Good afternoon. This is unbelievable. An immigrant from India receiving the Desmond Tutu Peace Award at an Martin Luther King Luncheon! My parents, who are back in India, would be so proud.

I am truly humbled by this recognition. This honor is not possible without the support of my wife Savana, who is here today, and the encouragement of my children Inam and Hisham, who are in class at FSU and Stanton respectively.

It is my privilege and honor to address you for 3 minutes. So I want to speak from my heart.

Today the United States of America is more diverse than it ever has been and the trend towards even greater diversity is on an irreversible course.

And yet, paradoxically our country seems to be failing the pluralism test. We remain a divided society. We have perhaps never been so divided as a nation since the Civil War and certainly not since the 1960s.

There are many stats that point to our partisan divides. In the interest of time, I will only share one – 50 percent of consistent liberals and 66 percent of consistent conservatives see the other party as “a threat to the nation.” In other words the other party in our 2-party system is not just a worthy adversary with whom to battle in a war of ideas but to some they are “threat” thus perhaps worthy of annihilation.

There is a little fascist somewhere in all of us that whispers to us that my opinions are always right and can never be wrong and your opinions are always wrong and can never be right. If we keep feeding that beast then sooner than later it will not just run our lives but also eat us alive. Some have already succumbed as evidenced by the popularity of such outrageous ideas like ban all Muslims or build walls along our borders.

And yet I remain an optimist. Because turmoil, upheaval and anxiety can also lead to meaningful change. It is not coincidental that some of the biggest social changes in our country was brought about during the tumultuous decade of the 1960s.

But when the promise of a better future did not percolate to all parts of our society and when technological changes have disrupted people’s lives in profound ways, it is not surprising to find our country in the grip of a panic attack, convulsing in ways that make many of us become paralyzed in bewilderment. However, if handled right this moment can also galvanize us to action.

Fifty years after the Civil Rights Act, racial inequality remains an indelible part of our American landscape. Martin Luther King’s dream remains unfulfilled. In addition, income inequality threatens the fabric of our social cohesion. These systemic inequities are the result of our political system that benefits too few at the expense of the too many.

And so the anxiety has begun to metastasize. And then to appeal to the darkest recesses of our humanity, political leaders have resorted to demonizing Muslims, marginalizing African Americans, the stereotyping Hispanic Americans, fear mongering about lesbian, gays and transgender people, and caricaturing refugees.

Our fear of the other remains our hardest mountain to climb. But climb we must so that we can truly honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

My dear friends, we are undoubtedly a rainbow nation. Only by embracing pluralism and by articulating a vision of inclusion can we usher-in a new era of peace at home, strength abroad and a shared prosperity for all.

Thank you for the honor. May God bless us all.

After giving the Muslim Brotherhood only a year in office, why did the Egyptian public turn against them? A New York Times article stated that before Morsi’s ouster there was erosion in support for the Brotherhood even in traditional strongholds. This was due to, “confusing economic policies of the Brotherhood-led government.” Another popular complaint against Morsi was that the Brotherhood was, “focusing too exclusively on his (their) Islamist base.”

The first complaint stems from the Brotherhood’s lack of governing experience. However, the second complaint is more foreboding as they go to the heart of the trouble with Islamist politics. Ambivalence about pluralistic values undermines democracy.

The Associated Press (AP) defines Islamists as, “advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam.” AP’s definition is useful but unsatisfying as it fails to distinguish between those who want the values of Islam to inform laws and those who want to impose their parochial interpretations of Shariah (the moral code and religious law of Islam). Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the Middle East and North Africa and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) in South Asia want the latter.

In contrast, other political forces in the Muslim world, such as the National Forces Alliance in Libya, favor laws to be guided by the values of Islam but do not wish to impose Shariah. This puts them squarely with the majority. John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in “Who Speaks for Islam?” noted that “having an enriched religious/spiritual life” is an important priority for Muslims. Majorities in most Muslim countries want Shariah to be “a” not “the” source of legislation. This seems to be no different from the aspirations of a Christian majority country such as the United States. In 2006, Gallup Poll showed 46 percent of Americans saying they want the Bible to be “a” source of legislation.

