From David Anthony Hohol…

Led by France and President Nicolas Sarkozy, Europe continues to move towards a full ban on both the full face-covering burka and the niqab, while cries of discrimination against Muslims run through the Arab World. A funny thing then happened – Muslims the world over were caught off guard when Syria banned veils of all types from post-secondary institutions across the country, both public and private.

The ban reveals an unusual agreement in principle between the authoritarian secular government of Syria and democratic Europe. In the end, both see the niqab as an oppressive threat to identity and secularism.

Directives have been given to all Syrian universities from the Ministry of Education to ban niqab-wearing (and burka-wearing) women from even registering. Syria has taken things even further by transferring all primary school teachers who were wearing the niqab out of the classrooms and into administrative positions, separating them from the children altogether. The political aim is to protect Syria’s secular identity.

Only last week, the French parliament approved a ban on the niqab, doing so in an effort to define and protect French values — a move that angered many in the country’s large Muslim community. When news of Syria’s ban hit however, there was barely a ripple. The lack of protests suggests there is a double and somewhat hypocritical standard being applied by many in the Arab World.

“Well, it’s not really a part of Islam. Nowhere does it say that a woman must cover her face and anyone who says so is lying. It’s more about very old traditions,” is something I heard several times when discussing the ban with people here in the Middle East.

This is a far cry from, “ Those French Bastards should mind their own business! Sarkozy is an asshole! ”

Back in August this writer openly disagreed with the blanket ban being attempted by France. Niqabs and burkas should certainly be banned from any and all levels of education and places of work, but banning someone from wearing what they want to wear while walking down the street on their day off is just plain ridiculous. A government cannot over-reach itself in such a manner and must have limitations. Too much government is never a good thing. A sweeping law such as the one proposed in France suggests a blindness to the fact that drafting laws to dictate the dress codes of women at all times is exactly what the backwards dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Iran do, making such a law an inverted reflection of what it is standing against.

Nevertheless, one can argue the extremist ban by France has had ripple effect of positive change in the Middle East.

Syria is only the latest nation to take a stance on the veil. Turkey has not only long banned the niqab, but even the headscarf, considering attempts to allow them an affront to the nation’s secular Laws.  The Egyptian and Jordanian governments have started to discourage them, and the United Arab Emirates has also begun to ban them in certain instances. With the Muslim world looking to cut out the niqab, its no wonder the Netherlands, Spain and Belgium are all considering taking steps similar to that of France.  And it’s also understandable that if Muslim countries are willing to ban them from schools or workplaces, European countries would take things one step further and attempt to ban them altogether.

Opponents have said such bans violate freedom of religion, one’s personal right to choose and further still, such legislation damages the image of Muslims. They fall relatively silent however, when countries within the Arab world take similar measures.

It’s also important to note that while the West’s objection to face-covering is largely a form of activism in the name of women, moves to do the same from inside the Arab World stem from fear of social dissent.

Middle East experts say the issue is more about the growing chasm between the Arab World’s secular aristocracy and the poverty-stricken masses of the lower class who often turn to religion for comfort. The niqab is not widespread in Syria, Jordan or Egypt, but in recent years it has become more common. The Middle East in general is currently witnessing a rapid growth of income gap, and governments have been quick to take note. Lower class and the working poor tend to cling to religion as a way to cope with their less than satisfactory existence. Salafism, the most extremist sect of Islam, is what Syria is trying to discourage with this ban.  Simply put, the government wants to stamp out any symbolic dissent represented by the very un-secular niqab in order to maintain control.

“We are witnessing a rapid income gap growing in Syria — there is a wealthy ostentatious class of people who are making money and wearing European clothes. The lower classes are feeling the squeeze. It’s almost inevitable that there’s going to be backlash. The worry is that it’s going to find its expression in greater Islamic radicalism,” says Joshua Landis, an American professor and Syria expert who runs a blog called Syria Comment.

It’s a mistake to view the niqab as a personal freedom. It is rather a declaration of extremism.” Says Bassam Qadhi, a Syrian women’s rights activist.

There’s no doubt, Islam is changing. As a religion, Islam is more than 600 years younger than Christianity. Let’s not forget 600 years ago the Judeo-Christian West was burning women at the stake for being witches. A more pluralistic, more secular and indeed, a more Western version is Islam is inevitable.  It will simply take some time, but the clock is already ticking.

