In a recent statement made by the Australian treasurer, Peter Costello, it was implied that radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept Australia as a secular state and abide by the laws created by their parliament.
“If those are not your values, if you want a country that has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you,” Costello declared.
In a separate statement, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said: “Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the wall of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.”
Howard then went on to say that he was in support of law enforcement agencies monitoring Australia’s mosques, which has angered some of the nation’s practicing Muslims.
This came at a time when Muslims around the globe were preparing for the holy month of Ramadan – a very spiritual and reflective period for Muslims. It was during a time when they make an extra effort to gather with family and friends to break their fast. A period during which they are most aware of their duty as Muslims to pray daily. With this awareness they tend to spend more time in their local mosques.
Seen praying five times daily
It seems that this awareness is widespread. The more time that is spent in their mosques, the more they begin to see new faces. People who have never before answered the call to prayer are seen praying five times daily, Monday through Friday.
Practicing Muslims know that faith is not restricted to this five-day range. Religious duties do not adhere with the workweek. Yet when the Saturday morning prayer is called, it seems that these new faces are nowhere to be seen. This then raises questions of intent. For what purpose are these people visiting the mosque? Are they here to fulfill their duties as Muslims, or is it for some ulterior motive? Furthermore, who are these people? And what has prompted them to all of a sudden take such interest in what is happening inside of their local mosques?
In the post 9/11 world, we have grown accustomed to heightened police security on trains, in airports and on the street. Recent figures show that, in 2001, the New York Police Department (NYPD) had approximately 20 officers assigned to the task of combating terrorism. Today, that number has risen to over 1,000. The NYPD has also employed tactics such as eavesdropping and infiltration schemes, in order to prevent future terrorist attacks on our city.
Some of these schemes involve turning immigrants from Arab countries into informers. These informers then work to interact with suspected terrorists in an effort to gather intelligence for the police departments’ counterterrorist activities. One such case employed an Egyptian informer by the name of Osama Eldawoody.
From an alternate standpoint
Over a period of 13 months, Eldawoody worked to compile evidence against a Pakistani immigrant, Shahawar Matin Siraj, on the grounds that he was plotting to detonate a bomb in Manhattan’s Herald Square. During the trial the defense asserted that Siraj’s case was one of entrapment; that he was coerced by Eldawoody to commit a crime that he would normally not be inclined to commit. Some members of the jury were convinced of the defense’s case, but due to lack of tangible evidence, they were forced to side with the prosecution. This led to Siraj’s conviction on four charges of bomb plotting and conspiracy, for which he faces approximately 30 years of imprisonment.
Another case involved FBI informer, Mohammed Alanssi, who participated in a sting operation in January of 2003. The sting operation was centered on Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad, a prominent Yemeni sheik, and his assistant, Mohammed Mohsen Yahya Zayed. After a five-week trial – comprised of videotaped meetings between the sheik and Mohammed Alanssi, images of Osama Bin Laden, and what would later be called ‘prejudicial evidence’ by defense lawyers – the Yemeni sheik was convicted of conspiracy to support Al-Qaeda and Hamas, of providing material support to Hamas, and of attempting to provide material support to Al-Qaeda.
These convictions carry a penalty of up to 75 years for the Yemeni sheik, and up to 25 years for his assistant.
From one point of view, it can be said that these convictions showed how ‘the war on terror’ was progressing successfully. However, from an alternate standpoint, these convictions, and the methods employed in obtaining them, can be seen as examples of entrapment. In both cases the defense argued that the circumstances under which their clients were videotaped, the possible tampering or editing of the videotapes, and the ‘prejudicial evidence’ that was presented by the prosecution, seemed to point in the direction of a possibly biased view taken by law enforcement agencies towards the Muslim community.
Furthermore, the informers involved in these cases were in turn mishandled once the guilty verdicts were read. Osama Eldawoody was promised a large sum of money, citizenship, and identity protection for his role in the case against Shahawar Matin Siraj. After realizing that the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not intend on fulfilling these promises, Eldawoody wrote a letter to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) stating that, “The NYPD promised me the best quality of life and security, and all their promises were gone after the arrest. Would you help me?”
The letter also implied that Edawoody petitioned Senators Arelen Specter (R-PA) and Rick Santorum (R-PA) for help. When he found that no one would offer him the help he was looking for, especially in regards to guarding his identity, Eldawoody issued the following comment, “After I risk my life for America, my country and for people of my country, now I’m asking God for help.”
Are they faithful Muslims?
In the case of FBI informer Mohamed Alanssi, the situation took an even more radical course. In exchange for his role as an informer, he was promised money and citizenship as well as assistance in traveling to Yemen. Alanssi sought to go to Yemen in order to visit his ailing wife, who was suffering from stomach cancer. When he found that the FBI did not intend to keep their word, Alanssi, in an interview with The Washington Post, said that he was upset , and that the FBI did not follow through on promises that were made to him.
As time passed, Alanssi saw that there was no hope for him in regards to traveling to Yemen. He then sent a fax to The Washington Post, where he stated that he was going to burn his body “in an unexpected place.” In November of 2004, Alanssi received second and third degree burns, on approximately 30 percent of his body, as a result of setting himself on fire in front of the White House.
Many people claimed that the tactics employed in these cases are proof that the ‘war on terror’ is not only aggressive, but can even be viewed as prejudiced in the approach taken to members of the Muslim community. If these tactics help to flush out actual terrorists, then there can be no contention. However, if a group is faced with deception and religious profiling, then there is much room for debate.
Recently, local mosques and the NYPD have worked to reach an understanding in order to create interfaith trust and communications. This is a noble ideal if it is reflected in action. If it is simply a concept, with opposing actions, then it is the foundation of paranoia and distrust. This leads us back to the question of the new faces in our local mosques. We are forced to ask: Who are these people? Are they informants working to gather intelligence, or are they faithful Muslims? Does the sentiment of Australia’s leaders reflect similar feelings in our local law enforcement agencies?
Mr. Zain Remawi, who is a member of the board of the Muslim Society of Bay Ridge, says that the community is tight knit, members know one another, and new faces are easily recognized. “If a young man suddenly begins praying five times a day, five days a week and that young man does not live or work in the area, then his presence becomes questionable. Not only that, but we can assume that if this is taking place in our local mosques, then it is most probably happening in other mosques as well.”
When a bomb explodes
NYPD Officer Ahmed Nasser has denied that the police department has any relationship with this influx of new faces in our mosques. He also suggests that in any situation, regardless of where you are, you would question a stranger in order to find out who they are. However, members of our local mosques have reservations about reaching out and befriending these people. We are put on guard by stories of entrapment; we become over-conscious of what we say for fear of misinterpretation, and, overall, we are forced to look among our brothers and sisters for the figurative worm in the apple.
What seems to escape the rationale of law enforcement agencies is that the majority of Muslims are peaceful people, who are hurt by acts of terrorism as much as anybody else is. When a bomb explodes, the shrapnel that is produced has no discrimination as to which direction it flies. An Arab American is as much of a target as a Latin, African, Asian, or any other type of American.
What is needed is a straightforward and candid understanding between all groups – in order to safeguard not only our cities, but also our heritage and religious freedom.
