FMC Blog: Free Speech Zone

No topic is more misunderstood than the price of oil and the oil industry in general. Most politicians and writers, who comment on the recent rise in the price of oil, its causes, and implications, simply have no clue what they are talking about.

The world is not facing an oil crisis and the price of oil is not exclusively determined by OPEC or any other organization or cartel. Today, every major oil producer, whether in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa or America can influence the price of oil.

The point of this article is that the United States is not facing a crisis, nor is it addicted to oil and the United States government should allow the free enterprise system to responds to higher prices rather than politicians or government bureaucrats who don’t understand the energy market.

It should be noted that this is not the first time the world experienced high oil prices. The world initially experienced a sudden increase in oil prices in 1973 and again in 1981. As a consequence of the rise of oil prices in the 1970s and early 1980s, oil production became profitable all over the world and every country that had the ability to produce oil raced against time to increase production and explore for oil. By 1985, world oil production had increased so much higher than demand that the price of oil simply collapsed and the world experience approximately 20 years of dirt cheap oil prices.

As a result of cheap oil, production and exploration naturally decreased because available oil supply was substantially higher than demand and producing additional oil was not economically feasible.

Then China, India and Brazil, among other countries, decided they no longer wanted to be poor. China’s economy has grown at a phenomenal and unprecedented 10% annual growth for 10 straight years. At no point in modern history has a large nation experienced such consistent and explosive economic growth. Add India to the equation and within a short period of time two impoverished nations with 2.6 BILLION people were suddenly able to put down their bicycles and pick their car keys. Predictably, demand for oil and other natural resources increased substantially.

Within a short period of time, India and China went from exporting oil to becoming major oil importers. Consequently, the excess global oil capacity, which once numbered eight million barrels per day, was reduced to two million barrels per day. That is correct; the world is still producing more oil than demand for oil. However, because supply is only slightly higher than demand, the market is constantly on edge. Thus, news of Hurricane Katrina, rebels in Nigeria or the nuclear dispute with Iran tends to make the market nervous because several nations produce more than two million barrels per day and the fear that anyone of them may face a disruption keeps the market on edge and invites speculators to invest in oil in the hope that demand for oil may rise faster than supply or a disruption in supply would push prices to the sky in which case, investors would reap enormous profits.

The problem of oil supply has been exasperated by western nations, including the United States, who refuse to allow drilling for additional oil. The refusal to allow additional drilling is interfering with the free market system from efficiently responding to high oil prices. It is absolutely irresponsible for the United States government to prevent the oil industry from producing oil anywhere and everywhere that oil maybe found and produced in an environmentally sound way.

Some argue that allowing additional drilling will only produce one million barrels of oil per day. (As if one million barrels of oil per day is insignificant.) What those people don’t understand is that it is not the amount of additional oil the United States produces that counts; it is the amount of additional global capacity that makes a difference. Thus, one million additional barrels in the United States, one million in the Middle East and one million in Latin America will make a huge difference when added together if the end result is substantial excess oil capacity. Even if substantial excess capacity is not possible, continuous exploration and production is necessary to keep up with the additional demand from China and India. If western nations refuse to explore and drill for oil, then demand may one day surpass supply and the price of gasoline may reach $10 per gallon, a price that may damage the U.S. economy and cause enormous suffering for the poor of the world.

As to government intervention, the United States government should do NOTHING to artificially interfere with people’s energy consumption habits. The government should get out of the way and let consumers and the free market respond to oil prices. Government intervention is more likely to cause additional problems than provide solutions. A case in point is the government mandated use of Ethanol which most experts credit for contributing to the global rise in food prices.

Over the last five years, the American car industry has responded to high oil prices by taking numerous steps to improve the efficiency of their automobiles. For example, GM, Ford and Chrysler began mass producing vehicles with cylinder deactivation technology whereby a vehicle switches from eight cylinders to four cylinders when road condition allow for such reduction in power and energy consumption. GM is near completion of the Volt, a new car that promises to take energy consumption to new lows. All car companies are now producing hybrids. The point here is that the car companies did not take the above mentioned steps because the government asked them to change, they began changing their cars when their consumers and the free market demanded more efficient cars.

As to other forms of energy, such as solar, wind, hydrogen, etc., the market and consumers should decide the extent of their use. The consumer will naturally begin using other forms of renewable energy once it becomes cost effective to do so. The fact is, oil continues to be the most cost effective and efficient of the available sources of energy. This is a fact that should not be denied for political reasons.

The conservative Arab Kingdom of Bahrain has appointed an Arab Jewish woman as its ambassador to the United States.

This is a remarkable example of traditional Arab tolerance and a sign that hostile relations between Jews and Arabs are beginning to subside. Throughout the last 1400 years Jews have had better relations with Muslims and Arabs than any other part of the world where Jews lived. Relations between Jews, Arabs and Muslims deteriorated in 1948 with the creation of Israel and the resulting Palestinian refugee crises.

Her Highness, Ambassador Huda Nunu, is a member of a small Arab Jewish community that numbers only 37 people. What makes this appointment even more remarkable is that the appointment was made by a conservative Muslim Arab state in the most conservative Muslims region of the world.

The Free Muslim Coalition congratulates the Arab Kingdom of Bahrain for its farsightedness and for its commitment to religious freedom and civil liberty.

While there is no conclusive answer to who killed former Pakistani prime minister Bhutto, so far the only claim of responsibility has come from an Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan, who posted the claim of responsibility on an Italian Web site. Al Qaeda posted the following message: "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat the mujahideen. (holy warriors.)"

Bhutto was an outspoken critic of Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamist groups. Consequently, Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups hated her for her rhetoric, for supporting secularism and for being a woman.

While we can’t know for sure who killed Bhutto, on two occasions, Al Qaeda has also tried to kill Pakistani president Musharraf. This brings us to the state of emergency that was enacted by Musharraf in November to “defend Pakistan from extremists and terrorists.” At that time the United States and much of the world criticized Musharraf and pressured him to lift the state of emergency and to resign as army chief, a position he held alongside the position of president.

Currently, the only force that can keep Pakistan intact and safe from the terrorists is the Pakistani military. The Pakistani military and president Musharraf know better than any outsider what it takes to keep Pakistan from failing and falling in the hands of terrorists and extremists. It is a mistake for the United States or any other country to interfere in the internal affairs of Pakistan by pressuring the Pakistani government to take any action that Pakistan does not want to take. It should be left up to the Pakistani people to decide whether emergency rule stays or not, whether the president wears an army uniform or not and when and whether elections are held.

The wrong interference by the United States and the weakening of the Pakistani military’s control over Pakistan may produce a repeat of the disaster that brought clerical rule to Iran. In 1979, the Shah of Iran was deposed when the military refused to back him and the country fell in the hands of religious fundamentalist who continue to rule the country until today. This must not happen in Pakistan. The United States needs to be more emphatic to the particular circumstances of Pakistan and not to pressure Pakistan to do anything that is a threat to the stability and security of the country. If president Musharraf abuses his powers it is up to the majority of the Pakistani people to stop him and not foreign governments. The Pakistanis have a long democratic tradition and are capable of protecting their rights and institutions. An example is when Pakistani lawyers took to the streets to demonstrate against the weakening of the judiciary.

While democracy is a great ideal, Pakistan is currently facing turmoil and the Pakistanis need a strong president, a strong central government and a strong military to keep order. This remains the case despite allegations that the Pakistani military has been infiltrated by extremist elements. The United States should take no action to undermine the power of the central government, the military or president Musharraf, who has been a great ally in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Currently, the Pakistani military has more than 100, 000 troops fighting extremists on the Pakistani/Afghanistan border at a minuscule cost to the United States.

This year, the three Abrahamic religions celebrate important holidays in the same month. For Jews, it is Hanukkah, for Christians, it is Christmas and for Muslims, it is the Grand Eid.

The Free Muslims Coalition feel it’s important to explain the significance of the three holidays to focus on our commonalities rather than our differences.

Holiday of Sacrifice

The least known of the three holidays among Americans is the largest Muslim holiday which is abbreviated as “Eid.” Actually “Eid” simply means “holiday” in Arabic and thus, in Arabic speaking countries, Eid is also used for Christmas and Hanukka. Thus, Christmas becomes “Christmas Eid” and Hanukka, “Hanukka Eid.”

The most important Muslim holiday is known in Arabic as “Eid al Aldha” which translates to “Holiday of Sacrifice.” This holiday celebrates the Muslim patriarch, Abraham, his family and his example. Abraham is also the patriarch of Christianity and Judaism which makes this holiday season especially important for Muslims as it provides them an opportunity to focus on their similarities with Jews and Christians, rather than their differences.

This time of year, Muslims remember the life of Abraham and his unconditional love for God. Currently, millions of Muslims from around the world are performing the once in a life time pilgrimage to Mecca where they celebrate and follow the steps of Abraham and his family. Muslims believe that it was in Mecca where Abraham opened the first house for the worship of the one and only true God. The Eid of Sacrifice centers around God’s commandment to Abraham to sacrifice his own son. Abraham chose to obey God, but as he raised his hand to sacrifice his son, an angel stopped him and God provided Abraham with a lamb to sacrifice instead. This Abrahamic story is the single most important event in Islamic history. Abraham represents the two most important concepts in Islam, monotheism and submission to the will of God. In fact, “Islam” is an Arabic word meaning “submission.”

The Holiday of Sacrifice is a very festive and happy holiday for Muslims. It is common during this holiday for Muslims to purchase large quantities of lamp and divide the meat among their neighbors or the poor.

Hanukkah

Recently Jews celebrated Hanukka which is also known as the "Holiday of Lights." Hanukka is an eight-day Jewish holiday which started on the 25th of Kislev, a month on the Hebrew calendar that falls in November or December. This year, Hanukkah began on Dec. 5, and ended on December 13th.

The holiday originated when Jews in Jerusalem fought and took their Holy Temple from the Greeks. The rededication of the temple included the lighting of a menorah with oil that was expected to last only one day. The oil lasted for eight days while patrons searched for more oil and this is why Hanukkah is an eight-day celebration.

Hanukkah means "dedication" in Hebrew and the traditional item is the lighting of a menorah, a seven-branch candlestick lit by olive oil, often said to symbolize the prophet Moses and the burning bush from Exodus 25. Here again, is an event that is shared by all three religions. The burning bush from Exodus 25 is not exclusive for Jews and Christians. The burning bush is an extremely important event in Islamic history and theology and thus, the Hanukkah Eid can certainly be a source of harmony and appreciation between Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Christmas

“Christmas” was created from the words "Christ's mass," which signified the birth of Jesus Christ who was born through an immaculate conception to the virgin Marry.

While Christmas has always been an important holiday, it was not celebrated as it is today until the early 1800s, when Washington Irving published "The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon" and Charles Dickens published "A Christmas Carol." After these stories stuck in the hearts of Americans, the themes began to come together with Christian beliefs and the Renaissance reputation of Saint Nicholas. The saint's popularity transitioned into the embodiment of the red and white Santa Claus in the 1840s and the holiday has only grown in significance ever since. Christians celebrate Christmas by attending Christian masses, large meals, gift giving and family gatherings.