Sarah Palin may be an unemployed, Facebook abusing, gaffe-prone idiot, but it seems as if she has, by accident and without knowing, stumbled across something she has a valid position on: the mosque proposal in New York City, close to Ground Zero .

Essentially, there’s been a proposal for the equivalent of a Muslim activity center – a mosque with restaurant, entertainment facilities, and more – to be built mere blocks from the site of the World Trade Center destruction, which has, as could be expected, received immediate, kneejerk reactions from both sides of the argument. Those of a conservative, oft-racist, persuasion have jumped on the fact that this is a Muslim center and not one of their own Christian brand, as if simply being of the Islamic faith was an affront to Americanism and disrespecting the lives of the dead from 9/11. Similarly, those of the liberal, oft-too-open, political flavor have done quite the opposite and used the proposal as a weapon of peaceful propaganda, claiming that it would cater to moderate Muslims, despite a valid argument that there is no such middleground option in Islam, and it would show that America holds nothing against those that did not declare war upon the nation.

The problem is that neither side is correct – both have legitimate and defensible positions, which is especially odd in the modern polar political climate.

In terms of arguing against the mosque’s existence so close to Ground Zero, there are mountains of evidence that Islamic centers of prayer, and those that run them, played large roles in the attacks of September 11^th, 2001 and continue to do so, even within America’s borders. The 9/11 hijackers sought solace, solidarity, and support in various mosques, on both coasts, and the more recent terrorist attempts, such as the failed Times Square Bomber, have had similar aid – a careful reading of Steve Coll’s “Ghost Wars”, James Bamford’s “The Shadow Factory”, and a number of other investigative journalism efforts on the topic make this quite clear. Even now, a decade later, those that support the subjugation, injury, or death of non-Muslims, due to either American citizenship or Jewish heritage/faith, can find sympathetic persons for their cause across the country. Since the Islamic faith, if interpreted in a semi-strict fashion, allows for no religion other than its own and calls for the death of all Jews, this is a serious issue, especially as fundamentalism sweeps the ranks of Muslims worldwide.

That being said, not all Muslims are terrorists or wish harm upon the Western World – this is a fact that should be inherently understood by rational individuals worldwide. The terrorist attacks of September 11^th were carried out by fundamentalist Muslims with disgruntled attitudes and a brainwashed perspective, and did not, nor do they currently, represent the opinions of all Muslims, just as the Catholic Pope does not speak for all Catholics. In a fit of panic, there were some unintelligent, embarrassingly stereotyping decisions made in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but it can be argued that America has, on the whole, returned to its more rational state. Mosques are not the places of evil and fundamentalism that they are so often made out to be, most especially within the borders of the United States – they should not be pigeonholed as centers of evil to be banned, harassed, or discriminated against.

Thus arrives the crux of the problem: both sides of this argument have a point. A mosque so close to the ashes of the World Trade Center would undoubtedly send a message of tolerance and forgiveness to Muslims, but it could just as easily serve as an inspiration-by-proximity center fostering anti-American sentiment, so there is no easy answer to this permit request. None of this, however, was intended by the loudmouth embarrassment that is Sarah Palin – her words were simply meant in the racist, derogatory, and unacceptably judgmental manner in which she presented them. That she touched upon so salient a point by accident is a fantastic coincidence, but it does nothing to make the issue any less politically or socially relevant.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

From Saudi Arabia Correspondent Eman Al Nafjan…

Great controversy is brewing in Saudi Arabia and it all starts and ends with Sheikh Ahmed Al Ghamdi. Al Ghamdi is a 47 year old PhD holder in administration and strategical planning and also has spent 15 years studying Islam.

The whole issue began when Okaz Newspaper published a lengthy article last December written by Sheikh al Ghamdi in which he proclaimed that there is no such thing as gender segregation in Islam. He stated that what we are at today is based on extremism and cultural considerations. Moreover he points out that the very thing that we have been prohibiting is practiced in most Saudi households with the presence of maids. Anyhow this is not the first time that a Saudi sheikh has written about the illogicality of gender segregation. Sheikh Ahmed Bin Baz wrote about it and so did the judge Eissa al Ghaith. Although both got an earful, their articles were eventually forgotten. The difference with Sheikh al Ghamdi is that he is head of the Makkah PVPV commission. And as everybody knows, maintaining gender segregation is one of the highest callings of the PVPV. So for Sheikh al Ghamdi to come out and say that this form of segregation is Islamically baseless, it becomes an issue of conflict of interests. And then he tops his gender segregation article with another article on not banning shops from business during prayer time.

