told the judge during a long address to the court where he explained why he founded what was once the nation’s largest Muslim charity organization.

Judge Solis, after cutting him off over the objections of his defense attorney, told the convicted man, “You didn’t tell the whole story. Palestinians were in a desperate situation, but that doesn’t justify supporting Hamas.”

Another defendant, Mohammad El-Mezain, 55, was sentenced to 180 months in prison, followed by three years of supervisory release after serving that time. Jurors found him guilty of providing support to Hamas, having been acquitted on 31 other charges in 2007.

“I believe I am innocent and have not committed any crime,” El Mezain said in an impassioned speech. “We believe that this is the land of the free and the land of the Constitution. We were doing the right thing at the Holy Land Foundation.”

Afterwards, Judge Solis told him: “Your function in life was raising money to support Hamas. You stated it was to help people, but the motive was to support Hamas. You state that you are innocent, but the evidence shows the opposite. You were part of this from the beginning.”

Mufid Abdulqader, 49 and a top volunteer fundraiser for Holy Land, was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Jurors found him guilty on three charges, including conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization; conspiracy to provide funds, goods and services to a specially designated terrorist; and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

“I was acquitted of all charges” in the first trial, said Abdulqader. “And now I’m facing a long, long prison sentence. I do acknowledge the verdict in this trial. I believe in the system. My faith has not been shaken, it’s been inspired. But it is un-American to ignore suffering and starving women and children.”

Abdulrahman Odeh, 49, of Patterson, New Jersey, was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He was convicted on the same counts as Abdulqader.

The sentences come six months after a federal jury in Dallas convicted the men on Nov. 24 of funneling more than $12 million to the Palestinian group Hamas.

It has been illegal to offer Hamas support since it was designated a terrorist organization by the Unites States in 1995.

The group has taken credit for hundreds of suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians.
The across-the-board convictions on 108 separate charges were a major victory for the Bush administration following a 2007 mistrial of the same five men on nearly identical charges.
The men were not accused of violence.

Rather, Holy Land contributed money to, among other things, agencies that supported survivors of suicide bombers.

Sometimes Holy Land officials sent those families money directly.

Holy Land’s supporters say the prosecution was a politically motivated product of Bush’s “war on terror” and a prime example of post-Sept. 11, anti-Islam hysteria.

Their lawyers portrayed them as pious Muslims who only wished to help their Palestinian brethren in need.

The government’s case, which was streamlined for the second trial, chronicled the founding of Holy Land in the late 1980s by Hamas supporters as the group’s primary source of fundraising in the United States.

Evidence showed that Holy Land organizers’ openly pro-Hamas rhetoric at fundraising rallies in the early 1990s was toned down after President Bill Clinton designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Elashi is already serving a 6 ½-year sentence in federal prison for export law violations. In the Holy Land trial, jurors found him guilty on 35 charges, including support of Hamas, money laundering and tax fraud.

Baker was born in Brazil in 1959, moved to Palestinian territory as a child and lived in Kuwait before coming to the U.S. in 1980. He served as Holy Land’s CEO. Jurors found him guilty on 34 charges, including support of Hamas, money laundering and tax fraud.

The remaining sentencings are expected to take the rest of the day.

U.S. INDICTS ISLAMIC CHARITY ON TERROR CHARGES / CNN

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A major Islamic charity and seven of its key officials have been indicted on charges of conspiracy and supporting terrorism with millions of dollars, federal officials announced Tuesday.

A federal grand jury in Dallas, Texas, indicted the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and its leaders. The indictment charged the organization and its officials with disguising efforts to raise more than $12 million dollars over six years to aid terrorism.

“Today a U.S.-based charity that claims to do good works is charged with funding the works of evil,” said Attorney General John Ashcroft in announcing the indictments.

Ashcroft and other senior officials said five of the seven indicted persons were arrested early Tuesday in Texas, New Jersey, and California. The two others have been declared fugitives and are believed to be overseas, authorities said.

Federal agents in the Dallas area arrested the foundation’s president, Shukri Abu Baker, and chairman, Ghassan Elashi. The two were expected to appear before a federal magistrate in Dallas along with alleged co-conspirator Mufid Abdulqader.

Authorities said another Holy Land Foundation official, Mohammad El-Mazain, was taken into custody in San Diego and a fifth defendant, Abdulraham Odeh, was arrested in Newark, New Jersey.