The upsurge in support for Islamist politics is the confluence of two trends – a repudiation of the disastrous policies of past regimes and a growing view among Muslims that Shariah can be an effective bulwark against the oppressive corruption and monopolization of power by the elite. A recent Pew Poll shows that clear majorities support implementation of Shariah. However, Muslims do not have a unified understanding of what Shariah means in practice. In addition, the survey finds, “most Muslims see no inherent tension between being religiously devout and living in a modern society.” Muslims favor democracy, symbiotic coexistence with others and a system of governance that best reflects their own ethical values. Islamists like the ruling secularists they deposed have not been able to translate this aspiration into effective governance.

How to reconcile the desire for Shariah with the erosion in support for Islamists? The realpolitik of the Islamists that has left many disillusioned. In Egypt, the MB had left the powers of the military unrestrained, much to the chagrin of the Tahrir revolutionaries. In Libya, MB was viewed as pawns of foreign powers such as Qatar. In Bangladesh, the JI has been viewed with suspicion because of anecdotal accounts of their past collaboration with the Pakistani army in slaughtering hundreds of fellow countrymen during Bangladesh’s war of liberation. In Pakistan, the chief of JI described Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of Pakistani Taliban a martyr.

In Turkey, the conservative AKP came to power as a result of the failures of the secular elite in ensuring broad economic prosperity. During its first two terms AKP succeeded by delivering stunning economic results. All that has begun to crumble as the AKP is now embroiled in corruption scandals and have begun to push conservative social policies going so far as to suggest how many children women should have. AKP’s foreign policy is in shambles. A recent headline in the influential Foreign Policy summed it best, “How Turkey Went From ‘Zero Problems’ to Zero Friends.”  AKP’s growing unpopularity even with religious conservatives, such as the influential Fetahullah Gulen, may represent a turning point in not only Turkish politics but Islamist politics globally.

The twentieth century marked the rise of political Islam, from Jamaat-e-Islami in the South Asia to Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East and North Africa. But once in power the Islamists, with the exception of the early period of AKP rule, have proven to be ineffective. They are prone to the same abuse of power that characterized the ruling elites they deposed. From Egypt to Bangladesh Muslims are increasingly uneasy. Beyond their utopian slogans that “Islam is the solution,” there is little track record and consensus about how to practically implement Shariah in a way that will deliver economic and social justice for all people. Islamists need to espouse a more secular vision that is inclusive of all people and not subservient to their base. Secularists need to spiritualize their politics by espousing public policies that better reflect the public’s aspiration that fulfill the objectives of Shariah. Politicization of Shariah and Shariahization of politics are a disservice to the faith of Islam and they have proven to be divisive thus far.

This article first ran on Turkey’s leading English daily, Today’s Zaman.

A version of this article appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat, Florida Times Union, Gainesville Sun,  Tampa Tribune and Panama City Herald.

As the Legislature enters the final weeks of the session, it seemingly is poised to pass SB 58, a bill titled Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases. This legislation is controversial on many grounds, especially given its original incarnation as an anti-sharia law bill, similar to at least 35 bills introduced in 15 other states around the country.

Simply put, this kind of legislation runs afoul of basic tenets of constitutional law and overriding principles of American jurisprudence. Moreover, its sponsors haven’t demonstrated any tangible need for it.

The American Bar Association generally opposes such legislation because it’s “duplicative of safeguards that are already enshrined in federal and state law. … Initiatives that target an entire religion or stigmatize an entire religious community, such as those explicitly aimed at ‘sharia law,’ are inconsistent with some of the core principles and ideals of American jurisprudence.”

At best, SB 58 is unnecessary legislation that civil libertarians, conservatives and liberals share cause to oppose.

Its history is curious and its potential impact is wide-ranging.

With the bill defeated in prior legislative sessions, its sponsors recharacterized it presumably to blunt criticism by attempting to distance it from the original language that overtly targeted sharia, which to Muslims is what Halakha is to Jews and canon is to Catholics The current version makes no such direct reference and instead targets “foreign law.” The corresponding staff analysis warns legislators it may be fundamentally flawed nonetheless.