Going around shopping areas to insure that they close during prayer is another main component of a PVPV member’s job description. As one journalist points out, Shiekh al Ghamdi may be free to write what he thinks but as an employee of the PVPV, he shouldn’t be publishing things that go against their policies and practices.

For the PVPV and the whole ultra conservative majority, to have one of their own, someone who they had given a high position in their hierarchy go against their beliefs is a slap in the face. Attacks on Shiekh al Ghamdi’s character, credentials and articles were on every one of their TV channels and papers. Some claimed that he was paid to write what he wrote. And then a group of influential muttawas got together and decided to invite Sheikh al Ghamdi to a televised debate. He came onto to the show and it struck me as more of a trap.

Insults were thrown at him right and left. The opposing debaters instead of discussing al Ghamdi’s points kept calling him a mere accountant who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Another claimed that al Ghamdi was blasphemous towards the Prophet (PBUH). The call-ins were a confirmation of my belief that the whole show was a set up. Again a bunch of sheikhs called in and insulted al Ghamdi and then HRH prince Khalid bin Talal called demanding that al Ghamdi be fired from his PVPV post and called him an embarrassment to Saudi Arabia. This lead to a flurry of news organizations reporting that a PVPV sheikh was fired for not believing in gender segregation. The next day it was learned that Al Ghamdi was still at his PVPV post.

The following week sheikh al Ghamdi was again invited to the show to debate the issue. The second show was an improvement on the first. The debaters were given three uninterrupted minutes to state their case and everyone tried to avoid personal insults. The call-ins too were more balanced with some calling in in support of al Ghamdi. On both shows I was impressed by how confident and articulate al Ghamdi was. In comparison, the other two shiekhs seemed baffled and unprepared.

However the outcries against him haven’t subsided and his job at the PVPV is still up in the air. The afternoon of April 25^th, a statement was released to the newspapers that a routine shuffle has resulted in the demotion of sheikh al Ghamdi, and then a couple of hours later all newspapers were requested not to publish the statement. And up to the writing of this post no news of whether or not Sheikh al Ghamdi will be allowed to keep his job has come out.

From Saudi Arabian Corespondent Eman Al Nafjan…

It’s true, abayas are regulated and policed. And I don’t only mean the PVPV trolling the malls shouting at women to cover. For a Saudi woman that’s minor when compared to what we have to go through at schools and colleges. You can gauge the political stance of the administration of an educational facility by its abaya rules.

All schools that are run by the ministry of education, i.e. public schools, make female students and employees wear abayas tent style over their heads. Students in particular have to wear complete face covering that has no opening for the eyes. This is implemented by teachers, usually in pairs, that stand at the inside of the school entrance and not allow a student to go out unless she has the proper abaya and face cover on. This is also done at small women-only colleges and at Al Imam University, except instead of a rotation of gate duty between teachers, they actually employ a few women whose sole job is to police students to make sure that they wear a tent-style abaya with full face covering, wear long skirts and sleeves underneath and confiscate camera cell phones.

Many but not all private schools, colleges and the relatively more liberal King Saud University do not subject their female students to such scrutiny. As long as you wear a abaya and have a scarf on your head, you’re fine. And as long as you’re not actually pointing your cell phone camera and taking pictures, no one cares whether or not you have one. Unfortunately this flexibility is rare since the majority of Saudi women do attend public schools or at least the more conservative private schools.

I have had a lot of experience with this type of policing throughout my education and work career. Although I have not attended public schools as a student, I did work in a few as part of my practical training and also at the beginning of my teaching career. Of course I had to wear the tent style abaya too. But my way to get around it was to wear my regular shoulder abaya underneath and as soon as I was past the guards, I would shed the top abaya like it was on fire. I also had to do my share of gate duty and felt like a hypocrite. However it helped that I did happen across the principal at a restaurant with her face uncovered and wearing a fancy abaya. So many of us are enforcing rules that we don’t believe in.