The two alleged conspirators still at large are Haitham Maghawri and Akram Mishal.

The 42-count indictment alleged the defendants attempted to intentionally mislead federal authorities of their fund-raising efforts on behalf of Hamas from 1995 through 2001.

The Holy Land Foundation, based in the Dallas suburb of Richardson, was virtually shut down by federal authorities who seized the organization’s assets in 2002. The FBI accused Holy Land Foundation of operating as a front for Hamas, a Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organization that the United States and Israel call an international terrorist organization. The group operates an extensive social services network in the Palestinian territories

Within weeks after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the FBI identified the Holy Land Foundation as a prime source of financial support for Hamas terrorists, and said it had provided funds to family members of suicide bombers. The U.S. government froze the charity’s assets, an action upheld in court.

In what prosecutors say appears to be a coincidence, lawyers for Holy Land sent a formal complaint against the FBI to the Justice Department inspector general demanding an investigation into the FBI for distorting facts and falsifying evidence. A spokesman for the inspector general Tuesday confirmed receipt of correspondence from the Holy Land Foundation, but declined to comment.

A lawyer for Holy Land Foundation provided to CNN a copy of his letter. In it attorney John Boyd charges the FBI “fabricated a case” against the charity, when it claimed the organization financed suicide bombers. Learn more.

Investigators said lawyers who issued the complaint may have suspected indictments were coming, but had no knowledge the arrests of the defunct charity’s leaders were imminent.

Ashcroft harshly criticized the funds allegedly provided to suicide bomber families.

“The defendants effectively rewarded past — and encouraged future — suicide bombings,” Ashcroft said.

The attorney general was joined by senior officials from the FBI, Internal Revenue Service, and Department of Homeland Security, as well as the U.S. attorney from Dallas, in announcing the indictments at a Justice Department news conference.

Writing to the HLF 5

Writing to the HLF 5

Send a letter to the Holy Land Five.

You can find the most up to date location of where federal prisoners are from this bureau of prisons link.

To locate and find inmates, and to write to them you need their Inmate Name & Register Number:

Ghassan Elashi 29687-177
Shukri Abu-Baker 32589-177
Mufid Abdulqader 32590-177
Mohammad El-Mezain 92412-198
Abdulrahman Odeh 26548-050

At present here is how to address label envelopes to the HLF 5 where the prisoner locator says they are:

Ghassan Elashi 29687-177
USP MCCREARY
U.S. PENITENTIARY
P.O. BOX 3000
PINE KNOT, KY  4263

Shukri Abu-Baker 32589-1775
USP BEAUMONT
U.S PENITENTIARY
P.O. BOX 26030
BEAUMONT, TX 77720

Mufid Abdulqader 32590-177
FCI Seagoville
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 9000
SEAGOVILLE, TX  75159

Mohammad El-Mezain 92412-198
FCI Oakdale II
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 5010
OAKDALE, LA  71463

Abdulrahman Odeh 26548-050
FCI Beaumont Low
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 26020
BEAUMONT, TX  77720

In general, it is good to avoid sending things like stickers or staples or paper clips. Three or four sheets of paper are not a problem and often political material does get through. It is good to write your address on at least one of the letters since sometimes envelopes are delivered, and sometimes just the contents. Put a return address on the envelope too though.

Witness makes a bizarre argument (Sept. 24, 2008)

All Muslims are terrorists—that’s what prosecutors and a witness insinuated Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2008 during the third day of the Holy Land Foundation retrial after the jury left for the day. It quickly became more apparent than ever before that the five defendants are being targeted for the religion they follow.

Individuals who often use statements such as these—By God. Thank God. In the name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. Peace be Upon You. God Willing. May God Bless You. And Praise be to God—are Islamists, which makes them Muslim Brotherhood members, which makes them anti-Israeli, which in turn makes them terrorists, argued government witness Atef Shafik, a senior language analyst for the FBI.

“Persons who speak that way are persons who are Islamists,” prosecutor Jim Jacks told U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis as he pushed to include Shafik’s obviously bias perspective to the jury. “The way we speak gives away who we are.”

When asked to define Islamists, Shafik said, They are devout Muslims who follow the Sharia Law. They refer extensively to religious texts, such as Quran and Hadith. And they call for the destruction of Israel.