Christmas can also be a source of unity for Christians, Muslims and Jews. As mentioned above, Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ to the Virgin Marry. The Virgin Marry is the most important woman in Islam. She is second to none. Moreover, both Christians and Jews believe that Jesus was Jewish. Muslims believe that Jesus is a descendent of “Bani Israeel,” an Arabic term that means the “children of Israel” which means he is a descendent of the Israelites. This is a technical difference that is not significant for this discussion. What is important is that both Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus is their Messiah and that he will return one day. It is certainly a source of unity and affinity that the Messiah of Christians and Muslims is considered a Jew by one and an Israelite by the other.

It should be noted that the Free Muslims Coalition understands that the above chronology and history have been used as a source of conflict. The point here is that we can focus on our differences or our similarities. The Free Muslims believe that the world would be a better place if we focus on our similarities.

Happy holidays and may God bless us all. Amen.

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center about American Muslims was received favorably by many Muslims and apprehensively by many non-Muslims.

The surveys revealed that more than 80% of American Muslims blend comfortably into American society and that they have a broad willingness to adopt American customs, work ethics and are generally optimistic about America. It also revealed an American Muslim population that is religious, diverse, socially conservative and politically liberal. Nearly eight in ten U.S. Muslims say they are either happy or "very happy." They believe Muslims coming to the United States should try to adopt American customs rather than separating from the larger society.

The study also revealed that two percent of young Muslims under 30 believe that suicide bombings to defend their religion can often be justified while 13 percent of those under 30 believe that suicide attacks to defend their religion can sometimes be justified. Moreover, the study revealed that five percent expressed "even somewhat favorable" opinions of al-Qaida. Not surprisingly, some Muslims and many non-Muslims were concerned by this revelation. The New York Post went as far as editorializing "TIME BOMBS IN OUR MIDST."

So why do many American Muslims appear less concerned with the minority and instead are focusing on the 87% of Muslims who condemn suicide bombings? One reason is that many Muslim groups feel vindicated or affirmed since they have always asserted that the majority of American Muslims assimilate easily, are law abiding, and peace loving. Moreover, Muslim groups believe that those who recognize exceptions to Islam's prohibition against suicide do not pose an immanent threat because those young people were responding to a theoretical question about the emotional issue of protecting their religion. Muslim groups argue that those who justify suicide bombings are incorrectly interpreting Islam and that they can be reeducated about the issue of suicide bombings.

Assuming Muslim groups are correct in their analysis of the poll, and they maybe, one must ask why is it that there are any Muslims who would justify suicide bombings in the name of Islam when Islam has always had a clear prohibition against suicide?

The answer is that the minority of Muslims who justify suicide bombings evolved from a recent trend in which some Islamic political movements and leaders began sending mixed messages about the use of suicide military operations. Over the last 20 years, some Muslim leaders have sanctioned suicide military operations when they believed that a particular cause is just but rejected suicide as un-Islamic in other instances. To get around the Koran's prohibition against suicide some Islamic leaders repackaged suicide bombings by calling them martyrdom operations and argued that such tactics are similar to "a mission impossible," that has been used by modern militaries for centuries. Moreover, they argue that in a war where the "oppressor" possesses superior military capabilities, martyrdom operations are essential. Further, they argue that since the goal of the Muslim soldier is not to kill himself but to defend himself against an enemy who is trying to kill him or steal his property, martyrdom operations do not constitute suicide.

These arguments were given prominence in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by prominent Islamic personalities who provided moral cover for HAMAS in its use of suicide bombings against Israel based on Israel's alleged persecution of the Palestinians and Israel's military superiority.

So what to do now? For the benefit of the American Muslim communities and the world at large, Muslim leaders must use theological arguments to discredit and condemn those who selectively justify suicide bombings. It is dangerous to argue that suicide bombings are wrong in most instances and justify them when the intended target is seen as an oppressor. All evidence indicates that those who commit suicide military operations believe that they are fighting for a just cause. If societies made exceptions for the select use of suicide when the target is an "oppressor" then other groups may want an exception for their "just cause" or "oppressor" who maybe a Muslim.

Muslim religious leaders must be making clear that suicide bombings are wrong in all instances and when they do they must include the "I" word (Israel). This is important because most Muslims are passionate about the belief that Israel is an oppressor and it is because of these deep emotions about Israel that Muslim leaders must specifically mention Israel by name when condemning suicide bombings.

The Free Muslims Coalition was recently contacted by a Christian Pastor who wrote a letter that he and numerous other Christian leaders want delivered to prominent Muslim religious leaders. The Christian leaders want their letter to serve as a basis for genuine dialogue. The Pastor has made it clear that the Christian leaders are only interested in a serious dialogue rather than a superficial, politically correct, discussion.

The Free Muslims Coalition have agreed to a arrange meetings between Christian and Muslim leaders and to secure a response to the "Christian letter." We have reprinted the letter below.

In addition to securing a response from top Muslim religious leaders, the Free Muslims Coalition will formulate our own response after reading your comments.

Read the "Christian Letter" and Let the Debates Begin

-----------------------------------------------------

Dear Fellow Religious Leaders,

I am a Christian pastor with the Assemblies of God and numerous leaders within the Christian community have approved the following letter.

It is to be recognized that both of our faiths have much in common. We both recognize the existence of one God Who created the universe. We acknowledge that God is holy and that all of His ways are just and perfect. We stress the importance of worshiping God above all else. We acknowledge the importance of loving one another, of caring for the poor, the elderly, the sick or injured and those who are wrongfully outcast. We have an inward desire for peace and acknowledge that it can only be attained by seeking this God of peace. Also, we eagerly await the ultimate return of Jesus Christ (Isa).

We also acknowledge that our own faiths have throughout history fallen short of these ideals on numerous occasions. One such extreme occasion would involve the horrible treatment of the Islamic people during the medieval crusades. Enough cannot be said about these atrocities. For these actions, committed by our ancestors we, the Church, are repentant and seek forgiveness not only from God but from the descendants of those who were persecuted.

That being said, there is another matter of extreme importance before us in the present day. It concerns terrorist acts being committed against people around the globe and the response of the Islamic leadership concerning it.

As you know, much of the secular press has labeled these actions as the result of "a religious war" being carried on in our midst. This fact we find unconscionable as we, the Christian leadership, have no recollection of having declared war on you. Nor has the Islamic leadership given us any formal declaration that they consider themselves at war with us. It is most unfortunate that the secular press often takes it upon itself to represent or misrepresent our positions.

With this fact in mind, we must place a number of questions before the Islamic leadership. There are a number of reasons why your response is so important. Foremost, as leaders within the faiths of Islam and Christianity, each of us have tremendous influence on those who are followers of such faith.

Since the division between Muslims and Jews seems far greater than that between Muslims and Christians, we have been hesitant to include Jews in our correspondence with you. Nonetheless the path toward peace could not ever be complete without dealing with the friction between Islam and Judaism so, at least for the present, we will not include Jews in our discussion but will attempt, when necessary, to fairly represent their position.

In the meantime however, there is much that the Muslim community can do to educate us. For example the Christian community, which, like Islam, has its roots in Judaism still cannot endorse the terrorist actions of radical Zionist groups such as the Irgun or the Stern Gang. Many within the Christian community are not even aware of their bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 (which killed 91 innocent men, women and children) or the brutal massacre of 260 Arab people at Deir Yassin that these groups committed on April 9, 1948 - incidents that no doubt fueled the fires of future hostilities. Christians do need to be aware of them though and thus we are offering a listening ear to the Muslim leadership.

Again, the point of this letter is to not to justify Israeli actions but rather to establish a peaceful dialogue between the Christian and Muslim communities and to, as much as possible, bring an end to hostility and to establish peace for future generations as we anticipate the return of Christ.


We would request a formal and public reply to the questions below.

1. Are we in fact at war? Has the Christian faith in some way alienated itself from Islam to the point that you advocate our destruction? Certainly we must acknowledge the existence of many Christian missionaries, evangelists and apologists from both within the clergy and the laity who seek to convert Muslims to the Christian faith through persuasion. However there is a vast difference between converting through persuasion and being forced to convert.
Recently two FOX News journalists verbally became converts to Islam when a knife was pressed against their throats and their lives were threatened if they did not do so. So again, this question: Are we in fact at war to the point that you advocate our murder?

2. There exists a story, whether historic or legendary, concerning the prophet Muhammad. It is said that, during the early days of his ministry, his teaching that there is only one God was strongly rejected by his own Quaraishi tribe as well as many other local tribes. Each day Muhammad would walk down a certain pathway past the house of a woman who greatly despised his teaching. One tradition at least says that the woman was Jewish. Anyway, the woman would openly ridicule him and pelt him with garbage. Muha mmad never retaliated. Instead he took the persecution in a humble manner and walked on. One day Muhammad walked down the same road but the woman was not there. He wondered what had happened to her and began to inquire. Learning that she had become ill, Muhammad went to visit her at her bedside. The woman was both stunned and humbled to see him. She inquired as to why he would have such compassion upon one who had so unjustly persecuted him and was told "If throwing garbage at me brings you happiness then you are welcome to do so every day." The woman was so overcome by this that she repented and became a follower of the true God.

Now the above story is accepted by many Islamic people as historic and it is rejected by many others as a fable; primarily because it runs contrary to the idea that Muhammad would have accepted terrorist attacks as an acceptable method of spreading Islam.

Whether the story is historical or fictional we do not know. However our main question is this: Does this story run contrary to the true nature of Muhammad? Or is it conceivable that he would have reacted in such a way? Our Bible records the words of Jesus as telling his own followers to "turn the other cheek" and to "carry the Roman soldier's bag a second mile" and literally to turn your enemy into a friend (Matthew chapter 5). Such actions, by our definition, reflect godly qualities and would be characteristic of a prophet.

So our question is this: Was the character of Muhammad of the nature that the above story would at least be feasible? And, if so, were not the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our country worthy of being condemned by the Islamic leadership as blasphemy?

3. It has been widely reported that, in many Islamic countries; primarily Saudi Arabia, school children are taught to despise both Christians and Jews. In fact it is reported that the children are taught that Jews are actually apes who have been designed to look human and that Christians are actually pigs.

NPR author Vicki O'Hara reports the following.

"The Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House has studied some of the textbooks currently in use in Saudi public schools, from grades one through 12. Nina Shea, the center's director, says the texts do not comport with what Saudi officials have been saying. The textbooks "reflect an ideology of hatred against Christians, Jews . . . and others who do not subscribe to the Wahhabi doctrine," Shea says. The center's report cites numerous examples. It quotes a fourth-grade text as telling students to "love for the sake of God and to hate for the sake of God." The report says that textbooks instruct students that Christians and Jews are "apes and pigs" and warns students not to "greet," "befriend" or "respect" non-believers. Saudi officials have told Washington that their reformed curriculum encourages tolerance and understanding of other religions and cultures.

