The Battle for Accountability in Malaysia and Turkey

Politics is a central aspect of social organization as it represents the activities that aim at coordinating the interests and concerns of citizens. Politics presupposes an agreement on a set of rules to ensure representation of citizens in decision making and governance, and to facilitate peaceful transition of power. In most functional democracies, elected officials are replaced whenever they lose popular support in national elections.

Many Muslim countries have embraced the democratic process, but most have not yet succeeded in overcoming the old politics of palace intrigue that plagued governance in historical Muslim countries. Sheer police and military power, as well as political conspiracy and trickery, is often used by political elites in Muslim countries to seek or maintain power. Malaysia and Turkey are among the very few Muslim societies that are ahead in practicing democracy, and holding their political leaders accountable, as both have a thriving multi-party system and markedly developed civil society.

Recent events in these two countries illustrate the difficult transition to democratic governance in Muslim societies. After a torturous route to political participation, the Islamically-inspired Justice and Development Party (known by its Turkish acronym as AKP) that represents the middle class is locked in a power struggle with nationalist elites. The latter have shown willingness to use the judiciary and the military to undermine the standing of a popular political party that commands 2/3 majority in the parliament. The immediate conflict is over the constitutionality of allowing devout Muslim women to wear head scarf on university campuses.

Rather than recognizing that wearing head cover is a personal choice and religious obligation that must be protected by the democratic principle of freedom of religion, the nationalists accuse AKP of undermining the secular tradition of Turkey, and are considering a ban on the party and its leaders. The party chair and Turkey's current Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan was imprisoned in the late 90's for reciting a religious poem when he was Istanbul's mayor. The nationalists apparently believe that they can fool the Turkish people by using democratic language and concerns to hide their desire to maintain grip on power and deny their ideological opponents the opportunity to control state institutions through fair democratic competition.

A similar struggle is underway now in Malaysia. The leaders of the ruling party, which has been in power since Malaysia gained independence in 1957, have apparently decided to maintain grip on power by implicating the leader of opposition in a sexual scandal. Anwar Ibrahim, who led the opposition into a major political victory last March and who is poised to become the country prime minister, stands accused of sodomy by a young political aide. Najib Tun Razak, Malaysia's deputy prime minister and long term rival of Anwar, admitted to meeting Anwar's accuser in his residence two days before the later made his damaging accusation. The deputy prime minister is himself linked to the murder of a Mongolian translator, and his political adviser and two of his aides are among those charged with the crime. The current sodomy accusation is a rerun of a similar tactics used in 1998 by the same party to deny Anwar, then the party's deputy president, the right to contest for the highest office.

Both Recep Erdogan and Anwar Ibrahim represent a new breed of democratic leaders in Muslim countries driven by a new vision of politics rooted in Islamic morality that stresses the social accountability of political leaders. Both espouse commitment to religious freedom and to political and social pluralism. And both have shown the willingness to make great personal sacrifices to advance their vision of politics.

The heroic acts of courageous leaders like Anwar and Recep, while greatly admirable and inspiring, would not be sufficient by themselves to transform Malaysia and Turkey into functional democracies. Such transformation requires a new political awareness and activism that take away political power from the exclusive control of political elites and makes fair and equitable governance the concerns of engaging citizenry. It requires the emergence of vibrant and assertive civil-society organizations that reject political trickery and manipulation, and demand that elected officials are held accountable for their statements and actions.

Most importantly, transformation to true democratic rule presupposes a citizenry that is not willing to be fooled by its elected officials. The Qur'an gives a great insight into the source of power enjoyed by dictators and tyrants: their ability to fool the people to garner their support. This ability is, ironically, derived from the willingness of a corrupt people to be fooled into accepting false claims in exchange for gaining personal advantage.

The Qur'an presents the Pharaoh as the epitome of arrogant and arbitrary political power, and attributes his ability to govern with impunity to the willingness of his people to follow him, even when he made fool of them: "[Pharaoh] made fool of his people and they obeyed him, they were truly people given to corruption." While the contemporary ruling elites in nominal democracies may not compare in arrogance with the Pharaoh, the dynamics of retaining political control is often the same.

The efforts by the vestiges of arrogant and arbitrary power in Malaysia and Turkey are trying to maintain their political edge by fooling the citizens of their countries through political games and trickery, thereby turning national politics into circus. Their failure will signal the end of politics as the instrument of power-hungry leaders and the beginning of politics as an exercise in social responsibility. It will also make their two important countries a source of hope and inspiration for future transformation in other Muslim societies.

Will democracy take hold in modern Muslim societies? The next few months are poignant with agonizing fear and great hope, and the answer hinges on whether Malaysians and Turks will succumb to the intimidation of the power hungry or show the maturity and courage worthy of free and principled people.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Official Wire
Media Monitors Network
Alarab Online
Malaysia Kini

Read more >>>

Palestine: From Prophecies to Prophetic Principles

The conflict in Palestine threatens to destabilize world politics and embolden fundamentalist demands for religiously exclusive political states. The principle of rule of law has suffered immensely under the climate of fear that followed the terrorist attacks on the American homeland on September 11, 2001. Extremists in both the East and the West are working hard to deepen the divide, and turn a political conflict into a religious war. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being used by the far right in both Muslim and Western countries to justify bigotry and to demonize people on the other side of the divide.

There is a dire need to use our creative imagination and to find a just and equitable solution to the conflict. The logic of “creating facts on the ground” and “might makes right” must give way to the spirit of the age, of equal dignity and the rule of law. It might be well the case that conflict might continue to play itself out until complete victory or complete defeat is achieved. But this would definitely be a tragic moment, as it would signal the triumph of force over morality and rationality. It would be a tragic moment, because by then, the conflict would have created overwhelming misery on all sides that no human being would be willing to contemplate.

The solution to the conflict must not be based on Jewish, Christian, or Muslim prophecies that would only inflame hate and mistrust among the followers of the three religious traditions. I should, rather, be based on the prophetic principles cherished by the three religious traditions. It must be based on the shared committed to the sanctity of human life, and the universally accepted principles of equal dignity, freedom of religion, democracy, and the rule of law.

Will prophetic principles triumph over self-styled and self-fulfilled prophecies? I am tempted by my own faith in the power of transcendental principles and values to answer in the positive. I do, however, equally believe that the answer to the question hinges on the actions of members of the communities of faith. I do hope that people of reason and deep faith do privilege the clear principles demanded by their religions and international conventions over vague prophecies interpreted by fallible and rationally limited and emotionally charged human beings.

To read the full article, titled "Elusive Peace: 60 Years of Pain and Surffering," please click on the link below:
http://lsinsight.org/articles/Current/PropheticPrinciples.htm

Read more >>>

Interfaith Dialogue a Moral Duty to Finding Common Ground

Extreme voices in the three religions that claim the monotheist heritage of Prophet Abraham--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--are busy sowing the seeds of confrontation and hate. They have recently taken the advantage of the politically rooted tensions between western and Middle Eastern countries to develop misunderstanding and mistrust among the followers of these religions.

Quoting selectively from Islamic sources, they have painted Islam as an intolerant religion that urges its followers to hate people of other faiths. This depiction belies both the historical record of Muslims dealing with the followers of other faiths, and, most importantly, the Qur'anic message itself. Although historical Muslim societies were imperfect, there are plenty of examples to show that Islamic values inspired Muslims to develop multi-religious societies in which people of diverse religious backgrounds lived in considerable harmony. The tolerance of Medieval Muslim Spain and the invitation extended to Jews expelled from Jerusalem to return to the city upon the defeat of the Crusaders are two shining examples.

The Qur'an reiterates a fundamental truth taught by all the prophets who were sent by God to guide human endeavors. It asserts that true and honest living is the assured way for spiritual and social harmony, and for protecting the long term self interests of every human being.

The Qur'an further asserts that humans are fallible and can never be free of error in understanding and judgment. Human knowledge is imperfect, and subject to bias and error. Knowledge of intentions and inner thoughts are beyond human capacity, and so is the knowledge of the final destiny of individuals. People of faith must show humility and put their trust in divine wisdom and the absolute justice of God, and must focus on doing what is right and just, instead of sitting in judgment on the eternal salvation of others. The Qur'an is clear that only God knows who is true and sincere in worship and service, and who has gone astray.

"Your lord knows best who strays from his way: He knows best who they are that receive His guidance." (6:117)

"And we granted them clear signs in matters (of religion): it was only after knowledge had been granted to them that they fell into schisms, through insolent envy among themselves. Verily your lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment as to those matters in which they set up differences." (45:17)

The duty of the faithful is, therefore, not to judge others and look down on those who have different understanding and faith, but respect their choices and try his or her best to live an upright life and manifest the values of his and her faith through good work and good deeds.

"To you we sent the scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that has come to you. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, he would have made you a single People, but (his plan is) to test you in what he hath given you; so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is he that will show you the truth of the matters in which you dispute." (5:48)

The Qur'an came to confirm the truth revealed in early scriptures, and the people of the book, the followers of the revealed scriptures, have a special place in the Qur'an, particularly those who carry the Abrahamic legacy. Significant portions of the Qur'an focus on the story of the Biblical prophets and their followers, the Jews and Christians. It presents their stories as the story of the journey of faith, reminding the followers of the last revelation of the ups and downs in the struggle of the early communities of faith.

Some commentators have stressed the down side of that story by focusing on the Qur'anic critique of the People of the Book. The Qur'an has pointed out several excesses and mistakes committed by the followers of the Biblical prophets, and warned the followers of Prophet Muhammad against committing similar excesses.

Yet the Qur'an is also full of stories of great struggles and shining examples of the followers of early prophets whose commitment and devotion were crucial for establishing the Monotheistic traditions and translating divine guidance into social practices: The strong faith of Saul (Talout) and those who stood firmly with him (2:249); the devotion of the people of the Trench who remained true to their faith in the face of a horrifying aggression committed by ruthless enemies (85:1-11); and the unwavering commitment of the followers of Christ to the ethical code and compassionate spirit he brought to humanity (61:14). Prophet Muhammad repeatedly emphasized that his mission confirmed those of early prophets. He directed early Muslims to seek refuge in Abyssinia, pointing out that the country was ruled by a just Christian King. This was the beginning of an excellent relationship and strong alliance between Muslims and Christians in Abyssinia that lasted for a thousand years.

Therefore, Muslim attitude toward the followers of other religions, particularly the People of the Book, should not be one of self-righteousness and pride, but one of compassion, mutual respect, and concern for the wellbeing and welfare of other communities. The Qur'an encourages Muslims to cooperate for the common good and to search from a common ground, based on mutual respect and help.

"Say: O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will)." (3:94)

The common ground Muslims are asked to seek with the followers of other religions is a society in which people are free to worship God. In such open society Muslims must display positive attitude and unwavering respect of the followers of other faiths. Dealing with respect and positive engagement does not mean that differences in doctrine and interpretation do not matter. Rather, it means that those differences must be addressed through free and open dialogue.

It is this open, free, and dignified dialogue that allows the followers of various religious traditions to affirm their diversity and discuss their similarities and differences, and it is what Islam requires from its followers. Muslims have a moral and religious obligation to engage in interfaith dialogue with other communities of faith, and they must do that by maintaining ethical standards required by the Qur'an, including the directive to "argue with [the follower of the revealed books] in ways that are best and most gracious."

This article appeared in the following publications:

iView
The American Muslim

Read more >>>

Hijab: Personal Choice Not State Law

Hijab, the head cover Muslim women wear in keeping with their religious traditions, has become in modern times a politically charged issue in several Muslim countries, and more recently in Europe. In the early eighties, Iran imposed hijab on its female citizens, while Syria banned it from schools during the same period. Syria gradually came to term with hijab, as the number of Syrian women who chose to wear it increased drastically during the nineties. Hijab is enforced today in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and banned in Tunisia and Turkey. France banned the hijab in 2004, and far right politicians and pundits are calling for similar ban in other European countries, and have already succeeded in doing so in the Belgium city of Antwerp.

The Turkish parliament passed last week a constitutional amendment that practically repealed early constitutional provisions that allowed the Turkish government to ban hijab from government buildings, universities, and schools in the late nineties. Although the lifting of ban is not in force yet, the confrontation over this issue with secularists who control the military and the courts has already started. Secularist Turks are up in arms, protesting the new amendment, and preparing to challenge it in court.

The debate over hijab is emotionally charged, with secular Turks presenting the move as the first step toward ending democracy in Turkey and forcing all Turkish women to wear headscarf. This alarmist language has clouded the debate and created a sense of panic, as the choices presented are based on the logic of either/or, as if the only choices society can make is that between banning or enforcing the hijab. These are of course false choices, as society can choose neither to ban nor enforce. The third choice is the one available to women in most Muslim countries. In most societies, the decision to wear headscarf, or to take it off, is a personal choice.

Yet, the real problem is not in the decision a woman makes, but in the politicization of that decision. The problem lies in the moral inconsistency and the use of double standards in addressing an issue concerning individual choice and freedom of expression. The only morally defendable position is in denying the state the right to either force or prohibit people to follow practices they genuinely believe to be required by their religious traditions, particularly when these practices do not violate the rights of others.

The argument to ban hijab often rests on a paternalistic attitude derived from the dominant position enjoyed by the group to which the person who advocate hijab ban (or enforcement) belongs. For decades now, anti hijab writers refused to consider it as a personal choice and an individual right, protected under international humanitarian law. Reza Afshari, for instance, insists that wearing hijab must not be seen as a self-expression of Muslim women, but rather as a symptom of a male-dominant culture. He, further, argues that Muslim women have internalized the "male-dominated culture." He even claims that, in addition to being sub-consciously misguided, Muslim women have another reason for wearing hijab, namely to avoid "those sanctioned practices that permit harassment of women in public, forcing them to comply with repressive norms and rewarding them by according them a marked difference in the ways men treat women in public."

The argument is both flawed and sexist. It is flawed because it can be equally used to undermine the right of women who chose not to wear hijab by those who could argue that the latter style of dressing is not a personal choice, but is rather influenced by the dominant culture. The argument is, more importantly, sexist as it assumes that women cannot have a mind of their own, and are always vulnerable to manipulation by male members of their society.

Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that the above assertion is correct, then the remedy cannot be a decision to ban hijab and deny women the right to personal choices, in violation of equal protection of the law. The remedy must rely on persuasion, education, and enactment of laws that would empower women to act on their on volition, instead of being forced by the state to wear the headscarf or take it off.

A similar argument was recently made by Cheryl Benard in a report that was published by the RAND Corporation in 2004. Benard refused to see the Muslim headscarf as a religious practice, and chose instead to castigate it as a provocative political statement and a challenge to Western democracy. Benard insisted that hijab is worn by women who belong to one of several problematic categories. "In the United States," she claimed, "hijab is typically worn by the following groups: recent immigrants from rural, traditional parts of the Muslim world; fundamentalists; unassimilated traditionalists belonging to the strongly observant minority; the elderly;" and, the author states that when it is worn by "young women," these women "want to get attention and make a provocative statement in their schools, colleges, or workplaces."

What is provocative is not that Muslim women are choosing to wear hijab, but that there are still individuals that lay claim to intellectualism and liberal tradition who, in keeping with Orientalist strategies, continue to deal with the followers of the Islamic faith as silent objects of research who must always be defined by their detractors, but never allowed to define themselves in their own voices. This sad state of affairs was highlighted in an article by Manal Omar that was published in the Guardian in April 2007 under the title "I felt more welcome in the Bible belt."

Manal narrates in the article her ordeal during a short stay in Oxford, England, when she was challenged by an angry man who did not approve of her wearing a swimsuit that covered her body. Not only did the man speak with her in condescending voice, but the newspaper that reported the event with sensation and negative spin refused to interview her, and relied solely on the account of her accuser.

She ellequontly described her painful experience as she was rendered an object of ridicule, and her story was used as a springboard for attacks on multiculturalism and Muslim immigrants as it was debated on an online discussion forum. "Looking back," she wrote, "what disturbed me the most about the debate was that my very identity was reduced to a cluster of cliches about Muslim women. I was painted in broad strokes as an oppressed, unstable Muslim woman. I was made invisible, an object of ridicule and debate, with no opinion or independent thoughts. The fact that I had dedicated the past 10 years to working on women's issues on a global level, led a delegation of American women into Afghanistan in 2003, and put my life on the line in Iraq struggling for women's constitutional rights were clearly beyond anyone's imagination."

Politicians and pundits who question the right of Muslim women to practice their faith do not only ignore the leadership role they play, but also fail to recognize their capacity to be inspired by their faith. The claim that hijab is worn today by oppressed women is seriously flawed, and is remnant of 19th century Orientalim. Many women who chose hijab today are highly educated and actively involved in public life. They include lawyers, journalists, politicians, directors of non-profit organizations, human rights advocates, professors, and leaders of religious groups and grassroots organizations.

It is about time that Muslim women's personal choices are respected and their voices are heard.

This article appeared in the following publications

Media Monitors Network
Middle East Online
Alarab Online
Online Journal
Aljazeera Magazine
Dawn

Read more >>>

Undermining Civil Liberties at Home

Civil liberties are always precious for free people, but particularly so during times of turbulence when the future seems uncertain and society struggles to gain its balance and move in the right direction. These are, sadly, times when opportunists try to advance their fortune without regard to other people's rights, bigots hide behind the language of patriotism, and freedom is curtailed in the name of security. It is under such conditions that civil liberties and the right to dissent become exceedingly important, as free and open debate becomes essential for pursuing the best course of action.

Yet bigots, racists, and zealots have always tried to pursue their narrow agenda during the time of war and conflict by exploiting fear and hiding behind patriotic rhetoric. The last time zealots used foreign threats to silence defenders of human rights and critics of foreign policy was during the fifties, when a junior congressman with the name of Joseph McCarthy used his position and exploited national fear and anxiety to attack his ideological opponents. McCarthy confused dissent with disloyalty, and claimed to defend freedom abroad as he was undermining it at home.

McCarthy, for instance, accused the US Army of harboring communists and described the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of being "a front for, and doing the work of, the Communist Party." He went so far as to question the loyalty of the Democratic Party, accusing it of "twenty years of treason."

His divisive and misguided approach was eloquently described by a courageous journalist with the name of Edward Murrow, who decided to confront McCarthy on March 19, 1954. "[Senator McCarthy's] primary achievement," Murrow asserted on national TV at the height of the McCarthy era, "has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law."

The neo-conservative pundits, who lead a smear campaign with the aim to marginalize Muslim Americans, read from McCarthy's manual. They have repeatedly painted Muslim Americans critical of their inhumane and exploitative foreign policy as disloyal. They most recently chided Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England for attending the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in 2006 and for inviting ISNA officers to visit the Pentagon. They have accused ISNA, and every other Muslim American organization of repute, of being sympathetic to terrorism for the sheer fact that these organizations have been critical of human rights violations by friendly foreign countries, including Israel, and have defended the civil rights of minorities under occupation, including the Palestinians.

In an article published in the Washington Times under the provocative title "Front-Gate," Frank Gaffney called Congress to investigate the "judgment," even the "loyalty," of government officials who interact with Muslim leaders and organizations. Gaffney, the president of the Center of Security Policy, a neo-conservative think tank, has taken every opportunity in the last five years to rebuke public officials who met with Muslim leaders, including Karen Hughes, former Deputy Secretary of State. His insinuation was followed by an attack on Hesham Islam by Claudia Rosett, a staffer of another neo-conservative think tank with the name of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy. Rosett castigated Mr. Islam, a retired Navy commander who served his adopted country with distinction and honor, basically for having the tenacity to reach the position of special assistant to Secretary Gordon, having been born in Egypt and having expressed critical views of Israel's policies.

Members of the Muslim American community, including main stream Muslim organizations and leaders, have come under concerted and intense attacks by neo-conservative organizations because they have expressed concerns about the dire conditions of Palestinians under occupation. Although these organizations have been subject to close scrutiny by government agencies, and have not been implicated in any violation of anti-terrorism statutes, neo-conservative pundits and organizations continue to use innuendo, spin, haft truths, and unfounded accusations to cast a shadow of doubt on their loyalty and their commitment to the rules of law, and to isolate them and cut them off of political debate.

Other neo-conservative organizations, including Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum, have worked tirelessly to set up nominal Muslim organizations of insignificant membership and following, in an effort to undermine mainstream Muslim organizations. Some of these organizations surfaced last month to write a letter of protest to Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform Judaism (URJ), published in the Jewish Weekly. The letter asked Rabbi Yoffie to withdraw his organization from interfaith dialogue engagement with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The organizations, led by Stephen Schwartz's Center for Islamic Pluralism, disagreed with Rabbi Yaffie's assertion of the need for American Jews to learn first hand about Muslims.

The authors of the letter, who called themselves "moderate" Muslims, had the effrontery to question whether the president of the largest Jewish group in the country can speak for American Jews, suggesting that they are in a better position to do so: "If Rabbi Yoffie believes that Jews are ignorant about Islam, he should be recognized as speaking only for himself." Schwartz, converted from Judaism to Islam few years ago, continues to promote a neo-conservative agenda, and maintains close relationship with a network of Muslim bashers, that includes Daniel Pipes.

In response, Rabbi Mark Pelavin of the Union of Reform Judaism (URJ), rejected the claims by the self-proclaimed "moderate" Muslims that ISNA supports terrorism and promote violence, citing past statements and positions taken by the leading grassroots Muslim organization in the United States. The URJ's response reminded the letter's authors and their sponsors that no one who is serious about engaging Muslim Americans can ignore their largest organization: "If we are serious about engagement with the Muslim community, and we are, than it makes sense to go where the American Muslims are."

The far right in general, and the neo-conservative network in particular, will press on their quest to silence the Muslim community and to prevent Muslims to engage in an urgently needed national debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But these efforts can succeed only at the expense of America's democracy, and America's ability to engage in national discussion, essential for developing the right policies for America's welfare and for world peace. If these undemocratic efforts are allowed to continue, they will not only lead to further isolate the United States and undermine its credibility as a society of equal rights and due process, but they will eventually undermine freedom at home.

McCarthy, who exploited the Cold War's uncertainties to persecute his ideological opponents, was defeated because courageous Americans like Edward Murrow, George H. Bender, Joseph Nye Welch, and others spoke in opposition of his witch hunt campaign against patriot Americans. Muslim bashers, who exploit the War on Terrorism to persecute Muslim Americans, will be stopped when more American leaders, like Eric Yoffie, reject their ploys to marginalize and silence Muslims, and speak out loudly against their divisive and deceptive voices that would only undermine our freedom and democracy.

It is imperative that American leaders speak out against bigoted voices that attack Islam and Muslims. We should all recall with pride the words of Edward Murrow, which are as true today as they were fifty years ago. We need only replace the phrase "Senator McCarthy" with "neo-conservative pundits." "This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent--or for those who approve...We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom--what's left of it--but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

This article appeared in the following publications:
Middle East Online
Media Monitors Network
Online Journal
Alarab Online
Official Wire
Aljazeera

Read more >>>

Gaza Exodus Symptom of Grave Situation

The Palestinians of Gaza have been under a tight blockade since June 2007 when Hamas consolidated its control over Gaza's security. The blockade, aims at forcing Hamas out of power, has been strongly supported by the Bush administration, and reluctantly by the Mubarak's government in Egypt. After Israel decided to tighten the blockade last week, by cutting the supply of fuel used to generate electricity, Palestinians broke out of the walls that separate the Gaza's portion from Egypt's portion of Rafah. Deprived of life's essentials, including food, medicine, and fuel, Palestinians desperately flooded the stores of Egyptian Rafah to buy every thing they could lay hands on.

The collapse of the 7-miles-steel wall that separated Gaza from Egypt creates new dynamics in the region. It is now the responsibility of the Egyptians to push the Palestinian back inside Gaza's fences, and to make sure that they comply with the blockade requirements. Egypt has already sent a reinforcement of riot police to push the Palestinians back to their enclave against widespread demands by the Egyptian public to keep the borders open. Mubarak is engaged in careful cost-benefit calculations to make sure that the Gaza situation does not destabilize his government. The question he confronts is quite clear: should he succumb to pressure from Israel and the US government and invoke the wrath of his people, or should he comply with popular pressure at the expense of loosing the two billion dollars his government receives annually from the United States?

Palestinians are likely to resist efforts by the Egyptian police to close the borders, and to use the skills they learned in the past decades under Israeli occupation to maintain their freedom. The Palestinians of Gaza could only be contained, though, at a high price that would include further radicalization of the people of the Middle East.

Israel has, for long, been using heavy-handed tactics to force the Palestinians to accept the expansion of settlements to the Palestinian territories it occupies since 1967. Israel has been busy creating new facts on the ground, hoping that despite their current fierce resistance, Palestinians would ultimately accept the “facts on the ground.” As it was engaging in prolonged negotiation in the 1990's to withdraw from the Occupied Territories as part of the Oslo peace accords negotiations, Israel continued to build settlements throughout the West Bank and Gaza during the nineties. It has, in the last seven years, further escalated its effort to create a strong Israeli presence.

Israel's ability to ignore blatant human rights violations against the Palestinians derives from the great support it receives from the World Jewry and Western societies. Western Jews, emancipated and empowered by the Enlightenment, are inspired by a long history of anti-Semitism that became pronounced in nineteenth-century Europe, and culminated in the Holocaust in mid-twentieth century. Many members of the Jewish American community, who were actively involved in the civil liberties movement, are ill-at-ease watching events unfolding in the Middle East. Despite their disapproval of harsh and inhumane Israeli policies toward Palestinians, they are reluctant to criticize Israel for the fear that such criticism would undermine Western support.

The important questions that ultimately matter for finding a lasting solution in the Middle East are two: Is silence the best approach to support the Jews in the Holy Land? And is force the best approach to dealing with Palestinians demands for equal rights?

There has been little public debate on the plight of the Palestinians and the Israeli policies responsible for Palestinian misery. The dominant discourse tends to shift the blame from Israel, the occupying force, to the Palestinians. Very few Americans have in the past challenged "blaming the victim" argument. With the deterioration of social and economic conditions, few leading Americans gathered their courage to question Israeli actions against Palestinians.