What is underneath the abaya is also regulated. The first school I taught at the principal had an issue with my sneakers. She deemed them too western and ordered me to wear “regular” shoes such as loafers or high heels! At another school, at the first meeting the principal told me that she would let it go because it was my first day but my elbow long sleeves were against the rules. But nothing breaks the rules like a pair of pants on a Saudi woman. One time I was going for an interview at a university here in Riyadh. As I wasn’t a student and I had no intention of taking off my abaya for the interview, I went wearing pants. I knew the rules but since I was neither an employee nor a student there plus my abaya was the sort that did not have an opening in the front, I thought it would be ok. As soon as the female guard saw the cuffs of my pants under the abaya, she stopped me and told me that I could not enter the university until I bought a skirt from her and gave her my pants for safekeeping. She was serious! And she had a stack of 30 riyal black long skirts in a drawer. I did not want to miss the interview so I compromised (with a lot of back and forth arguing) by wearing one of her skirts on top of my pants with the abaya still on. Call me petty but as soon as I got past her I took the skirt off and stuffed into my purse.

My point is that Saudi women are conditioned from fourth grade and up, even as professionals themselves, to be subjected to this type of moral policing. Imagine what it’s like for women from ultra-conservative families. At home, school and work they are made to wear the abaya in such a way as to maximize the ideology that women are objects to be enjoyed by their guardians and covered from others. No wonder they impose it on themselves and on their daughters; it’s all they’ve known throughout their lives.

The day before yesterday marked the beginning of the holiest time of year for Christian’s worldwide. But Christmas, isn’t that in December? Yes, Christmas is in December, and with all the snow the U.S. received these past few weeks it might have felt like December.  In actuality, however, the holiest holiday for Christians is Easter. Easter is the focal point of Christianity, based on the belief Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of the Father, was crucified on the cross (Good Friday), and on the third day rose again (Easter). Easter is on Sunday, so what happened the day before yesterday? Yesterday was Ash Wednesday, which marked the beginning of Lent.

Lent is a forty day period during which Christians fast in what is considered to be the preparation of the believer. Historically, observing lent meant all animal products were forbidden and even went as far as to require only bread was to be eaten. With that said, as civilization evolved so did Christianity. Present day Irish Catholics like myself are required to abstain from the consumption of meat on Ash Wednesday and on each Friday during the holy period. The forty day fast is meant to signify the forty days Jesus spent in the desert being tempted by the Devil. 

Catholic credence aside, religion, regardless what the belief system it may represent, is on the outs with the younger generation; and not just here in the United States, but the world over. Increasing fanaticism within all of the prominent religions has overshadowed the positive place religion has in our cultures. The Catholic Church has been marred by numerous counts of child molestation, the Jews are frowned upon for their abhorrent treatment of Arabs in Gaza and Palestine, and Islam is viewed with negativity and even fear throughout the world for the horrific actions of only a few. Today, more than ever, it’s clear being religious not only carries a stigma, but requires one to constantly defend their beliefs.

It is hard to get the whole picture when we constantly see only one side. Being Irish Catholic, this week was another wake-up call, as the Pope meet with Irish bishops about a widespread cover-up over abuse reports. Perhaps if we were to take a look at Religion from another view point, it would change your perspective.

I often hear the argument that religion is outdated and that modern constitutions and laws have taken its place. However, in looking at the pillars of modern law it is hard to find anything that hasn’t been influenced by religious text. Far before formal governments, religion guided one’s life. Religion is a vessel that offers interpretations and explanations for many of life’s greatest questions. 

Religious texts offer us a guide by which to live our lives. Many of the lessons we teach our children, “Turn the other cheek,” or “Do onto others as you wish done onto you,” are rooted in religious texts. Religious texts are rich with lessons to help guide one’s life and manage interactions with others.

Religion has a very constructive place in our society, but the modern media chooses to ignore positive stories and impact of religion to do good in the world. With its constant trumpeting all that is wrong with religion, the media has played a large part in turning many Americans against religiosity as a whole. Gone are the days of a quality Christian education bringing together mind, body, and spirit – at least in the United States. Even Christian soup kitchens and homeless shelters have come under fire.

Older people often have a tendency to believe that to be religious one must strictly adhere to all that a religion requires, whatever that religion may be; but I’m not so sure.