Shea says any changes in that direction are miniscule. "They have made some changes," she says. "Sometimes though, the changes aren't all they're cracked up to be. For example, they will say, 'You have to hate the unbeliever but to treat them justly.' That's supposed to be an improvement." In its defense, the Saudi embassy in Washington issued a statement saying that curriculum reform is a massive undertaking and that the process in Saudi Arabia is ongoing. Shea is ske ptical; she notes that the oil-rich Saudis began the reform process five years ago. "They certainly have the money to change all the textbooks for next semester," she says. ‘Or, last semester for that matter.'"

Our question then is this: Does the Islamic leadership in fact advocate teaching this sort of hatred to children. Would it actually be acceptable to hate someone for the sake of God? If so then are we not endorsing blasphemy against a holy God? And finally, will the Islamic leadership openly rebuke school officials who print such material?


4. Within the pages of the Qur'an, Muhammad himself describes the Bible as a good book. Please consider the following quote:

"ALLAH is HE besides Whom there is none worthy of worship, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. HE has sent down to thee the Book containing the truth and fulfilling that which precedes it; and HE has sent down the Torah (Law of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guidance to the people; and HE has sent down the Discrimination (judgment between right and wrong)." - Surah 3:3-4"

Now it must be noted that some Moslems have claimed that the Bible was corrupted after the time of Muhammad. This is plainly false as we currently have copies of the Bible which date centuries prior to the birth of Muhammad with no such evidence of corruption. That being said, we are left to wonder why there was no report of outrage on May 15, 2002 when the Washington Times reported that "there was little outcry when Islamic terrorists holed up in Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity reportedly used the Bible as toilet paper. Catholic priest s in the church marking the spot where Jesus was believed to have been born said that during the five-week siege, Palestinians tore up some Bibles for toilet paper and removed many valuable sacramental objects."

Should we not then conclude that these Palestinians committed blasphemy by desecrating a book that Muhammad endorsed?


5. The following verse in the Qur'an seems to imply the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave:

"Thereupon she pointed to him. They said, 'How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?' Jesus said, 'I am a servant of ALLAH. HE has given me the Book, and has made me a Prophet; 'And HE has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live; 'And HE has made me dutiful towards my mother, and has not made me arrogant and graceless; 'And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.' That was Jesus, son of Mary as quoted in Surah 19:30-35

Yet our understanding of Islam is that you teach that Jesus never went to the cross. We understand that this interpretation is derived from Surah 4:157:

"And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him - they were made to think that they did . . . for certain they never killed him."

Whereas the substitution theory could be derived from the previous verse by itself, Arabic linguists have informed us that the verse is actually a paraphrase of Jesus' statement "You would have no power over me if it were not given you from above" (John 19:11). This interpretation would seem logical since it complies with Sura 4:158 ("Instead God raised him to him") and avoids an apparent contradiction.

The above understanding seems logical to us. Would maintaining the substitution theory not then put you in contradiction to Muhammad?

6. It is our understanding that Muhammad taught men to treat women as their equals. Indeed Muhammad's wife Aisha and his daughters are said to have supplied spiritual leadership for the Islamic community after his death.
However today in many Muslim communities we see Islamic women with limited access to education, employment and equal rights in the family. Their own perspectives are seen as worthless and never sought.

Recently we have become concerned about a young Iranian woman by the name of Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi. This 18 year old woman stabbed one of three men who attempted to rape her and her 16 year old niece. For that she has been sentenced to death. We are informed that such actions are common in several Islamic countries and we find the practice horrific.

One of the unique aspects of Jesus' ministry was that he counted women among his closest followers and was always respectful of them. Is it not contrary to the will of God for men to do otherwise?

7. A teaching which we understand to have originated from within the Wahabbi movement more than a millennium after the Qu'ran says that those who commit acts of terror and kill non-Moslems are guaranteed a place in heaven with 72 virgin women as their servants. (As we understand it, the original Arabic meaning was not "virgins" but "white raisins.")
Here then is a vital point: Does the leadership of the Islamic religion thus encourage the murder of those who subscribe to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. and promise such eternal rewards or does it discourage such practice?

Firstly, does the Wahabbi teaching not contradict verses in the Qu'ran such as 5:32 and 25:68-69?

We have come across a quote from Osama Bin Laden in which he declares the United States government to be an enemy of Islam and then declares that anyone who pays taxes to the U. S. is therefore an enemy to be killed. Now please understand that our paying taxes does not constitute an endorsement of all that goes on in our government. For example we strongly oppose the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion and are seeking to have it abolished. We do however pay taxes in obedience to the words of Jesus. When asked about paying taxes to the corrupt Roman government, Jesus observed Caesar's image on a coin and stated "Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21).


Secondly, please note another principle in our Bible from the following verses: Numbers 31:17 & 18, Deuteronomy 7 and I Samuel 15:3. It is here that the Hebrews are given instructions on how to deal with certain corrupt tribes; namely the Midianites, the Caananites and the Amalakites. These groups not only advocated the extermination of the Jews themselves but also the murder of their own first born child as a sacrifice to the pagan god Baal. That is to say that Baal-worshippers sacrificed their own children. Indeed ancient texts speak of the Caananites placing a new born baby on a hot iron and watching it die as a form of worship to Baal. The solution that God gives to the Hebrews concerning these tribes of people is to wipe them out - kill them - remove them from the face of the earth.

Now it pains us to say this but just recently an Islamic woman was apprehended at an airport in England together with her baby. It seems that the woman had stored an explosive in the baby's bottle and had plans of detonating it over a populous American city thus killing each passenger including her own baby as well as thousands on the ground. Now we have not heard any words of condemnation from the Islamic leadership in regards to this woman. We are asking you right now "Will you condemn this woman's actions as contrary to Islamic law?"

Still further we must ask if you will condemn the actions of extremists who recently shot Leonella Sgorbati, a Christian worker at a children's hospital in Mogadishu? This lady died from three gunshots to her chest.

Will you condemn the intentional killing of Ali Mustaf Maka'il, a 22 year old college student also in Mogadishu? He was shot in the back for having become a Christian.

Will you condemn the words of Sheikh Abubukar Hassn Malin, one of your own clergy who called for the murder of Pope Benedict XVI?

Will you condemn the beheadings of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Kim Sun II, Paul Johnson and others; each of which took place while the assassins shouted "Allah is great!"? And will you tell your people that imitating such actions are blasphemous and place them in danger of the wrath of God?

Additionally we must point out that the Biblical response toward the Midianites, Caananites and Amalakites was to destroy them. Please, we do not want our society to denigrate into such a state. As representatives of Jesus Christ we want to be envoys for peace and not destruction. Please also bear in mind that, unlike in most Moslem nations, the leadership of the Christian Church has only limited influence among our government's policy makers. And we have no authority to establish political or military policy at all.

8. Now we must also draw attention to recent words of Iranian leader Ahmadinejad: He stated that all tension could be brought to a halt if America would just convert to Islam. We would request an explanation as to just what this means. There are so many different versions of Islam throughout the world that we are not even able to interpret the statement. The only thing that we can think of in this regard is to break dow n the term "Islam" into its simplest form; that being "submission or surrender to God." The vast majority of the Christian community has made an effort to do just that - to submit and surrender our lives to God. It is for this reason that we see so much conflict between the Christian community and the secular world in America. We cannot approve of their endorsement of such things as abortion, pornography or the homosexual lifestyle and, as a result they both hate and ridicule us.

We therefore ask the question "Should those within the Christian community who have surrendered their lives to God then be considered Islamic? Would it for example be possible for someone to believe in the Deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace and yet still be a Muslim?

Either way, there would seem to be a tremendous opportunity for us to work together for world peace. Now we recognize the likelihood that there would be great disagreement over just how we could accomplish these goals. For example some might conclude that the best way to remove pornography from a society is to kill the pornographer. This would run contrary to Christian teachings as we would instead seek to change the pornographer's heart with the good news that God loves him. This may or may not run contrary to Muslim practice. Nonetheless we see an incredible opportunity
for both groups to come together as a force for good.

This is why your response to these questions is so important. Many throughout the world do not even believe in God and much of that disbelief stems from their having seen violence and terror committed in the name of God. To the contrary, despite our differences, both Islam and Christianity can be a force for good and for peace in the world and the clergy can lead the way.

Pastor Howard Gardner

Kamal Nawash of the Free Muslims Coalition appeared on CNN's Paula Zahn Show on January 17 and 18.

Among the issues of discussion were the increasing complaints that the FBI is delaying security clearances for Muslim residents who apply for U.S. citizenship.

Another issue is a book called: "From the Enemy at Home" where the author argues that the American liberal left is responsible for 9-11.

Below is a short summery of the book written by the author.

THE ENEMY AT HOME:

"In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11. ... In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. The Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage-some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice, but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left. Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.

"I realize that this is a strong charge, one that no one has made before. But it is a neglected aspect of the 9/11 debate, and it is critical to understanding the current controversy over the ‘war against terrorism.' ... I intend to show that the left has actively fostered the intense hatred of America that has led to numerous attacks such as 9/11. If I am right, then no war against terrorism can be effectively fought using the left-wing premises that are now accepted doctrine among mainstream liberals and Democrats."
Whenever Muslims charge that the war on terror is really a war against Islam, Americans hasten to assure them they are wrong. Yet as Dinesh D'Souza argues in this powerful and timely polemic, there really is a war against Islam. Only this war is not being waged by Christian conservatives bent on a moral crusade to impose democracy abroad but by the American cultural left, which for years has been vigorously exporting its domestic war against religion and traditional morality to the rest of the world.

D'Souza contends that the cultural left is responsible for 9/11 in two ways: by fostering a decadent and depraved American culture that angers and repulses other societies-especially traditional and religious ones- and by promoting, at home and abroad, an anti-American attitude that blames America for all the problems of the world.

Islamic anti-Americanism is not merely a reaction to U.S. foreign policy but is also rooted in a revulsion against what Muslims perceive to be the atheism and moral depravity of American popular culture. Muslims and other traditional people around the world allege that secular American values are being imposed on their societies and that these values undermine religious belief, weaken the traditional family, and corrupt the innocence of children. But it is not "America" that is doing this to them, it is the American cultural left. What traditional societies consider repulsive and immoral, the cultural left considers progressive and liberating.

Taking issue with those on the right who speak of a "clash of civilizations," D'Souza argues that the war on terror is really a war for the hearts and minds of traditional Muslims-and traditional peoples everywhere. The only way to win the struggle with radical Islam is to convince traditional Muslims that America is on their side.

We are accustomed to thinking of the war on terror and the culture war as two distinct and separate struggles. D'Souza shows that they are really one and the same. Conservatives must recognize that the left is now allied with the Islamic radicals in a combined effort to defeat Bush's war on terror. A whole new strategy is therefore needed to fight both wars. "In order to defeat the Islamic radicals abroad," D'Souza writes, "we must defeat the enemy at home."