Jimmy Carter, former US president who sponsored the Camp David talk that led to the Peace Accord between Egypt and Israel, discussed in details Israel aggressive policies against the Palestinians in his recent book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. As a result, Carter has been demonized as anti-Semite in talk shows and commentaries. John Mearsheimer of Harvard University and Stephen Walt of the University of Chicago received even harsher treatment for discussing the impact of the lobbying activities of pro-Israel hawks on the moral standing, and potentially on the economic and political interests, of the United States.

Even Jewish leaders who spoke against Israeli excesses have not been immune to pressures and attacks. Edgar Bronfman Sr, the president of the World Jewish Congress, was traumatized for writing a letter to President Bush in 2003 urging him to persuade Israel to curb construction of its controversial "security fence." His critics accused him of "perfidy" and argued that “it would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel."

Likewise, Seymour Reich the president of the Israel Policy Forum, was denounced and accused of being "irresponsible," for advising Condoleezza Rice in November 2005 to ask Israel to reopen a critical border crossing in the Gaza Strip. His critics insisted that "there is absolutely no room in the Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing against the security-related policies . . . of Israel." The severity of the attacks forced Reich to announce that "the word 'pressure' is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel."

Stifling of debate is dangerous because it undermines all efforts to explore a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, thereby allowing things to deteriorate to the point of crisis. Jewish peace and tranquility cannot be achieved at the expense of Palestinian suffering. If history, including the recent history of European Jews, teaches us anything it should be that oppression and force can never break the resolve of a people to live in dignity, but can only complicate the possibility of reconciling the parties locked up in bloody confrontation. After decades of marginalization and mistreatment, the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are more determined than ever to confront their occupiers. And the Palestinians in the refugee camps in neighboring Arab countries are more eager to return to their homeland, which has become for the second generation of Palestinians born in the Diaspora a Promised Land of a sort.

Yasmine Ali captures the sentiments expressed by Palestinian children during her visit to a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon in 2000. These sentiments included a short essay posted on the school's Wall Magazine . "Palestine is a very, very beautiful land," the essay by an elementary school student reads. "There is a sea of chocolate in Palestine... Children are always happy in Palestine... Women don't gossip in Palestine... The streets are very clean in Palestine ... It is always Eid ["Feast Day"] in Palestine ... Parents don't die in Palestine." Evidently, Palestine is no more a Promised Land only for Jews, but for exiled Palestinians as well.

Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is intractable, and the future of the conflict is unpredictable. People of conscience on all sides of the issue have, though, a heavy moral duty to fulfill: to ensure that the solution to the conflict is fair and humane, and that the human rights of all involved are respected and protected. Relying on disparity of power and on efforts to keep the situation in the Holy Land away from public debate can only exacerbate an already dire situation, and ensure the continuation of anguish and suffering.

The blockade against Palestinians in Gaza is a form of collective punishment and must not be allowed to stand. Collective punishment was banned by the Fourth Geneva Convention, and we must not allow it to slip back in. All people of conscience should speak up and demand humane treatment for the long-suffering Palestinians. Silence is not an option, because those who choose silence allow extremist voices to decide the future.

The article appeared in the following publications:

The Middle East Online
Official Wire
Media Monitors Network
Online Journal
Aljazeera Magazine

Read more >>>

End the Disgrace of Guantanamo

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Martin Luther King Jr.

Amnesty International has embarked on a campaign to close Guantanamo detention facilities, adding an important voice to the rising demands to end Guantanamo disgrace. For years, Americans have been reluctant to criticize the Bush administration's efforts to keep the detention of terrorism suspects outside the purview of both American and International law. However, with the disturbing revelations of abuse and violation of detainees' human rights, and with recent reports of the ways several unsuspecting bystanders ended up in the ranks of Guantanamo detainees, anyone who cares about justice and the rule of law must join the call to close the infamous facilities, and end the moral and legal excesses committed under the veil of secrecy, and in the name of promoting freedom and the rule of law.

Gunatanamo Detention Facilities represent a sad and painful moment in US international conduct, as it runs contrary to the American founding principles and the self-pride of many Americans who see their country as the guardian of democracy and human rights. This moment of infamy was born out of arrogance, exaggerated fears, self-delusion, zealotry, and disregard to American and International law. In prosecuting the "Global War on Terrorism," the Bush administration has committed several serious mistakes that undermined the world standing of the United States as a leading advocate for human rights. None of these, however, rivals the negative impact caused by Guantanamo detention facilities.

The anger over the treatment of Guantanamo detainees reached a new height in November 2006, when German attorney Wolfgang Kaleck filed war crime complaint with the German Federal Attorney General against 14 high ranking officials and advisors in the Bush administration. The list included Robert Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Stephen Cambone, Ricardo Sanchez, and Geoffrey Miller. The complaint cited complicity in torture and other crimes against humanity at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Kaleck acted on behalf of 11 victims of torture and other human rights abuses, as well as about 30 human rights activists and organizations who are co-plaintiffs. The co-plaintiffs to the war crimes prosecution include 1980 Nobel Peace Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel (Argentine), 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner Martín Almada (Paraguay) and Theo van Boven, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture.

Robert Gonzales, former US Attorney General, and Donald Rumsfeld, former US Secretary of Defense, were particularly implicated in the making of the Guantanamo's disgrace, as the former led the efforts to authorize torture, while the latter introduced the "extended interrogation techniques," to US military manuals. So was Geoffrey Miller, Guantanamo detention facilities commander, who was evidently responsible for setting up procedures in both Guantanamo and Abu Graib that led to the revelation of the appalling practices of degradation and torture.

Up until 2002, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was used to house Cuban and Haitian refugees intercepted on the high seas on their way to the United States. On June 8, 1993, United States District Court Judge Sterling Johnson Jr. declared the holding of the refugees who fled Haiti unconstitutional, and the last Haitian migrants departed in late 1995. In 2002, US military designated the camp a military prisons for terrorism suspects.

The legal status of the detainees and their treatment came under criticism from the outset. The criticism was initially sporadic and focused on the designation of prisoners as "illegal enemy combatant" and the open cage-like cells were the prisoners were kept. The international criticism prompted the US military to build better facilities. The Bush administration, however, rejected calls to treat prisoners under the Geneva Convention rules.

A series of abuses that was made public in the last five years mobilized international public opinion, and led to increased demand by American political leaders to close it. Human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, and Amenity International, have repeatedly called for opening up the Guantanamo detention facilities for outside inspection. Other humanitarian organizations, including the Red Cross and the United Nations, have raised serious concerns about the conditions in the facilities. Members of Congress have also voiced their concerns about both interrogation procedures and the negative impact the camp has had on the US moral standing in the world. Charges of mistreatment of prisoners included degradation, physical and metal abuse, torture, violation of religious rights, and desecration of the Qur'an that led to worldwide Muslim outrage.

Calls for closing Guantanamo can now be heard even from once strong supporters of the Bush administration's War on Terror. Thomas Friedman declared, in a recent New York Times' opinion piece, that he "will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans." Friedman, like many other Americans troubled by the way the "War on Terror" has often used to further narrow political and ideological agendas, has come slowly to realize that the policies adopted to fight terrorism are strengthening the hands of the terrorists and extremists and weakening civil rights at home and undermining US standing in the world.

The outrage over Guantanamo is by no means an opposition to the international efforts to confront terrorism and hold terrorists responsible for their horrific actions. It is rather a clear rejection of the attempts to sidestep established legal and constitutional requirements, and to violate basic human rights. Guantanamo detainees have been deprived of the due process of the law, required by the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, and by International Law, which states that anyone who is deprived of liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to review by a court of law to decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention.

Donald Rumsfeld approved in 2002 a list of 16 harsh interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo, most of which were general and allowed for interpretation by interrogators. Many of the techniques involving humiliation were part of a standard "futility" or "ego down" approach, but some have permitted acts that generally considered blatant acts of torture, including "water-boarding," a technique of simulated drowning. Sadly, US Vice President Dick Cheney endorsed openly the use of water-boarding for interrogation of terrorist suspects, even though the technique makes a person feel that his death is imminent. In responding to a radio interviewer from North Dakota station WDAY who asked whether water boarding, was a "no-brainer" if the information it yielded would save American lives, Cheney replied: "It's a no-brainer for me." The promotion of “extended techniques of interrogation” by high ranking members of the Bush administration prompted Congress to pass a bill outlawing torture. Senator John McCain referred to water-boarding as “an extreme measure” and led the congressional endeavor to outlaw it.

Many of the conditions in Guantanamo are in violation of Geneva Convention, which governs treatment of enemy combatant. Article 17 of the Convention states that "no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever." The Bush administration denied that Geneva Convention applies to Guantanamo detainees, but the US Supreme Court disagreed, insisting that the humane treatment requirements apply to all detainees in the War on Terror.

Although known al Qaida members are imprisoned in Guantanamo, many detainees were picked from locations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, and other countries in very mysterious circumstances, and without any clear connection to terrorist groups. The New York Times reported, in June 2004, that not much more than two dozens of the around 750 detainees were closely linked to al Qaida and that only very limited information could have been gotten from questioning them. An Associated Press report claims that some detainees were turned over to the US in return for cash bounties. Amnesty International documented the case of Omar Deghayes, a Libyan living in the U.K. as a refugee, who decided in 2001 to travel to Malaysia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to look for work. In Afghanistan, he was married and had a son. After September 11th, he moved his family to Pakistan. They planned to return to the U.K. but he was arrested in Lahore, Pakistan in April 2002, for a bounty of $5000.

The New York Times reported in November 2004 that the International Committee of the Red Cross accused, in a confidential report issued in July 2004, the U.S. military of using "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions" against prisoners. The Red Cross inspectors concluded that "the construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture." The United States Government has reportedly rejected the Red Cross findings.

The US Government denial was, however, unconvincing given the contradictory statements by key members of the Bush team in charge of implementing the "War on Terror" policies. One of the key figures in the Guantanamo's controversy is Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who commanded the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and later helped set up U.S. operations at Abu Ghraib. The Washington Post reported its July 14, 2005 edition that Gen. Miller was accused by investigators into the interrogation of Guantanamo detainees of failing his duties and was recommended for reprimand by investigators. Miller would have been the highest-ranking officer to face discipline for detainee abuses, but Gen. Bantz Craddock, head of the U.S. Southern Command, declined to follow the recommendation.

Miller traveled to Iraq in September 2003 to assist in the setting of Abu Ghraib's prison, and he later sent in "Tiger Teams" of Guantanamo interrogators and analysts as advisers and trainers. Within weeks of his departure from Abu Ghraib, military working dogs were being used in interrogations, and naked detainees were humiliated and abused by military police soldiers working the night shift.

Colonel Thomas Pappas, head of the military intelligence brigade at Abu Ghraib, claimed that it was Miller's idea to use attack dogs to intimidate prisoners. He insisted that the same tactics were used at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo. Several of the photos taken at Abu Ghraib showed terrified and naked detainees surrounded by dogs. Photos also showed that one of the detainees was even bitten by a dog.

Miller initially denied charges against him, and testified in May 2006 at the courts martial of the Abu Ghraib dog handlers that his instructions on the use of dogs had been misunderstood. Miller testified that he instructed that dogs should be used "only for custody and control of detainees." Miller's testimony was directly contradicted by the commander of Abu Ghraib's Military Police detachment, Col. Jerry Phillabaum.

This was not the only incident Miller's statements were contradicted by his colleagues, as he reversed himself in several other occasions. In July 2005 "discrepancies emerged between Miller's May 2004 testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, and sworn statements he made three months later." Miller told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had only filed a report on a recent visit to Abu Ghraib, and did not talk to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or his top aides about the fact-finding trip. But in a recorded statement to attorneys three months later, Miller said he gave two of Rumsfeld's most senior aides - then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary for Intelligence Steve Cambone - a briefing on his visit and his subsequent recommendations.

Similarly, Major James Yee, the Muslim chaplain who spent one year in Guantanamo, and was responsible for developing the manual for safeguarding the religious rights of the Muslim detainees, charged in his memoir, For God and Country: Religion and Patriotism Under Fire, that Miller routinely incited the guards to hate the detainees. He was arrested on Miller's orders and accused of treason. However, after spending several months in solitary confinement and suffering sensory deprivation, all court-martial charges against him were dropped on March 19, 2004. Miller appealed to secrecy as the ground for not providing any evidence against Maj. Yee, "citing national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence."

Guantanamo has been a knee-jerk reaction to a horrific tragedy committed by misguided terrorists full of anger and vengeance. We already know that a large number of the detainees where arrested because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were kept in custody because of zealotry and disregard of the rules of national and international law. The detainees were kept for years under extreme conditions of deprivation of basic human rights and dignity, even though the majority of them have not been charged with crimes, and were eventually let go because of the lack of evidence after spending many years of abuse, degradation, and mistreatment. It is about time that these detainees are given their day in a court of law, like any person accused of crime. Doing that is not only important for the sake of justice, but also for the sake of ending acts of gross excess, human pain, and international disgrace.

Support Amnesty International Campaign to close Gunatanamo Camp at tearitdown.org

This article appeared in the following publications:

CounterPunch
Online Journal
Official Wire
Media Monitors Network
Middle East Online
iView
Aljazeera

Read more >>>

Steve Emerson's Fantastic Obsession

What would an investigative reporter turned director of a private intelligence operation, who is increasingly obsessed with proving that mainstream Muslim American organizations are radical, do when he fails to find evidence to support his obsession? Human decency and ethical conduct dictate that he give up his obsession and admit that he was wrong. Steve Emerson, the director of the shadowy Investigative Project, thinks otherwise. Rather than doing the right thing and give up his bigoted endeavor, he decides to use fantasy to forge evidence and prolong his compulsive obsession.

Emerson belongs to a network of anti-Muslim pundits who, driven by bigotry and exclusivist ideology, are bent on marginalizing Muslim Americans, and using unscrupulous tactics to distort the image of Muslims and instill fear of Islam and Muslims in the American public. Their strategy is to repeat their unfounded accusations against mainstream Muslim organizations so as to create a public record and then use it to incite federal officials and agencies against Muslim Americans. The idea is that if they can repeat a lie long enough, and use different media outlets to propagate their accusations, the lie in time becomes "believable" and takes the semblance of "truth." Obviously, they have not heeded Abraham Lincoln's wise advice: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

In a recent article published in the National Review Online (June 28, 2007) under the title "Radical Outreach: Bush coddles American apologists for radical Islam," Emerson lashes out against President Bush for appointing a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Emerson made it clear that he resents Bush's initiative, which is aimed at mending fences with the Muslim world, and faults OIC for being critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians under military occupation.

Emerson was particularly upset that President Bush distinguished between Muslims in general and fringe extremist groups whose attacks on innocent civilians have been condemned by Muslim communities throughout the world, and by mainstream Muslim organizations. By making a distinction between ordinary Muslims and extremists, Emerson proclaims, Bush advances the "very talking point [that] is the refuge of America’s supposedly [sic] mainstream Muslim organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Society of North American (ISNA)."

To undermine the distinction between mainstream Muslims and extremists, he goes to the website of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and picks up a news release that was published in 2004. The news release reported then the decision of the US Navy Chief of Chaplains to remove an article by Salman Rushdie that was intended to instigate Muslims against the West and westerners against Islam from the Navy website. I wrote to Rear Admiral Louis V. Iasiello, then the Navy Chief of Chaplains, asking him to reconsider the decision to publish such a divisive article. Chaplain Iaseillo realized that it was a mistake to republish the article and he ordered its removal.

Emerson takes the news release and turns its content upside down, and without any ifs, maybes, or buts he attributes to me the divisive argument advanced by Rushdie. Emerson writes: "In 2004, Louay Safi, a top ISNA official, went further, writing that the 'assertion by 'world leaders' that the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam is nothing but a piece of propaganda and disinformation that was meant to appease Western Muslims and to maintain the coalition against terrorism.'"

Emerson ignores the context of the above statement and omits a key phrase that shows clearly that the quoted argument was that of Rushdie and not my own as he claims. Here is the paragraph which Emerson misquotes in its totality:

"Salman Rushdie's article 'Yes, This is About Islam,' originally published in New York Times, argues that the assertion by 'world leaders' that the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam is nothing but a piece of propaganda and disinformation that was meant to appease Western Muslims and to maintain the coalition against terrorism."

Emerson misrepresentation of my position is not simply an error of omission, but a gross distortion of my words and a malicious attempt to put a spin on my statement so as to support his thesis of assigning anti-American views to Muslim American leaders, scholars, and organizations. My correct position is in complete opposition to what Emerson presented and is not easy to miss as it is spelled out in the subsequent paragraph. Here is my response to Rushdie's argument:

"In his letter, Dr. Safi pointed out that the article not only insult the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide, particularly American soldiers of the Islamic faith, who every day put their lives on the line . . . but its cynicism cannot be easily missed as it accuses the commander in chief, and virtually all senior members of the government, of duplicity."

Mr. Emerson has in the past used innuendo and half-truths to malign mainstream Muslim individuals and organizations, but he has recently reached a new low as he is now willing to use fraud and fabrication to undermine Muslim Americans. His unscrupulous attacks and insinuations against Muslims in general and Muslim Americans in particular must be condemned by every American of conscience, as his hateful and divisive message would, if left unchecked, confuse the public and undermine the efforts to isolate extremism and defeat terrorism.

More insights into Emerson's mission and tactics:

Who is Steve Emerson?
Steven Emerson's Crusade
MPAC Exposes Steve Emerson's Self-Serving Distortions
What Hypocrisy
Steve Emerson's Profile in Source Watch


This article appears in the following publications:

Counterpunch
Official Wire
Media Monitor Network
Middle East Online
iviews
The American Muslim

Read more >>>

Myopic Builders and Elusive Moderates

Building Moderate Muslim Networks is RAND Corporation's second attempt at devising a strategy to help prevent "some Muslim societies [from] falling back even further into patterns of intolerance and violence." And to do that RAND reassigns Caryl Benard, the author of the first report Civil Democratic Islam, to join three more scholars for preparing its new report.

The present report makes little improvements over the previous one, and suffers from the same faulty assumptions and flawed analysis. The new report moves away from overtly relying on "lifestyle" for distinguishing friends from foes, and shifts the emphasis to a set of political values. RAND's new research team uses a list of 10 criteria to separate moderate and radical Muslims. The emphasis is less focused on religious practices, as attention turns to ideology and commitment to free and open society.

The current study recognizes that the entrenched authoritarian governments and the decline of civil-society institutions in much of the Muslim world "have left the mosque as one of the few avenues for the expression of popular dissatisfaction with prevailing political, economic, and social conditions." Yet the authors seem less concerned with the need to withdraw support from authoritarian regimes responsible for destroying civil society in much of the Muslim world. Rather, the authors are exceedingly obsessed with the goal of marginalizing social groups, even the most moderate of them, that appeal to Islamic values as the basis for sociopolitical reform. I have already discussed at length in my response to RAND's early report why this obsession is counterproductive and will only feed into political radicalization, and have nothing to add to this point here.

One cannot help but notice that the report consistently places the blame on Muslim societies. It refuses to assign any responsibility for the radicalization of Muslim politics to the cynical strategies advocated by foreign policy experts. These strategies call for freedom and democracy simultaneously as they continue to urge support to friendly authoritarian regimes.

In discussing the Danish cartoon saga, for instance, the report directs the blame for this sad and unfortunate episode to the "Danish imams," who the report asserts "caused the cartoon controversy to spiral into an international conflagration." No blame is placed at the door of the newspaper that published the offensive cartoons, despite the fact that the newspaper was implicated in deliberate efforts to demonize the emerging Danish Muslim community. Blaming the Danish imams is the equivalent of blaming the Rutgers University women's basketball team for complaining about Don Imus’s racial slur and abuse, and for making their indignations known to the public, leading to his ousting from his job.

Among the many faulty assumptions on which the report builds its recommendations is that the Muslim World's Moderates, defined as secularist and liberal Muslims, lack the resources they need to dominate Muslim societies. Moderates, the report asserts, "do not have the resources" they need to create viable networks to counter the radicals. They lack the skills to do that themselves and require an "external catalyst." The United States can, the report continues, serve in the role of catalyst by utilizing the experience it gained "during the Cold War to foster networks of people committed to free and democratic ideas. The United States "critical role" consists in leveling the playing field for moderates."

The reality is that radicals in most Muslim countries constitute small and fringe groups whose impact far exceeds their numbers because they are willing to employ shocking violence in pursuing their goals. Further, many of the Middle Eastern regimes are ruled by elites who are socially secular and liberal, but politically autocratic and authoritarian.

The radicalization of politics in Middle Eastern countries like Egypt, Syria, and Iraq was the result of deliberate efforts by Muslim secularists to impose modern practices on Muslim societies. The reliance on force and iron fist policies to impose “modern” institutions and practices by socially "moderate" but politically radical secularists, who held and continue to hold power in many Muslim countries, has led to the destruction of public debate, the disappearance of civil society, and the radicalization of politics. For instance, the use of violence by state security agencies to silence opposition during Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat of Egypt has paved the way to the rise of terrorism in the 1980s and 1990s.

The report's efforts to take a principled approach to defining the "moderate" proved to be elusive. For even though the report acknowledges that some Islamists satisfy the "moderate criteria," it eventually sides with those who counsel against engaging Islamists. Moderate Islamists, the report contends, should only be engaged as "interlocutors," but never supported even when they espouse democratic values.

The report concludes by giving several examples of moderate Muslims, and surprisingly they include prominent Islam bashers. The list includes Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen, Irshad Manji, Basam Tibi, etc. Ultimately, it is not commitment to democratic values and practices, but proximity to Islam, that sets moderates and radicals in the eyes of the authors of the recent RAND report on moderate Islam.

It is not surprising, therefore, that RAND's recommendations feed into the arrogant and unilateralist policies advanced by the neoconservatives in the last six years, policies that resulted in more chaos on the world stage and misery within Muslim societies.

This artricle has appeared in the following publications: Media Monitor Network, Aljazeera.com, Middle East Online, Official Wire, Middle East Time, The American Muslim, iView.com, Milli Gazatte, Islamonline.com, and others

Read more >>>

Islamophobia: A Call to Confronting a Creeping Disease

President Bush reacting to the unearthing of the alleged bombing plot over the Atlantic August 10 remarked: "This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."

On Aug. 7, during a press conference from his ranch in Texas, he said terrorists "try to spread their jihadist message - a message I call ... Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism". A moment later, he said "Islamo-fascism" was an "ideology that is real and profound". White House spokesman Tony Snow told the “Atlanta Journal-Constitution” Aug. 11 that the president will continue to use the phrase.

This is not the first time that Bush and members of his Administration have used this deliberate coupling of Islam with evil ideologies or actions, such as fascism or terrorism. Bush referred to "Islamo-fascism" in his address to the National Endowment for Democracy, Oct. 6, 2005. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) addressing Christians United for Israel (CUFI) held their first Washington-Israel Summit in Washington D.C., July 2006, declaring "Islamic fascism is a mosaic..."

Media baron Rupert Murdoch pontificated in Sydney, Australia June 26, 2006: "You have to be careful about Muslims who have a very strong, in many ways a fine, but very strong religion which supercedes any sense of nationalism wherever they go."
The term is coined, and was initially used, by radical Zionist pundits and their allies in the Far Right, and is intended to drive a wedge between Western and Muslim communities. The fact that it is already being used by President Bush and his top lieutenant underscore the extent to which Islamophobia is gradually creeping into public discourse.

Blaming Islam and Muslims for the rise of terrorism that threatens the U.S. and the West is at the heart of the strategy developed by individuals and groups whose systemic attacks on Islam and Muslims, borne out of either ignorance or hatred, constitute the recent and painful reality : Islamophobia.

Islamophobia reflects an attitude and a posture normally associated with the Far Right, but that has been creeping slowly to the center of political debate. Islam and Muslims are separated out from the citizenry and increasingly presented as a problem to be addressed and a question to be tackled. The last time a world religion was considered a problem and a question was in late-nineteenth-century Europe. Then, the "Jewish Question" was widely debated by both the enlightened and bigots among European thinkers.

Islamophobia is a strategic weapon in the campaign to marginalize Muslim Americans by ideological extremists and paranoid bigots. On one level, Islamophobia stems from ignorance, deception, and misrepresentation. On a deeper level, however, it stems from a very basic human instinct to dominate, exploit, and abuse, combined with a unscrupulous attitude that refuse to recognize moral principles and boundaries. While Islamophobia has existed for centuries, perhaps the term became public in Europe in the 1990s. Today, some are recognizing this creeping disease may even be prompted to confront it. In 2001, some concerned Britons formed The Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism (FAIR); and in Dec. 2004, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan hosted a seminar on "Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding".

The Council of Europe defines Islamophobia as "the fear of or prejudiced viewpoint towards Islam, Muslims and matters pertaining to them". Matti Bunzl, Associate Professor Department of Anthropology University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign, in his paper "Between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: Some thoughts on the new Europe" ("American Ethnologist" 32(4): 499-508) argues: "Whereas traditional anti-Semitism has run its historical course with the supersession of the nation-state, Islamophobia threatens to become the defining condition of the new Europe."

In Britain, the term “Islamophobia” was not used in government policy until 1997, when the race relations think tank Runnymede Trust published the report "Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All". In a section entitled The Nature of Islamophobia, the report itemizes eight features that Runnymede attributed to Islamophobia:

- Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
- Islam is seen as separate and "other." It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
- Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
- Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a Clash of Civilizations [an idea enunciated by and latter elaborated by Samuel P. Huntington, with the publication of his book, "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" Simon & Schuster; 1998].
- Islam is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
- Criticisms made of 'the West' by Islam are rejected out of hand.
- Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
- Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.

The twentieth century witnessed great struggles all over the world to overcome bigotry and racism, and to create more open and inclusive societies in which different races, ethnicities, and religions live side-by-side and cooperate for the betterment of society. After many devastating tragedies and wars, including two world wars that wiped out more than 80 million people, a holocaust, and a long civil rights struggle, chauvinism, racism, and bigotry were finally condemned, though not totally rejected. By the mid-twentieth century, the concept that individuals must be treated on the basis of their individual characters and actions, and that no individual or group should be targeted on the basis of religious, ethnic, racial, or national affiliations became widely accepted.