So many times I’ve heard people say I was raised Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, but I’m not anymore. That being the case, they still continue to hold on to the core values and beliefs found within their Holy Scripture. When we’re young, religion provides the black and white structure needed to give our lives a moral compass. When we grow older, religion evolves with us as well - regardless if we choose to accept this. Some of us might not agree with the organized faction of a religion, or the path upon which a religion choose to relay its message.  With that said, so much of what is good within us is derived from faith and religiosity.

And for those of you who think we would eventually learn the moral essence of humanity within a secular vacuum free of religion, I ask you to consider Thomas Hobbes.  The politcial philosopher believed people were in fact inherently evil, and if given the opportunity, would act devilishly in the name of hedonistic self-preservation.

So the next time you’re walking around and happen to see someone wearing a cross, don’t assume they support priest abuse, are abortion fanatics, or gay bashers. If you see someone wearing a yarmulke, don’t think they’re an Arab hating Zionist. And if someone is wearing a hijab or a kandora, don’t assume they’re going to blow something up. Why not ask about their beliefs and what their religion means to them. Because if you just walk by blindly, and continue to believe in the preconceived notions you hear in the news, you are no-less of a fanatic than the people you criticize.

Your fanaticism lies in your prejudice. 

From Gibbs Burke…

Writer’s Note: In the spirit of Lent, I would like to wish everyone good health, love, and prosperity. I know that I am not without sin, so I am sorry to all those whom I’ve offended.

Anyone who knows me or RELATIVITY OnLine knows full well we have done our part to criticize and confront the numerous instances of stereotypes, misinformation and propaganda  incorporated by the global powers that be in terms of the Middle East. This writer has gone to great lengths to expose Israel’s occupation of Palestine as a barely veiled attempt at ethic cleansing. We also have pointed out that groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are in fact fueled by unjust, manipulative and / or misguided Western actions. In short, we have championed the cause of Arabs time and again.  Now, however, I must turn my critique towards the Muslim world. It is a place not known for tolerance of criticism, but criticism is necessary if it is to purge itself of the deadly cancer known as extremism. More importantly, it is a criticism that must be heard before its too late. Life and death weigh in the balance.        

Western actions, however unfair they may appear to be, are no excuse for the extremist violence seen in Iraq, Pakistan, or Afghanistan. There is zero excuse for blowing up hotels in Jordan, buildings in the United States, embassies in Kenya, trains in the United Kingdom, Night Clubs in Indonesia, Souks in Egypt, compounds in Saudi Arabia, subways in Spain, or Markets in India.  How is killing innocent men, women and children supposed to serve as payment for unjust Western policies and ignorance? How? These so-called Muslims, these so called defenders of Islam, target innocent people to make their so-called religious attacks. They are gutless cowards in every way someone can be. They are the great shame of Islam.  

Even more vile and insane are those who cold-bloodedly kill their own, the slaughtering of fellow Muslims in the name of God.  This is what makes them true monsters – they are not invading occupiers, but neighbors to those they kill and maim. Above all else, manipulating 14-year old children into sacrificing their lives before they have even had a chance to experience it is the epitome of cowardice evil.  Thousands upon thousands of innocent people have died in the mindless violence, with few ever really knowing why.

It’s time for the Muslim world to take a long look at itself in the mirror and be brutally honest with its own reflection. Some of the worst crimes against Muslims have been committed in the name of Islam by Muslims themselves. This is the reality Muslims have to both face and confront.  

Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh in an address to nearly three million pilgrims in Mecca during last year’s Hajj raised this point at a time and place it never had been before. He harshly condemned extremist attacks in every way, calling such actions “the curse of Muslim lands.” He called extremism and suicide bombers the “most serious problem” facing the Muslim world. In other words, he looked the Muslim world in the eye and said out loud for everyone to hear that members of the Muslim Community itself are the biggest problem Islam faces today – not Israel, not the United States, but members of their own brethren.  The sad part is that few people even know the Grand Shiekh made these statements, and this includes Muslims themselves.

The very fact that a Muslim of his stature spoke such words, and at the Hajj address no less, reveals the Grand Sheikh’s acknowledgment that Muslims have to be the first to condemn extremism and to do so loudly.  Muslims the world over, be they politicians, presidents, academics, religious scholars, business leaders, or just ordinary everyday folk need to offer up a collective voice of condemnation so as to pull Islam out from under of the ugly light cast upon it by extremists. Islam needs its people to do what’s right, now more than ever before.