His sources for his conclusion, he explained, are the media and the fact that he lived in Egypt the first 27 years of his life.

Defense attorneys made it clear that Shafik, who is Christian, was no expert on Islam. Defense attorney Theresa Duncan said Shafik’s words expressed pure bigotry and were clearly “an attack on Islam.”

Judge Solis said he would make a ruling Thursday morning on whether Shafik’s perspective could be presented to the jury.

Five hours earlier, defense attorney Joshua Dratel—who represents Mohmmad El-Mezain—began his cross-examination of government witness Matthew Levitt. He clarified several points. First, Levitt wrote sections of his book while working at the Department of Treasury. Second, Musa Abu Marzook’s brother is in the Palestinian Authority—not Hamas.

Third, Levitt has never been to a zakat committee. Fourth, after a lot of controversy regarding Edward Said’s decision to throw a rock, Columbia University defended him on grounds of free expression. And fifth, the second Intifada resulted in nine times more Palestinian deaths than Israeli deaths.

Prosecutor Barry Jonas started redirect examination of Levitt by making a bizarre argument: Just because zakat committees are not blacklisted on the Treasury Department’s list, doesn’t make the entity legitimate. “The government doesn’t have a white list,” Levitt said. Jonas then asked Levitt about the purpose of bypass roads, to which Levitt replied, If Jewish settlers pass through, they will be fired at by Hamas attacks.
Jonas concluded by addressing a couple of weak questions.

Are Israeli sources inherently bad? Jonas asked. site

No.

There’s also been praise for your book, not just criticism.

Yes.

Defense attorney John Cline did a brief re-cross examination of Levitt. Then defense attorney Nancy Hollander, who was the last one to re-cross, made one point clear: Levitt knew about Jamal Hamami’s association with Hamas and he mentioned him a few times in his Hamas book. Yet Levitt did not know until he testified in last year’s HLF trial that Hamami was invited to the U.S.

Second Witness

The entire testimony of Marcial Pereeo took less than half an hour. Pereeo, who also testified last year, spoke about tapes he coincidently found dug up in his backyard. His house was previously owned by Fawaz Mushtaha, a member of the same Palestinian band as defendant Mufid Abdulqader.

Pereeo said he found the tapes between one and two feet underground while he was getting his backyard leveled. He put them in the trash, but took them out soon after his neighbor old him the previous homeowner was raided and under surveillance. So he contacted FBI agents, who went to his home and collected the remaining videos. At this point, some jurors and courtroom visitors looked around with puzzled faces.

Third Witness

Paul Matulic, a staff member of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, testified about a couple letters he received through Senator Warren Hatch’s office while he served as Hatch’s foreign policy advisor. The letters were from a Hamas spokesman requesting help in the release of Musa Abu Marzook who was arrested at JFK airport in July 1995. He dismissed one letter, but he sent another letter to the Department of Justice and the FBI because of one line that he saw as a “potential threat”: “Serious repercussions could ensue as a result.”

Defense attorneys argued that Musa Abu Marzook lived in the U.S. for more than a decade before his arrest. He traveled using his real name. And after several months of detention, Abu Marzook was released without charge and deported to Jordan.

Matulic was also a witness from last year’s trial.

Fourth Witness

Atef Shafik, the FBI language analyst mentioned above who also testified last year, was the government’s next witness. For nearly an hour, prosecutor Jim Jacks asked Shafik about his background and job description. Born in Ciaro, Egypt, Shafik immigrated to the U.S. at age 27. He has worked with the FBI for a little over 10 years and can distinguish between the various Arabic dialects. He pointed out each defendant in the courtroom and said he can recognize all of their voices.

Shafik will continue his testimony on Thursday, where jurors will likely hear intercepted phone calls between some of the defendants.

Who is HLF? The Holy Land Five

The Holy Land Foundation was the largest Muslim charity in the United States. Founded in 1989 in Culver City, Calif. near Los Angeles and based in Richardson, Texas, the foundation provided relief to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and occupied Palestine. It also aided other countries including Bosnia, Albania, Chechnya, Turkey and the United States, where its officials were involved in helping victims of Texas tornadoes and the Oklahoma City Bombing. They also provided continuous volunteering and services in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. By 2001, it’s annual budget reached about $14 million.