At the most rudimentary level, our law is derived largely from English common law. If SB 58 were to become law in Florida, the resulting confusion would likely precipitate a flood of litigation, Florida lawyers being the principal beneficiaries.

For instance, “this could prohibit Florida courts from recognizing divorces of Jews under Israeli law,” advised David Barkey, with the Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913 “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people.”

Barkey; Carlos Osorio, with the International Law Section of The Florida Bar; and Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, also observed in a column they co-authored for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel that the bill “threatens to derail Florida’s role as an international trade hub by complicating and destabilizing the personal and commercial lives of foreign nationals sent here from such important partners as Israel, Latin America and elsewhere.”

The potential impact upon trade and economic development should not be underestimated.

Joel Hunter, senior pastor at Northland Church in Orlando, asserted “Senate Bill 58 will do more harm than good if enacted. Its effect will be to increase bias rather than protection. It seems to me to be a cure without a disease. Existing law and judicial precedent have proved sufficient to deal with any concerns addressed by this proposed law. … As a conservative evangelical Christian, it is unusual for me to side with the ACLU, but I think objecting to unnecessary law is a conservative principle as well as a libertarian one.”

SB 58 is sponsored by Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla. Interestingly, a few days after the Senate committee narrowly approved Hays’ bill 5-4 on the strength of the surprise swing vote of Sen. Geraldine Thompson, D-Orlando, Scott Maxwell reported in the Orlando Sentinel that “Republicans did something for Thompson, inserting into the budget a request for $150,000 for a project involving mobile farmers markets … the budget item was co-sponsored by Sen. Hays.”

Today (April 16, 2013) is the fourth Florida Muslim Capitol Day, one of dozens of such days that organizers of various interests and causes schedule routinely each year during the session. It was launched five years ago to demystify certain aspects of Islam and underscore that the vast majority of Muslims residing in Florida are law-abiding, contributing members of our communities who share the same kinds of concerns, goals and aspirations as do other Floridians.

We respectfully urge legislative leadership to take whatever steps may be necessary to ensure, in consultation with the governor, that SB 58 does not become law in Florida.

That Narendra Modi was featured on the cover of Time (March, South Asia edition), around the tenth anniversary of an anti-Muslim massacre in the Indian state of Gujarat, was not surprising. Sparking outrage was the headline (Modi Means Business), which was viewed by many as an extreme image makeover for India’s most divisive politician. It was under his watch that an anti-Muslim carnage started on February 28, 2002 and continued unabated for the next three months. The violence was justified as a reaction to events that took place the previous day when 59 Hindu pilgrims, who were returning after paying homage to the site of a destroyed sixteenth century mosque, were killed by a fire that started in a section of their train. To many Hindus, the fire was a deliberate act by a mob of Muslims. To most Muslims, the fire was an accident. Two official commissions (Nanavati and Banerjee) yielded conclusions that favored one narrative over the other, leading detractors to charge that the commissions were politically tainted.

What is incontrovertible is that within hours of the tragic train fire, an organized retaliation against Muslims spread across Gujarat like wildfire. The ferocity of the carnage was unprecedented, even for a country with episodic spates of sectarian violence. By the time the bloodshed had stopped 2,000 people were brutally killed, many mutilated. Women were raped before being burnt alive. Muslims, who make up 9 percent of Gujarat’s population, witnessed the entire state security apparatus standing still while vigilantes went on a rampage destroying 5,000 homes, 500 places of worship and 10,000 shops. Over 150,000 Muslims were displaced, with 16,000 remaining so a decade later. An iconic picture of a Muslim man by photographer Arko Datta epitomized the fear that had gripped the state.

Although some of the rioters have been held responsible, the state government under the leadership of Narendra Modi has so far escaped unscathed. Not a single high level official paid the price for their abject failure to maintain law and order. To the contrary, the electorate has repeatedly serenaded Modi with victories at the ballot box. Despite his obvious failures, the United States Congressional Research Service, a bi-partisan think tank whose research is advisory to the U.S. Congress, is speculating that Modi stands on the threshold of becoming India’s next leader. Latest polling shows Modi beating both Rahul Gandhi (scion of the famous Nehru family) and current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh by double-digit margins.

