Here is a pdf of the full defamation complaint that the Stop the Madrassa Coalition has filed against the former principal of the notorious Brooklyn madrassa.
It is very heartening to see someone fighting back against the defamation weapon that jihadists, their allies, and their dupes have used so effectively for years against their opponents.
Nice to see people beginning to fight back. Protect the values we cherish here in the United States of liberty, equality, freedom of thought and speech, and importantly of Human value and dignity.
It's seems cynical to speak of liberty, freedom of thought an speech in the case of Ms ALmontaser. Looking back she was attacked by a smear campaign for speaking her mind, at the same time taking a clear stand against terrorists. She was defamed by a right wing media, forced to step down as the principal of a non-religious school.
The last comment is just sick.
Andreas
Andreas,
Yes to fight for liberty means to fight and attack any evil ideology that is against those principles. That means attacking the soul of Islam which is a evil and disgusting ideology that contaminates the human mind and soul. It creates in children the need to commit a constant war and death by committing suicide bombings. We here in the United States do not want the Islamic cesspool here. As far as I can see the UMMAH is a total failure, Muslims are in a sorry state. They are an embarrassment to humanity. Your comment makes me sick, because of the fact you most likely support violent Jihad the indoctrination of violence into young minds that is the most vile and disgusting thing. So your comments do make me sick.
Well, I certainly don't support any violence against civilians and I take a stand against terrorism, but to speak of free speech and liberty in the case of Ms Almontaser is a joke. She isn't an islamist, nor was her school in any way intended to be a breeding ground for terrorist, the original idea was to teach Hebrew and Arabic in this school, an adviser in teaching languages advised Ms Almontaser against it. Ms Almontaser has no connection with the NYC Intifada t-shirt, all she did was a translation of the word, after all she is a scholar of Arabic.
For an interview with her check out
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/29/broadcast_exclusiveousted_nyc_arabic_school_principal
Andreas,
Actually, Almontaser resigned after being challenged with her interpretation of intifada as "shaking off" regarding the intifada NYC t-shirts an associate of hers was producing, when questioned on it. She was not fired. She had a change of heart and was not offered her job back. She sued and lost.
your proclamation of what the school's intent was and to the internal cognitive beliefs of Ms. Almontaser is presumptive and insulting.
This "right-wing media" that you speak of is a figment of your own twisted mind.
She was forced to resign, ok, true enough, but she had no choice as otherwise the school would have been forced to close.
The "associate" was merely sharing an office space, there was no direct connection.
A translation is a translation, I speak 5 languages myself and surely (especially with asian languages) there might be different ones but I can't see how her answer after being specifically asked for a translation could be so controversial.
Did I mention that her son serves in the Nartional Guard and was deployed at the WTC for 6 months after 9/11. How does that fit in, the son of a "terrorist teacher" serving in the National Guard?
I think this site purposely distorts facts to such a degree that the readers can have no other conclusioin as the ones intended by the editor. Go and read somewhere else (and I don't mean FOXNews).
Andreas,
She resigned. If she didn't want to resign she could have resisted and then sued. She attempted to downplay the phrase "intifada NYC".
In your opinion, who or what exactly needs "shaking off" here in NYC?
You mention that the school was to teach Hebrew as well as Arabic, yet I see no mention of that at the official site. Actually Arabic is required as the second language with a Regent's exam mandatory. Methinks someone was taking some liberty with the truth here.
As is usual with leftist provocateurs, you are very heavy on the rhetoric while skimping on the facts.
I did not see one mention anywhere of Ms. Almontaser being a "terrorist teacher", not even FOX News, and no, her son's status in the National Guard is not relevant here.
Charles Whitmore was a marine. Should be have been excused for his actions based on that fact?
Andreas--
You never got back to us about troubleshooting your prior username, which, you'll recall, we did not ban.
How does that fit in, the son of a "terrorist teacher" serving in the National Guard?
Hesham Islam served, so did his son. Both are moles who work actively to advance the cause of Islam in America. We oppose that.
If the son shares the terrorist teachers views and beliefs, then he shouldn't be in the military.
Another Islamic smoke screen. She got was she deserved.
ok, folks here is the course guidelines for a class given at the school where Ms Almontaser was employed.. She approved the class.
