# For Muslims, traveling the American road



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Islam in America

For Muslims, traveling the American road

[siteimg]3976[/siteimg]

A growing desire among young Muslims for strong cultural ties was on display among the hundreds who gathered in Chicago last month to discuss ways to maintain their Muslim identity and keep pace with American trends.

Muslims are members of the world's fastest-growing faith, a religion largely made up of moderates yet one that has been exploited by dangerous extremists. As a result, synergy between being Muslim and being American can be difficult. But Muslims "are Americans because we believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights just as we are Muslims because we believe in God and the Quran as the word of God to man," said Maher Hathout, a senior adviser to the Muslim Public Affairs Council, to the Chicago attendees.

"The synergy between our Muslim identity and American identity can revive our dynamic understanding of Islam and, at the same time, contribute positively to America's pluralism," Maher said.

This duality is vividly illustrated by young Muslims. They stand at the crossroads between old and new and navigate a generational chasm as timeless as the hills. Every immigrant group has experienced the tug of war between assimilation and identity, home and the outside world. For Islam, factor in the religious dictates of dress and behavior and the universal suddenly becomes the specific.

There is also the matter of post-9/11 tensions. Young Muslims are growing up hearing a different conversation around the dinner table than their forebears heard. The talk is often about disparate treatment. Muslims pulled over by law enforcement, humiliated at the airport or stared at with suspicion. To believe these things don't happen is to ignore the history of minorities in America.

Schools offer a microcosm of these tensions. They contain the Sturm und Drang of youthful angst coupled with racial, ethnic and religious tensions. The clash of civilizations that pits religious East against secular West plays out among the young through a tension between popular culture and religious piety.

Many public school districts are grappling with how to accommodate the Muslim students in their midst. Few schools are willing to broaden their Judeo-Christian holiday schedules but they are taking notice of the Muslim students they serve.

The Hillsborough, Fla., County School Board got embroiled in a flap when it decided to jettison all religious holidays rather than comply with one family's demand for an observed Muslim holiday. The new secular calendar created a community backlash from Christians and Muslims and made national news. The board backed off and reinstated the old calendar.

In Seattle, 30 parents of Muslim students recently sat down on a Saturday with a public-school official and ticked off the many ways their children feel excluded from school.

The parents spoke of the need for private places for their children to pray. They asked for a school calendar that includes Islam's holy days - not for observance purposes but so teachers will understand what is going on in the lives of Muslim students.

The parents pointed out that some Muslims interpret their religion as forbidding music and they wanted assurances they would not be penalized for removing their children from music classes.

Language interpretation was another request. Roughly 97 languages are spoken within the School District. While it cannot provide translation services for each one, the district did agree to link parents with translation services and find alternative ways of communicating school information.

These are positive signs that young Muslims will make their way into American society much like their parents before them. We are not in danger of exploding like France. Economic opportunity, or a lack of it, contributed mightily to the antipathy felt by the young French Muslims who set fires and clashed with police last month in nearly 300 French cities and towns.

America is not perfect but we've been down this road before. The challenge for young Muslims is to traverse a road well-traveled by many groups before them.

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

Ben Elli said:


> Islam in America
> 
> For Muslims, traveling the American road
> 
> ...


Boohoo. Stereotypes are based off of some sort of truth. Let's not forget what happened a few weeks ago in, I think it was, North Carolina when the Muslim student drove his car through a group of students. He said his intentions were "to kill."

This article states "Muslims are members of the world's fastest-growing faith, a religion largely made up of moderates yet one that has been exploited by dangerous extremists" but that is hog wash. Where are these "moderate" muslims denouncing terrorists actions? I did not see them demonstrating in France last fall when the 'extremist' were rioting. Where are the "moderates" calling for peace against Israel?

And speaking of their children feeling excluded? It happens everywhere to everyone. When I move to the mid-west for law school I too will feel excluded if I do not adapt and fit in. That is my problem, not the mid-west's problem...I will need to deal with it, not the mid-west. It will be interesting to see if anything becomes of this "private place to pray" ordeal. I cannot, for the life of me, see the, "Another Christian Liberty Undone" stopping this.

Jeff Given


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

This kind of stuff makes me think we are getting reference of and to God out of Government for more reasons than we are told. It could be in preparation for the day when Islam has taken this country over, they will have to deal with putting God back into government to control their flock which will certainly contain a few die hard Christians. Does God really want to be a bargaining tool?