Recently, several reports by various military experts have painted a grim picture of Iraq. The assessments differ in key conclusions, however all the experts, including Gen. David Petraeus and former Gen. James Jones agree that Iraqi forces are currently unable to take over security operations from American troops. While this assessment may be disappointing to many Americans, the Free Muslims Coalition believes that Iraqi forces' inability to takeover security operations may be the only leverage the United States has to facilitate reconciliation and a political solution between the parties in Iraq.

Over the past three years the Free Muslims Coalition has argued that the only path to peace in Iraq is a political solution that leads to reconciliation between Iraq's major groups and that military operations merely buy time until a political solution is reached. The good news is that all American officials now understand that a political solution is a prerequisite to peace in Iraq. The bad news is that the U.S. government has been unable to convince the ruling Shiite and Kurdish Iraqi government to adopt political changes to encourage the Sunni Arabs to lay down their arms and become partners in a future Iraq. Consequently, the only question for American political leaders is how to facilitate or even demand that the Shiite and Kurdish ruling government of Iraq accept a political solution that may lead to peace. With the release of General Petraeus' report the Free Muslims Coalition offers the following suggestions on how to achieve stability in Iraq.

Iraq is a multiethnic heterogeneous society with numerous ethnic and religious groups, including a significant Christian population. However, the three largest groups are the Shiite Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurds. For more than 1000 years, Iraq has been ruled by Sunni Arabs. This of course changed after the United States invaded Iraq and power shifted to the Shiites and the Kurds. As a result of the power shift, the Sunni Arabs now feel under siege and that they are being ethnically cleansed from Iraq with the help of the United States. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Sunni Arabs made up 50% of Baghdad and now only number 25%. Consequently, the Sunni Arabs responded to the perceived threat against them with a deadly insurgency that has frustrated all efforts to quell it through military means.

To address their concerns, the Sunni Arabs want to amend the new Iraqi constitution and enact various laws that protect them, give them significant power and economic resource sharing and keep Iraq one united nation with a strong central government. So far, the Shiite and Kurdish led Iraqi government has failed to enact any meaningful reform or political compromise with the Sunni Arabs. Consequently, the Sunni Arabs have rejected the new Iraq and have vowed never to accept the new Iraqi government nor allow peace and stability unless political changes are made. Moreover, the Sunni Arabs have opened their doors to anyone who is willing to help them, including Al-Qaida and Usama Bin Laden.

As a consequence of the failure of the current Iraqi government to enact reforms that may lead to peace, many in the U.S. government, including senator John Warner of Virginia, have called on U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq, either substantially or symbolically.

The Free Muslims Coalition recognizes that the current Iraqi government will not pursue reconciliation and compromise as long as the U.S. military is fighting their battle. However, the U.S. can send a strong message to the Iraqi government without immediately withdrawing American troops from Iraq. As mentioned above, all American experts, including Gen. David Petraeus and former Gen. James Jones acknowledge that Iraqi forces are incapable of assuming security operations from the U.S. military. The United States military could threaten to temporarily redeploy away from the population centers to send a clear message to the Iraqi government that the U.S. will not be there to protect them unless they work toward reconciliation and reach a political solution. In other words, the U.S. military should give the Iraqi government a glimpse of what would happen to them if U.S. troops withdraw.

In conclusion, the unwillingness of the U.S. military to fight on behalf of the Iraqi government maybe the most powerful leverage the U.S. has with the Shiites and Kurds to persuade them to compromise. Moreover, the U.S. military should continue to work directly with Sunni Arabs as has been done successfully in Anbar Province. Unless a political solution is reached the war in Iraq will only get bigger, Iran's influence will increase and criminals like Al Qaida will continue to find supporters for their deadly services and dark vision for the future.

The Free Muslims Coalition, a national Muslims organization, condemns Muslim cab drivers who refuse to pick up passengers who carry alcoholic beverages.

Recently a dispute arose over a large number of Somali taxi cabdrivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport who are refusing to take passengers who carry wine or alcoholic beverages. These drivers are claiming that Islam prohibits them from driving passengers with alcohol. The cab drivers also asked dispatchers not to call them to pick up passengers heading to liquor stores and bars.

The drivers, whose beliefs are not shared by most Muslims, say the airport should accommodate a deeply held religious tenet. Others say the Muslims are discriminating against people of other faiths and attempting to impose Islamic law on non-Muslims.

For two years the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which regulates taxi service at the airport, had been in discussions with cab drivers about how to accommodate them. The commission said it had agreed to let cabbies use lights on top of the cabs to identify drivers who won't transport alcohol so airport employees could direct passengers with alcohol to a willing driver.

However, the proposal created a public backlash by non-Muslims and Muslims who don't agree with the cab drivers. Consequently, the commission rejected the proposal. That means those drivers who will not transport alcohol must go to the back of the taxi line which can force a cabbie to wait another three hours for a fare.

Most Muslims don't agree that cab drivers are prohibited from transporting alcohol. Islam merely prohibits Muslims from drinking alcohol and those drivers are seeking to impose their religious values on others. The Free Muslims Coalition is disgusted by their behavior.

When the cab drivers chose to drive a cab they interred into an agreement to perform a public service that is essential to the economy of any city. They have no right to refuse a fare because the passenger is holding a bottle of wine or other spirits.

The Free Muslims Coalition believes that the cab drivers should be banned all together from picking up passengers at the airport and we would even support the cancellation of their taxi permits.

These Somali drivers are choosing to impose a minority view in Islam on the general population and this is simply unacceptable.

In remembrance of the Fifth anniversary of 9-11, www.counterideology.com has produced an anti-terror TV commercial for the Free Muslims Coalition (FMC). This commercial is based on the belief that the war on terror is an ideological battle and good Muslims are essential to winning this battle.

In addition to fighting terrorism from an Islamic perspective, FMC has produced numerous studies on the causes of extremism by Muslims. On this painful anniversary we feel it appropriate to restate the root cause of extremism and terrorism.

Extremism among Muslims is the result of a recent man-made political ideology that has been successfully marketed as a fundamental tenet of Islam. This man-made political ideology is called "Political Islam". Political Islam is an ideology that totally rejects the separation of religion and state and instead seeks to create theocratic "Islamic States" or one large "Islamic state" based on the delusion that Muslims are not sufficiently religious and that if they were to return to a strict interpretation of God's "laws", the Muslim world would achieve a period of glory and prosperity as they enjoyed in the early days of Islamic history.

Unfortunately, governments that choose to enforce "God's laws" by integrating religion and state do not work. Every modern example of an "Islamic State" has been a total failure. Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan (under the Taliban) have arguably failed to deliver the prosperity they envisioned or promised their followers. Ironically, the failure of Iran, Afghanistan and Sudan has not quelled the desire to create "Islamic states." Instead, those who call for theocratic "Islamic states" continue to argue that theocracies are the best governments but that Iran, Afghanistan and Sudan "did not implement 'true Islam' correctly."

It is important to keep in mind that Islamic theocracies are not the only theocracies that fail. Christian theocracies failed just as miserably. In fact, history continues to refer to the time of Christian theocracies as the Dark Ages. It was only after Europe finally rejected the theocratic model, that Europe experienced a Renaissance and prospered.

More importantly than being inherently flawed, Political Islam will often lead to extremism and terrorism. Because Political Islam is based on the desire to enforce God's laws, it leads to religious absolutism. Religious absolutism results from a belief that a particular faith represents the absolute truth and therefore must be accepted by everyone else without question. Such an absolutist ideology inadvertently encourages bigotry and promotes hatred of others who do not share or follow similar beliefs.

Moreover, political ideologies based on religion, more often than not, have to reject intellectual enlightenment to guarantee their survival. This is because intellectual enlightenment respects diversity, freedom of choice and expression which are inconsistent with the long term survival of religiously based political ideologies. Consequently, Political Islam will naturally result in anti-intellectual and repressive political and social systems that give birth to extremist attitudes and behavior that include terrorism. That is why those who call for the creation of "Islamic States" tend to be fundamentalists. They preach literalist philosophies and demonstrate an intrinsic repulsion for modernity, liberalism and open societies.

To prove that Political Islam leads to terrorism, consider that the phenomenon of "Islamic terrorism" is approximately 25 years old. This period coincides with the Islamic revolution in Iran which ignited Political Islam throughout the Muslim world. There is a direct relationship between the rise of Political Islam and the rise of "Islamic terrorism."

In dealing with the problem of Political Islam, it is imperative to understand that most Muslims who seek "Islamic States" are generally benevolent and pious people. They sincerely and passionately want to create just and fair societies. Unfortunately, the system they are using is more likely to produce repression rather than justice, cruelty rather than fairness and backwardness rather than modernity.

This is why the Free Muslims Coalition constantly argues that the war on terrorism has to be more than a military battle. It must also be an ideological battle where Muslims are essential to defeat the unintended consequences of Political Islam. This will occur when enlightened Muslim scholars expose Political Islam as a political ideology designed to gain power rather than being a religious requirement.

Finally, it should be noted that the Free Muslims Coalition is made up of devout and conservative Muslims. It is because we love our religion that we take these positions. Having said this, we again urge the American Muslim leadership and Muslim leaders throughout the world to come to terms with the fact that Political Islam does not work. We also encourage Muslim organizations to advocate for the separation of religion and state in the Muslim world. This is the only way we can defeat extremism, terrorism, improve relations with the rest of the world and help Muslims achieve the prosperity they deserve.

Authorities in Britain recently announced they had disrupted a major terrorist plot to blow up passenger flights between the United Kingdom and the United States using liquid explosives.

British Police said 21 people had been arrested in England after a long investigation into what was described as a plan for "mass murder on an unimaginable scale."

While the authorities have not concluded that the alleged perpetrators were members of Al-Qaeda, the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism ( FMC) believes that current events and the set backs experienced by Al-Qaeda has put them in a position where they feel they must attack the United States or risk becoming totally irrelevant.

Over the last five years, Al-Qaeda has experienced numerous setbacks and strategic blunders that have caused it to lose a substantial number of its followers. In addition to the destruction of their infrastructure in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda lost substantial support when it turned its murderous attacks against Muslims and Arabs. In fact, over the last three years, the majority of Al-Qaeda's victims were Muslims who were killed in places such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Indonesia, Egypt and various other countries. Consequently, most Muslims, including extremists came to see Al-Qaeda as a perpetual killing machine. Even designated terrorist organizations and radical groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, HAMAS and Hezbollah have criticized Al-Qaeda as a murderous organization.
Most recently the emotional and bloody conflict between Hezbollah and Israel has caused many in the Muslim world, even the extremists, to criticize Al-Qaeda even further by asking "what has Al-Qaeda done for the Muslims other than kill us and other innocent people." FMC has read numerous web sites and editorials from the Islamic world where Al-Qaeda is regularly criticized.