Therefore, the recent efforts that aim at presenting Islam as a challenge and Muslims who practice their faith as a problem are both disheartening and disquieting. They represent a dangerous move to reverse human progress and return to the age of outright racism and intolerance. This renewed focus on Islam as a problem has been justified by invoking security concerns. Many voices, particularly within the U.S. policymaking community, either out of ignorance or prejudice, decided to place the blame for terrorism squarely at the door of Islam.

The decision to ignore complex and painful realities that give rise to discord and tension between Western and Muslim countries, and to blame it all on a major world religion and its practitioners, will only exacerbate an already dire situation. This exercise in self-delusion can only distract us from confronting the real sources of the concerns on both sides and delay the efforts to bring forth a permanent and lasting solution. Meanwhile, tremendous resources are wasted, and the credibility and prestige of the United States are being undermined.

The failure to understand the profound changes taking place in the Muslim world is not simply a matter of ignorance and lack of insight into Muslim cultures, but a reflection of the bewildering stubbornness of neoconservative analysts in the U.S. and Europe, and their comfort in employing the archaic Orientalist attitudes and tools to analyze relationships between the West and the Muslim world. Muslims are not awarded the dignity of equal human beings with intrinsic values and legitimate concerns, but are often presented as thoughtless and violent masses incapable of articulating their conditions and solving their problems. Consequently, no effort is made to initiate dialogue and exchange, and all energy is focused on devising strategies for the manipulation and control of the Muslim world.

Many self-proclaimed experts on Islam continue to behave as if Islam and Muslims are a distant part of reality and an external problem to address, rather than partners for dealing with common problems and challenges. An increasing number of Muslims are proud Americans, serving American society as professors, businessmen, medical doctors, engineers, lawyers, sport stars, firefighters, police officers, and teachers. Many experts in Middle East and Islamic Studies departments have their ancestral roots in Middle Eastern and Muslim cultures. Many Muslim Americans are active in the debate on how best to bridge the divide, or at least change the perceptions of a divide, between the Muslim world and the West.

The Far Right

In Islamophobia, the Extreme Right has finally found a clever way to arrest America’s march toward asserting its foundational principles of equality, religious freedom, and the rule of law. Their strategy is to transform the war on terror into a war against Islam and use security needs to subvert constitutional protections. The Extreme Right draws its ranks from the fringes of the Christian Right and the neoconservatives, particularly those who see in the indigenization of Islam and the presence of authentic Muslim voices in the U.S. a direct threat to their ability to manipulate the public and promote their narrow religious and foreign policy agendas.

The 9/11/2001 tragedy has given a new impetus to the campaign against Islam and Muslims, as the Far Right discovered that the climate of heightened fear and uncertainty provides an exceptional opportunity to advance their bigoted and racist agenda under the guise of patriotism. They have focused in the last four years on turning Islam into an enemy. In their efforts to demonize Islam and Muslims, they have persistently advanced two themes: (1) that Islam is intolerant, violent, and anti-western, and must not, therefore, be allowed a legitimate place in American society, and (2) that Muslim Americans who assert their Islamic identity, and express positive views of Islam cannot be trusted, and must be chastised and marginalized.

Although their fanatical views were initially rejected by mainstream America, the post-9/11 environment of confusion and fear provided them with a unique opportunity to advance their racist agenda. Their views and arguments have steadily gained more receptive ears among key agencies and leaders in the Bush administration. Not only have they succeeded in creating doubts in the White House and the Congress about mainstream Muslim American organizations and leaders, but they, evidently, have succeeded in injecting their language into the political discourse of public institutions and government agencies. Senior administration figures have moved from calling the current war against groups involved in indiscriminate killing of civilians a war on "terrorism" to a war on "Islamic terrorism," "Islamist terrorism," and “radical Islam." Most recently, top leaders in the Bush administration, including George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld have accepted the argument, popular among the Extreme Right that the war on terror aims at preventing Muslim extremists from establishing an "Islamic Caliphate" and an "Islamic Empire."

Have the Extreme Right succeeded in pushing their extremist views on Islam and Muslim into mainstream political discourse? Are those who want to turn the war on terror into a war on Islam getting the ears of government agencies and political leaders? And what can we do to expose the Extreme Right's deceptions and bring peace to a world that continues to drift toward turmoil and upheaval?

Demonizing Islam

Ever since George Bush, rushing to defuse the post 9/11 tension, described Islam as "a religion of peace," the Far Right sprung to action to challenge the Administration's position and to generate ill-will toward Islam and Muslims in the U.S. and Europe. The anti-Islam fanatics have been working hard to demonize Islam and marginalize Muslim Americans. Using their propaganda machinery, and occasionally likeminded individuals in key governmental agencies, the Extreme Right have been able to confuse the public about Islam and Muslims, by using half-truths, innuendos, and sheer fabrications and lies.

Their tactics of confusing the public, painting all Muslims as potential terrorists, and presenting Islam as the source of hate and violence have brought them limited successes, including profiling of Muslims in airports, smearing the good name of mainstream Muslim American organizations, and intimidating Muslim leaders and activists through repeated interviews by security agencies.

The anti-Islam fanatics have made it known that they are not happy with their limited success, and continue to drive at a complete crackdown by law enforcement agencies on all forms of Muslim organizations. They seem to have made a breakthrough if a recent report by Paul Perry, an anti-Islam writer, turns to be correct. Perry, the author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington" (Nelson Current; 2005), reported that a Pentagon's intelligence agency, the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), has embarked on a project to understand Islam by studying the Qur'an and the life of Prophet Muhammad. Citing an internal document allegedly obtained from CIFA, Perry contends that the CIFA document “notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Qur'an, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. The defense briefing adds that Islam is also unique in classifying unbelievers as "standing enemies against whom it is legitimate to wage war."

"Muhammad's behaviors today would be defined as radical," Perry quotes the document, "and Muslims today are commanded by their 'militant' holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the ‘cult characteristics of Islam.’"

Perry further contends that the CIFA document "ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as 'an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism,' which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing."

It is shocking to learn that a public agency can sink to this level unless it is fed by the anti-Islam campaign. While Perry's words cannot be trusted, Americans worried about abuse of public agencies for turning the war on terror into a war on Islam cannot afford to take chances. The Extreme Right has already succeeded in persuading the Bush administration to appoint a war monger to the United State Institute of Peace (USIP), and it took a great effort to make the divisive agenda of Daniel Pipes clear to the USIP board, leading to his demise as a USIP director.

Cloaked Racism

The events that shook the U.S. on 9/11/2001 represent a watershed for the anti-Islam campaign. The brutality of these attacks, and the indiscriminate terror unleashed by the fanatics, has raised many questions in the mind of Americans about the connection between Islam and terrorism. American interest in understanding Islam and deciphering the connection between the act of terrorism and the Islamic faith led to a sharp increase in the number of books published on Islam. While few of the books published since 9/11 provide a balanced views of Islam's teachings and history, most aim at demonizing Islam and Muslims. Of the 30 bestsellers by Amazon.com, by far the largest online distributor, 19 promote views that range between the negative and abusive, while 8 advance more favorable views of Islam. Three books offer neutral views on Islam. The eight positive books include two translations of the Qur'an and two on the renowned Muslim mystic Al Rumi. The anti-Islam books that dominate the Amazon bestsellers include books by well-known hate mongers and Muslim bashers who made careers out of demonizing Islam and attacking Muslims, including Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, Tony Blankley, and Steven Emerson. At the heart of the writings of these four, and other collaborators, is a racist strategy whose aim is to persuade American leaders, and the public at large, that Islam is the enemy and that Muslims cannot be trusted.

The authors of anti-Islam books are not scholars who are objectively interested in understanding Islam and Muslims, but a group of activists who deeply committed to promoting an expansionist foreign policy. They perceive world politics as a zero-sum game that requires the U.S. to use its military power against present and future competitors. They have consistently presented Muslim countries as incapable of democratic rule, and Islamic values as antithetical to world peace and religious diversity.

To ensure that their views are not challenged by the academic community, the Extreme Right has been working hard to undermine academic freedom and intimidate scholars with balanced views of the Middle East. Martin Kramer's "Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America," published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP -- October 2001) is a diatribe against Middle East Studies in U.S. universities, and Daniel Pipes' Campus Watch, an organization devoted to smearing professors critical of U.S. foreign policy and Tel Aviv's treatment of Palestinians, have initiated a new campaign that aims at intimidating free thinking on the Middle East and silencing any views that challenge the Extreme Right's propaganda. Stanford professor Joel Beinin ("Le Monde diplomatique," Spring 2006) described WINEP as pro-Tel Aviv think tank.

Concerted Efforts to misrepresent Islam

The anti-Islam campaign is carried by self-appointed experts who have little understanding of Islam and Muslims, yet are bent on depicting the faith of 1/5th of humanity as intolerant, violent, and anti-western. Having little insight into Muslim societies and Islamic faith, and history, they often rely on the crude and faulty logic of generalization about Muslims from the experiences of fringe Muslim groups, and of reading Islamic texts out of context, both the socio-political and the discursive.

Robert Spencer, a prolific anti-Islam writer and a leading Islamophobe who is bent on distorting Islam and demonizing Muslims, has persistently argued that violence and terrorism employed by Muslim extremists is rooted in the Qur’an and its message. Spencer calls the Qur'an, "the jihadists' Mein Kampf," in reference to Hitler's memoir. He blames the Qur'an for giving impetus to the terrorist open war against the West. He declares: "So is the Qur'an the Mein Kampf of the totalitarian, supremacist movement that is the global Islamic jihad? If we take seriously the words of the book itself and how they are used by jihadists, then it clearly is their inspiration and justification" (FrontPageMagazine.com December 8, 2005). Spencer contends: "Nor are these jihadists misrepresenting, twisting, or hijacking what the Qur'an says. There are over a hundred verses in the Qur'an that exhort believers to wage jihad against unbelievers. 'O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed' (Sura 9:73). 'Strive hard' in Arabic is jahidi, a verbal form of the noun jihad. This striving was to be on the battlefield: "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly" (Qur'an 47:4). This is emphasized repeatedly: 'O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.' (Qur'an 9:123)."

Spencer picks few out of the hundreds verses that deal with issues of peace and war, and misrepresents Islam by arguing that the Qur'an directs Muslims to fight non-Muslims on the account of having different faith. He does that by obscuring both the textual and historical contexts of the verses he cites. The Qur'an is unequivocal that fighting is a last resort and is permitted to repulse aggression and stop oppression and abuse: "A declaration of disavowal from God and His Messenger to those of the polytheists (Arab pagans) with whom you contracted a Mutual alliance." (9:1)

The reason for this war against the pagans was their continuous fight and conspiracy against the Muslims to turn them out of Medina as they had been turned out of Makkah, and their infidelity to and disregard for the covenant they had made with the Muslims: "Why you not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and attacked you first" (9:13). Out of the hundreds of the Qur'anic verses left out of Spencer's discussion are those that direct Muslims to initiate fighting only to repel aggression while urging them to seek peace when the other party seeks peace: "Fight in the way of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression, for God loves not aggressors. And fight them wherever you meet them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no oppression and the religion is only for God, but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression." (2:190-193)

The Specter of Islamic Empire

In an effort to link extremism to the larger Muslim communities and organizations, the Extreme Right has repeatedly exaggerated the size of extremists among Muslims, and obscured their identity and the political conditions leading to their emergence. In order to instill fear of Islam in the heart of Americans and Europeans, the Far Right contends that mainstream Muslim communities and organizations in the West are part of a global movement with wild aspirations and grandiose design to control the world and impose institutions and laws borrowed from 7th century Muslim society. It is true that fringe groups within Muslim societies espouse literalist views of Islamic sources and history. Yet the Far Right not only fails in identifying these groups as the exception to the rule, but they have erroneously presented them as the only voice in Muslim communities.

Similarly, mainstream Muslim organizations are depicted as supportive of global terrorism and Muslim American leaders and activists as fifth column. These organizations have been the target of a smear campaigns in which innuendo, half-truth, and guilt by association have been employed to undermine and disrupt their efforts to integrate the Muslim American community into mainstream American society.

In the last three years, mainstream Muslim organizations have been the subject of rough treatment by law enforcement agencies under the urging of the Far Right. In 2002 the offices of the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), the highest Muslim religious authority in the North America, and the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences (GSISS), a major Muslim institution of higher learning for training Muslim chaplains, were raided by federal agents, led by an agent of the customs service who apparently relied heavily on information provided by the Steven Emerson's Investigative Project and his former assistant Rita Katz's SITE Institute. Although the raids were publicized as an important operation in the war on terrorism, three years after the offices of these, and other Muslim institutions were searched and hundreds of documents confiscated, no criminal charges were returned, and the Justice and Homeland Security Departments made no apology.

In June 2003, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information held a series of hearings on radicalization of Muslim inmates. Several Extreme Right spokesmen accused Muslim chaplains of promoting radical views. Indeed, the anti-Islam pressure groups succeeded in persuading Sen. Schumer (D-NY) that GSISS and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) have been promoting "Wahhabi Islam" and demanded that the Justice Department conduct an investigation to uncover "radical" Islamic activities in federal prisons. A year later, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Justice Department issued a report that showed that, contrary to these claims, Muslim chaplains made a positive impact and brought balanced and moderate teachings to Muslim inmates, and that radicalization was more likely in prisons where inmates did not have Muslim chaplains. Federal correction facilities officials further testified that, contrary to the claims of the self-proclaimed experts who provided Sen. Schumer with erroneous information, "ISNA is a moderate, mainstream, non-Wahhabist, Islamic organization that encompasses Muslims from several Islamic sects."

In Dec. 2003, the Senate Finance Committee listed Muslim organizations and charities on a suspect list, and asked the IRS to provide financial records to uncover alleged support for global terrorism. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) stated in an interview with the "Indianapolis Star" that his committee "did not find anything alarming enough that required additional follow-up beyond what law enforcement is already doing." A week later, the Committee, apparently under pressure from the Extreme Right, issued a press release, reversing Grassley's statement, and contending that the fact that Committee's conclusion of reviewing the information it received from the IRS "does not mean that these groups have been cleared by the committee."

Creeping Islamophobia

Islamophobia is no more the attitude of the marginal extremists, as it has colored the writings and analyses of mainstream research organization such as the RAND Corporation and Freedom House. The RAND report on Islam (Cheryl Benard: "Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies"; 2004; and the 567-page study "The Muslim World After 9/11"; 2004) makes no efforts to seriously engage authentic Arab and Muslim voices for more accurate information on Islam and Muslim Americans. The same attitude permeates other think tanks and policy formation groups.

In an 89-page study, published in 2005 under the title, "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques," the Freedom House made sweeping and largely inaccurate generalizations about Muslim Americans. After collecting a few copies of some Saudi publications that their researchers alleged were found on the library shelves of fifteen mosques, they accused mosques across the nation of promoting hate. The Freedom House found it quite permissible to smear every mosque in the U.S. without conducting a single interview, or inquiring about the reasons and circumstances of carrying questionable Saudi publications. There are more than two thousand mosques in the U.S., and fifteen out of two thousand mosques constitute less than 1 percent of all mosques in the country.

Evidently, the authors never stopped for a second to ask: How has the presence of the Saudi literature impacted the attitudes of the mosque-goers? They have also failed to consider asking the leaders of the Islamic centers about their views and activities, or how the Saudi material was used. One would think that this is the most reasonable and sensible thing to do in a study that aims at ascertaining the truth and enhancing understanding.

Islamophobia has contaminated public discourse on Islam and Muslims, and has affected the best judgment of religious and political leaders, and, hence, has made the efforts to deal with terrorism more complicated and less effective and led to a long series of missteps. Let us recall the most serious ones:

In 2001 and 2002, bigotry and intolerance were elevated to a tolerable national discourse by leading Evangelical leaders who insulted Islam and its Prophet, and did it with impunity. Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson described Islam as "wicked, violent and not of the same god," and called the Prophet of Islam a "terrorist" and "pedophile," and were allowed to get away with it. Little has been done so far to rein in Christian and Jewish extremists.

In November 2002, John Ashcroft, then the U.S. attorney general, got away with similar bigoted remarks when he asserted that “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him,” while “Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.” Ashcroft never denied that he made the statement, nor did he apologize despite demands by several Muslim American organizations to retract his statement. In the same year Ashcroft made his remarks, the Department of Justice embarked on a massive detention and deportation of thousands of innocent Muslim immigrants in the name of fighting terrorism. Many of those who were detained were denied visitation by family members and representation by lawyers. Deprived from the due process enshrined in the US constitution, they were eventually deported on minor violations.

In October 2003, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, was allowed to keep his job after telling church gatherings that the Christian God is "real" and the Muslim is “idol." Secretary Rumsfeld defended Baykin's bigoted remarks by citing the latter's freedom of speech.

In December 2003, the military accused Capt. James Lee, a dedicated Muslim Chaplain and West Point graduate, of spying, and ordered his incarceration in a maximum security facility, but failed to provide any evidence to back up these serious charges. Chaplain Yee was eventually found innocent of all charges laid against him, including charges of adultery and pornography concocted when the spying charges were withdrawn. The army refused to issue an apology and Lee resigned.

In May 2004, Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim lawyer and former Army officer, was arrested by FBI agents in connection with the Madrid terrorist bombing. The FBI maintained its certainty that Mayfield's fingerprints matched those found on bags left behind by the terrorists even after Spanish authorities said that the original image of the fingerprint did not match Mayfield's. He was eventually released after spending two weeks in prison.

In December 2004, the open season on Islam and Muslims by extreme Religious Right pundits reached a new low, when the Washington Times, a leading American newspaper, published an article by Sam Harris, entitled "Mired in a Religious War." The article declared Islam the enemy, and openly advocates an all-out war on Islam and Muslims.

In December 2004, 46 American Muslims were fingerprinted, searched and held for 6 hours by U.S. border security agents upon returning from a religious conference in Canada. The incident is the latest in a series of overzealous ethnic and religious profiling, and of the targeting of law-abiding American Muslims in the name of national security.

The above list, though far from being complete, reveals disturbing patterns of Muslim bashing and abuse, and underscores the troubling fact that some public officials in various departments and at highest levels espouse prejudices toward Islam and Muslims. While the number of bigots and zealots is still limited, the damage they have done to both American Muslims and the reputation of the United States is enormous.

This attitude toward Islam and Muslims, and the policy recommendations that stem from it, have so far led to continuous radicalization of Muslim societies and have strengthened the very divisive forces that desire to marginalize and eliminate Islam and Muslims in the West. Many of the complex challenges the United States faces are the outcome of a faulty or unbalanced foreign policy, formulated from information supplied by ill-informed, Islamophobic experts. These policies are the result of defining adversaries on the ground of ethnic and religious identities, rather than universal ethical principles and actions, which include respect for the religious sensibilities of others

While both truth and vanity play a role in shaping Islamophobia, I am less concerned with the vain sources of these sentiments that take the form of deception, jealousy, and arrogance. I am more concerned, however, with the true sources of Islamophobia, namely anti-Muslim attitude and exclusivist political ideologies that fuel extremism. U.S. foreign policy, as articulated by the neo-conservatives, is bent on dominating and manipulating Muslim societies for achieving narrow economic and geopolitical interests; similarly, exclusivist ideologies continue to inflame the vicious terror campaigns that justify the killing of civilians for achieving political ends.

Rethinking US Foreign Policy

The war on terror has not contributed so far to isolating the terrorists, but seems to have led to increasing anti-American sentiments. The Bush administration has been ill-advised by individuals and groups driven by anti-Islam agenda that made an already difficult war even more complicated. By listening to prejudiced and bigoted voices who have shown little respect to the followers of the Islamic faith, and who have urged the administration to exceed established moral and legal limitations, the Bush administration has made several blunders that undermined the credibility of the United States.

From Guantanamo, Abu Ghuraib, and other abuses, to massive detention and deportation of Muslim immigrants, to profiling the predominantly law abiding Muslim Americans, to letting off the hook high ranking officials caught making derogatory and bigoted remarks about Islam and its followers, to denying visas and turning back from U.S. airports Muslim leaders who have been working hard to build bridges between Islam and the West, to supporting authoritarian regimes implicated in human rights violations, the Bush administration has adopted the wrong approach and gave the wrong impression that the war on terror is gradually shifting from targeting individuals implicated in terrorism and indiscriminate violence to targeting mainstream Muslim communities and organizations.

The Bush administration should reject the racist strategy of the Far Right and become more discreet in executing the war and terrorism, making a clear distinction between fringe groups driven by hatred and fanaticism, and the overwhelming majority of law abiding Muslims who aspire for just peace. The administration should also enlist the help and the crucial resources that the American Muslim community, and mainstream Muslim organizations and leaders, can bring to bear on the war on terrorism and extremism. It is not difficult for any person aware of the patterns of U.S. foreign policy toward the Muslim world, and of the terror campaign conducted by militant Muslims, to see that the two are interrelated and feed one another. The U.S. has for decades supported dictatorships and corrupt military regimes in the name of maintaining stability, and those regimes have bred extremism and gave rise to terrorist groups.

Yet the fact that U.S. foreign policy feeds into, and is fed by, the rise of extremism and terrorism in Muslim countries does not mean that we are moving in a vicious circle. The U.S. is in a position to end the cycle of violence and counter-violence, and American Muslims are well situated to help in redirecting U.S. foreign policy and in bridging the deepening divide between Muslim and Western societies. There are reasons to believe that after 9/11, the Bush Administration has become increasingly aware of the pitfalls of supporting autocratic regimes in the Muslim world, and has made several readjustments in its foreign policy approach toward Muslim countries. Not only is the Administration increasingly reluctant to openly support military and authoritarian regimes, but is increasingly coming to terms with the fact that no democratic government is possible without the involvement of Islamically-oriented political groups, as developments in Turkey and Iraq have demonstrated.

This does not mean that the Bush Administration has undergone a profound change of attitude; nor does it mean that the Administration has distanced itself from unilateralism and military preeminence that led to the war in Iraq. John Bolton, a neo-conservative unilateralist, was appointed US ambassador to the UN. This is the same Bolton who, more than two years ago, expressed an utter contempt toward international law and the UN. "It is a big mistake for us," he wrote, "to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so—because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States."

We must reject the neoconservatives' obsession with domination and empire building. Their drive to ensure the political and military dominance of the U.S. might appear at first glance patriotic, but in actuality it is undermining the political and moral standing of the U.S by undermining democracy and freedom at home and rolling back the most important American achievements on the world stage: international law and the UN.

Muslims Must Stand Up

Muslim Americans are well positioned to expose the deceptions of power hungry unilateralists, and bridge the divide between Muslim and Western countries. They should equally reject the bigoted spirit of exclusivist ideologies that use religion in all its forms as a weapon for achieving political supremacy, and demonize and dehumanize political opponents. Muslim Americans should take a firm and resolute stance against individuals and groups that use violence and terror against civilians in the name of religion, and condemn all campaigns of terrorism by groups like al-Qaeda, as they do condemn those who justify violence and aggression against Muslims in the name of biblical prophecies and religious supremacy.

The time has come for the world to undertake a profound shift in political thinking and practice, similar to the one achieved in Europe in modern times. A democratic and free Europe came to life when the feudal system that privileged a small class of European elites was rejected and replaced with a system based on political equality and the rule of law. A democratic and free world will be achieved when the current political structure that perpetuates political and economic disparity is replaced with one in which all are equally treated under international law, and have fairly equal access to international organizations.

For two centuries, America has shown that it is capable of transcending its limitations and marching behind those who struggle to realize the ideals of freedom, justice, and equality. And throughout its history, America stood behind those who fought for equal rights and equal dignity against self-centered groups that wanted to preserve their privileges. American Muslims must take a firm stand against the militant Religious Right that is bent on denying them the equal dignity they deserve. As long as they uphold the values of freedom, justice, and equal dignity for all, and reach out to other fellow Americans who share with them deep commitment to these values, they are destined, with the grace of God, to defeat the unscrupulous and mean-spirited attacks led by hate mongers and religious bigots.

Read more >>>

Blaming Islam: Examining the Religion Building Enterprise

This article is a condensed summary of a more elaborate paper on the question. click here to view the full version.]

Blaming Islam for the lack of democratic and scientific developments in Muslim countries is not a new idea but an old enterprise, rooted in the nineteenth and twentieth century European Orientalism. The late Edward Said succeeded, in the 1980s, in unmasking Orientalist notions within Western academia and exposing its false pretense. In his seminal work, Orientalism, Said demonstrated that Orientalist views of Islam were used to justify the European colonial ambitions in the Muslim world. Said's monumental work was pivotal for the eventual transformation of Middle Eastern studies in Europe and the United States, as it forced the academia to embrace more scholarly and objective methods when studying the Muslim world.

Specialists who were intent on presenting Islam and Muslims in a negative light were unhappy with the positive portrayal, as were those who previously considered their work to be objective. Many were particularly disturbed by the rise of authentic voices that presented Islam as a vibrant religion, whose followers share many of the values and concerns of the West. Led by Princeton University historian, Bernard Lewis, they attempted to refute Said's work and defend Orientalism. But Said's thesis was profound, and Orientalists never fully recovered.

The September 11th terrorist attacks on mainland United States gave a new momentum to the Orientalist spirit. Bernard Lewis once again led the effort to revive Orientalist notions with the publishing of his 2002 book, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. Using subtle arguments, he indeed placed the blame on Islam and Islamic traditions for the failure of Middle Eastern societies to develop and modernize like the West. Lewis' book has since been followed by an avalanche of similar articles and publications, mostly by neoconservative journalists and pundits, who reinforce Lewis' thesis and even blame Islam for the rise of terrorism as well as the rising tension between the West and the Muslim world.

The blame game is led today by neoconservative pundits who often present Islam as the new villain to be confronted by American military power. They have consistently presented Muslims as incapable of democratic rule, and who espouse values that are antithetical to world peace and religious tolerance.

To ensure that their views are not challenged by the academic community, neoconservatives are working hard to undermine academic freedom by intimidating scholars that present a balanced view of the Middle East. Martin Kramer's Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America, a diatribe against Middle East Studies in U.S. universities, and Daniel Pipes' Campus Watch, an organization devoted to smearing professors critical of U.S. foreign policy and Israeli's treatment of Palestinians, are two such examples. This campaign is one that aims to intimidate free thinking on Middle East politics and silence voices that challenge their perspective.