From David Anthony Hohol…

From David Anthony Hohol…

When Barack Obama became president of the United States, his foreign policy agenda approach was transparent and forthright.  He believes that America needs to talk with other governments, even if their policies are undemocratic or even extremist. For his administration, dialogue is the key. He also prefers acting with other countries, rather than going it alone. It must have been so very disappointing for terrorists groups like Al Queda to watch Obama addressing the Muslim world from Cairo, calling for fresh start to relations and a new page in history. 

With this is in mind, Al Queda is missing the good old Bush days. Having an American president that reaches out to the developing world in general, and most particularly the Arab Muslim world, annuls the very foundation of Al Queda’s radical ideology; that being the age old and simplistic “Us vs. Them” doctrine.  This too was a George W. favorite.

Ask yourself this question:  How would George W. acted after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s recent attempt to bring down an American Airline on December 25th? What would Bush have said?  To have made the attempt on December 25th suggests the timing was chosen to ignite an East vs. West conflict, building on the eight year war of divisive actions and words between Al Queda and company and the Bush Administration. This is when Bush came up with gems like “You’re either with us, or your with the terrorists.”   In moments like this, George W. Bush was unwittingly the poster boy for Al Queda recruitment.   And oh how they loved him for it.   

With the latest attempt to terrorize the public, the hope was to handcuff another American presidency to the reactionary side of the war on terror. Obama, however, will not be manipulated and will stay on the diplomatic course his administration set into motion the day he was sworn in as President. Perhaps more than any other sitting American President, Obama is very aware of the extremist mindset; that being to hijack the social and political agenda of Muslim societies so as to create conflict and division between East and West. Whether you voted for him or not, most would agree that Obama is aware that crime has no religion. This is why the world will be a more stable place while he remains in power.

On Friday, Canadian and American Muslim Leaders produced a religious edict, or fatwa, which clearly states any attack on Canada or the United States, is tantamount to an attack on the 10 million Muslims living in North America. The 20 imams who signed the fatwa come from Texas, Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario.

Imam Syed Soharwardy of Calgary, Alberta and founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada said an assault on the U.S. or Canada is the same thing as attacking Muslims. “We are part of this society,” he said.

“This is my home… and if anybody attacks Canada, in fact, they attack my home.

The edict states, “These attacks are evil and Islam requires Muslims to stand up against this evil.”

“Muslims in Canada and the U.S. have a duty to protect both countries. They must expose any person, Muslim or non-Muslim, who would cause harm to fellow Canadians or Americans,” declared the group of 20 imams on the council.

The council went on to say, “It is religious obligation put upon Muslims, based upon the teachings of the Quran, that we  be loyal to the country where we live.”

Imam Nasir Qadri of the Anwar Musallah Mosque in Montreal and fellow council member said he spoke to his followers at his mosque about the issue Friday. Most feel threatened by the attacks and call Canada their one and only home.

The fatwa comes after the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. jet bound for Detroit from Amsterdam by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.  The 23-year-old Nigerian born man has been charged with attempting to use of a weapon of mass destruction and attempted murder.

This is the promotional introduction to a documentary entitled “IN GOD’S NAME”, a CBS special produced in partnership with French filmmakers Jules and Gedeon Naudet. The film explores some of the most complex questions of our time and does so via the intimate thoughts of 12 of the world’s most influential spiritual leaders. Listening to the challenges our religious leaders face within their own religions, despite their absolute dedication and constant discipline, it becomes clear that simply to love our neighbors and accept them as we would ourselves is humanity’s biggest and most difficult test. In the end,  a planetary theology is without question an impossibility, but a universal experience is not.  At film’s end, it becomes clear this, above all else, needs to be our goal.

Muslims are all too often referred to as being radical, but some Muslims are referring to one of their own in such a manner these days. Hamza Yusuf, born Mark Hanson in Washington State in 1960, is an Islamic scholar and professor currently lecturing in California. Yusuf offers a more tolerant and open-minded perspective of Islam and one with which some conservative Muslims strongly disagree.  Famously quoted as saying “the worst enemies of Islam are not the Israelis, but  themselves” and claiming that “the real Muslim way is life is best found in the West,” he is seen by some as poisoning traditional Islamic values. Others see him as the future and the symbolic figure of a much needed Islamic reformation. You be the judge.