In my short life I have learned most things good and bad are planned and carried out by people. It's hard to believe that today's suffering around the world is controlled by the human hand as an instrument of politics. Consideration is not given to individual life these days it seems but only to the screaming masses.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Where are these "moderate" muslims denouncing terrorists actions?


If the threat of death is upon you, denouncing terrorists doesn't seem like the best course of action.



> Where are the "moderates" calling for peace against Israel?


Many of them believe that Israel shouldn't exist, they don't have to be radicals to take up that line of thought.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Where are these "moderate" muslims denouncing terrorists actions?
> 
> 
> If the threat of death is upon you, denouncing terrorists doesn't seem like the best course of action.


So the threat of death is on EVERY moderate Muslim MT? WHAT!?

How can that be? This is a peaceful religion. That can't be true! Even you said it is not a violent religion? So you are telling us that those participating in the Muslim faith have to fear fellow Muslims from killing them?

I won't even touch the rest of your ludicrous post...

Ryan


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Not all, but many in the Mid East are. You can't blame radical factioning on the religion. What of the Cheka that Lenin employed? Certainly he was not a Muslim and yet people had to fear death from their fellow Russians for saying something out of line with the leader's beleifs.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Booom baby, smoked ya again MT.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

racer66 said:


> Booom baby, smoked ya again MT.


More quippy one liners, my ego is bruised indeed.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

:lol:


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

> > Where are these "moderate" muslims denouncing terrorists actions?
> 
> 
> If the threat of death is upon you, denouncing terrorists doesn't seem like the best course of action.


I am sorry, I do not comprehend what you are saying here. All I am asking for is where are the moderate muslims at to denounce the extremist.



> > Where are the "moderates" calling for peace against Israel?
> 
> 
> Many of them believe that Israel shouldn't exist, they don't have to be radicals to take up that line of thought.


So what you are telling me is the muslims in the middle east that want an entire race/religion of people to be destroyed by any means necessary albeit plague, nuclear, or suicidal bombing etc are _NOT_ radicals?? If that is not a radical, I would hate to imagine one.

Jeff Given[/quote]


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I am sorry, I do not comprehend what you are saying here. All I am asking for is where are the moderate muslims at to denounce the extremist.


In the mid east, the fear is that if one comes out against terror that they will fall victim to it.



> So what you are telling me is the muslims in the middle east that want an entire race/religion of people to be destroyed by any means necessary albeit plague, nuclear, or suicidal bombing etc are NOT radicals?? If that is not a radical, I would hate to imagine one.


No, just by disbandment. Frankly I am not so hot on the idea of Israel existing either. It was carved out of an area that already had people living on it, and has caused nothing but conflict.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

> > I am sorry, I do not comprehend what you are saying here. All I am asking for is where are the moderate muslims at to denounce the extremist.
> 
> 
> In the mid east, the fear is that if one comes out against terror that they will fall victim to it.


That's a good way of dealing with your problems that plague your religion. Way to seperate your "moderate" muslim faith from the "extremists." Furthermore, why have there been no leaders coming out and condemning any terrorist attacks going on now? Or the riots in France for that matter?



> > So what you are telling me is the muslims in the middle east that want an entire race/religion of people to be destroyed by any means necessary albeit plague, nuclear, or suicidal bombing etc are NOT radicals?? If that is not a radical, I would hate to imagine one.
> 
> 
> No, just by disbandment. Frankly I am not so hot on the idea of Israel existing either. It was carved out of an area that already had people living on it, and has caused nothing but conflict.


[/quote]

This is by far the worst thing you have said here that I have read. ISRAEL is te problem, not the Palestinians....I feel bad for you. You think just like the terrorists. Israel builds a wall to keep suicide bombers out of their country and they get bashed for it. The move out of Gaza, they get bashed for it. They are gonna get out of the West Bank, they get bashed for it. You know what, I hope you're right and Israel does cause nothing but conflict. Conflict with numerous bombs raining down on the "innocent" Hammas-led people, who's mission is to drive the evil Jews into the sea. The evil Jews that get suicide bombs on their buses, at their restraunts, and at their children's schools. Remember who broke the "Road map to peace plan"--it was not the Israeli's. I hope the _evil_ Israeli's wipes the filthy scum off of the map permanently.

Jeff Given


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> No, just by disbandment. Frankly I am not so hot on the idea of Israel existing either. It was carved out of an area that already had people living on it, and has caused nothing but conflict.


Um, Jews have existed since the time of the Pharohs of Egypt..... Muslims came into existance at or around 600 AD. I think they were there first.....