Although many of the anti-Islam writers and neoconservative pundits play on the fear of the general public by publishing books for a general audience, others have been done for policymakers under the cover of respected institutions and think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the RAND Corporation. Readers should note that this activity began in 1992 when Defense Department staffers I. Lewis Libby and Paul Wolfowitz drafted the "Defense Policy Guidance." and was followed more discretely and in more depth in a report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," published in 2000 by the Project for the New American Century.

The neoconservative attitudes of, and approach to, Islam and the Middle East is well illustrated by a widely publicized report written by Cheryl Benard and published by the RAND Corporation in late 2003 under the title Civil and Democratic Islam. Like other neoconservatives, Benard blames the rise of intolerance, anti-democratic tendencies, and terrorism on all Muslim individuals and groups that closely adhere to Islamic values and practices. RAND openly advocates "religion building" as the only way to counter terrorism and anti-Americanism.

Religion building is an invitation to world powers to reform Islam. It is a call for reinterpreting Islam and restructuring Muslim societies so as to counter the rise of militancy in Muslim societies. There is no contention over the need for reform, and the need for cultural and social reforms in Muslim societies and communities is well articulated by Muslim intellectuals long before Islam became the main focus of Western reporters and pundits. Indeed, reform has been underway for more than a century now, and Muslims have been engaged in an internal struggle to redefine modern Islamic societies in ways that aim at empowering civil society and ensuring democratic control.

The contention is rather over how reform is to be achieved, and who is more capable of leading the reform. The contention is over whether reform can or should be imposed by outsiders who have little understanding of Muslim societies and vague sense of the nuances of local cultures, and who call on world powers to use their political and military clout to impose sociopolitical design on Muslim societies and communities. A call for external intervention to restructure the Islamic faith and rebuild Muslim societies is faulty, and is guilty of misreading Islam and ignoring the sociopolitical reality that gives rise to global terrorism.

Religion building is perilous, complex, ill-conceived, and practically untenable. It is a distraction and a blatant attempt to avoid any serious evaluation of the responsibility of world powers for the radicalization of Muslim politics. The rise of radical Islam cannot be explained purely on the level of religious doctrine. Radicalization of Muslim politics is directly connected to the rise of authoritarian regimes in Muslim societies. Authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes that suppress open debate and silence opposition have long enjoyed the support of successive U.S. administrations.

On balance, Islam has been a positive force, rather than a villain to be arrested and chastised, in the development of the modern Middle East. The focus on radical groups perpetrating violence in the name of Islam prevents some analysts from appreciating the centrality of Islamic notions and values in the progress toward a more open society and vibrant culture. A full assessment that takes into account the impact of Islamic reform on Muslim society would illustrate that pessimism toward Islam, reflected in RAND's Civil Democratic Islam and similar documents, is unwarranted.

While urging support to one group and opposition to another, neoconservative pundits remain oblivious to the connection of the various ideological groups to the larger population in Muslim societies and to one another. The United States, as an external political actor that is increasingly perceived by Muslims as biased and uneven-handed, cannot positively affect political development by rendering support on the basis of artificial religious preferences. Rather, it must base its positions on intrinsic values and political principles. In actuality, Benard's recommendations are nothing but a recycling of the very old foreign policies that got us where we are today and that have led to the radicalization of the Middle East.

The United States has tried in the past to put its weight behind Muslim secularists. The result has been the aggravation of the internal political balance and the radicalization of the societies where the U.S. took sides on the basis of superficial criteria and short-term interests. It was the very approach of siding with modernists against socialists and traditionalists that got the United States into trouble with the Iranians, the Lebanese, and, most recently, the Palestinians.

The report is conspicuously silent on the effects of U.S. foreign policy, which has been frequently characterized by Muslims as one of inconsistency and double standards – one that supports friendly dictators and corrupt, but useful, regimes in the Muslim world, while pushing for democratic reform in Eastern Europe; one that defends human rights in China, but ignores them in the Middle East; and one that protests Palestinian violence against Israel, but remains silent in the face of Israeli violence in Palestine. Indeed, the politicization of Islam and the rise of anti-Americanism are directly linked to the very efforts that aim at marginalizing Islam and forcing Western secularism on Muslim society.

RAND's Civil Democratic Islam is a case in point and illustrates the tendency to treat Islam as an anomaly to be evaluated on the basis of different standards than the one used to evaluate Christianity, Judaism, and other world religions. The author of Civil Democratic Islam has surprisingly chosen religious identity rather than political values to distinguish foes from friends. While Civil Democratic Islam declares democracy and civil rights to be its ostensible goals, it surprisingly stresses religious doctrine and lifestyle to distinguish democratically oriented Muslims. Benard can hardly say the same thing about similar practices among Christians and Jews. The author would not use the same terms to describe Joe Lieberman, the U.S. senator from Connecticut, who is also a practicing orthodox Jew.

Containing radical groups and ensuring more friendly and cooperative relations with the Muslim world requires a drastic shift in policy and attitude. Rather than searching for "lifestyle" criteria to separate friends from foes, the United States' position should be based on principles and values. The United States should support and cooperate with political forces in the Middle East that uphold the values of freedom, equality, and tolerance of ethnic and religious diversity, and should embrace those who display commitment to democracy and the rule of the law, regardless of their religion, religious doctrines, and their "lifestyle."

Rather than using lifestyle and religious criteria to assign guilt, the U.S. government needs to extend its founding principles to followers of all religions, and ensure that it does not use different standards for dealing with different religions. The United States must be consistent in pursuing its support for democracy and human rights, and must ensure that the principles of right and justice that guide its relations with Europe also apply to its relations with Muslim societies.

American Muslims can be of great help in fighting terrorism and extremism, and in bridging the deepening divide between the United States and the Muslim world. American Muslims have deep understanding of both Muslim and American cultures, and are well-positioned to help reconcile Islam and the West. American Muslims have already made remarkable achievements at reconciling Islamic values with the founding principles of the United States, and have managed to develop good and important experiences as to how Islamic values can bear on modern living. They can be instrumental in sharing their experiences of aligning Islamic values and education with democratic institutions and practices with coreligionists in Muslim countries. But for that to happen in more effective ways, American Muslims need to be involved in policy making and implementation, rather than allowing themselves to be marginalized and chastised.

In addition to involving American Muslim leaders in consultation on policies relating to Islam, the Muslim world, and the war on terror, civil society and government organizations should: (1) engage Muslim leaders who represent social and political groups that are committed to democracy, instead of relying completely or exclusively on the views of experts who do not have firsthand contact or experience with Muslim groups; (2) ensure that U.S. foreign policy is always respectful of democratic principles and values, the rule of law, and protection of human rights; (3) apply the same set of principles and values to all people, regardless of their religious and ethnic affiliation; (4) withdraw support from authoritarian regimes, and send a clear message by requiring an open political system and free and fair elections as a precondition for economic cooperation; (5) have a clear position regarding Islam, and avoid sending mixed messages to Muslim communities and societies.

*This article is a condensed summary of a more elaborate paper on the question. For full version of the arguments, please refer to Dr. Safi's paper at http://lsinsight.org/articles/Current/ReligionBuilding.htm

Read more >>>

Intricate Transition: From Moon Sighting to Astronomical Calculation*

[This article is a condensed summary of a scholarly paper entitled "Reading, Sighting, and Calculating." Please click here to view the full paper]

The Fiqh Council of North America's ruling in favor of using astronomical calculations for determining the beginning of the Muslim lunar month provoked a strong response, and the American Muslim community continues to be divided over this issue. Scholars on the two sides of the divide present arguments rooted in Islamic traditions, and often support their views by citing the same Qur'anic and Prophetic sources, or by referring to statements by early Muslim scholars.

It does not take much for an observer to realize that the division and disagreements are not about the sources themselves, but about how the sources are read. The division is between scholars who place emphasis on the apparent meaning of the text and those who emphasize its intended meaning and purpose.

The arguments for relying on sighting the new crescent as a means to determining the Islamic calendar confound religious duties with the empirical knowledge and practical skills required to identify the days on which these religious duties commence. Observing Ramadan and performing Hajj is ibadah (religious duty), but observing the birth of the new crescent to determine the beginning of the lunar month is not. The latter relate to the human capacity for determining the birth of the new crescent, and it is a function of the observer's scientific and physical capacity to identify the moment of the birth of the new crescent with increased precision. This capacity varies, needless to say, with the knowledge of the position of the new crescent in the sky, the sharpness of the eye-sight of the observer, the access to refined tools, the climatic conditions, etc.

Although some Muslims tried to root the practice of moon sighting, particularly for the month of Ramadan, in the Qur'anic and Prophetic injunctions, a closer examination of the Qur'an shows that it regards fasting of Ramadan and performing of Hajj as religious obligations, but considers the sun and moon movements as part of the natural order.

The Prophet, indeed, directed the companions to establishing the first day of Ramadan by sighting the moon, but then he stated that the reason for his directive was the inability of early Muslim community to provide accurate calculation. The community, he pointed out, was then illiterate and did not master reading, writing, or calculation. They had no experienced astronomers who have access to the knowledge, tools, and facilities to determine with accuracy the beginning of the lunar month. Consequently, moon sighting was the only tool available for the early Muslim community.

If the distinction between these two areas of knowledge is confirmed, then the only reason for moon sighting to be favored over astronomical calculation is when the former is more accurate in determining the birth of the new crescent than the latter.

Early Muslim scholars agreed, by and large, on Moon sighting as the only acceptable way for determining the beginning of the new lunar month. However, their consensus was greatly influenced by the state of the science of astronomy, as well as the lack of direct access by the scattered Muslim villages and towns to reliable astronomers.

The consensus reached by early Muslim jurists on rejecting astronomical methods resulted from the lack of any clear line of demarcation between astronomy and astrology. Most early Muslim scholars equated astronomy with magic and fortunetelling.

The basis of the historical consensus on moon sighting has changed. Today, astronomers can calculate with great precision the date and time of birth of the new moon. Moon sighting, on the other hand, has become less reliable, as the conditions of the sky and the observers have deteriorated markedly over the last two centuries. Muslims do not only live in middle latitude regions of mostly clear sky--as was the case in the early years of Islam--but also in high latitude regions where the moon can rarely be sighted, and in areas of high humidity and frequent rain. The sky conditions have worsened in most inhabited regions.

Observation of the new moon is quite disturbing in countries where Muslims do not employ the service of qualified observers using advance tools and facilities. Communities in the United States, for instance, rely on claims by ordinary Muslims with limited experience and astronomical knowledge. Even in Muslim countries where fairly advanced facilities are available, religious authorities accept the sighting of laymen with little or no training.

It must be asserted, therefore, that astronomical calculations provide a higher degree of certainty than an actual Moon sighting. For while astronomical calculation provide a precise date and time of the birth of the new moon, sighing the Moon produces, even with the use of advanced telescopes, less accurate and reliable results.

Yet the actual choice is not one in which we are asked to choose between astronomical calculation and moon sighting. The choice is really between calculations and individual testimonies. For several centuries, the Hanafi school of fiqh required that every qualified person must go to open fields outside his village and town to observe the new moon. Other school of fiqh required two qualified witnesses, in some cases one, to verify the actual sighting of the moon. The Hanafi school ultimately abandoned the group requirement, and followed the practice of verifying the sighting with two witnesses.

Those who insist that Muslims abandon astronomical calculation and rely on individual testimonies are in actuality asking Muslims to abandon the certainty of reliable knowledge, for the inconsistency of unverifiable individual reports. Individual reports, every student of fiqh knows, produce uncertain knowledge (ma'rifah zaniyah). This is amply illustrated by the established records of Moon sighting testimonies. These testimonies have been exceedingly inconsistent, and have resulted in numerous contradictions and reversals.

There is an ample evidence to convince anyone who is familiar with both shari’ah injunctions and contemporary astronomy that astronomical calculations provide a more reliable and certain approach for determining the beginning of the Islamic lunar calendar. The fact that contemporary Muslim scholars are reluctant to embrace this certainty underscores the challenges facing contemporary Muslim scholarship.

The Fiqh Council of North America's decision to formally adopt astronomical calculation represents a major step forward in overcoming historical inertia. Although the decision of the FCNA has not so far brought about a consensus among North American Muslims, it has set the foundation for the development of a position that can potentially bring a new consensus in deciding the beginning of Ramadan and the two Eids for the world-wide Muslim community.

*This article is a condensed summary of a more elaborate scholarly paper on the question of determining the birth of the new Islamic lunar month. For full version of the arguments, please refer to Dr. Safi's article Reading, Sighting, and Calculating, at http://lsinsight.org/articles/Current/Hilal.htm

This article appeared in the following publications:

The Muslim Oberver
Media Monitor Network
Milli Gazette
The American Muslim

Read more >>>

Gender Politics - ISNA's First Female President

The recent election of Ingrid Mattson to the presidency of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was received with great enthusiasm by the North American Muslim community and the public at large. Her election was seen as a sign of maturation, and as a vindication of Islam's respect of women's rights and contemporary Muslims' ability to overcome cultural traditions and rise to the level of the high moral demands of Islam.

Yet some Muslims in North America, and many in Muslim societies, raised questions as to the propriety of a female presiding over the largest Muslim organization in North America, and as to the compatibility of female leadership with Islamic principles and precepts. As one of the skeptics about the position taken by the Islamic Society of North America put it: "Why ISNA is violating [the] Sunnah and clear guidelines in Islam? Is that ISNA now being influenced by [a] local version of Islam?"

Those who resist the notion of women leadership in the name of Islam base their position on historical arguments made by early Muslim jurists. Yet a fair examination of early Muslim scholarship and Islamic sources reveals a variety of positions with regards to the public rights and duties of women. While Ibn Jarir al-Tabari places no limitations on women's right to assume the post of judge in all legal matters, al-Mawardi contends that women cannot be allowed to serve as judges under any circumstances. In between stands Abu Hanifa who allows women to serve as judges but only in cases involving commercial deals.

Historical Islamic jurisprudence, while recognizing the capacity of women to enjoy certain civil and political liberties, managed, nonetheless, to curtail these liberties on social and rational grounds. The degree of limitation on the exercise of civil and political rights also varied across historical periods and legal schools.

When approaching Islamic sources to shed light on the issue of women's rights, a clear distinction emerges between the rights of women in the public sphere, and their rights in the area of family law. For while Islamic sources differentiate men's and women's responsibilities within the family, all limitations on women's rights imposed by early jurists in the public sphere were based on either historically-bound interpretations of Islamic texts, or practical limitations associated with the social and political structures of historical society.

The Qur'an is unequivocal in assigning equal responsibilities for men and women for maintaining public order: "The believers, men and women, are protectors one of another; they enjoin the right (ma'ruf) and forbid the intolerable (munkar); they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey God and His Messenger." (Qur'an 9:71). Since men and women are entrusted with the same public responsibility to enjoin the right and forbid the intolerable, one should expect that both would enjoy equal political rights. Yet it is obvious that classical jurists deny women political equality with men. The question therefore arises as to what is the basis of the classical position?

Jurists who deny women the right to public office base their arguments on one Qur'anic and one prophetic statement. The Qur'anic statement reads: "Men are the protectors (qawwamun) of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because men support women from their means." (4: 34) The word qawwamun which connotes "support" and "protection" has come to signify authority as well. The fact that qawwamun also signifies authority is not difficult to see as the remainder of the above Qur'anic statement empowers men with the right to discipline women guilty of mischief. But can the above verse be used to deny women access to public office?

The answer is an emphatic no. For the authority implied by qawwamun and the obedience it entails is relevant--even under classical interpretation--within the confines of the family. It is clear that the Qur'an does not intend to give authority to every single man over every single woman. Nor do those who extend the implication of this verse to the public sphere expect that any single woman in society should obey any single man. This being the case, no one can invoke the notion of qawwamun to deny women access to public office.

The other textual evidence used by classical jurists, and continues to be held by contemporary traditionalist jurists, is in the form of a hadith text that states: "They shall never succeed those who entrust their affairs to a woman." Reportedly the statement is a comment made by the Prophet upon hearing the news of the accession of Puran, the daughter of King Anusherawan, to the Persian throne after the passing away of her father. The hadith is authentic, and was reported by Bukhari, Tirmidhi, and Nasa'i. Its narrator, Abu Bakra, stated that the Prophet uttered this statement while commenting on the news of the accession of Puran. As such, the hadith has bearing only on a particular incident, and does not embody a univesal principle. The fact that it contradicts a universal principle establish by the verse (4: 34) of the Qur'an discussed above reafirms its particular nature.

Further, the following issues must be recalled when interpreting the above hadith: (1) The hadith statement is not given in the form of a directive, but an opinion that has to be understood in its historical and cultural context. That is, the hadith has to be interpreted in the context of a historical society where women were not active participants in political life, and in the context of a political culture that places the hereditary rule over the principle of merit in deciding political succession. (2) The hadith is a single statement that has no support in the most authoritative Islamic source--i.e. the Qur'an. Indeed, the narrator of the hadith had no following among the Prophet's companions in his effort to extend the application of the hadith to 'Aishah, the Prophet's wife, as he invoked it to object to her leading the Army. (3) The hadith stands in a direct contradiction with the principle of moral and political equality of the sexes, a principle established by numerous Qur'anic verses. (4) Finally, the hadith, being a singular narration (khabar ahad), is of a lesser degree of certainty than the Qur'anic narration (khabar mutawatar), and hence cannot overrule principles established in the Qur'an.

The issue of women leadership is influenced more by cultural, rather than religious, traditions, and hence boils down to rational arguments on psychological differences between the two genders, as well as the impact of full participation of women in public life on the family. The critics of women's participation in leadership functions are fully entitled to express their misgivings with regard to women leadership, but then they should respect the public choice when it supports female leaders. The critics are not, however, entitled to elevate their misgivings and literalist interpretations to the level of formal requirements.

The objection to the election of the first female president of the Islamic Society of North America is borne out of a serious confusion: the Prophet, God's peace and blessings be with him, questioned the wisdom of appointing an inexperienced woman to a leadership position because she happened to be the king's daughter; the Islamic society of North America elected an experienced Muslim leader, with a long track record in leadership and public service.


The article has appeared in the following publications:

Alt.Muslim
Middle East Online
Naseeb Vibes
Official Wire
The American Muslim
Media Monitors Network

Read more >>>

Cultural Challenges to Democratic Reform in the Muslim World: the Case of Syria

It took a long time before democracy found support in Muslim societies, and continues to be seen today by many in the Muslim world as an alien political system. With few exceptions, Muslim populations have shown little enthusiasm for democratic reforms, even when political leaders and elites are increasingly willing to advocate such reforms. Most recently, Islamists have joined in calling for democratic reform, but their calls go unheeded by conservative Muslims and the larger public. The reluctance to support democracy stems partially from a cynical outlook toward politics, and a deep feeling that political discourse is being used more to manipulate the public than to serve it. Still, at the roots of this reluctance is a cultural attitude and practices that are at conflict with the very basis of a democratic state, i.e. a state based on the rule of law, equal rights, and respect for social and political diversity.

While it is difficult to generalize from the experience of any Muslim society, Syria provides a showcase of the tensions between the drive for democracy on the part of political elites, and the lack of cultural foundation and popular support for democratic practices. Democracy is a demand advanced by many intellectuals and activists in Syria, but is still far from becoming a popular demand. This does not mean, however, that Syrians are content with the current political climate.

Syrians are, by and large, unhappy with their political and economic conditions, and often complain about the monopoly over the economy and politics, by few ruling elites, and the rampant corruption that permeates state institutions.

The Syrian economy failed in the last two decades to catch up with population growth, and corruption in the public sector is rampant, as income growth for public servants fell far short of inflation throughout the eighties and nineties. The economic pressure from within and political pressure from without have encouraged critical voices and led to the emergence of a small but growing opposition.

Discontent with political elites does not, however, immediately translate to a will to political change. Syrian opposition remains elitist, lacking popular support, and opposition leaders have only the will, but not the capacity, to bring about democracy. The Syrian political culture is a major hurdle to democratic change. This is because the two central elements to democratic governance, power sharing and political compromise, continue to be alien to the political culture embraced by the Syrian political elites.

The Post-Colonial Syrian State

Syria has had a short and shaky experimentation with liberal democracy in the fifties right after gaining independence from France. The French colonial rule in Syria succeeded in dismantling the pre-colonial political structure, and introduced the practice of liberal democracy to Syrian society. The exquisite building that currently houses the Syrian Parliament was built during the French mandate. The parliament was not, though, the most developed institution the French colonialists bequeathed to the Syrian people. Rather, it was the military institution that proved to be most resilient and influential in the post colonial era.

Syria experienced high political instability between 1948 and 1970, as it went through six military coups, ending with the coup that was led by the late Hafiz Assad in 1970. Since then Syria has experienced stable government. The stability of the Assad government stems from two factors: the introduction of a complex state security apparatus and support from rural Syrians. State stability was achieved, however, at the cost of individual freedom, the autonomy of civil society organizations, and society’s ability to hold political leadership accountable. Hafiz Assad succeeded in strengthening the power of the presidency by dividing the security function among a multitude of security and military organizations, putting an end to the ability of ambitious military and security officers to seize power. Since security power is divided among autonomous agencies, with their heads reporting directly to the president, no single officer could muster the resources needed to mount a coup. Yet the stability of the Syrian state does not rest fully in its coercive power. It is, equally, derived from the support of its rural constituency.

Three political groups emerged to compete in the post-colonial period: The Muslim Brotherhood, the Communist Party, and the Baath Party. The Muslim Brotherhood promised to revive the past glory of Islam, the Communist Party pledged to bring down the Syrian Bourgeoisie and empower the proletariats. Eventually, the Baath Party, who espoused a nationalist and socialist agenda, was able to capture power through the military, and moved quickly to marginalize the Brotherhood and the Communist Party. The Brotherhood were allied with the urban small-business class, who was worried about the socialist measures introduced by the Baath, while the Communist Party could rely mainly on the support of the Syrian Kurds (and other non-Arab minorities, such as the Sharkas), alienated by the Arab nationalist fervor of the Baath.

The Baath Party could also rely on the support of the feminist movement and religious minorities who found more commonality with the Baatists than with the conservative Brotherhood or the radical communists. The greatest support came, however, from the rural population, which was the beneficiary of the Baath rule. The Baath’s support for, and reliance on, the impoverished rural population were less the result of a reformist vision and moral commitment to justice and equality, and more the outcome of the determination of its leadership, who had a predominately rural background, to undermine the power and influence of the urban centers, and shift the national wealth to the new elites.

However, the desire to get rich fast led many in positions of power and influence to misappropriate state resources, or use political influence to generate immediate wealth. Corruption at the upper echelon of the political leadership soon trickled down to the bureaucracy, putting the Syrian economy and society in jeopardy.

Calls for Reform in Syria

The current interest in reform in Syria stems from Bashar Assad’s inaugural address as the new president of Syria, in 2000, right after the death of his father. The young president outlined a new vision of Syrian politics that emphasized the need for reform and development. Although Bashar Assad’s reform was clearly focused on the bureaucracy and the economy, it was erroneously read by several opposition leaders as an invitation to a sweeping democratic reform.

Countless political groups started an open and vigorous debate that was quickly elevated to loud demands for sweeping changes, and occasionally an open insult of the Baath regimes and its symbols. The new political awakening is often referred to as “Damascus Spring.” The budding opposition boldly demanded a new constitution, free press, and multiparty system. However, it became immediately clear that the reinvigorated opposition had matured little over the last two decades. The opposition demands were drastic and uncompromising. With the exception of Riad Saif’s efforts, there was little practical proposals on the part of the opposition to engage the government or to limit its demands to a level that does not appear threatening to the current Syrian political authorities. The opposition did little to pick up on the anti-corruption campaign started by Bashar Assad prior to assuming the presidency, a campaign that he later abandoned after being sworn in as the new president.

Not only did the opposition misread the intentions of the new president and the direction of the reform he wanted to pursue, but it overestimated its own ability to impact the regime. Apparently, the opposition was riding more on the weave of the renewed international interest in democratic reform in the region and on external pressure, and less on popular support. Indeed, the opposition could garner little support from the population, as most Syrians have grown cynical toward political discourse and action, and would give little weight to the language of progress, freedom, and democracy.

The three opposition forces vying for power lack strong and clear popular support. The Brotherhood has lost credibility as a capable political actor after a bloody and unsuccessful bid in early 1980’s to overthrow the Baath regime by force. The Brotherhood political base inside the country has, further, been devastated as a result of the violent confrontation with the regime, and it is doubtful whether the organization has any support left. The communist party, led by Riad al-Turk, has lost its old vision with the collapse of communism, and is yet to produce a new vision for political and economic reforms. After spending almost three decades in prison, al-Turk is in no mood to compromise, or to engage in a political process with the established power. The liberal democratic forces, represented in the efforts of Riad Saif and the vision of Burhan Ghalioun, is still a budding force comprised of young intellectuals and activists with no evident popular support or political clout.

The opposition’s call for reform is squarely rooted in the moral indignation against rampant corruption, and the lack of political freedom to expose it and put an end to it. The fact that no popular movement has emerged and no loud demands have been made to end corruption makes it difficult to translate a moral position into a political will.

A non-Democratic Political Culture

Corruption in Syria is a chronic problem, touching every facet of the political and social life. Bribery and kick backs are widely practiced, not only by pubic officials, but ordinary citizens who resort to them to sidestep established laws and regulations, and to satisfy the demands of an impoverished bureaucracy whose members require kick backs to perform their duties and fulfill their legal obligations. Bribery ceased to be an abhorrent practice and is even privately accepted by religious authorities as a necessary evil for survival.

The spread of bribery and kick backs in Syria in the eighties and nineties has given the final blow to any remnants of respect for the rule of law in the country. This new reality has complicated the struggle for political and economic reforms. Syrian political culture is today the greatest hurdle in the road to democratic reform. Democracy presupposes key political attitudes and moral commitments, foremost among them are the notion of “the supremacy of law,” “respect for mutual freedom or equal rights,” and “the promotion of common good.” None of these receive any attention by the education system or the political discourse that shape the consciousness of millions of Syrians.