The purpose of this activity is to acquaint students with the concept of jihad. The lesson discusses the distinction between jihad as a principle of social justice, and as a military institution entrusted to authorities in society. Students learn about the categories of illegitimate violence in society, namely rebellion and terrorism, brigandage and other forms of mayhem against the public. Students should be able to:
define jihad in its literal and applied meanings, as a principle and as an institution
describe legitimate conduct of war according to Islamic law
differentiate between rebellion, (baghy), and terrorism, (hirabah), according to Muslim jurists
explain how Muslim jurists characterize hirabah, and describe the basis for their judgment that it is a serious, punishable criminal act."
But everything there is not all peace and enlightenment. The principal is Dhabah Almontaser. She calls herself a "multicultural educator." At a 2005 fundraiser for The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Almontaser received an award with Ghazi Khankan. During a rally Khankan shouted to the crowd "I bring you salaams and greetings from the Mujahideen of CAIR!" Now we've talked about CAIR. This is an organization founded and at least somewhat staffed by people who are very open about their desire to see the United States under Islamic Law.
Almonstaser was a public school teacher when 9/11 hit. When her students asked why Muslims and Arabs were behind the attacks she said that it was not really Arabs and Muslims who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks because she, as their teacher, and expert has determined that they could not have been.
"I don't recognize the people who committed the attacks as either Arabs or Muslims," ...Those people who did it have stolen my identity as an Arab and have stolen my religion."
Fair enough ... but then four years later she's singing the praises of an organization (CAIR) that was founded by supporters of an Islamic terrorist organization, Hamas?
The American Arab Family Support Center (AAFSC) is the main organizer of the school. Their webpage used to read that they are trying to encourage and aid Arabs to use all kinds of taxpayer funded facilities and services to help them "reap the benefits of the American dream".
But the real story here is the use of taxpayer dollars to create and fund a school specifically for students of one particular religion. I guess it's OK so long as that religion is Islam. Just try that with a Christian school and see how far you get.
Frontline: Muslims
Hirabah, not Jihad
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview
Previewing Vocabulary
Student Note Grids & Critical Thinking Questions
Map and Background Info: Geography and History
Thinking About Terms for Islam and Muslims
Biographical Sketch of Muhammad's Life
The Spread of Islam in the 7th - 21st Centuries
Geography and Cultures of Muslim Countries
Values and Practices of the Faith
The Masjid in American Civic Rights
Principles and Practice of Islamic Law
Human Rights in Islam Compared to the French and American Enlightenment Traditions
Women's Rights and Marriage in Islam
Secularism vs. Democracy: A Study of the Hijab Issue
Hirabah, not Jihad
Download Lesson Plan in PDF Format
By Susan L. Douglass and Nadia Pervez - 2003
Overview
The purpose of this activity is to acquaint students with the concept of jihad. The lesson discusses the distinction between jihad as a principle of social justice, and as a military institution entrusted to authorities in society. Students learn about the categories of illegitimate violence in society, namely rebellion and terrorism, brigandage and other forms of mayhem against the public.
Objectives
Students should be able to:
define jihad in its literal and applied meanings, as a principle and as an institution
describe legitimate conduct of war according to Islamic law
differentiate between rebellion, (baghy), and terrorism, (hirabah), according to Muslim jurists
explain how Muslim jurists characterize hirabah, and describe the basis for their judgement that it is a serious, punishable criminal act
Procedure
Download the pdf file (434 KB) for this lesson here. Further study notes on the slides can be found below. Make transparencies for use on an overhead projector.
Show students Slide #1, and after reading the accompanying notes, discuss the concepts shown on the slide, differentiating among the various dimensions of jihad according to Muslim jurists. The teacher may want to supplement the notes text to discuss the context in which these concepts relate to jihad, by referring to a dictionary and eliciting prior knowledge and concepts from other belief systems and contemporary life that the students can contribute to the discussion.
Discuss definitions of the terms principle and institution.
Discuss the values expressed by the principle of jihad. List acts of conscience and social activism that would fit the definition. Discuss its sources in belief in God and in the example of prophethood.
Give examples of historical groups in various cultures that have justified violence in the name of social justice.
How do violations of ethical and moral values, such as stealing, lying, and causing injury to others relate to social justice?
What are the moral implications of the statement "The ends justify the means"? Clarify that in the Islamic ethical system, evil means are not justified by good ends.
Just means must be used to achieve moral and ethical ends. What are the implications of this teaching in a national, domestic and global context?