The U.S. government shut down the foundation in December 2001 and in July 2004 a federal grand jury released a 42-count indictment that accused the organization of providing money to entities linked to the Palestinian militant group Hamas. Holy Land Foundation deny any ties to Hamas and insist that feeding Palestinian women and children is not only legal, but a moral duty that no government has the right to interfere with.

Why This Case Affects You

As we’ve shown in our Counterpoints to the Case, the Holy Land Foundation is not being accused of providing funds to HAMAS, nor is HLF being accused of committing or supporting any acts of violence. So, what crime is the government charging HLF with?

Feeding orphans.

So, why is this important to us as Americans? Well, think for a minute about the power that the President exercised when he single-handedly shut down HLF and declared the charity a terrorist organization. Should one man, regardless of his rank within our government, have the king-like power to shut down businesses or organizations without providing a shred of evidence to the public to support such actions? Think about how you would feel if it was you or your organization being attacked by an executive order? Don’t think it could happen to you?

Think again.

What happens when the government has no evidence and therefore has no case? Normally, it has to drop the case. However, despite not having any evidence of wrongdoing, the government decided to manufacture a case against HLF. How did they do this? Easy, just “re-define” what is legal. Because every penny of the money donated to HLF was well-documented and these documents prove without any doubt that no funds were used to support terrorism, the government changed course and decided to create a “logical” argument that somehow feeding orphans in Palestine — which is perfectly legal and done by many US-based humanitarian organizations — was somehow the same as supporting HAMAS …

… at least in HLF’s case.

But isn’t that discriminatory, and why should you care? Yes, it is discriminatory and you should care because if the government is allowed to say that someone doing perfectly legal humanitarian aid should be designated illegal for strictly political reasons, then what happens to you if your views, your religion or your country of origin falls out of political favor with the current administration?

Can you see the serious dangers of such powers?

What if it was your charity, your organization, your business, your church or your synagogue that the President decides he doesn’t like? What if it is you that the government decides to throw in jail without providing any evidence of wrong-doing? What if it is you or someone you care about who the government decides to manufacture a case against? What if it is your family the government decides to destroy…

…all because you hold different political beliefs?

So, I hope you are beginning to see how this case affects you. If the government can prosecute one organization or one person without any evidence, cause or legal justification, do you think they will stop there? So, are you still asking yourself “Why should I care?” The reason you should care is simple, because…

You could be next!

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” — Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Birmingham Jail, 1963.

TWO DEFENSE WITNESSES TESTIFY (NOV. 3, 2008)

Jurors listened more intensely than ever before on Monday, Nov. 3, 2008, as they got crash courses on Islam and the Palestinian culture.

Second Defense Witness

Dr. John Esposito, a prominent scholar on Islam and a professor at Georgetown University, was the next witness called to the stand. Esposito, who is Roman Catholic, began by briefing the jury about his credentials. He has published numerous books and articles and a six-volume encyclopedia. He also recently published results of a poll about the perception of Arabs and Muslims. He is the head of a center of Muslim and Christian understanding at Georgetown University, and he has lectured all over the world. In addition, he has consulted with numerous governmental agencies including the State Department, the FBI, the Homeland Security, the Pentagon and military organizations. He’s been to the West Bank several times, he’s received numerous awards and he can read the Quran in Arabic. Finally, he is an expert on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Esposito cleared up numerous misconceptions that prosecutors attempted to twist around and blur during the course of the retrial. First, he defined Islam, which means “submission to God.” The religion has five pillars: Shadada (To bear witness that there is no God but God and Mohammad is his Messenger), Prayer (five times a day), Fasting (From sunrise to sunset), Zakat (charity) and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca.) In Islam, Moses and Jesus are beloved prophets, thereby categorizing the religion with Christianity and Judaism. In fact, Mary appears more in the holy Quran that she does in the New Testament. Muslims are the followers of Islam and Allah is the Arabic term for God. In addition, he stressed the importance of caring for orphans and widows in Islam.

The true meaning of “jihad” is not associated with violence. It’s to struggle on the path of God, and to struggle to lead a moral life, Esposito said. Terrorists also use the term to mean “holy war,” but it’s never used in that context in the Quran. He also elaborated on “economic jihad,” which prosecutors used several times during the retrial. His accurate definition: To give money to the poor and destitute struggling locally and globally.