Rather, the education system and the political discourse of both the establishment and opposition tend to promote the notion of the “super-hero” who can reshape society and history through his individual will, the notion of “power” as the measure of all virtues and human worth, and the notion of “glory” as the overriding goal of human endeavor. This unbalanced emphasis on heroism, power, and glory has turned aspiring leaders into adventurers who are consumed with power and fame, and who look with contempt on all endeavors that require the subordination of individual will and interest to a higher will and interest that place the common good over individual glory.

It is this culture of hero-worship and obsession with an illusive glory that makes it difficult for political leaders to compromise and become content with power sharing and political succession. And as long as the notions of law, equal freedom, and common good continue to be alien to the Syrian culture, political change is bound to replace one set of autocrats and dictators with another.

The Way Out: Empowering Civil Society

The question that I want to—and must—raise in conclusion is the obvious one: is there a way out of the current political and cultural impasse?

The Syrian opposition espouses a range of ideas that vary from the claim, harbored mainly by Abdul Halim Khaddam, that the regime is led by an inexperienced leadership and is distant to collapse under its own weight, to those who see democracy coming to Syria through the process of regime change, advocated mainly by Farid Ghadry, achieved through US military intervention. Both scenarios arise more from the wishful thinking of their advocates, and less from the informed analysis of the Syrian reality.

Far from being non-deliberative, the Syrian regime has shown a great capacity for measured action, and displayed considerable flexibility and pragmatism. The decision to withdraw from Lebanon and to reinforce boarder patrol on the Iraq boarders when pressured by the US are examples of the regime’s pragmatism. The regime has shown, however, little desire to relax its stronghold on political power, as control over media and political debate remains tight, and the regime continues to resist calls to open up the political space and allow a multiparty system.

Relying, on the other hand, on US intervention, or even pressure, has its own limitations, as the United States' interest in democratization continues to be a function of US government’s concerns over its own economic and strategic interests, as well as Israel’s security. There is no consensus in Washington over the best course of action with regard to Syria, and the Bush administration’s key demands on the Syrian government relate primarily to Israel's interests, namely ending support for Hezbollah and dismantling the Palestinian resistance organizations in Syria. An increased external pressure and lack of alternative options could force the Syrian government to abandon its support of Israel’s enemies, but is unlikely to lead to real democratic reform.

This leaves us with one viable path to reform, and one that addresses the core obstacles to democracy: working to empower civil society and to gradually expand the margin of freedom for pursuing cultural and political reforms. In other words, the goal of the opposition must shift from regime change to power sharing and to developing a genuine interest in strengthening civil society organizations that provide public services alongside government agencies. The Syrian government has recently recognized its inability to provide public services at the level needed to develop the country, and seems to be willing to cede control over important social functions, including education, finance, and media. The pace of governmental reform in these areas is extremely slow and the implementation of the new laws has been disappointing, yet movements on these fronts have already started.

The opposition needs to focus its demand on reforming the bureaucracy and the judiciary, and on requiring a relaxation of state control over both print and electronic media. Similarly, the Syrian government should avoid taking stiff and defensive postures towards critical voices, and should give more latitude to political gatherings and organizations. The Syrian government needs to learn to listen to constructive criticism regarding its policies and the various positions it takes concerning internal and external events.

Another important, but underutilized leverage for reform comes from the large Syrian expatriate communities. The Syrian government recognizes the importance of the Syrian expatriates for the future development of the country, and has established a cabinet position and department to improve relations with them and encourage investments. The usefulness of the Syrian expatriates is not limited, however, to providing investment opportunity, but expatriates can play a crucial role in introducing democratic culture and experience to the Syrian society. Indeed, both the Syrian government and Syrian expatriates have, apart from political considerations and moral obligations, a practical need to promote democracy. Investment requires a robust legal system capable of protecting the long term interests of investors. Democratic practices are essential for maintaining independent judicial system capable of safeguarding individual rights and ensuring that the rule of law is supreme.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Official Wire
Open Democracy
Media Monitors Network
Cham Press
The American Muslim
Naseeb Vibes

Read more >>>

The Politics and Morality of Apostasy*

[This article is a summary of a longer paper, whose url is provided below]
The issue of apostasy under Islamic Law (shari'ah) brought recently to public attention in the widely publicized case of the conversion of an Afghan citizen raises troubling questions regarding freedom of religion and interfaith relations. The Afghan state's prosecution of an Afghan man who converted to Christianity in 1990 while working for a Christian non-governmental raises in the mind of many the question of the compatibility of Islam with plural democracy and freedom of religion. Although state court dropped the case under intense outside pressure, the compatibility issue has not been resolved because the judge invoked insanity as the basis for dismissing the case.

The case was presented as an example of conflict between Islam and democratic governance, but in many respects the case is rooted in, and influenced by, the forced secularization of Muslim society, and the absence of free debate under authoritarian regimes that dominate much of the Muslim world.

The issue of apostasy, like many other issues stemming from the application of shari'ah in modern society, is rooted more in the sociopolitical conditions of contemporary Muslim societies than in Islamic values and principles. More particularly, it is rooted in the incomplete transition from traditional to modern sociopolitical organization. It is rooted in the decision of many post-colonial Muslim countries to abandon traditional legal codes informed by Islamic law (shari'ah), in favor of European legal codes developed to suit modern European societies. The new laws where enforced by state elites without any public debate, and with little attention for the need to root legal code in public morality.

Islam is the foundation of moral commitments for the overwhelming majority of Muslims, and is increasingly becoming the source of legitimacy for state power and law. Yet the post-colonial state in Muslim societies has done little to encourage debate in the area of Islamic law. The increased interest in adopting legal codes based in Islamic values, leave the majority of Muslims with outdated legal codes that was intended for societies with markedly different social and political organizations and cultures.

The apostasy controversy highlights the importance of allowing Islamic reformers more say in public debates about political and legal reforms, and demonstrates the extent to which world powers undercut cultural and religious reforms by backing autocratic regimes the crack down on Muslim reformers in the name of combating political Islam. To legitimize their political rule and enlist the support of religious voices, autocratic rulers often align themselves with traditional religious scholars, who perpetuate rigid and anti-reform agendas in Muslim societies.

Traditionalist scholars have long embraced classical positions on apostasy that consider the rejection of Islam as a capital crime, punished by death. This uncritical embrace is at the heart of the drama that was played in the case of the Afghan convert to Christianity, and which would likely be repeated until the debate about shari'ah reform and its relevance to state and civil law is examined and elaborated by authentic Muslim voices.

At the heart of the apparent conflict between Islamic and democratic traditions is a static and stagnant approach to understanding Islamic law. The conflict stems mainly from a literalist understanding of the revelatory sources, i.e. the Qur'an and Sunnah (the Prophet tradition), and the body of Islamic jurisprudence derived from them through the exercise of juristic reasoning. With the marginalization of Islamic juristic learning and the restriction of public debate on Islamic law by the state, and the traditionalist jurists allied with it, a literalist approach of Islamic law has become rampant in many Muslim societies.

Under such climate, the most rigid and literalist interpretation of Islamic sources prevails, while enlightened and reformist views are suppressed and marginalized. The voices of many enlightened contemporary scholars who reject the literalist interpretation of the Islamic sources are pushed to the side.

Islamic law (shari'ah) is essentially a moral code with few legal pronouncements, and the question of which precepts are purely moral and which that have legal implications are determined through the theory of right.

The theory of right devised by late classical jurists - around the eighth century of Islam - emphasizes that people are ultimately answerable to God in all their dealings. However, by using the term rights of God to underscore the moral duty of the individual, and his/her accountability before God, classical jurists obscured the fact that rights are invoked to support legal claims and to enforce the interests of the right-holder. Because the Qur’an makes it abundantly clear that obeying the divine revelation does not advance the interests of God, but only those of the human being, the phrase “rights of God” signifies only the moral obligations of the believers towards God, and by no means should they be taken as a justification for legal claims.

It follows that the rights of God which are exclusively personal should be considered as moral obligations for which people are only answerable to God in the life to come. As such accepting or rejecting a specific interpretation or a particular religious doctrine, and observing or neglecting fundamental religious practices, including prayer or hajj, should have no legal implications whatever. A legal theory in congruence with the Qur'anic framework should distinguish between moral and legal obligations, and should confine the latter to public law that promote public interests (constitutional, criminal, etc.) and private law that advances private interests (trade, family, personal, etc.).

Unless the above legal reform is undertaken, there is no way to ensure that takfir (charging one with blasphemy) and zandaqa (charging one with heresy) claims would not become a political weapon in the hands of political groups to be used as a means to eliminate rivals and opponents.

*This article is a shorter version of more elaborate paper entitled “Apostasy and Religious Freedom.” The paper can be viewed on line at: http://lsinsight.org/articles/Current/Apostasy.htm

This full article appeared in the following publications:

Media Monitors Network
The American Muslims
alt.muslim
iviews
Future Islam
Naseeb Vibes

Read more >>>

Danish Cartoons: Free Press or Hate Speech?

Freedom of speech is central to both democratic government and human dignity. A society whose people are unable to speak freely and criticize established powers and traditions is doomed to stagnation and servitude. In the absence of critical voices to point out corruption and mismanagement, national wealth would be plundered by those who are trusted to protect public interests. And in the absence of critical minds, innovation and creativity would surely vanish, and science and art would inevitably die.

The modern West emerged from medieval Europe by fighting a political regime which, in the name of order, subordinated vast societal resources to the whims of a careless aristocracy, and by opposing an established church which, in the name of faith, has suffocated free thinking and scientific progress.

It took great sacrifices by many courageous people to establish basic civil liberties that today form the foundation of modern democracy. Foremost among which is free speech which must be protected to ensuring that people can point out with relative ease both corruption and ignorance that erode social fabric and undermine creative thinking.

It is this most important liberty that the editor of Jyllands-Posten cited in justifying the publications of the 12 provocative cartoons, depicting Prophet Mohammad in negative light and insulting Islam and its followers. But was the decision to caricature the Prophet of Islam an exercise in free speech? Or was it an exercise in bigotry and hate speech dressed as free expression?

Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor who commissioned the 12 cartoons, made the following comment in providing a rationale for his provocative initiative. “[Some Muslims] demand a special position,” Rose wrote, “insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context.”

The paper’s editor-in-chief further insisted that the objective of publishing the cartoons was to overcome “self-censorship” exercised by writers and cartoonists when depicting Islam. This explanation turned out to be disingenuous as The Guardian revealed that the same paper turned down anti-Christian cartoons submitted earlier by Christoffer Zeiler. In rejecting the cartoons the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, wrote the following: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

Kaiser’s words reveal a healthy sense of responsible freedom, as they underscore the importance of avoiding provocation and insult whose aim is sheer mockery. But why was not the same logic brought to bear on the decision of commissioning and then publishing the anti-Muslim cartoons?

It is evident that Jylland-Posten’s editors exercised “self-censorship” when they believed that making fun of religious feelings has a “high price.” The freedom of press they claim was at bottom a thin façade hiding an ugly bigotry directed particularly against Danish Muslims. Indeed, a 2004 report by a Danish watchdog, the immigrant rights lobbyist organization ENAR, claimed that 19 out of the 24 Jyllands-Posten's editorials on "ethnic issues" published between September 1 and November 20 2004 were negative, while 88 out of 120 op-ed pieces on "ethnic minorities" were negative, and 121 out of 148 letters to the editor on “ethnic minorities” were negative.

Jyllands-Poten was less interested in critically engaging the Islamic faith on the intellectual, social, or theological levels, and more in insulting its prophet and humiliating the Danish Muslim community. The freedom of speech invoked by the Jyllands-Posten editors does not represent a courageous stand against an established and powerful group. Nor is it a responsible freedom that aims at engaging in a serious criticism of Islamic doctrines or practices. Rather, it is a mean-spirited statement against a marginalized minority that could only serve to demonize a faith that is little understood by European societies, and greatly misrepresented by European media.

Freedom of press is not absolute, and must be used responsibly by those who claim it. Those who appreciate the importance of free speech for maintaining free and open society must ensure that it is not used by bigots to insult, insinuate, and marginalize. Rather than expanding the critical space to talk about religion in general, and the integration of Islam to Danish society in particular, Jyllands-Poten has irresponsibly used free speech to encourage hate-mongering. Such reckless use of a cherished freedom would only make an open discussion more complicated, and could practically make Danish people less free to address critical issues for social interaction and cooperation.

It is, therefore, vital that leaders on all sides of the issue take the initiative to calm the inflammatory situation, and bring the confrontation to a halt. The emotional exchange between the Western and Muslim worlds would further embolden the bigots in both camps. Western bigots are busy presenting current protests as an instance of “Islamic imperialism,” and a step in bringing the world under the control of Islam. Muslim bigots, similarly, find in the current stand off an opportunity to inflame anti-Semitism in Muslim societies.

A peaceful and orderly expression of indignation falls within democratic traditions, and represents a legitimate endeavor to influence political decision and debate. Resorting to violence, threats, and intimidations, on the other hand, undermines democratic principles, complicates political exchange, and closes public debate, and must therefore be rejected and opposed. While most protests over the publication of the insulting cartoons have been orderly and peaceful, albeit indignant, several unfortunate instances have led to loss of life and property. There is now more evidence that extremists are intent on turning the protests into a weapon to further deepen the divide between Muslim and Western societies, and to turn cultural and ideological differences into a religious stand off and a “clash of civilizations.”

The Danish cartoon episode reaffirms the intimacy of freedom and responsibility and is a powerful reminder that a reckless use of freedom is the surest way to undermine both.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Indianapolis Star
Official Wire
iViews
Media Monitors Network
Middle East Online
The Dawn
Daily Muslims
Naseeb Vibes
The American Muslim
The Milli Gazette

Read more >>>

Will the Far Right Succeed? Turning the War on Terror into a War on Islam

The Far Right has finally found a clever way to arrest America’s march towards asserting its foundational principles of equality, religious freedom, and the rule of law. Their strategy is to transform the war on terror into a war against Islam and use security needs to subvert constitutional protection.

The Far Right draws its ranks from the fringes of the Christian Right and the neoconservatives, particularly those who see in the indigenization of Islam and the presence of authentic Muslim voices in the United States a direct threat to their ability to manipulate the public and promote their narrow religious and foreign policy agenda.

9/11 tragedy has given a new impetus to the campaign against Islam and Muslims, as the Far Right discovered that the climate of heightened fear and uncertainty provides an exceptional opportunity to advance their bigoted and racist agenda under the guise of patriotism. They have focused in the last four years on turning Islam into an enemy. In their efforts to demonize Islam and Muslims, they have persistently advanced two themes: (1) that Islam is intolerant, violent, and anti-western, and must not, therefore, be allowed a legitimate place in American society, and (2) that American Muslims who assert their Islamic identity, and express positive views of Islam cannot be trusted, and must be chastised and marginalized.

Although their fanatical views were initially rejected by mainstream America, the post 9/11 environment of confusion and fear provided them with a unique opportunity to advance their racist agenda. Their views and arguments have steadily gained more receptive ears among key agencies and leaders in the Bush administration. Not only have they succeeded in creating doubts in the White House and the Congress about mainstream American Muslim organizations and leaders, but they, evidently, have succeeded in injecting their language into the political discourse of public institutions and government agencies.

Top administration figures have moved from calling the current war against groups involved in indiscriminate killing of civilians a war on “terrorism” to a war on “Islamic terrorism,” “Islamist terrorism,” and “radical Islam.” Most recently, top leaders in the Bush administration, including George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld have accepted the argument, popular among the Far Right, that the war on terror aims at preventing Muslim extremists from establishing an “Islamic Caliphate” and an “Islamic Empire.”

Have the Far Right succeeded in pushing their extremist views on Islam and Muslim into mainstream political discourse? Are those who want to turn the war on terror into a war on Islam getting the ears of government agencies and political leaders? And what can we do to expose the Far Right’s deceptions and bring peace to a world that continues to drift toward turmoil and upheaval?


Demonizing Islam and Marginalizing American Muslims

Ever since George Bush described Islam as “a religion of peace,” the Far Right sprung to action to challenge the administration position and to generate ill-will toward Islam and Muslims in the United States and Europe. The anti-Islam fanatics have been working hard to demonize Islam and marginalize American Muslims. Using their propaganda machinery, and occasionally likeminded individuals in key governmental agencies, the Far Right have been able to confuse the public about Islam and Muslims, by using half-truth, innuendo, and sheer fabrications and lies.

Their tactics of confusing the public, painting all Muslims as potential terrorists, and presenting Islam as the source of hate and violence have brought them limited successes, including profiling Muslims in airports, smearing the good name of mainstream American Muslim organizations, and intimidating Muslim leaders and activists through repeated interviews by security agencies.

The anti-Islam fanatics have made it known that they are not happy with their limited success, and continue to drive at a complete crackdown by law enforcement agencies on all forms of Muslim organizations. They seem to have made a break through if a recent report by Paul Perry, an anti-Islam writer, turns to be correct. Perry, the author of recent book entitled Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have penetrated Washington, reported recently that a Pentagon’s intelligence agency, the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), has embarked on a project to understand Islam by studying the Quran and the life of Prophet Muhammad.

Citing an internal document he claims to have obtained from CIFA, Perry contends that the CIFA’s document “notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. The defense briefing adds that Islam is also unique in classifying unbelievers as "standing enemies against whom it is legitimate to wage war."

"Muhammad's behaviors today would be defined as radical," Perry quotes the document, “and Muslims today are commanded by their ‘militant’ holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the ‘cult characteristics of Islam.’"

Perry further contends that the CIFA’s document “ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as ‘an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism,’ which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing.”

It is shocking to learn that a public agency can sink to this level unless it is fed by the anti-Islam campaign. While Perry’s words cannot be trusted, Americans worried about abuse of public agencies for turning the war on terror into a war on Islam cannot afford to take chances. The Far Right has already succeeded in persuading the Bush administration to appoint a war monger to the United State Institute of Peace (USIP), and it took a great effort to make the divisive agenda of Pipes clear to the USIP board, leading to his demise as a USIP director.


Racist Outlook Dressed in Patriot Language

The terrorist attacks that shook the United States on 9/11 represent a watershed for the anti-Islam campaign. The brutality of these attacks, and the indiscriminate terror unleashed by Muslim fanatics, has raised many questions in the mind of Americans about the connection between Islam and terrorism. Americans’ interest in understanding Islam and deciphering the connection between the act of terrorism and the Islamic faith led to a sharp increase in the number of books published on Islam. While few of the books published since 9/11 provide a balanced views of Islam’s teachings and history, most aim at demonizing Islam and Muslims.

Of the 30 bestsellers by Amazon.com, by far the largest online distributor, 19 promote views that range between the negative and abusive, while 8 advance more favorable views of Islam. Three books offer neutral views on Islam. The eight positive books include two translations of the Quran and two on the renowned Muslim mystic Al Rumi.

The anti-Islam books dominate the Amazon bestsellers. They include books by well known hate mongers and Muslim bashers who made careers out of demonizing Islam and attacking Muslims, including Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, Tony Blankley, and Steven Emerson. At the heart of the writings of these four, and other collaborators, is a racist strategy whose aim is to persuade American leaders, and the public at large, that Islam is the enemy and that Muslims cannot be trusted.

The authors of anti-Islam books are not scholars who are objectively interested in understanding Islam and Muslims, but a group of activists who deeply committed to promoting an expansionist foreign policy. They perceive world politics as a zero-sum game that requires the United States to use its military power against present and future competitors. They have consistently presented Muslim countries as incapable of democratic rule, and Islamic values as antithetical to world peace and religious diversity.

To ensure that their views are not challenged by the academic community, the Far Right has been working hard to undermine academic freedom and intimidate scholars with balanced views of the Middle East. Martin Kramer’s Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America, a diatribe against Middle East Studies in US universities, and Daniel Pipes’s Campus Watch, an organization devoted to smearing professors critical of US foreign policy and Israeli’s treatment of Palestinians, have initiated a new campaign that aims at intimidating free thinking on the Middle East and silencing any views that challenge the Far Right’s propaganda.


The Concerted Effort to misrepresent Islam

The anti-Islam campaign is carried by self-appointed experts who have little understanding of Islam and Muslims, yet are bent on depicting the faith of 1/5 of humanity as intolerant, violent, and anti-western. Having little insight into Muslim societies and Islamic faith and history, they often rely on the crude and faulty logic of generalization about Muslims from the experiences of fringe Muslim groups, and of reading Islamic texts out of context, both the socio-political and the discursive.

Robert Spencer, a prolific anti-Islam writer and a leading Islamophobe who is bent on distorting Islam and demonizing Muslims, has persistently argued that violence and terrorism employed by Muslim extremists is rooted in the Quran and its message. Spencer calls the Quran, a book sacred to Muslim, “the jihadists’ Mein Kampf,” in reference to Hitler’s memoir. He openly blames the Quran for giving impetus to the terrorist open war against the West. “So is the Qur'an the Mein Kampf of the totalitarian, supremacist movement that is the global Islamic jihad? If we take seriously the words of the book itself and how they are used by jihadists, then it clearly is their inspiration and justification.”

Spencer insists that the Quran is the source of the violence perpetrated by Muslim extremists against civilians. “Nor are these jihadists misrepresenting, twisting, or hijacking what the Quran says,” Spencer contends. “There are over a hundred verses in the Qur’an that exhort believers to wage jihad against unbelievers. ‘O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed’ (Sura 9:73). ‘Strive hard’ in Arabic is jahidi, a verbal form of the noun jihad. This striving was to be on the battlefield: “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly” (Qur’an 47:4). This is emphasized repeatedly: ‘O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.’ (Qur’an 9:123).”

Spencer cherry picks few out of the hundreds verses that deal with issues of peace and war, and misrepresents Islam by arguing that the Quran directs Muslims to fight non-Muslims on the account of having different faith. He does that by obscuring both the textual and historical contexts of the verses he cites. The Quran is unequivocal that fighting is a last resort and is permitted to repulse aggression and stop oppression and abuse: “A declaration of disavowal from God and His Messenger to those of the polytheists (Arab pagans) with whom you contracted a Mutual alliance.” (9:1) The reason for this war against the pagans was their continuous fight and conspiracy against the Muslims to turn them out of Medina as they had been turned out of Makkah, and their infidelity to and disregard for the covenant they had made with the Muslims: “Why you not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and attacked you first.”(9:13)

Out of the hundreds of the Quran’s verses left out of Spencer’s discussion are those that direct Muslims to initiate fighting only to repel aggression while urging them to seek peace when the other party seeks peace: “Fight in the way of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression, for God loves not aggressors. And fight them wherever you meet them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no oppression and the religion is only for God, but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” (2:190-193)


The Specter of Islamic Empire

The Far Right has repeatedly exaggerated the size of Muslim extremists, and obscured their identity and the political conditions leading to their emergence, in an effort to link them to the larger Muslim communities and organizations. In order to instill fear of Islam in the heart of Americans and Europeans, the Far Right contends that mainstream Muslim communities and organizations in the West are part of a global movement with wild aspirations and grandeur design to control the world and impose institutions and laws borrowed from 7th century Muslim society.

It is true that fringe groups within Muslim societies espouse literalist views of Islamic sources and history, and are devoted to resuscitate historical practices such as the caliphate and the application of traditional fiqh. Yet the Far Right not only fails in identifying these groups as the exception to the rule, but they have erroneously presented them as the only voice in Muslim communities.

Similarly, mainstream Muslim organizations are depicted as supportive of global terrorism and American Muslim leaders and activists as fifth column. These organizations have been the target of a smear campaigns in which innuendo, half-truth, and guilt by association have been employed to undermine and disrupt their efforts to integrate the American Muslim community into mainstream American society.

In the last three years, mainstream Muslim organizations have been the subject of rough treatment by law enforcement agencies under the urging of the Far Right. In 2002 the offices of the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), the highest Muslim religious authority in the North America, and the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences (GSSIS), a major Muslim institution of higher learning for training Muslim chaplains, were raided by federal agents, led by an agent of the custom service who apparently relied heavily on information provided by the Steven Emerson’s Investigative Project and his former assistant Rita Katz’s SITE Institute.

Although the raids were publicized as an important operation in the war on terrorism, three years after the offices of these, and other Muslim institutions, were searched and hundreds of documents confiscated, no criminal charges were returned, and the Justice and Homeland Security Departments made no apology.

In June 2003, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information held a series of hearings on radicalization of Muslim inmates. Several Far Right spokesmen accused Muslim chaplains of promoting radical views. Indeed, the anti-Islam pressure groups succeeded in persuading Senator Schumer that the Graduate School of Islamic Social Sciences (GSISS) and the Islamic society of North America (ISNA) have been promoting “Wahhabi Islam” and demanded that the Justice Department conducts an investigation to uncover radical Islamic activities in federal prisons.

A year later, the Office of Inspector General (OIJ) of the Justice Department issued a report that showed that, contrary to earlier claims, Muslim chaplains made a positive impact and brought a balanced and moderate teachings to Muslim inmates, and that radicalization was more likely in prisons where inmates did not have Muslim chaplains. Federal correction facilities officials further testified that, contrary to the claims of the self-proclaimed experts who provided Senator Schumer with erroneous information, “ISNA is a moderate, mainstream, non-Wahhabist, Islamic organization that encompasses Muslims from several Islamic sects.”

In December 2003, the Finance Committee listed Muslim organizations and charities on a suspect list, and asked the IRS to provide financial records to uncover alleged support for global terrorism. Last month, Senator Charles Crassley stated in an interview with the Indianapolis Star that his committee “did not find anything alarming enough that required additional follow-up beyond what law enforcement is already doing.” A week later, the Finance Committee, apparently under pressure from the Far Right, issued a press release, reversing Crassley’s statement, and contending that the fact that Committee’s conclusion of reviewing the information it received from the IRS “does not mean that these groups have been cleared by the committee."


Rethinking the War on Terrorism

The war on terror has not contributed so far to isolating the terrorists, but seems to have led to increasing anti-American sentiments. The Bush administration has been ill-advised by individuals and groups driven by anti-Islam agenda that made an already difficult war even more complicated. By listening to prejudiced and bigoted voices who have shown little respect to the followers of the Islamic faith, and who have urged the administration to exceed established moral and legal limitations, the Bush administration has made several blunders that undermined the credibility of the United States.