Using Slide #2 and the accompanying notes,
Discuss the institution of jihad as defensive warfare, and relate it to concepts of just warfare and self-defense in various legal systems.
Describe the conditions of jihad as military struggle, and the historical conditions under which warfare and territorial expansion took place before the twentieth century. Do these conditions still hold today? If not, why not?
What institutions were formed to prevent international conflict and promote cooperation? When were they formed? How successful have these institutions been, and why? Have students assess the future prospects of these organizations.
Using Slide #3, explain and analyze the concept of hirabah and the reasons why it is considered a serious crime.
Using Slide #4, and its accompanying notes,
Explain the concepts of rebellion (baghy) and hirabah, and discuss the reasons why groups may undertake rebellions against the government, both legitimate and illegitimate. How does the target of rebellion (the government) differ from the target of violence in hirabah (the innocent public)?
According to Muslim jurists, what should the government do about rebellion? What should be done about hirabah? Why is the penalty for hirabah more serious than for rebellion?
Have students write an essay or paragraph analyzing the concept of hirabah according to Muslim jurists, and explain why it does not fit in the category of jihad (because it is not conducted according to the proper principles, because its target against the civilian public is not legitimate, and because it does not fall within the limitations of just warfare) Why does it fit the description of a punishable criminal act (because it targets unsuspecting members of the public as they go about their lives, because its victims have no warning and no defense, and cannot seek safety for their lives and property, because it disrupts civil society and its functioning, and destroys the mutual trust upon which human relations depend in civil society.)
Resources
Sherman A. Jackson, "Jihad and the Modern World," The Journal of Islamic Law and Culture, 7:1 (Spring/Summer 2002).
Sherman A. Jackson, "Domestic Terrorism in the Islamic Legal Tradition." (Fall 2001).
Mohammed Fadel, "Jihad and Hirabah" unpublished, 2002, by permission of the author.
Muslim Statements Against Terrorism: http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slide 1 Notes
In defining jihad, it is important to make a distinction between jihad as a principle and jihad as an institution of the state or government.
Jihad as a principle: a broad, abstract concept, a general idea and value that is not limited to a single application; applying the principle to a given situation requires discretion and understanding of its multiple implications
Jihad as an institution: a concrete, established presence that emerges out of essential human interests and needs, in order to promote and ensure the implementation of these interests, needs and concerns; an institution relies less on discretion, BUT, it is essential that the institution be established so that it has the integrity to carry out its function.
As a principle, jihad means "sacrificial struggle." At its basis is the commitment to sacrifice of self and personal interests in order to seek God-given aims. It includes the struggle to protect the weak in society, to guard and strive against oppression and injustice. Carrying out the principle of jihad can take many manifestations, such as speaking out against tyranny, placing one's goods and physical strength in the service of the poor, writing and scholarship, or simply the striving to overcome one's appetites and weaknesses, and personal obstacles. As a principle, jihad has nothing to do with armed struggle. For example, Prophet Muhammad outlined the Greater Jihad as a struggle against one's baser instincts. In early Makkan revelations of the Qur'an, jihad is described as proclaiming the truth in the face of opposition.
Only jihad as a principle is relevant to social justice. JIHAD AS SOCIAL JUSTICE means the following:
If a person is in a position of authority and power, it means "to do the right thing," to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem; it means to overcome the baser instincts to put aside ambition in favor of the greater good, to right wrongs
For any individual, jihad means stating the truth in front of a tyrannical ruler, or indeed any ruler, to care for the weak, oppressed and disenfranchised.
For the ulama, or religious scholars, the principle of jihad means NOT using religious or official authority to promote one's career and self-interest; rather it means using one's office and authority to promote the greater good (public interest, or maslahah) in the spirit of sacrificial struggle. Religious scholars as intellectuals are responsible for this enterprise-calling society to its better self, but other persons of talent and conscience can do so as well.
Slide 2 Notes
Jihad as an institution of armed struggle against non-Muslims, can be undertaken only by a government under the limitations on legitimate conduct of war. Its use is conditional, not persistent or open-ended, nor is it directed against people because of religious differences. Jihad could not be undertaken:
to force people to convert
to annihilate non-Muslims
Jihad as an institution is either defensive or pre-emptive, meaning that it can be undertaken if an attack is imminently expected. The necessity for military readiness and defensive jihad stemmed from the fact that the rule of state relations in pre-modern times was based on a nearly constant or potential state of war. Among scholars of Muslim history, Fred Donner has argued that in prophetic and classical Muslim history, relations among neighboring states were characterized by a nearly constant state of war. The Roman and Persian Empires are examples of this trend, and the history of medieval European kingdoms offers additional examples.