The battle lines for the 2014 parliamentary elections are being drawn with an extreme image makeover for Modi. Leading the charge is the Washington-based PR giant APCO, which has also serviced other controversial clients such as former Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha, Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev, and Russia’s Mikhail Khodorkovsky. The core narrative in Modi’s extreme image makeover is that he is as an economic miracle worker, with a clean anti-corruption record in a country where corruption remains an anathema. The story in Time quotes Modi as saying, “It is not luck. It’s a carefully devised process.”

But Modi’s choreographed routine has several discordant notes to it. Abusaleh Shariff, Chief Economist at the National Council of Applied Economic Research, India’s premier research institution, asserts that masking the apparent prosperity of Gujarat are high levels of poverty and great income inequality. Hunger levels in Gujarat are shockingly high, with only three other Indian states faring worse. Economic and social minorities continue to remain marginalized. Poverty rates for Muslims in Gujarat are eight times higher than Hindus. Only 12 percent of Muslims have a bank account and a paltry 2.6 percent are able to secure financial loans. According to data from India’s Planning Commission, a whopping 31.8 percent of people in Gujarat are poor, leading many social NGOs to question the veracity of Modi’s “Vibrant Gujarat” slogan.

Contrary to the carefully cultivated image of Modi’s business acumen lie an inconvenient truth — other Indian states such as Maharashtra and Delhi outclass Gujarat in drawing foreign direct investments, often by 3 to 5 folds. Modi has reaped the benefit of ruling a state whose people have always been known for their business perspicacity and industriousness. Gujarat’s economic growth has generally ranked above India’s national average, both before and after Modi. Recently, Modi’s image of a clean politician has also taken a hit. Three major scams have come to light. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India has charged the Modi government with massive financial irregularities worth 167.07 billion rupees (approximately $3 billion).

Earlier this year, the Gujarat High Court criticized Modi for his inaction in stopping the violence of 2002 and ordered the restoration of the many houses of worship, which were damaged during the carnage. Failure to protect places of worship and shrines, which are invaluable to India’s cultural heritage, is a flagrant violation of the Hague Convention of 1954.

All people of conscience, who deeply care about India’s secular and pluralistic character, are relentlessly demanding justice and remain doggedly in opposition to any attempts that may give India’s most controversial political figure an extreme image makeover. American lawmakers Keith Ellison and Frank Wolf Tom Lantos have introduced resolutions condemning Modi and held congressional hearings respectively. The State Department continues to uphold its visa ban on Modi.

Underneath Modi’s economic success lay a story of brutality and systematic marginalization of economic and social minorities. To quote Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth, “Here’s the smell of the blood still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.” The Indian national motto succinctly states, Satyameva Jayate – Truth Stands Invincible. Nothing less than a major truth and reconciliation effort can set Gujarat free of one of the most shameful episodes in its modern history.

[Parvez Ahmed is an Indian-American who teaches at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville.] ]]> http://forcommongood.com/blog/?feed=rss2&p=265 0 http://forcommongood.com/blog/?p=140 http://forcommongood.com/blog/?p=140#comments Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:16:12 +0000 Parvez Ahmed http://exploreislamtoday.com/main/?p=140 Question – What is Islamic Law composed of?

Shariah is an Arabic word meaning “a road to the watering place.” In a religious context, it means “the righteous path.” Shariah consists of broad principles, which are derived from the Quran and the traditions (teachings, sayings, actions, approvals and disapproval) of Muhammad during the 23 years of his prophethood (610 to 632 CE).

The Islamic legal scholar al-Shatibi (died 1388 CE) provided a treatise on the objectives of Shariah. He went on to assert that Islamic law must adhere to the following goals of Shariah (known in Arabic as Maqasid AI-Shariah):

• The right to the protection of life.
• The right to the protection of family.
• The right to the protection of education.
• The right to the protection of religion.
• The right to the protection of property (access to resources).
• The right to the protection of human dignity.

There is nothing especially unusual about awards or appreciating the good works of outstanding individuals.

But it is unique to have the sponsoring organization celebrating the audience. That is what happened last Tuesday night during “An Evening of Gratitude” by the Muslim community.