From Guantanamo’s and Abu Ghuraibs’ abuses, to massive detention and deportation of Muslim immigrants, to profiling the predominantly law abiding America Muslims, to letting off the hook high ranking officials in the administration who were caught making derogatory and bigoted remarks about Islam and its followers, to denying visas and turning back from US airports moderate Muslim leaders who have been working hard to build bridges between Islam and the West, to supporting authoritarian regimes implicated in human rights violations, the Bush administration has adopted the wrong approach and gave the wrong impression that the war on terror is gradually shifting from targeting individuals implicated in terrorism and indiscriminate violence to targeting mainstream Muslim communities and organizations.

The Bush administration should reject the racist strategy of the Far Right and become more discreet in executing the war and terrorism, making a clear distinction between fringe groups driven by hatred and fanaticism, and the overwhelming majority of law abiding Muslims who aspire for just peace. The administration should also enlist the help and the crucial resources that the American Muslim community, and mainstream Muslim organizations and leaders, can bring to bear on the war on terrorism and extremism.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Official Wire
Media Monitors Network
Milli Gezette
Muslim Observer
The American Muslim

Read more >>>

The Spiritual Essence of Ramadan

Ramadan is the month of fasting for Muslims the world over. Muslims refrain from eating, drinking, and sexual intercourse from dawn to dusk for the duration of Ramadan. For some, fasting may appear as a form of deprivation and of bodily exertion. On one level, abstaining from sensual needs and pleasures is indeed a physical experience. But those who stop at the physical aspects of fasting miss the essence of Ramadan and its purpose.

Fasting the month of Ramadan is one of the five pillars of Islam. These are the foundation upon which the entire structure of Islam is built. These consist of the declaration of faith, prayer, fasting Ramadan, paying of Zakah [the annual charity payment], and performing the pilgrimage to Makkah, known as hajj. Three of the five pilars of Islam are rituals, that is, prescribed religious acts whose rationale is not immediately available for understanding. These are prayer, fasting, and hajj. Muslims are required to do them because they are part of their religious duties, that is, they are part of their covenant with God.

As a ritual, fasting is a symbolic act whose meaning becomes gradually apparent through experience. The meaning embodied in a ritual is always unveiled when one immerses himself or herself in the act itself. This does not mean that fasting is not open to intellectual delineation, but rather any intellectual delineation either presupposes or predicts a meaning that can best become apparent through performing the symbolic act itself.

Spiritual Development

The essence of fasting Ramadan and its goal is summed in the Qur’an in one word: taqwa. “O you who believe! Fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you, that you may attain taqwa.” (2:183)

But what is taqwa? And how does it relate to the physical act of fasting?

Taqwa is a recurring theme in the Qur’an and a paramount Qur’anic value. Taqwa is both an attitude and a process. It is the proper attitude of the human toward the divine that denotes love, devotion, and fear. Love to the source of good and beauty that make life worth living; devotion to God’s boundless wisdom and majesty; and fear of misunderstanding the divine intent or failing in maintaining the appropriate posture and relationship.

The attitude of taqwa cannot and does not stay in the confines of the human spirit, but is ultimately revealed in expression and action. The attitude of taqwa is ultimately revealed in, and in turn reveals, the true character it nurtures: the commitment to the sublime values stressed by divine revelations of courage, generosity, compassion, honesty, steadfastness, and cooperation in pursuing what is right and true.

Taqwa is equally the process by which the believers internalize the sublime values of revelation and develop their character. Thus the Qur’an reminds the believers that they should not reduce religious practices to a set of blind rituals, of religiously ordained procedures performed at the level of physical movement, and that they should always be mindful that religious practices, like praying and fasting, ultimately aim at bringing about moral and spiritual uplifting: “It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards East or West: But it is righteousness to believe in God and the Last day, and the Angels, the Book, and the Messengers; to give out of the things you hold dear to your kin, the orphans, the needy, the wayfarer, the one who asks, and to free the slave. And to be steadfast in prayer and to give for charity. To fulfill the covenants you have made, and to be firm and patient in times of pain, adversity, and panic. Such are the people of truth, and such are the God-conscious.” (Qur’an 2:177)

As Ramadan helps us to develop our moral discipline, it also reminds us of the plight of those who live in constant hunger and deprivation. We are reminded time and again by the revealed book that religiosity is meaningless and pointless if it does not lead people to care and share: "Have you seen one who belies judgment; it is the one who repulses the orphan, and does not insist on feeding the needy. So woe to those who pray but are neglectful of their prayers. Those who are guilty of duplicity and refuse to provide for the ones in need.” (Qur’an 107:1-7)

Commitment

Fasting Ramadan, like other religious practices in Islam, is an occasion for pursuing moral excellence that can also be translated into excellence in social organization and interaction. In a tradition that was reported in the books of Bukhari and Muslim, the Prophet was once asked: “O messenger of God! who is the most honored of people? He said: the one who has most taqwa. They said: this is not what we are asking about.… He said: … the best of them prior to Islam is the best of them in Islam if they comprehend (the revealed message)."

It is not difficult to see that the Prophet’s companions did not have immediate access to the meaning of taqwq, as many Muslims today still don’t. When they did not accept his first statement as an answer, the Prophet gave them an explanation of what he meant when he responded to their question about “the most honored of people.” In responding with the question, the Prophet was reiterated the meaning provided by the Qur’an: “Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is the most righteous (mutaqi).” (Qu’an 49:13) The Prophet’s statement underscores the fact that taqwa as a moral and spiritual quality is significant in the human world insofar as it leads people to act with compassion and respect toward others.

Empowerment

Nothing does empower a community more than the development of the moral character of its members. By embodying the moral values of revelation, people can have a higher social life, one that is based on mutual respect and help, as it is based on honest and fair dealings, and a sense of duty that encourages people to observe the principles of right and justice as they pursue their varying and competing interests. The theme that moral life based on the notion of taqwa leads to societal strength and prosperity is an oft repeated theme in the Qur’an: “Whoever has taqwa of God, He prepares a way out for them, and He provides them from sources they never could imagine.” (Qur’an 65:2-3) And again: “Verily the earth is God’s to give as a heritage to such of His servants as He pleases; and the end is best for the God-conscious.” (7:128)

Fasting is not simply a time during which people deprive themselves from physical pleasures, but is an occasion to exercise moral restrain and experience spiritual growth. Ramadan is a time of remembrance of God and renewal of commitment to the high and noble values he revealed to mankind. And nothing would give us the sense of spiritual fulfillment than a state of taqwq, of God-consciousness, that Ramadan helps us to realize.

This article appeared in the following publications:

The Milli Gazette
The American Muslim
IslamiCity
Georgia Asian Times (November 2005 - vol.2 no.3)
Media Monitors Network
Muslims Weekly
Naseeb Vibes

Read more >>>

Neocon Pundits Malign American Muslims: All Faiths Must Face their Demons

Three militant neocon pundits spoke vehemently against the Bush administration’s gesture to include American Muslim leaders in discussions on how to deal with the rising tide of anti-Americanism and to restore the level of trust and support the United States enjoyed prior to the missteps the administration took under the neocons’ urging.

Frank Gaffney issued a warning to Karen Hughes, the newly appointed Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, demanding that she does not attend the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) Convention. Ignoring the false alarm he set in a recent op-ed piece in the Washington Times, Ms. Hughes met with Muslim leaders and discussed her ideas for bridging the deepening divide between the United States and Muslim countries.

Gaffney told Hughes point bank: “Don’t go there.” Joel Mowbray, another neocon who is apparently more aware of the tactics of misinformation, gave her the benefit of the doubt, allowing her to make one mistake for one time: “Given that it is highly unlikely Hughes knew exactly what she was walking into, she deserves the benefit of the doubt—this time”

Gaffney belongs to a small but vocal group of militant pundits, driven by deep seated hate of Islam and Muslims, and bent on maligning Muslim leaders and organizations in a bid to marginalize and isolate mainstream American Muslims. Gaffney joined two other well known Muslim Bashers, Daniel Pipes and Joel Mowbray, in demonizing ISNA and the leaders of the national Muslim organizations that met Ms. Hughes.

Utilizing several conservative publications, including the Washington Times, the trio leveled serious allegations against mainstream Muslim organizations, accusing them of supporting terrorism and promoting radicalism. Using quotes taken out of context, guilt by association, errors of fact, and innuendo, the group has been active in feeding lies to the public and inciting government officials and law enforcement agencies to conduct investigations, and then use these investigations as a basis for further maligning law-abiding and patriot American Muslims.

Pipes accused , last year, the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) of being “part of the militant Islamist lobby," and contended that it was “well-disguised, and has brought in all the Islamist trends, giving them a patent of respectability."

After conducting a thorough investigation of Pipes’s accusations, the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) issued a statement that brought out the irresponsible nature of Pipes’s attacks. “The Institute was aware of and took seriously the accusations made against CSID and some of the speakers at the event,” Kay King, the director of Congressional and Public Affairs at USIP wrote. “These allegations were investigated carefully with credible private individuals and U.S. government agencies,” she went on, “and found to be without merit. The public criticism of CSID and the speakers was found to be based on quotes taken out of context, guilt by association, errors of fact, and innuendo.”

Gaffney, likewise, used misinformation and errors of fact to justify his demands that the Bush administration isolate the most inclusive and mainstream Muslim convention. He contended, in a recent article, that the Senate Finance Committee “listed ISNA as one of 25 American Muslim organizations that ‘finance terrorism and perpetuate violence.’" He, however, failed to disclose that the Finance Committee never found ISNA guilty of such allegations and that his reference relates to a letter sent by the committee chairman and the ranking member on December 22, 2003, asking the IRS to investigate Muslim charities for possible links to terrorist financing. 18 months have lapsed since February 20, 2004, the deadline set for the investigation, with no action, or even a congressional hearing conducted by the Finance Committee on the matter.

Mowbray, employing the same tactic of half-truths, quotes taken out of context, and innuendo, cited a Freedom House study that found Saudi publications in twelve mosques—out of 3500 throughout the country—that made bigoted references to followers of other religions. What Mowbray omits is the fact that the Freedom House, responding to complaints by American Muslim leaders of the misleading nature of the report's title, stressed that their study was intended to uncover the bigotry of the Saudi publications, and was never intended to implicate US mosques. The Freedom House went a step further and invited two of ISNA leaders to a meeting for consultation on its report and to explore the question of religious extremism.

These shameless attempts by Gaffney, Mowbray, and Pipes to malign mainstream Muslim organizations and leaders are not driven by rational and objective considerations, but by paranoia, prejudice, and irrational fear of Islam and Muslims. Such irrational and emotional anti-Muslim postures can only confuse the pubic and confound the fight on terrorism with the fight on Islam, and hence plays to the hands of the anti-American pundits who thrive on the missteps, and counterproductive actions and postures, urged by Gaffney and his ilk.

Mainstream American Muslims have already taken a principled and firm position against the senseless killings of unarmed and defenseless civilians. But their ability to succeed in drying the swamp of extremism that feeds into terrorist attacks can only succeed if the Jewish and Christian communities confront their bigots and extremists, and dry the ponds of bigotry in their midst.

It is heartening to realize that most Americans are able to see through the militant pundits’ paranoia and bigotry, as Karen Hughes has amply demonstrated when she ignored the false alarm they set off on the eve of her meeting with Muslim leaders during ISNA convention.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Aljazeera Magazine
Alt.Muslim
American Muslim Perspective
iViews
Official Wire
Middle East Online
The Milli Gazette
The Muslim Boserver
Naseeb Vibes
Washington Report
Washington Times
The American Muslim

Read more >>>

Beyond the Condemnation of Terrorism

London terrorist bombings elicited familiar response: Islamic organizations and Muslim communities in Europe and North America condemned the terrorist attacks and stressed the dissonance between the deplorable acts of the terrorists and the humane principles of Islam. Tony Blair paid tribute to the intrinsically peaceful teaching of Islam and reminded his countrymen that the British Muslims are law-abiding and contributing members of the British society, as he condemned the militant ideology espoused by the terrorists. “We know that these people act in the name of Islam,” Blair stressed, “but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims here and abroad are decent and law abiding people who abhor terrorism every bit as much as we do.”

Pundits of the militant Right found in the London attacks another opportunity to equate Islam with terrorism, to question the sincerity of the Muslim rejection of terrorism, and to incite the public against Islam and Muslims. Given the loud and extensive condemnation of terrorism by Muslims, particularly in North America and Europe, the militant-Right cry has shifted from “why Muslim leaders do not speak out against terrorism?” to “are Muslim leaders sincere in their condemnation of terrorism, or are they doing it to deflect anger and prevent a backlash?”

Clearly, Muslims are genuinely appalled by the brutality of the terrorist acts, and some are going the extra mile to make sure their condemnation is made loud enough, and is repeated enough, so that they can be heard by the deafest of their critics. The Fatwa issued by the Religious Council of North America, and supported by major Muslim organizations, is the latest effort in this regard.

The strong stand taken by American Muslim leaders against indiscriminate violence is a testimony of a remarkable maturity and the clarity of vision in dealing with a complex issue. The loud condemnation of terrorism is important to cut through the anti-Islam rhetorics and to reassure the public that Muslims reject indiscriminate violence and the killing of innocent civilians.

Muslim leaders cannot, however, stop their quest for justice at condemning atrocities committed by few misguided Muslim youth. They must do more to show young Muslims how to turn their moral indignation into a positive force that brings more balance and justice to the world, instead of exploding in anger. Muslim leaders must work more to shed light on the double-standard approach adopted by many western governments and institutions toward Muslims.

This is not only the right thing to do, but the only path to ensuring that Muslim leaders continue to speak for the values and interests of the larger Muslim community and address Muslim concerns. The expression of justice and compassion should not be reserved to atrocities committed by the terrorists against western civilians, but must also address Muslim pain and suffering visited on them by the action of western democracies.

Muslim leaders must do more to expose the harsh reality of many Muslims throughout the world and speak for the Muslim suffering; they must do more to pressure political leaders and leaders of public opinions to address the roots of anger and frustration that breed militancy and give rise to terrorism. The key here is the foreign policy of western powers, particularly the United States, toward Islam and Muslims. Ignoring legitimate grievances and applying double standards in dealing with Muslim societies and issues must stop if the war on terrorism is to bear fruits.

Muslim leaders and organizations have been repeatedly asked to condemn terrorism and repudiate individuals and groups connected with terrorist acts. This is a fair demand and Muslims should respond positively and take unequivocal stand against the violent attacks by angry Muslim radicals against innocent civilians and bystanders. By the same token, Muslim leaders should put similar demands on western leaders, and insist that the same set of standards be applied to all.

It does not help addressing the problem of terrorism when someone like Thomas Friedman put all the blame for terrorism on the Muslim world and feel that the West might be justified for treating every “Muslim living in a Western society” as a suspect and “a potential walking bomb,” and in cracking “down even harder on their own Muslim populations.” Friedman conveniently forgets that Western governments must take responsibility for befriending brutal dictators throughout the Muslim world, and supporting the daily humiliation of Palestinians in occupied Gaza and the West Bank.

It does not help when American leaders press hard to liberate European societies and Christian minorities in western Indonesia and southern Sudan from the yoke of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, but remain passive in the face of authoritarian regimes in the Muslim world, or in the face of the Israeli, the Indian, or the Thai aggression against Muslim populations that live under their control.

Similarly, Muslims do not hear loud condemnation when bigots like Ann Coulter, Daniel Pipes, Franklin Graham, Michael Savage, or Pat Robertson use venom to demonize Islam and Muslims, incite the attacks against both western and eastern Muslims, or openly call for violation of the basic human rights of all Muslims.

Muslim leaders must continue to speak against violence, brutality, and injustice, as they reject terrorism and indiscriminate violence against civilians and demand that the Islamic respect for the sanctity of human life, and the Islamic injunction against the killing of innocents be strictly observed. But this is not enough. Muslim leaders must go beyond the condemnation of terrorism to become more active in exposing the roots of violence, hatred, and terrorism. They must reject exclusivist ideologies that privilege particular religious or ethnic communities whether it takes the form of Jewish, Christian, or Muslim exclusivism.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Asia Times - Hong Kong
Middle East Times - Egypt
Official Wire - New York
India Monitor - UK
Media Monitor Network - CA
The American Muslim - USA
Monster and Critics - UK
American Muslim Perspective - USA
Naseeb Vibes - USA
Washington Times - USA

Read more >>>

Towards Women Friendly Mosques

The Islamic Social Services Association and Woman in Islam have released a guide underlining a set of principles rooted in Islamic sources that outlines the rights of Muslim women to have full access to the masjid, and calling on Muslim leaders to privilege Islamic principles and values over cultural habits and traditions. The guide is entitled “Women Friendly Mosques and Community Centers: Working Together to Reclaim Our Heritage.”

The guide presents a serious attempt to deal with an issue that requires an immediate attention by Muslim communities: the place of women in the masjid and the community. I personally faced the issue for the first time two decades ago when a Muslim Student Association board member objected to the inclusion of women in an executive meeting. He based his position in Islamic traditions, but his argument was found lacking by everyone else on the board. The meeting went on without him but with the two sisters.

The point of view that was expressed by the MSA board member alluded to above continued to be well represented over the years within the Muslim community, particularly among immigrants who grew up in societies were women did not take an active role in social life and community development. The point of view that was hostile to the presence of women in the masjid gained more following in many Islamic centers throughout North America, as the community grew more dependent on imams and scholars educated in universities that provide a narrow Islamic education.

Hammered by Islamic opinions apparently rooted in Islamic sources, many masjids started to erect barriers and drop curtains between the men and women areas. Eventually, many masjids designated a separate and secluded area for Muslim women. The strict seclusion often mimicked arrangements adopted by masjids in Muslim countries, and was tolerated by women who grew up in a condition of seclusion.

American-born Muslim women, including women grew up in immigrant families, find it increasingly difficult to accept the regime of seclusion in the masjid that cut them off from education and decision making. Some have chosen to stay away and find alternative ways to acquire Islamic education and engage in social services. Others went back to understand Islamic sources and to find out that there is no ground for the regime of seclusion.

The “Women Friendly Masques” guide is the outcome of a quest by Muslim women who made the journey to examine the Islamic sources and to face head on the arguments employed to perpetuate a regime that cuts Muslim women off from Islamic education and community service. The journey took them into direct contact with the Islamic text and put them in touch with Muslim scholars. The conclusion they came back is both refreshing and relieving for every Muslim women that was troubled with the sense of alienation she develop by visiting the center of Islamic life, whose prophet, peace be with him, came to reaffirm the spiritual and moral equality of both men and women.

The guide demonstrates that the regime of women’s seclusion is rooted more is social rationalization than in Islamic teachings. It demonstrates that the Prophet was concerned about the possible exclusion of women by overzealous men, and unequivocally instructed the community to make sure that women are not prevented from attending the masjid. The guide also shows that the arguments against women’s participation in the masjid boil down to the principle of dar’ al mafasid (prevention of corruption); such a principle cannot be invoked to invalidate an established right sanctioned by Islamic law.

The guide does not stop at articulating a position rooted in the most authentic Islamic sources, but provides practical guidelines to help community leaders ensure that the masjid is a center for spiritual growth and learning for all Muslims. It also shares the perspective of women who experienced seclusion first hand, and documents through statistical data the extent of women’s seclusion and marginalization in North American masjids.

The guide is intended to clarify the Islamic position concerning women’s participation in the masjid by ascertaining Islamic sources. The conclusions will not sit well with Muslims who have already established their positions on the basis of their cultural experiences. The guide is likely to be dismissed by two groups: those who are convinced that women should stay away from the public square, and those who are oblivious to the importance of community support and maturation for realizing moral and spiritual equality.

Regardless of initial reactions, I am sure that most Muslims will view it as an important tool to deal with a complex issue. I do pray that those who agree with the guide’s conclusions will not only node their heads in agreement, but will do their level best to make its guidelines a part and parcel of the daily life of the Islamic center and community. The fact that five of the largest and most influential mainstream Muslim organizations have embraced the guide will go long way towards translating the ideals it articulates to reality.


Link to “Women Friendly Mosques” at: http://www.ildc.net/womens-involvement/

This article appeared in the following publications:

American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences - USA

Read more >>>

Can the United States Lose the Whole World and its Own Soul Too?

Under a tremendous pressure from the White House, the Newsweek finally retracted its story on the desecration of the Qur'an at Guantanamo prison, and apologized for being sloppy in verifying sources. Rather than convincing the world that the interrogators at Guantanamo are innocent of the charges of abusing Islam's holy book, the Newsweek's retraction reinforced the perception that US media is toeing the government's line and that it has become impotent to challenge government's excesses.

Once again the Bush administration demonstrated its inability to deal with excesses committed by US security agencies. Many have hoped that the administration gets tough with those who violate basic human rights, tarnish the US image, and undermine the moral and political authority of the United States.

Many have also hoped that the White House and the Pentagon would appoint a neutral fact-finding team to investigate the charges, and either bring to task individuals implicated in torture, or declare that the charges are false and groundless. Instead, the administration took a defensive posture and haphazardly dismissed serious charges, placing the blame for the public uproar in several Muslim countries squarely on the Newsweek.

The charges of torture and abuse have been told repeatedly in many news reports, including reports that were published in three mainstream newspapers: New York Times, Financial Times, and Denver Post. A report published by the New York Times on May 1, 2005, cited a former American interrogator who corroborated early accounts by several detainees alleging that guards at Guantanamo had tossed copies of the Qur'an into a pile and stepped on them. The International Red Cross Committee also confirmed that it has received complaints from Guantanamo prisoners concerning Qur'an desecration long before the Newsweek broke the news.

Evidently, the Bush administration has not been able to come to grips with the ramifications of such actions on the image and credibility of the United States. The United States, which stood prior to 9/11 as the defender of human rights, is now as guilty of violating human rights as any of the authoritarian regimes it repudiates.

And let us be clear, the image of the United States as a country guilty of human rights violations and of Muslim bashing was not created by the Newsweek account, but emerged as a result of a long list of missteps and abuses. Let us recall the most serious ones:

In 2001 and 2002, bigotry and intolerance were elevated to a tolerable national discourse by leading evangelical leaders who insulted Islam and its prophet, and did it with impunity. Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson described Islam as "wicked, violent and not of the same god," and called the Prophet of Islam a "terrorist" and "pedophile," and were allowed to get away with it. Little has been done so far to reign in Christian and Jewish extremists.

In November 2002, John Ashcroft, then the US attorney general, got away with similar bigoted remarks when he asserted that "Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him," while "Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you." Ashcroft never denied that he made the statement, nor did he apologized despite demands by several American Muslim organizations to retract his statement.

In the same year Ashcroft made his remarks, The Department of Justice embarked on a massive detention and deportation of thousands of innocent Muslim immigrants in the name of fighting terrorism. Many of those who were detained were denied visitation by family members, and representation by lawyers. Deprived from the due process enshrined in the US constitution, they were eventually deported on minor violations.

In October 2003, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, was allowed to keep his job after telling church gatherings that the Christian God is "real" and the Muslim is "idol." Secretary Rumsfeld defended Baykin's bigoted remarks by citing the latter's freedom of speech.

In December 2003, the military accused Col. James Lee, a dedicated Muslim Chaplain and West Point graduate, of spying, and ordered his incarceration in a maximum security facility, but failed to provide any evidence to back up these serious charges. Chaplain Yee was eventually found innocent of all charges laid against him, including charges of adultery and pornography concocted when the spying charges were withdrawn. The army refused to issue an apology and Lee resigned.

In May 2004, Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim lawyer and former Army officer, was arrested by FBI agents in connection with the Madrid terrorist bombing. The FBI maintained its certainty that Mayfield's fingerprints matched those found on bags left behind by the terrorists even after Spanish authorities said that the original image of the fingerprint did not match Mayfield's. He was eventually released after spending two weeks in prison.

In December 2004, the open season on Islam and Muslims by extreme Religious Right pundits reached a new low, when the Washington Times, a leading American newspaper, published an article by Sam Harris, entitled "Mired in a Religious War." The article declared Islam the enemy, and openly advocates an all-out war on Islam and Muslims.

In December 2004, 46 American Muslims were fingerprinted, searched and held for 6 hours by U.S. border security agents upon returning from a religious conference in Canada. The incident is the latest in a series of overzealous ethnic and religious profiling, and of the targeting of law-abiding American Muslims in the name of national security.

The above list, though far from being complete, reveals disturbing patterns of Muslim bashing and abuse, and underscores the troubling fact that some public officials in various departments and at highest levels espouse prejudices toward Islam and Muslims. While the number of bigots and zealots is still limited, the damage they have done to both American Muslims and the reputation of the United States is enormous.

It is about time that the Bush administration becomes proactive in weeding out reckless public servants, takes a firm stance against violations of the civil rights of American Muslims and vigorously investigates such violations, and engages American Muslim leaders in consultation on ways and means to mend fences with the Muslim World.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Middle East Online - London
Media Monitor Newtwork - USA
The American Muslim

Read more >>>

Breaking the Vicious Circle of Anti-Americanism and Islamophobia

Anti-Americanism and Islamophobia share a common denominator: they both serve as a strategic weapon in the war of ideas between Muslim and Western extremists and bigots. On one level, anti-Americanism and Islamophobia stem from ignorance, deception, and misrepresentation. On a deeper level, however, they stem from a very basic human instinct: the will to power unrestrained and undisciplined by moral values; they stem from human greed and the will to dominate, exploit, and abuse.

While both truth and vanity play a role in shaping anti-Americanism and Islamophobia, I am less concerned with the vain sources of these sentiments that take the form of deception, jealousy, and arrogance. I am more concerned, however, with the true sources of anti-Americanism and Islamophobia, namely U.S. foreign policy and exclusivist political ideologies that fuel extremism and terrorism. U.S. foreign policy, as articulated by the neo-conservatives, is bent on dominating and manipulating Muslim societies for achieving narrow economic and geopolitical interests; similarly, exclusivist ideologies continue to inflame the vicious terror campaigns that justify the killing of civilians for achieving political ends.

It is not difficult for any person aware of the patterns of U.S. foreign policy toward the Muslim world, and of the terror campaign conducted by militant Muslims, to see that the two are interrelated and feed one another. The United States has for decades supported dictatorships and corrupt military regimes in the name of maintaining stability, and those regimes have bred extremism and gave rise to terrorist groups.