No doubt, Al-Qaeda leaders recognized this trend when Al-Qaeda's number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, criticized the late Al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, Al-Zarqawi, for killing Shiite Muslims. FMC believes that the recent conflict in the Middle East has made Al-Qaeda even more desperate and more irrelevant. Thus, FMC fears that in a desperate attempt to protect itself from extinction that Al-Qaeda will attempt a major terrorist operation against the United States and possibly even Israel although the latter is less likely.

In light of the danger posed by Al-Qaeda, FMC calls on the United States and the entire civilized world to be even more vigilant and to step up the effort to discover and root out Al-Qaeda's members and supporters.

The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism calls on the United States government to take an active role in limiting the fighting in Lebanon to Hezbollah and for Arab governments to demand that Hezbollah be dismantled.

Several days ago the Hezbollah militia attacked the Israeli military and kidnapped two soldiers hoping they can exchange the soldiers for Hezbollah hostages imprisoned in Israel. Israel responded by attacking Lebanon's infrastructure. Israel has destroyed oil depots, bridges, seaports, electric transformers, air port and otherwise did enormous damage to Lebanon in the hope that the destruction of Lebanon would persuade the Lebanese government to dismantle Hezbollah and replace the militia with Lebanese soldiers.

The Free Muslims have been calling for the dismantling of Hezbollah for the last three years. We recognize that Hezbollah's loyalty is to Iran and not Lebanon. This is why Israel's attack on Lebanon's infrastructure rather than just Hezbollah is shortsighted, immoral and counterproductive. Israel's fight is with Hezbollah and not Lebanon nor the Lebanese government which has no control over Hezbollah.

The irony is that Israel itself recognizes that Lebanon is too weak to control Hezbollah but nevertheless holds Lebanon liable. If Israel wants to dismantle or destroy Hezbollah Israel has to do it itself by attacking the militia directly.

Lebanon is headed by a pro-western, pro-American government that would love for Hezbollah to disappear. The goal of the United States and Israel should be to strengthen the Lebanese government not weaken it. If Israel focuses its attack against Hezbollah the Lebanese government will be in a better position to dismantle Hezbollah and control the border with Israel. If Israel continues to attack non-Hezbollah infrastructure more and more Lebanese, including the Christians, Sunnis Muslims and Druze may unite behind Hezbollah.

A recent cartoon in the July 7th edition of the Washington Post showed an Israeli and a Palestinian playing tennis but rather than tennis balls they were striking bombs at each other. In a caption by the Palestinian side of the court are the words "Palestinian reprisals" for the wrongs committed by Israel and on the Israeli side is a caption that read "Israeli Reaction" to the wrongs of the Palestinians. The cartoon goes on to show the referee being represented by the angle of death, a skeletal figure wearing a black hood and holding an ax while the caption at the other end of the bombed-out tennis court read "unwinnableton." With a simple cartoon and a few words, the Washington Post did an excellent job of describing the most recent crisis and the general conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

For the last 60 years, the Palestinians and Israelis have attacked each other and justified their attacks as retaliation for the wrongs committed by the other. The most recent events are no exception. Israel has attacked Palestinians in Gaza, killing approximately 50 Palestinians, destroyed bridges, electric transformers and otherwise caused enormous damage to Gaza and the 1.5 million Palestinians who live there. Israel says their actions are in retaliation for Palestinian militants holding hostage an Israeli soldier and the killing of two other Israeli soldiers. The Palestinian militants justified the killing of the two soldiers as retaliation for the 20 Palestinian civilians who were recently killed by Israeli bombings and the Palestinians also justified holding the Israeli soldier hostage as retaliation for the thousands of Palestinian hostages in Israeli jails. Israel in turn justified the bombings that caused the 20 civilian deaths as retaliation to the home made rockets that Palestinian militias have fired at Israel. The Palestinians have justified the firing of the rockets as retaliation for Israel's unwillingness to recognize their recently elected government and for not allowing financial aid to reach the Palestinians. Israel justified the sanctions against the Palestinians as retaliation for the election of a HAMAS led government that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.

If one was to accelerate backward the tit for tat retaliations one would hear the Palestinians say that they are fighting an occupation that has treated them inhumanly. The Israelis would respond that the occupation was a response to an imminent attack by Arab countries. The Palestinians would respond that Israel occupied Palestinian territory for expansionist reasons. And to that argument, Israel would argue that they occupied Palestinian land in self-defense.

If one was to again reverse the tit for tat retaliations several decades to 1948, one would hear the Palestinians complain that Israel stole their land, kicked them out of their homes and turned them into refugees. Israel would respond that the United Nations divided historic Palestine to create a home for the Jews and it was the Palestinians who refused to accept the U.N. mandated division of historic Palestine. The Israelis would further argue that when Israel was created it took in Jewish refugees from all over the world and that the Arab countries should have also taken in the Palestinian refugees. To this argument the Palestinians would say that it was they who did not want to be settled in Arab countries because they have a home called Palestine and that they want to return to their home.

The point behind this partial chronology is to illustrate that there is no military solution for the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Tit for tat retaliations will NEVER solve this conflict. At the end of the day, the dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians goes back to the creation of Israel which the Israelis see as a joyous day and the Palestinians see as a catastrophe because the creation of Israel dispersed the majority of Palestinians all over the world and caused a refugee crisis. Thus, a solution to the Palestinian Israeli conflict will ONLY emerge from truth and reconciliation and not from violence. Israelis and Palestinians must confront their past by engaging in a national dialogue on a person to person level and not just government officials.

Without a doubt, Israelis, Palestinians and their supporter will respond to this article by saying "we tried negotiations but the other side did not want peace." Well, if Israelis and Palestinians put the same effort in reconciliation as they do in retaliation they may actually have peace today.

For the last two years, the Free Muslims Coalition has called on the United States government and Arab countries to become more involved in helping the Israelis and Palestinians settle their disputes. When President Bush took office his administration took the position that the U.S. will not deal with a Palestinian government headed by Yasser Arafat. At that time, the second Palestinian uprising was raging and the Bush administration felt that Arafat was fueling the uprising. In 2005, Arafat died but the uprising continued and neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have peace.

Without a doubt both Palestinians and Israelis want peace but they simply don't know how to achieve it. This is why the United States, the Arab countries and the rest of the world must do all they can to facilitate reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. If the peacemakers do not facilitate a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians this conflict will certainly become more violent and will continue to destabilize the Middle East.

Al-Zarqawi, the most-wanted terrorist in Iraq who waged a relentless campaign of beheadings and suicide bombings, was killed when U.S. warplanes dropped bombs on his hiding place in Baqouba, Iraq.
In response to his killing, President Bush stated that the elimination of Zarqawi is "a severe blow to al-Qaida" and that it was a significant victory. Al-Qaida in Iraq on the other hand confirmed al-Zarqawi's death and posted on their website: "The death of our leaders is life for us. It will only increase our persistence...."

So what will be the significance of Zarqawi's death? Will Zarqawi's death cause the insurgency to subside?

The answer to these questions lies in understanding who Zarqawi represents. Of the Iraqi resistance or insurgency, Zarqawi represents a small number of no more than a few hundred people who are often referred to as "jihadist." These people are motivated by an austere, violent and disciplined ideology that is NOT shared by the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi resistance or insurgency. Nevertheless, to operate in Iraq, Zarqawi and his followers needed the protection of the larger Iraqi insurgency who represent approximately seven million Sunni Arabs. The interesting note here is that the overwhelming numbers of Sunni Arabs in Iraq also reject the fanatical ideology of people like Zarqawi and would turn against people like Zarqawi and his followers in an instant if it suited their purpose. In fact, news reports indicate that many of the tips about Zarqawi's whereabouts came from Iraqis who were associated with Zarqawi but probably did not share his fanatical ideaolgy. Thus, the ultimate question is why are the Sunni Muslim Arabs giving sanctuary to "Jihadists" like Zarqawi when most of the Sunni Arabs DON'T share his ideology? The answer to this question is also the solution for Iraq's problems and the roadmap to ending the violence in Iraq.

The Sunni Arabs represent approximately 20% percent of Iraq's population. While many of them did not support Saddam Hussein the toppling of Saddam Hussein affected them in a negative way. Among their grievances is the issue of Debathification. This is a process by which the new Iraqi government targeted those who were members of the former ruling Baath party. This process disproportionately affected Sunni Arabs who either lost their jobs or were not allowed to seek government jobs because of their past membership in the Baath party. Those who were members of the Baath party argue their membership was out of necessity and it is not fair to target them.

A second grievance of the Sunni Arabs is that they want Iraq to remain united and intact. Since the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iraq has ventured into a lose federation that brings enormous fear to the Sunni Arabs. Iraq is roughly divided into three jurisdictions. The Kurds who live in the oil rich north, the Shias who live in the oil rich South and the Sunnis who live in the center which has no oil. The Sunni Arabs want an equitable distribution of resources so that they do not become impoverished while the others prosper.

Another of many concerns the Sunni Arabs have with post Saddam Iraq is that Kurdish areas are behaving like a separate country. The new government of Iraq has almost no control over the Kurdish areas. Iraqi ministries don't have offices in those areas and the Iraqi military does not venture in the Kurdish areas. The Sunni Arabs fear that Kurdish areas may break off from Iraq and divide the country.

To address their concerns the Sunni Arabs want to amend the new Iraqi constitution which they feel does not represent them. Thus, to answer the initial question, the death of Zarqawi is a great accomplishment and will probably be yet another nail in Al-Qaida coffin. However, the death of Zarqawi will have a marginal impact on the insurgency in Iraq. If the United States wants peace in Iraq then the concerns of the Sunni Arabs must be given serious consideration or the war in Iraq will only get bigger and the Sunni Arabs will continue to harbor criminals like Zarqawi and his deadly followers who are coming from all over the Muslim world to fight a "holy war."

By Kamal Nawash

Since it was discovered that 15 out of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis, every aspect of Saudi Arabia has come under scrutiny by members of the U.S. government, advocacy organizations and members of the media. Ironically, the increased scrutiny of Saudi Arabia has not brought America any closer to understanding Saudi Arabia.

The confusion about Saudi Arabia is in part due to the credibility of the parties who have made irreconcilable conclusions about whether Saudi Arabia is an ally in the war on terror. On one hand, President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz have argued that Saudi Arabia is a strong ally in the war on terror and a great friend to the United States. On the other hand, certain members of congress, various think tanks and other non-profit organizations have argued passionately that Saudi Arabia is no friend of the United States and a major supporter of extremist ideologies and groups.

Most recently a Washington Post article written by Nina Shea of the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House revealed language from Saudi text books that encourage an ideology of hatred towards Christians, Jews and Muslims who don't follow the Saudi version of Islam (Wahabism). Nina Shea argued that the disturbing material found in Select Saudi text books "are shaping the views of the next generation of Saudis and Muslims world wide. Unchanged, they will only harden and deepen hatred, intolerance and violence toward other faiths ad cultures."