As for the term “mujahideen,” it literarily means “those who struggle.” It has been used both by freedom fighters and terrorists. In Palestine, mujahidheen would not only include Hamas affiliates, he said. It would include Fatah and other Palestinians. Esposito also defined “Islamist”: One who is religiously-oriented and engaged in social and political movements. Some Islamists mainstream, while others are radical.

He then addressed “Takbir” and “Allahu Akbar.” They are very much like applause, a form of approval from an audience. One person shouts Takbir and a group of people respond “Allahu Akbar. God is the Greatest.”

Esposito said he’s never been to a zakat committee, neither does he consider himself a Hamas expert. When defense attorney Nancy Hollander asked Esposito about Matthew Levit’s book titled “Hamas,” Esposito said the book lacks “first-hand experience,” and therefore affects the author’s credibility.

He also talked about one of his areas of expertise, the Muslim Brotherhood, which was established in the 1920s. He has interviewed numerous members and leaders across the Middle East. For the past 30 years, the group has not been violent. In fact, it has participated peacefully with governments and societies worldwide. The group still exists in Palestine, without being associated with Hamas.

After Esposito said he met a few Hamas officials throughout the years, Hollander asked, Does that say anything about whether or not you support them? Esposito replied, No.

The next topic of discussion was another man whose name was mentioned several times during the retrial: Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a prominent Muslim scholar and religious leader. Al-Qaradawi has denounced acts of terrorism like suicide bombings in general and the tragedy on Sept. 11, 2001. But he has been supportive of suicide bombings in Palestine. To Al-Qaradawi, Esposito explained, Palestine is a war-zone, where people are living under occupation. All Israelis are part of the system; therefore, fighting is legitimate. Suicide bombers don’t have the military power, so they use their bodies as weapons to sacrifice themselves for a noble and just cause, Al-Qaradawi has said.

Hollander concluded direct examination by asking Esposito, Why is it important for us here to understand Islam? Esposito answered, When you make a judgment, it’s important to understand the culture and the people involved. I grew up at a time when Italians were seen as the Mafia. It’s important to know the context before making a judgment.

During cross-examination, prosecutor Jim Jacks asked Esposito about the several times he spoke at CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) events. At one of the events, money was being raised for the Muslim Legal Fund of America, which Jacks claimed, pays the defense attorneys in the HLF case. This claim, of course, was false since all but one defense attorney are paid by 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Jacks inquired about whether Esposito was getting paid for his testimony. He said he was getting about $420 an hour. In addition, Jacks compared the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas mottos, saying the two were similar. Jacks then discussed a book seized by the FBI from HLF’s New Jersey office titled “A study of the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas,” where Hamas leader Ahmad Yasin is quoted labeling Hamas’ security wing as the “Palestinian Mujahideen.” Esposito reiterated that “mujahideen” can be translated to mean holy warrior or freedom fighter. Jacks also asked Esposito why he has met with Hamas leaders. Esposito quickly replied, It’s part of my research to seek out Islamic movements.

Jacks addressed the Muslim Brotherhood, exclaiming that there have been members of the brotherhood who have engaged in violent acts. For 30 minutes or so, Jacks displayed various Muslim Brotherhood documents, in which he repeatedly pointed out violent statements. Next, Jacks attempted tackle Esposito’s definition of “economic jihad” by playing a clip of a speech by Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian spiritual leader who fought alongside Afghanis against the Soviets during the late 1970s. In the video, Azzam proclaimed passionately in Arabic, It is a duty for all Muslims to do jihad with their souls and money … I pray for the paralyzed man, a man who moves a generation when he cant move, Ahmad Yasin … Oh children of Palestine, the opportunity to train you with weapons is open The end of the clip features a flashing request to send donations to the Occupied Land Fund (the original name of the HLF.)

Would you agree that in this video and this context, economic jihad is referring to supporting violence, Jacks asked after the clip ended.

I suppose he was referring to fundraising for Afghanistan, Esposito replied, concluding honestly and brilliantly.

Third Defense Witness

Dr. David McDonald, a professor of folklore and ethnomusicology at Indiana University, gave the jury the untold, candid story of Palestine through its history of music, dance, performance and culture. While working on his PhD, McDonald lived the West Bank for two years. There, he said he interviewed Palestinians and learned about what they thought and how they lived.

After completing his research, McDonald concluded that there are six basic types of Palestinian music that emerged at specific moments in Palestinian history.