Religious tolerance or persecution also existed at the whim of individual rulers, so that the ability to follow, preach or convert to a faith was always endangered, and often conflicted with laws and decrees requiring worship of the rulers themselves. This was the situation that both Jews and early Christians faced under Roman rule. Later European history, after the Protestant Reformation, offers examples of sectarian struggles within Christianity involving kings and queens who wished to enforce their religious views by means of edicts and warfare, persecuting religious minorities, and putting down rebellions. One outcome of these centuries of religious warfare were constitutions that separated the power of governments from the power and authority of religious institutions. The American colonies were founded and their leaders and citizens learned to appreciate religious freedom in the context of these European struggles.
Pre-modern communities or states were only as safe as they were strong. Peace treaties were the exception to this state of affairs, but they were provisional or temporary in nature, and did not reduce the need for military readiness.When peace could be achieved, it was achieved by treaty or direct rule.
Throughout pre-modern times, people all over the world existed in a potential state of war. The twentieth century, with its unprecendentedly destructive wars that affected many nations, encouraged attempts to alter the pre-modern state of affairs. The post-World War I League of Nations, and the post-World War II United Nations were organizations formed to preserve territorial boundaries fixed by treaty agreements or acquiescence.
According to many Muslim and other religious jurists and scholars, as well as intellectuals of many cultures, humans have the potential to live in a state of peace, as long as such international agreements hold. Muslim jurists have written that the meaning of jihad in the 20th century requires change in the law of jihad as an institution, making it unnecessary except for defense against attack. Japan's demilitarization is a good example of agreement among scholars and leaders in many cultures, as are agreements by members of the Organization of African States to respect even harmful colonial borders that divided the continent into today's independent countries. OAS members have officially placed the need for general peace and cooperation over the need to correct unjust boundaries. Agreements such as NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in Europe, are further examples, following centuries of intra-European wars.
Under these jurists' rulings and international law, it is the responsibility of the most powerful nations to uphold the state of peace by resisting calls to empire-building and control of other nations, and to contribute to sustain the state of peace and prosperity, instead of taking the world back to a time when war was the norm for international relations, and the strong devoured the weak. Considering the extreme destructiveness of modern warfare, the effects of weapons of mass destruction and their disregard of civilian lives and the environment, this is a matter of the gravest importance for citizens everywhere.
Slide 3 Notes
The Muslim state, or rulers, had power, but the religious jurists (ulama), or specialists in Islamic law, established authority through the legitimacy they gained for the working out of Shari'ah, or Islamic law. The State had the power to coerce, while the religious establishment could enlist compliance, using its authority to promote social justice. People followed the ulama out of the belief that it was the right thing to do, as long as they enjoyed legitimacy by staying true to their roles as holders of religious knowledge. Rulers had to take the legitimacy of the ulama and Islamic law into account, to keep the support of the people.
As a leading group outside of government, the ulama were traditionally suspicious of state power, and they were in a position to carry out the principle of jihad (meaning to support social justice) through persuasion. In spite of their suspicion of the state, the jurists generally granted to the state (the rulers) sole power to coerce through violent means-in others, to conduct warfare within the framework of jihad as an institution. They agreed that civil order was the greater good, and sanctioning rebellion would encourage a chaotic situation that was harmful to society in the long run, and may make it vulnerable to attack from outside.
Muslim jurists identified two exceptions to the state's (meaning government's) monopoly on the use of violence:
rebellion (Arabic: baghy) = violence against the state, setting out to topple the government against which a group has grievances, in order to right a perceived wrong
terrorism (Arabic: hirabah) = publicly directed violence carried out by individuals or groups that has the effect of spreading fear, by preventing people from taking any safekeeping measures against physical or property damage.
Both rebellion and terrorism are institutions in which groups take public power into their own hands, either with the intent of enriching themselves, as in highway robbery or organized crime, or in order to address political or social grievances, to try to harm the government by disrupting public order. It is unimportant whether such publically-directed violence was intended to achieve legitimate or illegitimate goals-the labels still apply.