So is the Saudi Arabian government a friend of the United States or does Saudi Arabia propagate hate and intolerance among American Muslims and Muslims world wide? The answer to both of these questions is yes. The Saudi Arabian government is a great friend to the United States and at the same time many in Saudi Arabia, including some who receive government funding propagate hate and intolerance against anyone who does not share their Wahabi inspired ideology. The answers to both these questions may seem inconsistent and counter intuitive but these seemingly inconsistent answers reflect the complexity of modern day Saudi Arabia.

By now everyone has heard of the historic compact between the Saudi Royal Family and the fanatical Wahabi religious establishment. According to this agreement, the Saudi Royal family deals exclusively with matters of state while the Wahabi religious establishment deals with issues of morality which includes substantial control over the education system and the substantive interpretation of Islam. It is this division of power that produces the two faces of Saudi Arabia.

As mentioned earlier, the Saudi government is a great friend to the United States. Their assistance in the first and second Gulf war was indispensable to the United States military. For the last 30 years they have implemented policies that supplied cheap energy to the United States and the rest of the world. They support the U.S. dollar by accepting only dollars for their oil and they have underwritten American debt by investing in U.S. government bonds. They also strengthen the U.S. economy by investing billions in the U.S. private sector.

For many, it may come as a surprise to hear that the Saudi Royal family is for the most part progressive and if they had their way Saudi Arabia would be a much more tolerant country today. However, to become more tolerant and progressive, Saudi Arabia requires strong leadership that has not existed in that country for the last 30 years.

For most of the 20th century, the Saudi royal family was substantially stronger than the Wahabi religious establishment. However, due to shortsighted policies and a lack of leadership from the Saudi government, the Wahabi religious establishment has gained substantial influence in Saudi Arabia. Over the last 30 years, radical Wahabis have become restless and unsatisfied with Saudi Arabia's historical division of power. In response to the Wahabi's increasingly assertive demands, the Saudi government adopted a policy of appeasement. The decision to appease the Wahabis has resulted in the legislation of internal social policy that is based on the most extreme common denominator. As is clear, Saudi Arabia's policy of appeasement has backfired and has resulted in the propagation of a wicked, backward, violent and intolerant interpretation of Islam the likes of which the Muslim world has not experienced in 1400 years of history.

In recent years, Saudi Arabia has become a victim of terrorism with several bombings that killed hundreds of people. In response to terrorism on its own soil, the Saudi government has finally declared war on terrorism. It now appears that the Saudi government realizes that the status quo cannot continue and are taking baby steps to reform their policies by organizing tough police actions and ideologically challenging the terrorists' theological justification for violence. The Free Muslims Coalition regularly monitors Saudi TV and while we have witnessed intolerant rhetoric by radical Wahabi religious figures, we have also witnessed a sharp increase in the number of religious and government figures who aggressively advocate tolerance, respect for other religions and attempt to discredit the ideology that leads to extremism and terrorism.

Nevertheless, while we recognize that the Saudi Arabian government has taken steps to fight extremism and terrorism, it is not yet doing enough. Last year, the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism criticized the Saudi Islamic Academy, a Saudi funded elementary school in Virginia, for using textbooks that taught first grade students that Christianity and Judaism are false religions. We were particularly outraged by that text book because it was published after Saudi Arabia vetted its curriculum for intolerant material. Despite our harsh criticism of Saudi practices, we recognize that they are sincerely trying to reform. However, for the sake of long term stability, Saudi Arabia feels that change must be gradual. Truth be told, we recognize the enormous challenges the Saudi government has in correcting more than 30 years of unconditional appeasement.

In the mean time, neither the United States nor any other country has to wait on Saudi Arabia to figure out how to reform 30 years of shortsighted policies. The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism makes the following recommendations to protect the United States and American Muslims from the propagation of intolerant material from radical elements in Saudi Arabia:

1. THAT U.S government officials reach an unofficial secret agreement with the Saudi government so that neither the Saudi government nor individual Saudis may build Islamic schools or mosques in the United States.
2. THAT the Saudi government immediately stop the distributing of religious books to American Muslims and American Muslim institutions.
3. THAT The Saudi government terminate the payment of salaries for Imams and other religious figures in the United States.
4. THAT the Saudi government prevent Saudi charities and religious organizations from sending books, building mosques, schools or paying the salaries of Imams in the United States or otherwise operate in the United States.
5. THAT the United States impress upon other nations to implement the steps mentioned above.

In conclusion, the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism believes that the building of mosques, Islamic schools and production of religious books must be financed exclusively by American Muslims. By funding their own religious institutions, American Muslims can better protect themselves from the influences of radical groups from abroad.

Moreover, the Free Muslims Coalition believes that placing unofficial pressure on Saudi Arabia is in the best interest of the Saudi government. The last few years has shown that the Saudi government takes tough action only if their security is in jeopardy or they can justify tough action by referring to the pressure they are receiving from the rest of the world.

Note: Islamic scholar, Professor Khaleel Mohammed was consulted on the religious matters discussed, and has provided significant advice and contribution to this statement.

The Free Muslim Coalition is appalled by the decision of the Afghani Attorney General to prosecute Abdul Rahman, under the opaque article 130 of the Afghani constitution, which permits the Attorney-General to bring prosecutions that fall outside the criminal code, in accordance with "Hanafi (a school of Islamic legal thought) jurisprudence". Mr Rahman has been charged under article 130, for "attacking Islam", through his conversion to Christianity from Islam. According to Judge Alhaj Ansarullah Mawlawy Zada, who will be trying the case, Mr Rahman faces the prospect of death by hanging.

The determination to prosecute and any subsequent punishment is in clear violation of the laws of the Qur'an, Islamic jurisprudence and Afghanistan's obligations pursuant to international human rights law. FMC appeals to the Afghan Attorney General and President, Hamid Karzai to immediately drop all charges against Mr Rahman, make provision for his immediate release, and provide him and his family with adequate protection from state and non-state actors. In addition, Afghanistan should repeal article 130 and any other legislative provision that violates the fundamental freedoms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Afghanistan is a signatory to.

The Qur'an

The Qur'an guarantees freedom of religion and conscience. It prescribes no earthly punishment for a Muslim who effectively leaves Islam for another religion. The Qur'an makes the following, authoritative proclamations:

There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient. [2:256]

Say, ‘O you who disbelieve! I don't worship what you worship. Nor do you worship what I worship. And I'm not worshipping what you worship. Nor are you worshipping what I worship. To you is your religion and to me is my religion.' [109:1-6]

So remind. You are only a reminder. You are not a dictator over them. He who turns away and disbelieves, God will punish him with a great punishment. Certainly to us is their return. Then certainly upon us is their reckoning. [88:21-26]

Say, "I have solid proof from my Lord, and you have rejected it. I do not control the retribution you challenge me to bring. Judgment belongs with GOD alone. He narrates the truth, and He is the best judge." [6:57]

The implication of these verses is that while an individual who leaves Islam may face punishment from God in the afterlife, they are immune from punishment in life. Furthermore, the Qur'an proclaims that Jews and Christians are accorded the protected status of ahl-al kitab or People of the Book:

"Believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right -- shall be rewarded by their Lord; they have nothing to fear or to regret." [2:62]

The jurisprudence to which the Afghani law is based on, does not arise from the Qur'an, but from traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). These specific traditions, are general in nature, and do not provide adequate guidance in the case of Mr Rahman, particularly in light of the countless traditions which espouse the mercy of the Prophet. Furthermore, the two particular hadith from which form the penalty of death for apostasy is based upon, when read from a contextualist perspective, show that apostasy at the time of the Prophet Muhammad was coupled with seditious and treasonous acts against the Islamic state. During this time period, the Islamic state faced a number of non-Muslim enemies. In our view, application of these particular traditions (as well as traditions of a similar nature that can be interpreted to violate the human rights of Muslim and non Muslim peoples) in the modern Muslim world is misguided, particularly in light of the obligations of Muslim countries to protect universal human rights.

However, application of these laws without concurrent, clear evidence of seditious or treasonous conduct would place Mr Rahman outside the scope of the offence under traditional Islamic jurisprudence. From all indicators, Mr Rahman is a model citizen, who is involved in the preservation of life and care of the ill. In this regard FMC invokes the Islamic jurisprudential doctrine of "Amaan", or "safe conduct" which provides protection and immunity to non-Muslims. Such a declaration is valid when the non-Muslim in question has not committed acts of or analogous to sedition or treason. A similar declaration has been made by a Muslim organisation in Kabul.

Domestic and International Human Rights Law

The prosecution of Mr Rahman contravenes the Afghani constitution, which guarantees the freedom of religion and conscience and international human rights standards, specifically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR.

Article 7 of the Afghan Constitution

Article 7 of the draft Afghani Constitution declares: "the state shall abide by the UN Charter, international treaties, international conventions that Afghanistan has signed, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Afghanistan is a signatory to the ICCPR, a treaty to which Afghanistan is legally bound to follow.

ICCPR

Article 18 enshrines the freedom of thought, conscience and religion: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and that "this right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice". According to the Human Rights Committee's General Comment 22, this necessitates that the freedom to ‘have or to adopt' a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one's religion or belief". The Comment elucidates further that the "the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs to recant their religion or belief or to convert" is prohibited.

Clearly, from the view of the Qur'an and international human rights law, the prosecution of Mr Rahman is illegal. FMC stands in solidarity with Mr Rahman, and reiterates that charges against him be rescinded, he is released and that he be provided with adequate protection. Further, the Afghani constitution should be amended to provide specific protection for individuals in Mr Rahman's situation. Sadly, application of the penalty of death for the "crime" of apostasy is not limited to Afghanistan, but occurs in other Muslim countries.

Further FMC invokes the doctrine of Amaan, and orders the government of Afghanistan to protect him from harm. Failure to meet this obligation, according to Islamic jurisprudence is haram.

FMC will petition the government of Afghanistan, and if necessary submit an amicus curie brief on behalf of Mr Rahman to the Afghani court. FMC would also be willing to present oral submissions to that court.

Bush Battles Republican and Democrat over Sale of U.S. Ports to Arabs

The Bush administration recently approved an Arab company's attempt to take over the operation of seaports in six major American cities. The sale to a company in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is strongly supported by President Bush but has caused bitter opposition by many politicians on Capitol Hill and with the governors of Maryland and New York. Presently, the right to manage those American ports is owned by a non-American company located in Britain.

In response to fierce criticism, President Bush fired back by saying: "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company." President Bush praised the United Arab Emirates as a great friend of the United States and warned congressional critics against sending the wrong message to the Arab world by condemning a business just because it is Arab-owned. Furthermore, President Bush stated that the deal was fully scrutinized by government officials, who concluded that the deal poses no threat to national security.

The Free Muslims Coalition supports President Bush in his backing of the sale of the management of the Ports to an Arab owned company. The Free Muslims have been the biggest critics of Islamic terrorism and extremism. We have taken numerous positions that were unpopular among our communities when we felt it was the right thing to do. However, just as we have a zero tolerance approach towards terrorism, we also have a zero tolerance approach toward bigotry against Arabs.