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

Read up on the Babylonian Captivity....


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The land no longer belonged to the Jews when it was given to them. Palestenians lived in the area, and the British decided to promise the Jews a homeland. This has caused nothing but conflict since the inception of the country. I completely disagree with the violent tactics of the Muslim terrorists who attack them, but I don't think that Britain had the right to grant the Jews land that was already thoroughly inhabited. Seems to me that this would be like if the British decided to remove the Dakotas and turn them into a Native American country.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The land that was "given" to the Jews was their homeland. They of course drove some other people off a few thousand years ago, and they were not Palestinians. Since that time the Palestinians are recent interlopers. Can you tell me anything that Bethlehem is famous for? Ever hear of Jerusalem? Where was it Moses led the people to?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

So you think that land (with current inhabitants) can just be given back to a people who lived there before? This seems right to you?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You're the one that is proposing that. You want to give Israel back to the Palestinians. Your trying to accuse me of what you propose. I am saying the Israeli's had it thousands of years, and the Palestinians have had it far less. It was the Jews getting back their homeland. You think the Palestinians should get it back because it first belonged to them. Wrong, it first belonged to the Jewish people.

Your profile is interesting:
Anti Jewish
Anti Saudi
Pro Iraqi
Anti Christian it appears
Pro Muslim it appears
Have stated that no religion is more valid than any other
Pro abortion
Pro Gay
Anti Bush
Anti Military (don't care if soldiers are shot)
Very critical of information that supports conservative values
Very naive of information that supports liberal values (require no proof)
Repeat things that most of the world knows isn't true (Bush Lied) to further some sort of agenda

Did I miss anything anyone? I am sure I did. So MT what is your perfect world? No religion what so ever, abort every child that might turn out to be a nasty heterosexual, Alec Baldwin President, the ten commandment stricken from all books and replaced with the ten suggestions as promoted by Ted Turner?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I see, so because the land was given back to the Jews that means that the Palestenians should be left out in the cold. How does that work exactly? If a robbery has already taken place do you let the robber go?

I've got a situation for you. I am going to remove all non natives from the Dakotas, take your land, not give you any compensation, then turn the states into a Native American homeland. Are you ok with that?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> You're the one that is proposing that. You want to give Israel back to the Palestinians. Your trying to accuse me of what you propose. I am saying the Israeli's had it thousands of years, and the Palestinians have had it far less. It was the Jews getting back their homeland. You think the Palestinians should get it back because it first belonged to them. Wrong, it first belonged to the Jewish people.
> 
> Your profile is interesting:
> Anti Jewish
> ...


I didn't know MT was PRO GAY! I though he just had a lot of special friends. WOW **** supporter!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You caught me red handed, I'm all these things and less. Did I mention that I am a card carrying member of the Communist party? Also, I hate Jesus. And children.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> You caught me red handed, I'm all these things and less. Did I mention that I am a card carrying member of the Communist party? Also, I hate Jesus. And children.


Why is your hand RED? :toofunny:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Why is your hand RED?


To use your terms, from spanking you on a regular basis.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I see, so because the land was given back to the Jews that means that the Palestenians should be left out in the cold.





> Frankly I am not so hot on the idea of Israel existing either.


No, you advocated doing that for the Jews. You said you were not sure Israel should exist, or something akin to that. My thoughts are that the Palestinians should not be left out, but that the Jews have more right, and a longer history in the land they now hold. Your simply prejudiced. So what's with this anti Jewish attitude?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> No, you advocated doing that for the Jews. You said you were not sure Israel should exist, or something akin to that. My thoughts are that the Palestinians should not be left out, but that the Jews have more right, and a longer history in the land they now hold. Your simply prejudiced.


So, with your logic the original inhabitants of an area have the right to retake it without any conflict at any point? Again, how would you feel if I confiscated all the land and property in the Dakotas and gave it back to the Natives, without giving you any compensation?

You are simply prejudiced towards Muslims.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I am not the one advocating taking land from anyone MT you are. You said you were not sure if Israel should exist. You also advocate giving it back to the Palestinians. If the UN was worth anything they would say any nation that tries to extend it's boarders will be considered a threat to world peace and dealt with. I don't advocate taking land from anyone MT you do. Your simply trying to divert attention from Palestinian agression. Another anti semantic move.



> how would you feel if I confiscated all the land and property in the Dakotas


That statement shows you have jumped to some conclusions about me. Now I suppose I could say how would you feel if we sent you back to the mid-east. Lets not divert another subject simply because you can not speak of it without showing prejudice. .


