Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Al-Arian's continued detention reflects poorly on U.S.

Re: Al-Arian unlikely to be set free, Jan. 2.

The continued detention of Sami Al-Arian raises serious questions about government control. How, after a six-month trial, where more than a decade of collected evidence was presented, and after Al-Arian's almost three-year detention under restrictive conditions where every legal and psychological device to break body and spirit was employed, and after a jury failed to find him guilty on any of the charges, can a democratic government even think about asking the American people to continue this "witch hunt"?

It appears that our government, whether out of embarrassment or vindictiveness, can and will spare no taxpayer expense to get its way in spite of our justice system. Bent on doing whatever it takes to exact revenge, at whatever cost, why even bother with trial and jury?

As "leaks" raise questions concerning surveillance, fair trials and justice, American citizens grow increasingly suspicious while other countries question leadership of a country that boasts of having the most democratic system in the world. What kind of example does the Al-Arian trial set?

Al-Arian is not an American

Re: Al-Arian unlikely to be set free.

Well, the old publicity mill is cranking up once more, and Sami Al-Arian and his family think it will be to their advantage. Remember when he wanted a change of venue because of all of the pretrial publicity?

Recently, his son appeared on TV and said that his father had been in the United States for 30 years and if he wasn't an American, he didn't know who was. Well I am, my children are, my grandparents and great grandparents were. Sami Al-Arian isn't.

As before, they use our laws to their advantage and when they don't get their way they try to pressure legislators into passing laws to favor them. They tried to get legislation passed to get their uncle out of detention, in spite of the fact that the only reason he couldn't get out was that he was fighting deportion. We don't need the likes of him in our country.

Avoid generalizations about Muslims

Re: What Muslims should be emphasizing, letter Jan. 3.

The letter writer has some good points. However, he - as well as many others - needs some education. As far as dealing with the matter of "suicide bombers," all major Muslim organizations have unequivocally denounced killing innocent people, regardless of their religion and ethnicity, and whether these people were killed by suicide bombing, a missile fired from a helicopter or a bomb dropped from a jet. We saw such a stand from only a minority of our Christian and Jewish brethren.

Now, do Muslim countries oppress non-Muslims? There might be some isolated incidents, but I never heard of an entire religious population expelled, killed or forcefully converted in a Muslim country. Not like what happened to Muslims and Jews in Spain at the hands of the Christians in the infamous Inquisition, or like what happened to the Africans brought to this country as slaves and converted by force to Christianity, or like the Jews killed by Christian Germany in World War II.

Is there oppression in some Muslim countries? Sure there is, but not on the basis of religion. Saddam Hussein had Muslims and Christians in his team as well as in the opposition. The same applies to the Assad regime in Syria and other countries. Unfortunately, people make sweeping generalizations such as "Muslim countries don't allow women to drive cars" when indeed all of them, except Saudi Arabia, don't have such restriction. Do Muslims have some elements that are extremist? Sure they do but they make a tiny fraction, certainly not more than in Christianity or other religions.

I did not intend to irritate my Christian brethren with this letter. I have always worked on building bridges with others, and will keep doing so. We have an Arab proverb: "Look at yourself in the mirror before you criticize others."

Muslims and religious freedom

Re: What Muslims should be emphasizing, letter.

The letter writer made a lot of honest mistakes. The worst mistake was accusing predominantly Muslim countries of not allowing freedom of religion, which cannot be further from the truth. How does one think the church of Bethlehem survived for centuries under Muslim rule? Why then does my former country of Egypt still have the oldest monasteries of the world, like St. Anthony's, built in 356 A.D., and the famous St. Catherine (565 A.D.), and Ben Ezra Synagogue in Cairo from the ninth century?

Indeed, doesn't the fact that other religious minorities continue to exist in Muslim countries for more than 1,300 years speak for freedom of religion, not against it?

Malaysia beats Hillsborough

Re: What Muslims should be emphasizing.

The letter writer's statement that of the nations dominated by Islam "not one allows freedom of religion" is simply not true.

For several years, I lived in Malaysia where Islam is the official religion. During that time, I had the occasion to be serenaded by Christmas carolers while dining in a restaurant in Kuala Lumpur, attend a huge Christmas pageant in a cathedral and enjoy my son recognizing the hymn Onward Christian Soldiers being sung as we passed a church on Sunday - even though the hymn was being sung in Chinese.

Official holidays celebrated in Malaysia include the birthdays of Mohammed, Buddha and Jesus, as well as several other Hindu, Muslim and Christian holidays. We can't seem to manage this level of religious freedom in Hillsborough County.

Immigrants should be legal ones

Re: Undocumented students endure tuition hardship, Jan. 2.

The media seem to consistently ignore illegal immigrants as an issue, except for biased support from some with an apparent interest in denying the problem exists at all. Now the euphemism is "undocumented."

What part of "sneaking in is illegal" do you not understand? Or must you be asked in Spanish?

Many of us are naturally sympathetic to immigrants. Indeed, we are mostly descended from immigrants - but law-abiding ones.

Let's keep these criminals out of America!

Be clear about domestic violence

Re: Marital dispute ends in deaths, Jan. 1.

Please do not refer to domestic violence as a "marital dispute" as you did in a headline last Sunday. Domestic violence is one person abusing another: abuser and victim. It is not a "dispute," which implies two viable points of view. That's kind of like referring to a mugging as a "monetary dispute" between the mugger and the victim.

[Last modified January 6, 2006, 01:04:19]