Slide 4 Notes
As the diagram shows, the difference between rebellion (baghy) and terrorism (hirabah) in Islamic law is that rebellion from a segment of the public targets the government because of grievances against it (legitimate or not), but terrorism (hirabah) represents one segment of the public attacking another, usually larger, segment of the public. hirabah, whether it is based on legitimate complaints or not, is a capital crime of the most serious kind, and is NOT considered a form of jihad, and is NOT a means for seeking social justice.
The ulama unanimously labeled rebellion unlawful, an act of disobedience to God. However, Muslim jurists also recognized that governments are sometimes tyrannical, and might be overthrown by widespread rebellion. In the American Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson and his co-signers clearly laid out examples of such conditions for legitimate rebellion. Muslim scholars, however, supported public order and did not lightly recognize or legitimize this form of violence as a means to achieve redress of grievances, or to achieve social justice. The jurists agreed that rebellion should be put down, but the jurists also denied the state the right to execute the rebels or punish them, except for crimes like rape and theft committed in the course of rebellion, which had no connection to the act of the rebellion. The jurists set conditions under which rebels would not be punished: first, the rebels must be numerous enough to show that dissatisfaction with the government was a widespread problem. They said that rebellion cannot be legitimized, but if it was related to issues of social justice, the rebels cannot be punished. If, however, the rebellion succeeded in overthrowing the government, then the newly emerging government was seen as legal and legitimate, unless it was illegitimate for other reasons.The jurists made this ruling in order to distinguish such action against the state alone from crimes against society or individuals. The jurists left a legal door open for the possibility that rebellion might be necessary against tyranny.
Jurists left no door open for publicly directed violence, or hirabah. Terrorism, which modern Muslim jurists have classified under hirabah, is an instance in which an individual or group takes violent action in the public space. hirabah was defined as:
individuals or groups carrying out violence directed against the public, against civilians
an action that has the effect of spreading fear by preventing people from taking any safekeeping measures against physical or property damage
such violence may be overt or stealthy, and may include serial murders, burnings, bombings, or property destruction, not just political acts o violence
by arousing general fear and lack of safety, public life is endangered and civic life becomes completely disrupted and unpredictable
The jurists prohibited hirabah because Islam places an absolute value on public safety and protection as God-given human rights. These rights belong to "the sphere of God." A right of God in Islamic law is one based on universal rights, whose penalty is not subject to the discretion of the judges; neither can acts of hirabah be ignored. hirabah is punishable by the most severe penalty mentioned in the Qur'an, where it is called fasad (fah-SAAD) in chapter 5, verse 33, meaning in this case mayhem and destruction.
Jurists distinguished hirabah from baghy by the number of perpetrators and by the publicly directed nature of the violence. The diagram above shows that baghy represents violence by a segment of the public against the government, but hirabah represents violence by a segment of the public against another segment of the public, specific or general. Consider the following question in order to evaluate the significance of such categories: If jurists had not distinguised between the two types of violence, then what could states assert about rebels?
In the past, the term hirabah used to be associated especially with highway robbery, extortion through violence, and brigandage, meaning roving bands of robbers and plunderers who preyed upon the roads outside of towns and cities, wastelands, and remote areas. This sort of piracy by land endangered public safety, trade and prevented the public from going about their business because it created a climate of fear. This meaning, in the judgement of modern Musilm jurists, best fits the definition of terrorism in the modern context. The difference is that such violence takes place within cities, but it shares the important aspect that it makes civil life impossible by destroying public safety. Therefore, Muslim jurists consider it a crime, and NOT a legitimate means of protest or political action for social justice as required by the proper application of the term jihad.
The comments here have gotten a bit esoteric.
What is directly on point is that none of the members of Stop the Madrassa have ever called Almontaser a jihadist. Their issue has always been concern about the curriculum, and the presence in the background of several individuals and organizations (such as CAIR) whose purposes are malignant, and in opposition to American culture and civilization. The purpose of these individuals and organizations is the propagation of Shari'a. Whether Almontaser's role is as a dupe or as an active participant in that purpose is not known to any of us, and she has never been personally accused of anything by the members of Stop the Madrassa.
What is immediately relevant is that Almontaser herself accused the members of Stop the Madrassa of committing a crime (stalking). She repeated it several times, and her lawyer included the charge in the pleadings in her suit against the Department of Education. Unless she apologizes and withdraws the accusation, the members of Stop the Madrassa are fully justified in pursuing the cause of action against Almontaser.