As stated above, the company that presently manages those American ports is not American owned. If critics of the deal were objecting because they did not want a foreign company to manage U.S. ports that would be perfectly fine. However, it is wrong to accept management by one foreign owned company and reject another foreign owned company when both companies are located in nations that are strong allies of the United States.

Indeed, the United Arab Emirates is a great friend to the United States. They have been loyal friends in the war on terror and they are excellent friends to the U.S. military. The United Arab Emirates provides docking rights for more U.S. Navy ships than any other nation in the region.

Moreover, the United Arab Emirates has adopted American style capitalism and tolerance. The UAE is a success story that is helping to shape the Arab world in a positive way. The UAE has opened its doors completely to Americans and American businesses. Relations between the UAE and United States are so good that the UAE spends billions of dollars in America and only accepts U.S. Dollars for the sale of their oil and gas. Their loyalty to the United States helps keep the American Dollar strong and the American economy moving forward. Thus, just as the UAE opens its arms to America, America should open its arms to the UAE.

Finally, by closing the door on one of our closest allies, the U.S. would be sending the wrong message to voices of moderation in the Middle East and a gift to voices of extremism. We are certain that Muslim extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and HAMAS would jump on this issue by arguing that Americans hate all Arabs and Muslims including their allies. The Free Muslims have argued time and time again that the United States must do a better job of supporting moderate Arabs and Muslims. The uproar against this ports deal is misplaced and the Free Muslims stand by President Bush for fighting back against the voices of bigotry.

The Free Muslims Coalition condemns the reaction of American Muslim Organizations and Muslim governments to the unfavorable depiction of Prophet Mohammad in European News papers.

Protests have spread across the Muslim world over the publication in European news papers of cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. Outrage over the cartoons has ignited demonstrations from Turkey to the Gaza Strip, and prompted a boycott of Danish products throughout the Middle East.

In Pakistan, hundreds demonstrated on Thursday, chanting "Death to Denmark" and burning Danish and French flags. In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak warned that the decision by some European papers to publish the cartoons could encourage terrorists. Consequently, government ministers from 17 Arab nations have asked the Danish government to punish the newspaper for what they called an "offense to Islam" and some countries have even pulled their ambassadors from Denmark.

The controversy intensified on Wednesday when a French news paper, printed a new drawing on its front page showing Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy figures sitting on a cloud, with the caption "Don't worry Muhammad, we've all been caricatured here".

The response by Muslims to the cartoons is absolutely pathetic and depressing but revealing. The reason Muslims are responding with anger and threats of violence is because most Muslims live in countries where democracy and freedom of speech are alien concepts.

Moreover, the Muslim world suffers from a lack of visionary leadership. In this particular case, when Muslim leaders, including American Muslim leaders, realized that Muslims are furious they joined the chorus of fury rather than explain to their people that they must be reasonable and that freedom of speech is healthy even if it is insulting. What is even more disgusting is that most American Muslim organizations, who should know better, have joined the chorus of instigators rather than taking this opportunity to teach their members about the importance of freedom of speech and tolerance.

One would think that Muslims have learned a lesson from the mishaps of the radical Iranian spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khomeini when in 1989, he called on Muslims to kill British author Salman Rushdie for alleged blasphemy in his book, The Satanic Verses. The childish and stupid reaction by Khomeini caused an otherwise poor book to become a number one seller. Similarly today, the stupid reaction by Muslims has caused many more news papers to publish insulting images of the Prophet Mohammed.

When will Muslims wake up and realize that their intolerance of opposing opinions is keeping them in the dark ages? When will Muslims realize that respect must be earned and not forced through violence and coercion? When will Muslims realize that individual liberty and freedom of expression are fundamental human rights? When will American Muslim organization provide solutions to Muslims rather than instigate problems? The Free Muslims Coalition hopes that the answer to all these questions is soon.

The Free Muslim Coalition applauds President Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine and his FATAH party for respecting the results of democracy in light of their substantial losses to the radical Islamic group, HAMAS.

HAMAS has won a surprise victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections. Early results give Hamas 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, with the ruling Fatah party trailing with 43 seats. On top of the seats taken by Hamas and Fatah, the 13 remaining seats went to smaller parties and independents, four of whom were backed by Hamas.

This is the first time in modern Arab history that a ruling party gracefully accepts its losses. The Palestinian people have become the most democratic people in the entire Arab and Muslim world and this is a cause for celebration.

However, HAMAS' win poses serious questions to the future of the Palestinian/Israeli peace talks. At present, Israel is saying it will not deal with HAMAS and HAMAS has said that it will not deal with Israel.

So what's next?

Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei of Fatah has offered to resign, and some in FATAH has said they will not join HAMAS in a coalition government. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Fatah party, says he remains committed to a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Mr Abbas will now have to discuss with Hamas the formation of a new government and the appointment of a prime minister.

The Free Muslims Coalition, while disappointed with the election results, believe that all sides must respect the wishes of the Palestinian people. The main issue for internal Palestinian politics and the international community is to make sure that HAMAS does not try to create a theocratic "Islamic State" or change the rules that brought them to power as Iran had done after the Islamic revolution. If HAMAS tries to change election rules where only people with an Islamic ideology can enter elections in the future then the entire world should boycott and suspend all aid to a HAMAS led government.

In the mean time, the world and in particular the Arab and Muslim countries must reach out to HAMAS and convince them to drop the violence and help lead the Palestinians to peace and prosperity. The world should not boycott HAMAS without giving them a chance to do the right thing by pursing a non-violent approach to solving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Attacking HAMAS at this point may only strengthen their hold on Palestinian hearts and minds. HAMAS will now have to put their utopian rhetoric into action. If they don't bring peace and economic prosperity to Palestine, it is unlikely that the majority of Palestinians will again vote for them in the future.

No issue has the same global impact as the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. During the cold war, the United States and the Soviet Union twice raised their security alerts and aggressively challenged each other over this conflict. The oil embargo of the 1970s was inspired by the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Numerous militants, terrorist groups and governments around the world which seek legitimacy place the Palestinian/Israeli conflict at the forefront of their agenda. And while the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is not the cause of terrorism, solving this conflict may transform the political landscape of the entire Middle East and expose the various agendas of numerous violent groups who leach on this conflict to win the hearts and minds of emotional and unsuspecting people.

Because of the global impact of this conflict, the entire world must do all it can to bring peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. Towards that end the Free Muslims propose the following:

Today there are three solutions to this conflict. The Israelis and Palestinians can kill each other; they can separate by creating two separate nations; or they can create one nation made up of two people. Presently, the only solution being discussed is a two state solution. This solution is based on separating both people into two separate and sovereign nations. While the Free Muslims support any solution that brings final peace to both Israelis and Palestinians, we believe there are serious problems with the two state solution that may not bring long term peace to both people.

During the Clinton administration, the Palestinians and Israelis spent nearly ten years trying to hammer out a deal based on the two state solution. That peace process ended in total failure. Immediately after the failure of that peace process, Israelis and Palestinians blamed each other for the failure; and the rest of the world took side with either the Palestinians or the Israelis.

However, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are to blame for the failure of the Clinton era peace talks which were based on the "Oslo agreement." What caused the failure of the peace talks maybe the solution it self rather than the parties. The consequences of creating two separate nations by dividing Israel and Palestine were and still are difficult pills to swallow for both Israelis and Palestinians. It is a fact that both Israelis and Palestinians have religious, historical and emotional attachments to every square inch of the land that includes Israel and Palestine. The sooner the Palestinians and Israelis understand this reality the sooner they can solve their conflict.

From the point of view of many Israelis, the two state solution is difficult because they would have to give up their religious and historical attachments to the West Bank and Gaza which they call Judea and Samaria. Many Israelis simply cannot fathom giving up the West Bank and Gaza and maybe they should not have to. From the point of view of the Palestinians, the two states solution is difficult because they have historical, religious and emotional attachments not only to the West Bank and Gaza but also to Israel which they call the lands of 1948 after the year they lost it to present day Israel. These are the facts and realities that the Palestinians and Israelis have to deal with to solve their conflict.

In light of these facts some may think that a solution to this conflict is impossible. Not true. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict can be solved like any other conflict as long as the parties think outside the box and as long as no one uses violence or terrorism to effect political change.

In light of the attachments that both parties have for the same territory, the solution is not in separating but in coming closer together. Many Israelis and Palestinians seem to agree that the land they call Israel/Palestine is indivisible. Thus, the solution lies in keeping the land that Israelis and Palestinians call home as one nation while at the same time providing each side with the security and the individuality the parties would have if they had their own separate nations.

What is being proposed here is a Two State-One Nation solution based on equality, freedom and civil rights for both Israelis and Palestinians. The idea behind this solution is that there will be two sovereign states similar to New York and New Jersey that together make one nation similar to the United States of America. However, rather than being a federation it would be a confederation. The main difference between a federation and a confederation is that the states in a confederacy have much more sovereignty than in a federation.

What is being proposed here is not entirely new. What is new about the two state-one nation solution is that it achieves the benefits of being one united nation while reserving for both Israelis and Palestinians the security and independence of being two separate nations.

To illustrate this point further, note that after occupying the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, Israel could have annexed and integrated those territories into Israel by providing the Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. However, Israel did not do this and instead chose to treat the West Bank and Gaza as if they were part of Israel physically without providing the Palestinians in those territories with citizenship, political rights or civilian rule. Among the reasons Israel did not integrate the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza into Israel is because Israelis were afraid of a demographic problem. The Israelis feared that if they gave the Palestinians equality, political and civil rights that the Palestinians may one day out number the Israelis and vote Israel out of existence. While we understand this concern by Israelis, those Israelis who fear giving the Palestinians equality and civil rights assume that they cannot give the Palestinians equality and at the same time have a Jewish state. This is a false assumption. The territory that includes Israel and Palestine can be one nation where the Palestinians have equality, political and civil rights and at the same time be a safe heaven for Jews from all over the world.

This can be done by creating a confederation of two states united by a federal type government with limited powers. The country can be called the United States of Israel and Palestine. While both states should have the right to limit immigration and migration within their borders, the principles of the nation should be based on the free movement of labor and people. To the extent that Israelis move to Palestine and Palestinians to Israel, we can avoid the demographic consequences of the migration by having their votes count in their respective state regardless of where they live. This approach will totally avoid the demographic fear that Israelis have by making certain that migration of people does not dilute the political power of Jews or Palestinians in their local and state politics.

As to the national government, Israel and Palestine shall each contribute 50% to the national parliament regardless of their populations. With this solution, the Israelis do not have to fear political dilution from potential demographic changes and the Palestinians do not have to fear political dilution from the Israelis.

As to the President or Prime Minister of the national government of the United States of Israel and Palestine, they should be elected by the national parliament. Being that the parliament is divided 50/50 no Palestinian or Israeli can win without support from parliamentarians of the other side. This will guarantee that no Palestinian or Israeli extremist can become president of the United States of Israel and Palestine.