Yet the fact that U.S. foreign policy feeds into, and is fed by, the rise of extremism and terrorism in Muslim countries does not mean that we are moving in a vicious circle. The Untied States is in a position to end the cycle of violence and counter-violence, and American Muslims are well situated to help in redirecting U.S. foreign policy and in bridging the deepening divide between Muslim and Western societies.

There are reasons to believe that the Bush Administration has become increasingly aware, after 9/11, of the pitfalls of supporting autocratic regimes in the Muslim world, and has made several readjustments in its foreign policy approach toward Muslim countries. Not only is the Bush Administration increasingly reluctant to openly support military and authoritarian regimes, but is increasingly coming to terms with the fact that no democratic government is possible without the involvement of Islamically-oriented political groups, as developments in Turkey and Iraq have demonstrated.

This does not mean that the Bush Administration has undergone a profound change of attitude; nor does it mean that the Administration has distanced itself from unilateralism and military preeminence that led to the war in Iraq. Bush has recently nominated John Bolton, a neo-conservative unilateralist, as the US ambassador to the UN, and continues to give him his full support, despite objection from leading Republicans. This is the same Bolton who, less than two years ago, expressed an utter contempt toward international law and the United Nations. “It is a big mistake for us,” he wrote, “to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so—because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States.”

We must reject the neo-conservatives’ obsession with domination and empire building. Their drive to ensure the political and military dominance of the United States might appear at first glance patriotic, but in actuality it is undermining the political and moral standing of the United States by undermining democracy and freedom at home and rolling back the most important American achievements on the world stage: international law and the United Nations organization.

American Muslims are well positioned to expose the deceptions of power hungry unilateralists, and bridge the divide between Muslim and Western countries. American Muslims should equally reject the bigoted spirit of exclusivist ideologies that use religion in all its forms as a weapon for achieving political supremacy, and demonize and dehumanize political opponents. American Muslims should take a firm and resolute stance against individuals and groups that use violence and terror against civilians in the name of Islam, and condemn all campaigns of terrorism by militant Islamic groups like al-Qaeda, as they do condemn those who justify violence and aggression against Muslims in the name of biblical prophecies and religious supremacy.

The time has come for the world to undertake a profound shift in political thinking and practice, similar to the one achieved in Europe in modern times. A democratic and free Europe came to life when the feudal system that privileged a small class of European elites was rejected and replaced with a system based on political equality and the rule of law. A democratic and free world will be achieved when the current political structure that perpetuates political and economic disparity is replaced with one in which all are equally treated under international law, and have fairly equal access to international organizations.

For two centuries, America has shown that it is capable of transcending its limitations and marching behind those who struggle to realize the ideals of freedom, justice, and equality. And throughout its history, America stood behind those who fought for equal rights and equal dignity against self-centered groups that wanted to preserve their privileges. American Muslims must take a firm stand against the militant Religious Right that is bent on denying them the equal dignity they deserve. As long as they uphold the values of freedom, justice, and equal dignity for all, and reach out to other fellow Americans who share with them deep commitment to these values, they are destined, with the grace of God, to defeat the unscrupulous and mean-spirited attacks led by hate mongers and religious bigots.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Asia Times - Hong Kong
The American Muslim - USA
Media Monitor Network - USA
American Muslim Perspective - USA
Naseeb Vibes - USA
Muslim Wake Up! - USA

Read more >>>

Hardliners in Search of Moderate Muslims

A moderate is one who is given to moderation in views and practices, and who avoids extravagance and excesses. Moderation is considered a virtue in both ancient philosophy and revealed religions. Greek philosophers regarded moderation as one of four fundamental moral virtues.

The Qur’an, which acknowledges the Torah and the Gospel, directs Muslims to seek moderation in religious practices and spending, and warns Muslims against fanaticism and extravagance. The Prophet of Islam, likewise, warned Muslims not to commit excesses, and took every occasion to remind them to be moderate. “Seek religious duties with care and avoid hast,” he stressed, “for the hasty often fails to complete his journey and destroys the vessel that carries him.”

In modern days, the term is frequently used in reference to the political centrist: “a person who takes a position in the political center.” A moderate is a person who is neither on the extreme left nor extreme right of the political spectrum. A moderate also is one who does not resort to violence or intimidation to achieve political goals.

Since 9/11, we have seen a rash of articles by pundits who seek to identify moderates within the American Muslim community. After spending a lot of energy and efforts to find the elusive Muslim moderate, the pundits settle for less than perfect Muslim moderates by stretching the definition of “moderate”, “Muslim”, or both. Jen Shroder tells her readers that her hatred of Islam and contempt of the Qur’an does not prevent her from loving all Muslims. “I have liked every Muslim I have ever met,” she proclaims. In an article appropriately entitled The Plight of Moderate Muslims, a People without a Religion, published in Alan Keyes’s Renew America, she cautions against treating moderate Muslims harshly. “As America slowly admits the enemy is true Islam,” Shroder stresses, “every effort must be made to embrace the moderate Muslim, not persecute them.” Shroder goes on to explain why it is okay to be kind to moderate Muslims: “The answer is not to blind our eyes and try to convince ourselves that moderate Muslims represent true Islam. They don't. Islam is defined by its holy books, and the holy books proclaim death to all who oppose it [sic], even moderate Muslims.”

The cynicism of the extreme Religious Right aside, the need to distinguish moderate from extremist Muslims is genuine. The terrorist attacks on the American homeland have demonstrated the ruthlessness of the terrorists and their willingness to inflict harms on noncombatant civilians, and the terrorists who undertook these attacks were apparently religiously motivated Muslims. Americans of all religious and ideological backgrounds have a genuine interest in ensuring that religious fanatics do not threaten the safety and security of the public.

9/11 was particularly hard on the American Muslim community. In addition to suffering a high number of casualties, 9/11 attacks brought additional pain to the Muslim community, as Muslims had to deal with suspicious public and added scrutiny by law enforcement agencies. The Muslim community has had its fair share of the pain inflicted on Americans as 75 Muslims perished in the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. American Muslim organizations were the first to issue condemnations of the attacks and their perpetrators. Despite several dozen statements by Muslim organizations and leaders denouncing terrorism, the Religious Right pundits continue to complain that Muslim leaders have not denounced terrorism, and continue to demand more condemnations.

The search for moderate Muslims has become a priority of highest importance in post 9/11. American leaders recognized the need to distinguish between Muslim extremists who are willing to employ terror to achieve political ends, and moderate Muslims who abhor intolerance and indiscriminate targeting of civilians, and who share with their fellow Americans deep concern for the wellbeing of their country. George W. Bush’s emphasis on the peaceful nature of Islam during a visit to the Washington Islamic Center, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and his clear distinction between the peace-loving and law-abiding American Muslims on the one hand, and political extremism and religious fanaticism on the other, was important for reassuring the public and calming public fear immediately after the attacks.

The search for moderate Muslims has attracted a number of ultra-conservative groups, who have, for decades, displayed apprehension and anxiety about the growing presence of Islam in America. Taking advantage of the climate of vulnerability and fear brought about by the horrific attacks of 9/11, and the lack of knowledge on the part of the American public of Islam’s values and civilizational contributions, hardliners embarked on an anti-Islam campaign to discredit and isolate mainstream American Muslim organizations.

Hardliners are engaged in cynical efforts to undermine the work of mainstream organizations who have been working for decades to develop Muslim institutions to nurture the needs of the growing American Muslim community, help the community integrate into the larger American society, and protect the civil rights and liberties of Muslims. Hardliners are busy in inventing Muslim organizations whose main missions are to roll back American Muslim achievements.

Daniel Pipes, whose whole carrier is built on bashing Muslims and confusing the public through half truths and innuendos, is yet to find moderate Muslim organizations or leaders. He has accused every Muslim organization and leader of repute of extremism, militancy, and radicalism. His list of militant organizations includes: The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Muslim American Society (MAS), and others. Muslim organizations have for years been the subject of his attacks and accusations. He, most recently, added the newly founded Progressive Muslim Union of North America (PMUNA) and the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) to the list.

Pipes collaborates with a group of off-centrists that includes David Horowitz, Kenneth Timmerman, Steve Emerson, and Steven Schwartz in attacking Islam and Muslims. The group employs smear tactics of “quotes taken out of context, guilt by association, errors of fact, and innuendo,” and utilizes neo-conservative publications such as the Daily and Weekly Standards, National Review, Insight, and Front Page Magazine, to coordinate their attacks.

Pipes’s mean-spirited and bigoted attacks against Muslim organizations came to the fore few months ago when he embarked on a smear campaign against the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID). Using his leverage as a member of the board of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), he pressed hard to cancel a seminar the Institute organized jointly with CSID. Pipes accused CSID of being “part of the militant Islamist lobby," and contended that it was “well-disguised, and has brought in all the Islamist trends, giving them a patent of respectability."

After conducting a thorough investigation of Pipes’s claims, USIP issued a statement that brought out the irresponsible nature of Pipes’s attacks. “The Institute was aware of and took seriously the accusations made against CSID and some of the speakers at the event,” Kay King, the director of Congressional and Public Affairs at USIP. “These allegations were investigated carefully with credible private individuals and U.S. government agencies,” she went on, “and found to be without merit. The public criticism of CSID and the speakers was found to be based on quotes taken out of context, guilt by association, errors of fact, and innuendo.” Pipes was defiant in the face of USIP’s rebuke, contending that “President [George W.] Bush appointed [him] to the USIP board in part to serve as a watchdog against militant Islamic groups.” He was ultimately pushed out from the USIP’s board as his recess appointment was not renewed.”

Failing to isolate Muslim organizations and to scare them off, the Anti-Islam campaign is now testing the old strategy of divide and conquer with the Muslim community. Pipes has procured seed funds for a new organization whose main mission is to recruit “moderate Muslims” to undermine leading Muslim organizations. The Center for Islamic Pluralism (CIP), led by Steven Schwartz, who serves as its executive director, was created to serve as “a think tank that challenges the dominance of American Muslim life by militant Islamist groups,” the Center’s mission statement reads.

CIP executive director does show profound appreciation of Pipes’s moral and financial support, and is fully committed to his agenda and completely behold to his jargon. Jim Lobe states, in a report that came out couple of month ago, that Pipes was “working with Stephen Schwartz on a new Center for Islamic Pluralism (CIP) whose aims are to ‘promote moderate Islam in the U.S. and globally’ and ‘to oppose the influence of militant Islam, and, in particular, the Saudi-funded Wahhabi sect of Islam, among American Muslims, in the America media, in American education … and with U.S. governmental bodies.’"

“The ‘extremists,’ according to the CIP proposal, are mainly represented by the ‘Wahhabi lobby,’ an array of organizations consisting of CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), the Muslim Students' Association of the U.S. and Canada (MSA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), as well as ‘secular’ groups, including the Arab-American Institute (AAI) and the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).”

Having failed to find moderate Muslims, Pipes and company is now ready to invent them. The great irony, though, is that those who are busy producing moderate Muslims have long time ago moved from the center to the ideological fringes of the American society. The fact that they are still able to procure funds to finance their hate mongering business speaks volumes to the deep seated prejudices against Islam and Muslims that lurk among Religious Right groups who finance and support both their public and furtive operations.

The pundits leading the anti-Islam campaign will continue their business as usual, and are unlikely to be deterred by a limited exposure of their deception and distortion. The exposure must be complete. The American Muslim Community cannot, however, continue doing business as usual. It must take responsibility for the fact that Muslim bashers are exploiting its inability to mount a strong response to stop those who are digging under its feet. More specifically, American Muslims must intensify their efforts and take more seriously their work in the following areas:

1. Building national institutions and supporting organizations engaged in building leadership capacity within the Muslim community, and defending the rights and dignity of American Muslims.
2. Joining hands with local and national organizations that provide public services, and channeling their human and financial resources to serve the larger American public.
3. Coordinating their activities so as to avoid duplication and bickering, and to act in unison in face of those who espouse ill-will and ill-intentions toward Islam and American Muslims.

Muslim bashers can plot and deceive, but they cannot change the facts on the ground: American Muslims are proud citizens of this country and are intent on building their lives on the basis of the sublime values of compassion and dignity. It takes only a direct and open exposure of the American Muslims’ serious work, and the vanity of their detractors, for the deception to dissipate. “Thus does God show forth truth and vanity. For the scum disappears like froth cast out; while that which is for the good of mankind remains on the earth.” (Qur’an 13:17)

This articles appeared in the following publications:

Alt.Muslim - USA
Media Monitor Network - USA
The American Muslim - USA
Naseeb Vibes - USA

Read more >>>

Islam’s Encounter with American Culture: Making Sense of the Progressive Muslim Agenda

The Progressive Muslim Union (PMU)’s drive to realign Islam to progressive values has stirred a controversy that was felt beyond the American shores. While the immediate questions of the controversy evolved around the right of women to lead a mixed-gender prayer, the discussion revealed deeper and profounder issues and concerns. At the core of the debate lies the old question of understanding divine intent and relating the revealed word to social context and cultural practices. How does one interpret Islamic sources in the contemporary world? How can one differentiate the universal elements of Islam from cultural practices that have particular relevance to specific time and place? And, above all, how does Islam affects, and is affected by, American cultures and traditions.

Arguments from Common Sense

Does Islam allow women to lead men in prayers? The question, for progressive Muslims, evolves around the issues of gender equality, women empowerment, and the egalitarian ethos of modernity. For conservative Muslims, however, the question focuses on preserving Islamic traditions and avoiding the corrupting effects of modernity.

The proponents of women’s rights to lead a mixed-gender congregation stress the fact that the Qur’an is clear on the moral equality of men and women, and rejects the notion of Islamic traditions, which they see as an appeal to historically and geographically bound cultural traditions of an essentially patriarchic society. Husein Ibish, PMU vice chair, epitomizes this stance as he dismisses Hina Azam’s appeal to methodology and tradition as sheer legalism in the service of patriarchy. “For the sake of tradition, and in order to preserve what she claims is a divinely ordained male religious leadership,” Ibish protests, “her own better judgment and indeed the principal of scrutability are tossed aside.” For Ibish, Azam is guilty of abandoning modern spirit for membership in the jurists’ club. “It's not about what you and I want, or what makes sense,” he contends, “or what I can defend in any way without reference to the deeply patriarchal and hermeneutically closed circle of the traditions of legal scholarship…”

Arguments from Tradition

Hina Azam rejects the “common sense” position embraced by the progressives, reminding us that submitting to the divine will is the essence of Islam, and this must be done is a systematic and consistent way. “It is the divine will that I believe we are charged with discerning, not our personal sensibilities.” Since the divine will is communicated through the Qur’an and exemplified in prophetic actions and statements (sunnah), the way to discern it is through a proper reading and sound methodology, i.e. a “sound system of legal reasoning which is consistent with the texts of the Qur'an and the most-likely-authentic Sunna, and which emerges from a spirit of piety and submission to Allah (or khushu').”

The progressives are impatient with the very idea of a systematic and internally consistent reasoning, rooted in Islamic traditions, and are more comfortable with a free floating reasoning that rests comfortably in the “common sense” of post-modern American society. It is not difficult to see that the progressives are promoting a set of values embraced by the global progressive movement. It is not logic and methodology that disturbs Ibish in Azam’s argument, but rather the juristic tradition she invokes, which seems to compromise the puritan and absolute gender equality the progressives wholeheartedly embrace.

Muslim Identity and Competing Traditions

The conflict that plays itself out in the women-imam saga stems out from competing traditions that are informed by both cultures and ideologies. On one extreme stands an ultra-conservative tradition behold to a social mode in which men reign supreme in society. Women may receive education but are either discouraged from or denied the right to participate in social services and decision making. Traditional Muslim societies have pushed, over many centuries, women into the private sphere, and confined them completely to household concerns and services.

On the other extreme stands western feminism, uncritically embraced by progressive Muslims, which rejects all gender differences as irrelevant. The feminist obliteration of gender differences are strongly protested by reformist voices within the Islamic community as an obliteration of all feminine experiences and as a sign of male-worshipping tendencies. “But as western feminism erases God from the scene,” Yasmin Mogahed argues, “there is no standard left—but men. As a result the western feminist is forced to find her value in relation to a man. And in so doing she has accepted a faulty assumption. She has accepted that man is the standard, and thus a woman can never be a full human being until she becomes just like a man—the standard.”

Yamin Zakaria agrees with Yasmin that making man the standard of human behavior is interconnected with the gradual disappearance of the notion of God from the secular worldview. This explains to him the subordination of Islam to modernist values by the progressives. “But why should this be a one-way lane where religious values that are divine, reinterpreted to comply with man-made secular values?” Yamin exclaims. “This means that the ‘progressive’ ‘religious’ movements are using secular values as the ultimate arbiter: clearly they are a fraudulent religious movement. Their activity is undermining the divine text from within that makes them more dangerous than the clearly visible belligerent apostates and infidels.”

Islam and Cultural Traditions

Islam aims at realigning cultural attitudes and social practices with a set of universal values and principles that transcend all specific cultures and modes of social organization. Early Muslims were aware of important differences between religious injunctions and their manifestations in a particular cultural tradition. This awareness allowed people to reintegrate Islamic teachings to their own cultures. This has given rise to a multitude of manifestations of Islamic values, and allowed different cultures to maintain local traditions while embracing the teaching of Islam.

The interaction between Islamic values and local traditions can be observed in the variety of fashions, architectures, marriage ceremonies, celebrations of festivities, selection of judges, etc, that set different Muslim cultures apart. The Prophet, peace be with him, is clear that his mission was not to reject early traditions, but to build on traditions and practices founded on sound moral principles while reforming degenerate traditions and practices. “I was sent but to complete good morals.” He, therefore, embraced those pre-Islamic cultural traditions of his community that fostered mutual help and compassion, such as honoring guests, and the welfare system offered by the tribe to all tribesmen. The Prophet, by the same token, rejected practices that lent themselves to aggression and injustice, condemning, for instance, tribal solidarity with members of one’s tribe regardless of their culpability in criminal cases.

The Qur’an itself recognized local customs as a legitimate source of social norms, and directed the Prophet to respect local customs as long as they do not contravene established Islamic principles. “Hold to forgiveness; command the practice of good customs (‘urf), but turn away from the ignorant.” (Qur'an 7:199) Yet, the Qur’an was very critical of established practices that defied the principles of right and justice, and was forthright in rejecting the attempts to justify corrupt practices on the basis of established traditions. “When it is said to them: Follow what Allah has revealed, they say: Nay! we shall follow the ways of our fathers. What! even though their fathers were void of wisdom and guidance?” (Qur'an 2:170)

Subordinating Islamic Injunctions to Cultural Tastes

Traditions are essential for human development, as they are essential for coordinating individual actions and ensuring social harmony. Traditions are not static, but evolve with social and cultural changes experienced by all societies. The development and evolution of traditions are not arbitrary, but are guided by basic attitudes and values. It is, therefore, important to identify the normative sources of a particular tradition when we examine competing traditions and ideologies within the Muslim community.

It is a fair question to ask about the extent to which tribal traditions and the gender-laden notion of honor influence recent immigrants from Middle Eastern societies, as it is fair to ask about the extent to which sexual promiscuity and moral laxity rampant in the post-modern west are at work among Muslims acculturated in western societies. When honor killing is condoned in societies with strong tribal heritage, even though it is a major crime in Islam, without a strong condemnation by religious leaders the question of subordinating Islamic principles to tribal traditions is unavoidable. Similarly, when Muslim communities neglect to provide a proper space for women in the masjid, and the male leaders of the masjid prevent women from entering the main hall to participate in Islamic learning sessions, the question of subordinating Islam to patriarchic cultures is in order.

By the same token, when the progressives reduce sexual promiscuity, be it out-of-wedlock or same-sex sexual relations, into none issue, and insist that modesty in dress or gesture are governed by cultural taste rather than Islamic principles, the question of subordinating Islamic principles to progressive “common sense” becomes an issue. The progressives openly reject the hijab, normalize homosexual lifestyle, and find it convenient to use sexual innuendos as a strategy to engage public issues; they have privileged the promiscuous and the hedonistic post-modern culture over fundamental Islamic principles and values.

No Genuine Moral Claims outside Living Communities

An important sign of one’s commitment to a set of moral values is to see them evolve in a moral community. That is, the true value of moral principles is not in their academic expression and annunciation, but in their ability to transform a living community and improve the quality of life therein. The question about the purpose of sponsoring the mixed-gender prayer is exceedingly important in evaluating the Muslim Progressive Agenda. The event is more of a religious stunt by media savvy individuals than a step in community building. Such events may create a new world record in Guinness Book but does not nurture a new way of life. If the progressive Muslims were more serious about prayer and the masjid, they would have waited to evolve a living community and establish a masjid that embraces their moral interpretations of Islam. Such a community would have provided a true test and practical illustration as to whether the proposed practices could uplift the Muslim spirit, or degenerate into a hedonistic colony.

Historical Muslim society, regardless of what faults we moderns can assign to, has a distinctive quality: combining stress on religious identity with unparalleled tolerance to religious, doctrinal, and moral diversity. Morality and justice was not expressed as an abstract notion to be debated within academic circles, but as a set of shared values to be lived and evolved in a living community. The standards of moral living were those embraced by the members of the community; the various fiqh schools were not simply academic schools or clubs, but formed around moral communities. Ultimately, a person is judged morally, even legally, by the standards to which he or she subscribed. A follower of the Hanafi school of fiqh is judged by a Hanafi judge, i.e. a member of the moral community to which they belonged, and not by any other judge belonging to a different moral community, or by a legal code enacted by central authorities.

This tremendous concern about the moral autonomy of people explains how Islamic civilization was able to accommodate, in remarkable harmony, different religious, doctrinal, theological, ethnic, and cultural traditions for over 1400 years. It is imperative for American Muslims—who belong to a markedly diverse society and who aspire to develop their community and reassert their Islamic values—to recall the outstanding openness of historical Muslim society, and to allow sufficient space to accommodate variety of interpretations and experiences.

Lashing Out

The Progressive Muslims’s Agenda—which aims at realigning Islamic values with progressivism— is excessive because it is a reaction to serious failure of many Islamic centers to embrace socially-active women and American-born Muslims. By insisting on re-living their cultural traditions, while failing to recognize positive and neutral elements of the American culture, Muslim immigrants have, wittingly and unwittingly, alienated a significant number of American-born Muslims, including a significant portion of their own children. These include: African Americans, white Americans, young Muslim professionals, and Muslim women.

The progressive excesses and provocations are invoked, in the first place, by the deficiencies of the leaders of many Islamic centers, who continue to give priority to the preservation of cultural habits and customs over promoting Islamic values within American society. Two leading members of the PMU shared with me their frustration with the dismissive attitude of masjid officials in their hometowns toward female members of the community. One shared with me her regrets of never having the chance to learn about Islam as her community failed to offer Islamic education to young girls. She told me that “her family never considered Islamic education as important for a Muslim girl.” The opportunity to frequent the masjid was for her male siblings alone. Another bright young woman informed me that she stopped going to the Islamic center in her hometown in recent years as she resented the policy of confining her to a secluded and neglected room in the masjid, away from the main hall where learning, discussions, and activities take place.

Watching for years Muslim immigrants, mainly from the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, assert their cultural habits and traditions, the progressive Muslims are in turn asserting the cultural habits and traditions of the most liberal (progressive) elements of the American culture. The chicken came home to roost! Progressive Muslims are clearly lashing out, as their first concerted act reveals. They are not engaged in developing a community but provoking a community that has shunned them. They are not engaged in a critical examination of the culture they grew up in, but challenging the culture that alienate them.

Islam’s Untapped Moral and Spiritual Resources

Islam’s tremendous moral and spiritual resources are compromised when Muslims privilege customs and habits over values and principles. Throughout the history of Islam, Muslim communities thrived when they invoked the moral and spiritual power of Islam, and used it to reform degenerate practices and promote healthy and vibrant traditions. The center of Muslim rejuvenation always moved to areas where people freely and intelligently embraced Islamic values and principles and employed them to develop a living Islamic tradition. American Muslims have today a golden opportunity to serve as catalysts in moving Islamic institutions and practices to new heights. To do that, American Muslims must rise above their cultural limitations, whether they are home grown or imported, and make sure that the sublime values of Islam, rather than their habits and customs, are the locus of social organization and change.

Read more >>>

Woman and the Masjid between Two Extremes

The masjid, better known in North America as the Islamic center, is the center of spiritual, social, educational, and, most recently, political activities of the American Muslim community. The masjid is also the place where Muslims of diverse cultural and ideological backgrounds meet and interact. The diversity of interpretations of Islamic sources and practices has created tensions, particularly in Islamic centers where the tendency is to impose strict interpretations about the appropriate place and role of Muslim women in the masjid and the community.

An increasing number of young Muslim women complain of restrictive arrangements and practices, impeding their ability to fully participate in educational and social programs. Many masjids today restrict the main prayer hall to men, and assign women to secluded quarters. Women are asking out laud: is this the place Islam assigns for us, or is it the imposition of cultural traditions? Some have even gone to the other extreme of rejecting all traditions and discarding all limits.

For Believing Men and Women

The masjid is a place for spiritual growth and development for all Muslims, and should be equally accessible for both genders. The Qur’an has set the spiritual and moral equality of men and women in explicit and unequivocal terms:

Allah has prepared forgiveness and great rewards for the Muslim men and women; for the believing men and women; for the devout men and women; for the truthful men and women; for the men and women who are patient and constant; the men and women who humble themselves; for the men and women who give charity; for the men and women who fast, for the men and women who guard their chastity; and the men and women who are exceedingly mindful of Allah. (Al-Ahzab 33:35)

Both men and women, the Qur’an stresses, have a moral obligation to develop themselves spiritually and morally, and to fulfill their social responsibilities. The masjid is, and has always been, the center of moral and spiritual learning and growth.

Likewise, the masjid is a public place for discussing issues of public concern and to respond to challenges facing the community. The Qur’an is also clear on the equal responsibility of both men and women for developing the public good:

The believing men and women are protectors and helpers of each other. They (collaborate) to promote all that is good and oppose all that is evil; establish prayers and give charity, and obey Allah and his Messenger. Those are the people whom Allah would grant mercy. Indeed Allah is Exalted and Wise. (Al-Tawbah 9:71)

Promoting public good and opposing evil are public duties equally required from men and women, and the masjid is the place where Muslim men and women can meet to plan community development and devise strategies for promoting public good.