1. Sha’bi (Folkloric)—19-teens to 1948: This type of music included stories of heroism and the British colonization. It became prominent again in Palestine from 1982 to 1987.
2. Watani (National)—1948 to 1967: This type of music emerged after the creation of Israel in 1948. It was a drastic change from Shaibi.
3. Thauri (Revolutionary)—1967 to 1982: This type of music coincided with the Six-Day War in 1967. It had many references of resistance against the brutal Israeli occupation.
4. Anasheed (Islamist songs)—1987 to 1993: This type of music emerged soon after the Intifada in 1987. It’s made up of a more simple, religious chant.
5. Classiki (Classical)—1993 to 2001: After the Oslo Accord, the type of music began reflecting a “spirit of anticipation,” McDonald said. There was zeal toward learning new things.
6. Pop—2000 and forward: This type of music sprouted after the second Intifada.

McDonald said he analyzed sound, behavior and concept when he reviewed the footage associated with the HLF case. Some clips showed music by Al-Sakhra (The Rock) Band of which defendant Mufid Abdulqader was a member. This group surprised me because they performed three different types of music in one performance: Sha’bi, Thauri and Anasheed, McDonald said. Defense attorney Marlo Caddedu played a video with Al-Sakhra Band singing behind professional dabka dancers. Dabka is the most important Palestinian symbol of identity, McDonald added. Caddedu played a video that prosecutors showed the jury earlier during the trial of masked men wearing black and holding up the Quran. McDonald pointed out that the individuals in the video looked like they were reenacting the demonstrations that took place during the Intifada. Another video featured Al-Sakhra Band member Monzer Taleb singing an ornamented solo as he recited poetic text.

At the end of the day, McDonald addressed a video that prosecutors played numerous times of a skit performed by Abdulqader and another individual dressed like an Israeli soldier. McDonald said the performance was a dramatization of a dialogue. He dissected the dialogue, putting the Palestinian frustration into context for the jury. Below are excerpts of the dialogue:

Mufid: I am Hamas, O dear ones.
I swear to wipe out the name of the Zionist.
And protect my land, Palestine.

Zionist Character: This, Hamas, is a new melody
that you have not gotten used to it. But
you do not know me.
And I am the known Zionist.
And my situation is known in the world.
I must take over Palestine
And make it Israel.

Zionist Character: You want to wipe out the name
of the Zionist, you, yourself? Armies and
will not wipe out the name of the Zionist,
and you are coming to erase the name of the
Zionist with a stone?
And I, the Jew, do not get scared.
And Hitler killed thousands.
And I, the Jew, do not get scared.
And Hitler killed thousands.
I am the Jew and I do not fight.
My daughters answer on my behalf.

Mufid: You, as many as you kill of the
children, elderly and women.
And the people of Palestine do not die.
Mufid: I will make your casket, and dig your grave
in Jenin.

Zionist Character: He thinks that Jenin in which
he is going to dig his grave in for me is his land.
This is not your land; this is our land.
And this is Yehuda and Samra.
And the abundant land and of my forefathers. .
And the world knows its story.
And from America to Berlin.
Do not say Intifada
This is nonsense.
The sling will not get me out.
Nor by the stone that is thrown on me.
Audience: You must leave, O cursed one.

Mufid: This is your work, against who
are you using your tanks and cannons?, against
unarmed people and children, the innocent people.
This is your work, O coward.
The killing of the elderly and the women.
And this is your work, O coward.

The skit ends with Abdulqader shooting and killing the Israeli soldier.
McDonald will continue his testimony on Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2008. Attorneys will likely give their closing arguments early next week.

BLOCKING FAITH, FREEZING CHARITY: CHILLING MUSLIM CHARITABLE GIVING IN THE “WAR ON TERRORISM FINANCING”

This report documents the effect of U.S. government actions on American Muslims’ exercise of their right to profess and practice their religion through charitable giving. The ACLU’s research shows that U.S. terrorism financing policies and practices are seriously undermining American Muslims’ protected constitutional liberties and violating their fundamental human rights to freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom from discrimination.

The ACLU found that these policies and practices are neither fair nor effective, and are undermining American values of due process and fairness. This report outlines clear measures the Obama administration and Congress should take to ensure American Muslims can exercise their religion while protecting charities from mistaken targeting and abuse, and simultaneously promoting national security and humanitarian aid.