Initially, the national government should have limited powers similar to the United States government in the early days of the Union. As time progresses and both Israelis and Palestinians feel more comfortable with each other, they may chose to give the confederation more authority. In essence the early days of the national government of the United States of Israel and Palestine should resemble an entity more like the European Union than the U.S. federal government.

On economic matters, Israel and Palestine shall act as one nation with no exception. They shall have the same currency, no tariffs and complete free trade. The early days of the national government or confederation shall be to bring jobs and economic prosperity to both Israelis and Palestinians. This should be an easy task. A peaceful Israel and Palestine acting as one nation would be a gold mine the likes of which the world has never seen. A nation that is the birth place of western civilization and immensely revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims, religious tourism alone will guarantee a healthy economy in perpetuity.

However, the economy will have more than tourism to secure its prosperity. A nation of Palestinians and Israelis at peace with their neighbors shall have unlimited opportunities. The technical know-how of Israel, the available capital in the Arab world and a geography that is at the intersection of three continents can produce an economic power house that is second to none on a per capita basis. Moreover, a peaceful nation made up of Palestine and Israel at peace with their neighbors will not only bring economic prosperity to that nation but also to the entire Middle East.

This solution may not be perfect. However, this proposed solution may be the only solution that will give the Palestinians and Israelis most of what they want while at the same time allows both people to keep their individual identity and live as one nation. Moreover, with this solution, Jerusalem becomes a non-issue and borders become less relevant. This solution will basically take Israelis and Palestinians back to the time before the first intifada (uprising) began in 1987 with the only difference being that the Palestinians will have rights and equality that they never had under the occupation. As proof that this solution can work is the fact that Israel has one million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship and they are not demonstrating, throwing rocks or blowing themselves up. Why is this? The only difference between Palestinians who are citizens of Israel and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is that one group has freedom, political and civil rights while the other has nothing. Israel did not recognize the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza as citizens. They were put under military rule, and they were segregated in everyway.

To summarize, the Free Muslims are asking the Palestinians to reach out to their Israeli and Jewish partners and say the following:

"We understand why the state of Israel is important to you. We are fully aware of the persecution that Jews suffered throughout history and the necessity of having a safe heaven for Jews. We also understand that Jews have historical and religious ties to Israel/Palestine. We believe that every Jew shall have the right to move to Israel and become a citizen immediately. We also welcome Jews to visit and to reside in the West Bank and Gaza. We want the Palestinians and Israelis to live together as neighbors, friends and countrymen. In return, what we want is freedom, liberty and equality for the Palestinians. Will you meet us half way?"

The Free Muslims are also asking Israelis and Jews to reach out to their Palestinians Partners and say the following:

"We understand why Palestine is important to you. We are fully aware of the suffering the Palestinians have experience over the last 100 years and the necessity of having a safe haven for Palestinians. We also understand that Palestinians have historical and religious ties to Israel/Palestine. We believe that every Palestinian shall have the right to move to Palestine and become a citizen immediately. We also welcome the Palestinians to visit and to reside in Israel. We want the Palestinians and Israelis to live together as neighbors, friends and countrymen. In return, what we want is permanent security, liberty, equality and the total freedom to be Jews. Will you meet us half way?"

THE Senate is currently debating the most far reaching immigration amnesty in more than a generation.

The immigration "reform" bill is supported by an unlikely coalition of powerful special interest groups that includes the largest Latino advocacy groups, business lobbies, labor Unions and immigration lawyers among others. On the other hand, the amnesty is opposed by an increasingly vocal Americans population who are frustrated with the flood of illegal aliens who are rapidly changing their communities; lowering wages for blue collar workers, African Americans and putting enormous pressure on local and state governments to educate and provide healthcare and other services for illegal aliens.

So is the immigration reform bill good for America? And must reform include a path to citizenship?

Before answering these questions, one should consider the motivation of those who favor an amnesty and a path to citizenship. The most vocal opponents of controlling illegal immigration are Latino organizations. This is no surprise. Most American Latino organizations have an established history of reflexively opposing any measure that controls unlawful immigration. Opposition to controlling illegal immigration has become so politically charged that those who call for control of illegal immigration are considered racist and intolerant.
In addition to Latin American groups, both Political parties have resisted controlling illegal immigration. Advocates argue that Democrats support an amnesty and a path to citizenship because immigrants are more likely to become Democrats and thus strengthening the Democratic Party. As to Republicans, advocates argue that Republicans law makers generally oppose controlling illegal immigration because a key constituent, the business community, wants cheap labor.
Another major group that is working hard for the amnesty is labor unions. For the last 20 years, labor unions have experienced declining numbers and influence in the United States. Labor unions hope to reverse their decline with illegal workers.

And last but not least, immigration lawyers also support an amnesty and a path to citizenship. There is no surprise here as immigration lawyers stand to make a fortune.

Clearly, even a superficial analysis of the groups who favor an amnesty reveals that those groups have self-serving narrow interests that may not be in the best interest of the United States. The United States has an open porous border with Mexico where thousands of people cross illegally every month. If thousands are able to cross the border without detection, how difficult would it be for terrorists to cross the Mexican border? If thousands of people are smuggling drugs from the U.S./Mexican border, how difficult would it be to smuggle explosives?

Now, let's consider the argument that legalizing illegal aliens will reduce illegal immigration. This argument has been made by many important figures including, President George W. Bush, President Clinton, President Reagan, Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy among others. It is puzzling that politicians and special interest groups continue to make this argument when EVERY past amnesty and program that legalized illegal aliens actually increased illegal immigration.

For Example, the most recent amnesty was authorized in 2001 under President Clinton. The Clinton era amnesty allowed illegal aliens to adjust their status in the United States if they found a qualified sponsor such as an employer. After the expiration of the amnesty in April 2001, hundreds of thousand of people crossed the border illegally on a chance that the U.S. will again offer an Amnesty or some other tool that pardons illegal aliens.

Finally, many employers have replaced African Americans with illegal aliens. There is nothing to indicate that those African Americans have taken better jobs. One wonders what those African Americans are doing now. Are they unemployed?

In conclusion, the United States may have need for immigration reform but it has to be narrowly tailored to the needs of the country. If the United States needs additional workers in a particular industry, it is possible to achieve this goal with a narrowly tailored program that does not include a path to citizenship. Currently, the United States issues numerous non-immigrant work visas which do not provide a path to citizenship such as H1B visas. This being the case, it is puzzling why so many groups insist on a path to citizenship when it is not necessary?

When Rep. John Murtha said that the United States must leave Iraq immediately he ignited a national debate on whether the U.S. should leave Iraq. Normally, such a statement would not have been noticed, but because Congressman Murtha is a retired Marine colonel who earned a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam Washington listened. In response to Congressman Murtha, the White House stated: "The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists."

Unfortunately, the debates that followed congressman Murtha's statement were often misguided and off-point. Most of the discussions that followed dealt with whether the U.S. should leave Iraq. However, whether the U.S. leaves Iraq is not an issue. Most American politicians, including President Bush want to leave Iraq. The real issue is when should the U.S. leave and under what conditions?

In calling on President Bush to withdraw American troops from Iraq, Congressman Murtha justified his statement by concluding that the Bush administration's management of the war effort is based on "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," and said the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is "uniting the enemy against us."

So is Congressman Murtha's conclusions correct? Is the Iraq war effort a failure? We at the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism don't think so.

Clearly, the conditions in Iraq are not ideal. More than 2000 American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed; explosions occur on a daily basis and the country may be more divided today than it has ever been. Despite these facts, the war effort in Iraq is a huge success. Iraq has been transformed into an open democratic society and there is no going back.

Let's not forget that Iraqis for the first time in recent history elected their government, voted on a constitution and in the coming days will again elect a new government. Despite their many challenges, Iraqis today freely and publicly criticize their government and are free to change their government any time they feel their government is not doing a good job. This puts Iraqis in a unique position in the Middle East. They are holding their government accountable which suggests that Iraq will never again have another authoritarian government. Indeed, Iraq has been transformed and there is no going back.

However, the U.S. should eventually leave Iraq but not now. The United States cannot leave Iraq immediately nor can the United States set a timetable for withdrawal. If the United States sets a fixed timetable the insurgents could merely wait until the U.S. leaves and then redouble their efforts to overwhelm the government of Iraq and/or attempt to create a civil war. This cannot happen under any circumstances. No matter whether one supported or opposed the Iraq war the entire world and all Americans must now put the past behind them and do whatever it takes to make Iraq a successful, united and prosperous state.

We, the Free Muslims, have stated in the past that a democratic, secular and prosperous Iraq can positively transform the Middle East like no war or any amount of money can. This is why Iraq must succeed and all Americans must unit behind their government to make sure that Iraq succeeds.

Having said this, the United States should give serious consideration to moving U.S. forces outside of Iraq's cities and population centers as soon as possible. The U.S. military should be far enough that the average Iraqi feels he lives in an independent sovereign country but close enough that they can return in case of an emergency. There are many benefits to stationing American troops outside of Iraq's population centers. The most important reason is that the new Iraqi government will understand that American troops will not always be there to protect them and thus, they will have to do a better job of reconciling with all Iraqis, including Arab Sunnis. At the end of the day, the new Iraq must be the home of all Iraqis without even the appearance of being lead by a sectarian government. This is where the existing Iraqi government has failed.

For example, the first election was boycotted by Sunni Arabs and the overwhelming majority of the Sunni Arabs voted against the constitution. This is not a healthy situation. Iraqi Kurds and Shias must do a better job of compromising with Sunni Arabs if Iraq is to become a stable, democratic and prosperous nation. The degree of compromise and reconciliation necessary to stabilize Iraq may not occur if Shias and Kurds feel that the United States is there to protect them whether they compromise or not.

In conclusion, the United States must make it clear to all Iraqis that it is not an occupying power and that it will leave Iraq one day after it becomes stable. The U.S. government must plan for the eventual withdrawal from Iraq by removing American troops from Iraqi cities and stationing them in unpopulated areas as soon as possible.

The U.S. military must rely on the Iraqi military and other security forces to protect Iraq. This Iraqi military is now in a better position to take more responsibility. Since July, 2005, 22 new battalions and 5,500 Police Service personnel have been trained and equipped (as have some 2,000 Special Police commanders). Coalition senior officers report that Iraq now has approximately 130 battalions.

Moreover, the U.S. military must not rush to assist the Iraqi military and Iraqi security forces every time they face difficulty. The more difficulty Iraqi forces experience, the more likely it is for the existing leaders of Iraq to reach out and compromise with Iraq's dissenters who are mostly Sunni Arabs. All parties must understand that unless Sunni Arabs feel that they are equal partners in today's Iraq there will never be peace in Iraq nor will Iraq stabilize. Once Shias, Kurds and Sunni Arabs reconcile, the insurgency will die and the terrorists will find themselves in a lonely and hostile place.