The Prophet Affirms Equal Access

During the formative years of Islam women participated in public services, and shared the Masjid of the Prophet’s main hall. Sharing the main prayer hall allowed women to fully engage in public debate and influence decisions affecting their lives and the life of the community. When the second Caliph Umar bin al-Khatab wanted to put a cap on dowry, he was challenged by a woman, who stood up in the middle of the masjid and pointed out that his proposed policy violated Islamic law. He conceded and the proposed policy was never carried out.

Although the Qur’an is clear on the spiritual and moral equality of men and women, the Prophet, recognizing the tendency of some men to be overprotective of their female relatives, cautioned the Muslim community against preventing women from frequenting the masjid:

Ibn Umar narrated: The Messenger of Allah, peace be with him, said: Do not deprive women of their share of the masjids, when they seek permission from you. Bilal said: By Allah, we would certainly prevent them. 'Abdullah said: I say that the Messenger of Allah, peace be with him, said it and you say: We would certainly prevent them! (Sahih Muslim Book 4, Number 891)

Ibn Umar also narrated: The Prophet, peace be with him, said, "Allow women to go to the Mosques at night." (Bukhari Volume 2, Book 13, Number 22)

Sidestepping Established Principles

The argument against women sharing the main prayer hall is based on the principle of “corruption prevention” (dar’ al-mafasid). The principle states that “whatever leads to unlawful practices (haram) is in itself unlawful.” The principle, though not widely accepted by Muslim jurists, has been extensively used to limit actions that are otherwise lawful under Shari’ah. It was invoked by some jurists to reject the use of radio, TV, press, and other inventions because these were used to promote corrupt practices. Indeed, by invoking the principle of “corruption prevention” many good practices and devices could be declared unlawful, including the use of the internet and popular governance, as both are open to abuse.

Employing the “corruption prevention” argument, a number of masjids have decided to assign secluded quarters for women, and have placed many restrictions on women’s use of the masjid's facilities. In recent visits to three Islamic centers, several Muslim women complained bitterly to me about their experiences with community leaders. They complained of their inability to participate in general lectures and discussions, of the quality of the quarters assigned to them, and of their reliance on audio and video systems that frequently cut them off from the ongoing lectures or discussions.

Assigning women to separate quarters during lectures and discussions does not “prevent corruption” but rather “prevent education and spiritual growth.” I have heard many accounts of women completely immersed in conversations about shopping and cooking recipes during public lectures. The seclusion gives some women the feeling of distance and separation, and some women conclude that the events that take place in the main hall do not concern them. In such instances, the women’s quarters become less friendly to women who want to concentrate on learning and community issues.

Not all masjids embrace a mandatory seclusion policy. Many leading masjids, such as Dulles Area Musim Society (ADAMS), ensure that women share the main hall, participate fully in learning and consultation, and take active role in running the masjid. Women serve on the executive board of ADAMS and on its board of trustees. 5 of the 13 Board of Trustees members are women, and ADAMS vice president is a women. While ADAMS gives full access to women to use its main prayer hall, it still permits women who want privacy to stay in a separate quarter, thereby ensuring the Muslim women with different needs and convictions have place in the masjid.

Preventing women from exercising established rights or undertake duties cannot be justified under argument of “corruption prevention.” This argument was used at the formative stage of Islamic society, but was rejected by early Muslims. Abdullah bin Umar rejected this same argument of prevention:

Ibn 'Umar reported: Grant permission to women for going to the mosque in the night. His son who was called Waqid said: Then they would make mischief. He (the narrator) said: He thumped his (son's) chest and said: I am narrating to you the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), and you say: No! (Sahih Muslim Book 4, Number 890)

Problems with Women’s Seclusion

Assigning women a separate and secluded space does not only go against Qur’anic injunctions and the practices and directives of the Prophet, peace be with him, but is detrimental to the spiritual and moral growth of women and the development of the community.

Preventing women from gaining direct access to the main hall of the masjid, where lectures and study circles take place, deprives them from taking active role in learning. In addition to the psychological and emotional feeling of not taking active part in the meetings, the ability to interact with the speakers, to ask questions and offer comments, is impeded.

Secluding women deprive the emerging Muslim community from a growing number of young Muslim women who do expect, and rightly so, that the masjid does not take away their right to take active part in serving the community. When legitimate expectations are not met, and when the customs and cultural traditions are given priority, they often force women to stay away from the masjid, and hence from Islamic learning and activities.

Elevating the cultural traditions and customs of immigrants works against the very mission of the masjid, as it becomes an impediment for educating people of other faiths about Islam. Historically, Islam found home in different communities throughout the world because of its ability to accommodate local customs and cultures, as long as they are not in conflict with Islamic teachings. Immigrant communities would be betraying their mission and trust if they insist on imposing their customs and cultural traditions.

Women and Masjid’s Governance

Women’s leadership in the community is another contentious issue. Women have assumed, in some Islamic centers, key leadership positions, by serving on the executive boards, and leading key committees, while they are kept at arm’s bay in others. Although Islam recognized the capacity of women to enjoy equal moral responsibility, as we saw earlier, many Muslim community managed, nonetheless, to curtail women’s participation in public duties on social and rational grounds. The degree of limitations placed on women’s ability to serve in public capacity varies across historical periods and fiqh schools.

Early jurists disagreed as to whether women can assume public office; while Ibn Jarir al-Tabari placed no limitations on women’s right to assume the post of judge in all legal matters, al-Mawardi contended that women cannot be allowed to serve as judges under any circumstances. In between stands Abu Hanifa who allowed women to serve as judges except in cases involving commercial deals.

To their credit, early Muslim jurists recognized women’s rights to serve in public capacity at times when many women have limited involvement in public life, and limited exposure to public service. Contemporary Muslim jurists should ensure that the original Qur’anic position of equal spiritual and moral rights and obligations is respected and advanced in today’s society. This is more pressing today as the question of women capacity to exercise leadership and serve the community is put to rest through impressive track record of Muslim women achieving in the academia, professional work, and community service.

Our masjids must reflect the leading role played by American Muslim women by ensuring that they are represented on the masjid board and join the rank of leadership. The importance of women taking active part on the executive board and in executive committees is further underscored by the need to represent concerns that can not be expressed except by women, who feel the impact of decisions made by the masjid on the quality of life and participation of other women.

Swinging to the Other Extreme

Several feminist Muslims, supported by a network of progressive activists, have been pushing the pendulum to the other extreme. Their solution for limiting women to secluded quarters, and their marginalization in ultra conservative masjids, is to open the masjid to a mixed congregation led by women. The Progressive Muslim Union has already announced a mixed congregation to be led by Amina Wadud this month in New York. It is unfortunate that Muslim feminists are following in the footsteps of their secularist precursors, breaking all traditions, and engaging in experimentations that break out with formative principles and values. For individuals and movements interested in reforming attitudes and practices to take the opposite extreme can only hurt the reform agenda already underway throughout North America.

The recent push to break out with community and tradition goes far beyond any reform agenda. Reform requires that one articulates the foundational principles and then engages the larger Muslim community in dialogue to create a new awareness and to translate the articulated principles into a living tradition. Reform aimed at critically engage Muslim traditions must stick closely to the Qur’an and prophetic practices, to clarify Islamic injunctions and established prophetic traditions. The Progressive Muslim Union’s leaders have apparently decided to push the envelop beyond all limits and operate in revolutionary rather than a reformist mode.

It is quite apparent that Muslim reformers, concerned with evolving the practices of the American Muslim community, and ensuring the full and meaningful inclusion of women in community life, must navigate their way by maintaining a middle ground, away from extremist tendencies: away from extreme conservative tendencies obsessed with preserving cultural traditions even at the expense of distorting Islamic teachings, and from extreme liberal outbursts that want to break fully with all traditions and delve into an empty space with no directions and road signs.

Read more >>>

Democratic Reform in Muslim Societies: The Case of Egypt

The Bush Administration has made education reform in Muslim societies a key demand, and has earmarked considerable sums of money to fund democratic education. The substantial funds allocated to democratic education in Muslim countries have attracted many organizations involved in democratic training in South American and East Europe. The decision to spend money on democratic education signals a positive change in attitude, and the Bush Administration should be applauded for taking this forward-looking initiative, and for increasing the pressure on the autocratic Middle Eastern regimes to undertake democratic reform.

Democratic reform will not, however, come about by merely pouring cash and making demand from outside. The reform will ultimately emerge as a result of popular demands and reformist steps by internal political players. Outside pressure by democratic nations should compliment, rather than displace, the ongoing internal social and political struggle in place long before the menace of global terrorism hit the United States.

The temptation to champion democracy in the Middle East by micro-managing the reform process is counterproductive, and is likely to play into the hands of anti-democratic forces intent on stemming out the fledgling democratic forces under the rubric of safeguarding national independence and countering foreign interference. Rather than pressuring autocratic government to change school curricula and superimpose a set of abstract criteria through state apparatus, US government should use its influence to increase the margin of freedom for political expression and action by civil society organizations. The forces of reform and modernization are already at work in Muslim society, and have, despite severe limitations imposed by the state on their actions, made considerable strides to effect educational, cultural, and political reforms.

The struggle for democracy in Egypt provides us with a good insight into the dynamics of reform in this key Middle Eastern country, and underscores the need for a new approach by the Untied States and Europe to facilitate the emergence of stable and sustainable democracy. The country is ruled by a political party that wears a liberal democratic garment, but protects the interests of a corrupt oligarchy, and rules with an iron fist. The party tightly controls the press, has continuously supported emergency laws, and enjoys full monopoly over the licensing of new political parties. The party has, for years, marginalized opposition, and refused to legitimize any political group that advocates Islam as the foundation of social and political reform.

For years, the ruling elites of Egypt have refused to recognize the Muslim Brotherhood group as a legitimate political actor by invoking secularism. Excluding an Islamic party that has not clearly defined how it plans to protect the constitutional rights of religious minorities is justifiable, though the state has never set clear standards and qualifications to explain its position. However, using religious adherence of party members and leaders as a ground to exclude parties that promote a non-religious national platform is a clear violation of democratic principles.

In 1996, the committee in charge of licensing political parties, an arm of the Egyptian’s national congress, turned down the application of a new political party, the Wasat Party, co-founded by a Muslim and a Copt. Egyptian security forces arrested the founders, accused them of being a front for the banned Muslim Brotherhood. Notwithstanding that the party leaders were acquitted by a military court, the Egyptian government persists in denying the Wasat Party's application, and continues to curtail political freedom and prevent the emergence of popular political opposition. The Wasat Party has fairly moderated views, and is open to people regardless of their religion and gender. It has a good number of Christian Copts and women, both in the Party’s leadership and the rank-and-file.

The Wasat Party, and other popular groups, is castigated for insisting on grounding their reformist message in Islamic values and traditions. Yet it is this kind of work, in which the basic cultural and religious assumptions and traditions are challenged from within, and through reference to Islamic values and normative sources, that is essential for advancing the process of democratization, and fostering a spirit of openness and tolerance. Islamic sources emphasize the values of equality, religious freedom, respect of diversity, and fair dealings, essential for any democratic reform. And reform movements must appeal to Islamic values that form the moral sub-terrain of contemporary Muslim cultures.

For over half a century, Western democracies have relied on the power of Middle Eastern states to effect modernization by imposing modern forms on their populations. The result has been scandalous. Political systems that silence opposition, and use an iron fist to transform religiously rooted traditions and introduce modern lifestyle, have created police states that foster corruption and breed extremism and violence. Nothing can stem the tide of extremism, except a political environment that promotes dialogue, freedom of press and association. In a society in which ideas are allowed to compete, extremism will be forced to move from the center stage to the fringe of society, and moderate voices and practices will prevail.

Read more >>>

Faulty Generalizations: Freedom House Cries Wolf

How would the Christian or Jewish communities feel if a research group of some repute visits a dozen of churches or synagogues, finds few books out of several thousands that includes questionable statements about people of other faiths, and then produces a report entitled “Hate Ideology Fills American Churches and Synagogues?” I am sure Christians and Jews would be outraged by such a sloppy and irresponsible conclusion.

This is exactly what the Freedom House has done in a recent publication entitled “Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques.” The Freedom House Report confuses two separate questions: (1) are there Muslims who espouse bigoted views? And (2) are these views widespread or are they confined to a minority within the Muslim community? In failing to make this distinction, the Freedom House unfairly smears all mosques and all mosque goers in the United States.


American Muslims are aware of the shallow understanding of Islam that characterizes some of the writings that comes out from Saudi religious scholars. These writings speak more to the peculiar socio-cultural experience, and the lack of meaningful exposure to the rich experience of diverse societies by some Saudi writers, than to Islamic teachings. One of the most known and respected Muslim scholars of the 20th century, the late Muhammad Al-Ghazali, labeled such writings on Islamic law as the “Bedouin jurisprudence,” a decade prior to the critical review wahabism received in recent days. Most American Muslims abhor and reject the bigoted and mean-spirited statements cited in the Report.

I personally experienced such bigotry in Mid 1980s when a group of wahabi-leaning students vigorously protested the inclusion of a Shi’a religious scholar on a panel addressing a large Muslim gathering, and tried to oust me from my position as the president of the Muslim Students Association in Detroit. There design was ultimately defeated by the Association’s general body that rejected their bigoted views.

But to say that Muslims, like any other religious community, have their own bigots is far cry from claiming that hate literature fill all mosques in America, and implying that mosque goers tolerate hate and bigotry. The Freedom House Report fails in making this important distinction.

I was puzzled, as I was going through the report’s findings, as to how can any one who took an introductory course in research methods, let alone professional researchers hired by an organization that sets criteria for deciding who is free and who is not throughout the world. I kept asking myself how could anyone conclude that “Saudi publications on hate ideology fill American mosques” after discovering few copies of Saudi publications in 15 Mosques throughout the nation. There are more than 2000 mosques in the United States. 15 out of 2000 mosques constitute less than 1% of all mosques in the country. How could such insignificant number allow anyone to claim that Saudi hate publications are “spread from coast to coast and now fill the libraries and study halls of some of America’s main mosques.”

Many of the sloppy statements and erroneous conclusions are the result of failing to consult with mainstream Muslim organizations, and neglecting to understand the dynamics within the American Muslim community. The authors of the Report are unable to distinguish between main and obscure mosques in the American Muslim community. King Fahd’s Mosque in Los Angeles is a large and well-endowed mosque, but is hardly representative of LA Muslim community. Mosques that are part of the main stream American Muslim community in LA would include the Islamic Center of Southern Los Angeles, the Islamic Center of Orange County, the Islamic Center for Riverside, but hardly King Fahd’s Mosque.

The Report’s main conclusions are at odd with some of its findings. The Report rightly points out that most American Muslims are “upstanding, law-abiding citizens and neighbors,” and that they “decry the Wahhabi interpretation as being foreign to the toleration expressed in Islam and its injunction against coercion in religion.” The authors do not, however, bother to explain the discrepancy between the reality of the American Muslim community and claims against American mosques. They never discuss the extent to which what they have picked from the shelves reflects the attitudes and values of Mosque goers.

Evidently, the authors of the Freedom House Report never stopped for a second to ask: How has the presence of the Saudi literature impacted the attitudes of the mosque goers? Nor have they considered asking the leaders of the Islamic centers about their views and activities, or how the Saudi material was used. One would think that this is the most reasonable and sensible thing to do in a study that aims at ascertaining the truth and enhancing understanding.

The discrepancy between the Report’s claims and the reality it purports to describe is evident, for example, in the case of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), the Report frequently refers to as the Herndon Mosque. ADAMS is one of the most vibrant mosques, with an active interfaith program, and an exemplary program for developing civic awareness and public service. It has organized, in 2004 alone, more than 20 interfaith meetings, bringing Muslims into friendship and dialogue with people of other faiths, including the Northern Virginia Hebrew Congregation, St. Thomas à Becket Catholic Church, United Christian Parish in Reston, St Annes Church, and Sikh Community, to name just a few. ADAMS regularly invites political candidates running for state and federal office to discuss with the congregation their political agendas, and does that on a non-partisan basis. And ADAMS is one of the few Islamic centers where women play an active role in running the mosque and serve on the Executive Board and the Board of trustees. 5 of the 13 Board of Trustees members are women, and ADAMS vice president is a women.

Do ADAMS’s profile, programs, and activities fit into the alarmist picture painted by the Freedom House Report? Is it fair to confuse mainstream and extreme voices when dealing with American Muslims? Is it acceptable to generalize from the particular? The authors of the Freedom House Report are, sadly, oblivious to these important questions.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Media Monitor Network
Alt.Muslim

Read more >>>

Islamic Law, Modern Critique, and Moral Choices

The democratization process in Nigeria, ushered with the demise of Gen. Abacha in 1998, brought with it new demands for the implementation of shari'ah (Islamic Law). By 1999. several Northern Nigerian states announced plans to adopt shari'ah code. The announcements created an uproar and civil strife, and resulted in fatal clashes between Muslims and Christians.

The issue of the implementation of shari'ah resurfaced again in 2002, when a shari'ah court sentenced Amina Lawal to death after being found guilty of adulterous relationship. The case generated great interest, and the shari'ah court's decision was met with international protest and condemnation. Many in the West saw death as an excessive and cruel punishment for an act that falls within the realm of individual and private choice in modern culture.

The opposition to the shari'ah court's ruling was not confined to western societies, but was shared by many Muslims. Muslim scholars and jurists of repute found many flaws in the shari'ah court's judgment. The court did not, for instance, give due attention to due process, including a forced confession the police took from the accused. Although the lower court decision was overturned by the court of appeal, the case generated fierce debate, and the suitability of Islamic law for modern application became an issue.

To address this issue, the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) and the Centre for Islamic Legal Studies (CILS) organized a conference on the implementation of shari'ah, held in Abuja, Nigeria, in July 2004. The proceedings capture the important debate that revolves around Islamic law and its application. The debate touches on a wide range of issues that are likely to define the direction and nature of the profound transformations taking place in Muslim societies, which have also far-reaching implications for the future development of Western society.

At the heart of the debate lies the question of how democracy relates to law, Islamic values, and culture. The Nigerian experimentation with shari'ah is directly linked to the popular choices in various Muslim societies, and to the right of Muslims to embrace a legal system rooted in their moral choices and cultural heritage. These popular choices are the source of apprehension among Western policy makers, as they provide a reminder that increased demand for democracy in Muslim societies are likely to bring about norms and practices rooted in Islam and Islamic law and morality. Democratization in Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, Malaysia, and Turkey has been associated with the affirmation of Islamic choices.

More particularly, Western apprehension relates to the radical expression of Islam, including the implications of reasserting Islam and adopting shari'ah for non-Muslims and women. While these concerns are legitimate, and have been highlighted by actual developments on the ground, they are greatly exaggerated, and apparently influenced by faulty interpretations, extrapolation from one socio-cultural experience to another, as well as cultural and ideological distortions.

In the mind of many, shari'ah is associated with severe penal code that includes stoning, hand cutting, and corporal punishment. While the penal code is part of the historical shari'ah, it does not encompass the entire realm of shari’ah ruling, but rather constitutes a small and limited area of Islamic law. Shari'ah also covers basic Islamic values, including emphasis on fair treatment, honesty, charity to the poor and needy, care and support of neighbors and kin, honor of promises and contracts, obligation to parents, children, relatives, and spouses, etc. Shari'ah, further, includes prohibition of extra marital relations, of usury, mispresentation, exploitation, etc. Some shari’ah principles have moral bearings, while others have legal consequences as well.

The challenge facing modern Muslim society is how to reapply the principles of shari'ah in markedly different social and political context than those existed during the historical articulation of shari'ah. This aspect of shari'ah is debated in academic and intellectual circles in Muslim societies. However, in the absence of an open political debate, little has been done to educate the public on these issues, and to deliberate the relevance of shari'ah to cultural and legal practices. In addition, there is a significant debate in academic quarters about the historicity, even the authenticity, of certain historical pronouncements of shari'ah. For example, there is a credible evidence and considered opinion to suggest that stoning and apostacy punishments are not an intrinsic shari'ah principles, as they have no basis in the Qur’an, the most fundamental source of Islamic norms.

While some opposition to the implementation of shari'ah comes from quarters opposed to Islam, Muslim scholars and jurist have expressed genuine and profound concerns regarding any direct and uncritical application of historical shari'ah rules. Concerns include the lack of clear delineation between the moral and the legal in Islamic law. What parts of shari'ah are moral, and hence fall within the realm of education and voluntary compliance, and what parts are legal, and can therefore be enforced by society? The question of delineating the legal and moral also relate to the issue of state intrusion into individual privacy, and to what extent can the state police individual morality? Also of concern is the question of due process, rules of evidence, and individual privacy. To what extent can the court rely on circumstantial evidence to convict a person of a crime he or she has not voluntarily confessed? Is it proper for a shari'ah court to make ruling without ever considering mitigating circumstances? This latter concern emerged in the case of Amina Lawal, and in a previous case in which a Nigerian Islamic court convicted a woman of committing adultery, discarding her plea that she was raped.

As the debate in the Nigeria Conference reveals, the scope of the contending perspectives is wide, and ideas about how Islamic norms and heritage relate to modern society are as varied as those debated in Western societies. The debate should be encouraged and must continue, as openness and dialogue are the best guarantor that radical expressions do not go unchallenged, and that claims to authenticity by extreme voices are addressed and handled appropriately. Open debate, and the freedom to put popular choices to the test of time, as long as they do not infringe on human rights and human dignity, have been crucial for the maturation of Western democracy. The maturation of Islamic democracy and law requires similar space of freedom and democracy. The dialectical relationship between theory and practice, as experienced through trial and error, is crucial for political and legal development, and can only proceed if sufficient moral and political space is created within the political system of Muslim societies.

Nigeria Conference on the implementation of shari'ah reveals deep awareness by major players in Nigeria of the historicity of shari'ah rules, and the need to contextualize the rule making process, and critically examine sources and methods. Indeed, a great deal of confusion about shari'ah rules and their application comes from the failure to recognize that shari'ah rules and doctrines are essentially moral, and that legal rules were historically derived from local customs and moral choices rooted in community practices.

Finally, Western societies and policy makers need to understand that Muslim societies and law makers have every right to reconcile their legal system and moral values. This basically means that westerners should cease using alarmist tone and sweeping condemnations of shari'ah, and should pay a closer attention to the lively debate taking place within Muslim societies on law and morality. While every human being, regardless of their nationality and religion have every right to be critical of practices they deem immoral, inhumane, and degrading to human life and dignity, no culture or religion has the right to dismiss off hand the capacity of other religions and cultures to develop, through an open political process and engaging dialogue, their own moral and legal systems.

Read more >>>

Confounding Patriotism and Bigotry in Post 9/11 America

A patriot is "one who loves, supports, and defends one's country." A bigot, on the other hand, is "one who is strongly partial to one's own group religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ," says the American Heritage dictionary. The difference between the two is obvious and enormous: Patriotism is borne out of love and generosity towards the country to which a person belongs, while bigotry is borne out of hate and a mean-spirited attitude towards those who are different.

The clear difference can be easily obscured when defending one’s country includes fighting an enemy whose identity is broadly and loosely delineated, and when that identity is defined in religious and racial terms.

9/11 attacks presented America with a real threat that required an appropriate response to defend the homeland against a ruthless enemy. The identity of the attackers was pined down, and the whole world learned that the terrorists who carried out the brutal attacks were Arabs and Muslims.

Armed with these facts, bigots sprang to work, hiding their hateful and mean-spirited design against Islam and Muslims under the garment of patriotism. Rather than calling for inter-religious and inter-racial unity against religious fanaticism, the bigots advocated hate, religious and racial discrimination, and the violation of the civil liberties of American Muslims. Never mind that none of the terrorists who carried 9/11 attacks were American, hate mongers insist on treating all Arab and Muslim Americans as potential terrorists. The bigots turned the war on terror into a war on Islam. Islam has to be fought on the pretense that it forms the ground of the terrorist impulse, and on the false claim that the Qur’an is the source of violence and hate.

The line between patriotism and bigotry has been crossed, in the last two years, too frequently and at all levels of the American society.

When Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, tells church gatherings in reference to a Muslim militant leader in Somalia "I knew that my God was bigger than his; I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol," and is allowed to keep his job, the line between patriotism and bigotry is crossed, and we end up with Abu Ghuraib scandal.

When John Ashcroft, US attorney General, contends that “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him,” while “Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you,” the line between patriotism and bigotry is crossed, and we end up with massive detention and deportation of thousands of innocent Muslim immigrants.

When Washington Times, a leading newspaper, publishes an article by Sam Harris, entitled "Mired in a Religious War," that declares Islam the enemy, and openly advocates an all-out war on Islam and Muslims, the line between patriotism and bigotry is crossed, and bigotry and intolerance are elevated into an acceptable national discourse.

When reputed evangelist leaders such as Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, and John Vine describe Islam as "wicked, violent and not of the same god," and call the Prophet of Islam a “terrorist “ and “Pedophile,” and are allowed to get away with it, the line between patriotism and bigotry is crossed, and America is degraded.

When sweeping laws designed to undermine constitutional protections are enacted without congressional debate, given the title of “Patriot Act,” and used to smear main stream American Muslim organizations and law-abiding Muslim individuals and leaders, the line between patriotism and bigotry is crossed, and we end up alienating a community crucial for the success of the war on terrorism.

When the military accuses Capt. James Lee, a dedicated Muslim Chaplain and West Point graduate, of spying, and orders his incarceration in a maximum security facility, but fail to provide any evidence to back up these serious charges, the line between patriotism and bigotry is crossed, and the trust in the military’s commitment to diversity and due process is undermined.

Defending one’s country is not about protecting a piece of real estate, but protecting the values upon which the country is founded, and protecting the people who espouse and perpetuate those values. True and genuine patriotism requires that one defend the freedom and dignity of one’s fellow citizens regardless of their racial and religious affiliation. Those who limit their sense of patriotism to defending the freedom of specific religious and racial groups, while attacking the civil liberties and questioning the patriotism of those who do not share their religion, race, or political orientation are undoubtedly the real bigots.

This article appeared in the following publications:

Media Monitor Network
American Muslim Perspective

Read more >>>