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I am not the one advocating taking land from anyone MT you are. You said you were not sure if Israel should exist.


Yet you believe that the creation of the state of Isreal, carving it out of land which was already occupied is justified. That seems contradictory.



> Your simply trying to divert attention from Palestinian agression. Another anti semantic move.


You are looking at the situation as if the Jews controlled that area at all times. They have not.

Once again, for the third time, would you be ok with confiscating all property and land in the Dakotas to give the Natives a homeland without compensation? It is exactly the same situation, only in America. This is not a tough question Plainsman.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your not stumping anyone with your questions MT this is simply childish diversion. Let's move on, and stop the stalling.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You see, you are willing to support such a move so long as the Muslims get the short end of the stick. If it was your house and your land that were taken to form a homeland you would rally against it. That is hypocrisy and bigotry at their finest.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'm not supporting taking anything from anyone you are, you're the anti semantic, but you call me the bigot. You know I thought you were stubborn, but I recently realized you don't understand. Do you not understand that the Jews had this land before the Palestinians. I was pointing out that it was ok with you that the Palestinians took the land that belonged to Israel, but it wasn't ok that Israel got it back. I know this is beyond your capability of understanding, but others out there may find your double standard interesting.

Now what was the subject again???????????????????


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I simply applied your reasoning to an identical situation in a different part of the world. You are very bigoted towards Muslims, and as such you make hypocritical statements such as those above.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

It's to bad there isn't a Emoticon that would indicate a topic going down the toilet.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ya, I have to much fun pointing out MT's inconsistencies. This evening I'm not as frustrated as I sound, I just want to see how far MT will go trying to appear to be the martyr. The emoticon would be good. Sound would be good too, I would like to dedicate cry me a river for MT.


----------



## Techhead (Oct 18, 2005)

MT, you do realize if it wasn't for the UNITED STATES, Israel would have probably wiped away several arabic countries in the last 30 years? as the debate goes, the Brits were not the only ones who decided to make Israel, the world for the most part did. As far as the Palestinians go, how can you respect, and you do, their need for bloodshed? They failed to negotiate and assimilate into the culture that Israel has become, that is their fault not the Israeli's. the world is a whole is very anti sematic right now, yet in world reporting we do not hear of Israeli civilians blowing up Palestinian women and children. The Palestinains and terrorists like them are pure cowards, and in any religion they will be going to hell or the comparable. And yes we won't be giving the land back to the native americans, for obvious reasons. sir why don't you go eat at a cafe in Jerusalem and wonder if your children will die by the hand of a coward?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT, you do realize if it wasn't for the UNITED STATES, Israel would have probably wiped away several arabic countries in the last 30 years?


We should let them. It is their fight, let them duke it out.



> as the debate goes, the Brits were not the only ones who decided to make Israel, the world for the most part did.


The Brits proposed it if I'm not mistaken, though the Zionist line of thought was popular among Jews at that point.



> As far as the Palestinians go, how can you respect, and you do, their need for bloodshed?


As I stated, I think that the bloodshed is terrible.



> They failed to negotiate and assimilate into the culture that Israel has become, that is their fault not the Israeli's.


Israel took their land, why should they be forced to assimilate or agree?



> the world is a whole is very anti sematic right now, yet in world reporting we do not hear of Israeli civilians blowing up Palestinian women and children.


In what way is the whole world antisemitic?

It seems to me that many Israelis are just as radical as the Palestinians.



> And yes we won't be giving the land back to the native americans, for obvious reasons.


Those reasons being? The situations are exactly the same. The Natives were the first ones to inhabit this land, and we took it from them, like the Palestinians did to the Jews. You claim that the Jews are allowed to take that land back since they were the first ones there, so why are the Natives not allowed to do the same? That is a very hypocritical statement.


----------



## Techhead (Oct 18, 2005)

actually no i never claimed that since the jewish people were there first they should have the land other people did, you claim to be against war, yet want them to duke it out, which would wipe out several arabic countries, very morbid indeed. Israel has been there for 50+ years now, and has granted concessions to the Palestinians, without any thought they continue to blow innocent people up. They want to take on Israel's military let them, but civilians? That is barbaric, and they should be wiped from the face of the earth for their actions on innocents. That goes for anyone that does this, if there are Palestinians that don't blow themselves up and want to settle things peacefully, i have nothing against them, but for terrorists, kill all them cowards


----------