The sentiments were so touching, the positive energy in the Hyatt Regency ballroom so powerful, that it left participants grasping for words.

The Islamic Center of Northeast Florida gave a series of awards at the benefit that in a broad sense were aimed at all the people of good will in the community.
And the sponsors made it clear that this good will did not start recently, but from those days about 30 years ago when there was just a handful of Muslims here.

Speakers from the Islamic Center said thanks for the support they have received from Christians, Jews, Hindus and many others. For instance, help was provided to purchase land for a mosque, for architectural work, for legal work.

And during the unfortunate opposition in the community to the appointment of Parvez Ahmed to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission, many people of good will stood up and spoke out.

As Imam Joe Bradford said, Jacksonville’s “gracious nature” turned negative energy into a positive.

John Delaney, president of the University of North Florida where Ahmed serves as a professor, said that his support was easy compared to the incredible patience and grace shown by Ahmed.

Mayor John Peyton said that Ahmed was “amazingly unflappable,” that his grace was an inspiration during a grueling confirmation process.

“A lot of good came from this,” Peyton said, by mobilizing the right-thinking people in the community.

But shouldn’t the right-thinking people speak out? What a tragedy if they had not. Times-Union Editor Frank Denton described the coverage as the “journalism of hope.”
To quote the Quran: “By no means shall you attain righteousness unless you give of that which you love” (3:92).

It was a beautiful night that made us proud to be living in Jacksonville.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2011-04-25/story/three-cheers-turning-tables#ixzz1KZCXMEMv

We are all Egyptians now

I am mesmerized by the peaceful popular uprisings calling for the end of three decades of dictatorial rule in Egypt. Often the news from the Muslim world is depressing. Not today. The impact of this is still unknown.

But one thing is unmistakably clear: We are all Egyptians now. The young voices from Egypt fill me with hope and optimism about the future of the Middle East and the Muslim world. In the unlikeliest of places and in the most trying of circumstances, the Egyptians are not just demanding their freedoms but, unbeknownst to them, are helping to shatter several myths along the way.

The unforgettable images from Tahrir Square are helping to erase the myth of Muslims and Arabs being apathetic to democracy and docile to authoritarian rule. It is also erasing the lore of the archetypal Muslim male — conservative and angry — and the stereotypical Muslim woman — compliant and veiled. Like any other society, Muslim communities boast a range of voices. Many practicing Muslims favor separation between mosque and state, viewing this as a position closer to normative Islam, while others desire that national laws reflect their religious values, fervent in their belief that such an action is pleasing to God.

Along with the Jasmine Revolution of Tunisia, the popular uprising in Egypt is a deathblow to the urban legend that change in Muslim societies can only be brought about by force. For over a decade al-Qaeda and its affiliates have successfully exploited the lack of freedoms and dignity in parts of the Muslim world to foment terrorism, euphemistically calling them martyrdom operations. Overwhelming majorities in Tunisia and Egypt by their actions emphatically rejected the nihilism of al-Qaeda. They instead chose the Gandhian approach of non-violence and peaceful assembly to redress their grievances. This sign of hope must not be extinguished by the intransigence of Hosni Mubarak to step down. Orderly transition cannot be a pretext to extending his iron-fisted rule.

Equally impressive is the shattering of yet another myth, often the bedrock assumption behind America’s unquestioned support for the Mubaraks and the Abdullahs of the world. For long the Mubaraks and the Abdullahs have sold the notion, and America bought the idea, that choices in the Muslim world are bipolar — the ruthless dictator or the parochial religious fundamentalist. To most Muslims these are false choices. Like their counterparts in other parts of the world, most Muslims care less about the ideology of their government and more about the services which that government can deliver. Palestinians in Gaza did not choose Hamas for their ideological bent, but rather they voted Fatah out for failing to deliver basic services to the people. Many Turks may not agree with the socio-religious views of their conservative prime minister, but time and again they back his party at the polls because they deliver on their promises of good governance.

The young voices in Tahrir Square showed that in a few days of freedom they have earned a lifetime of wisdom. Even when angry at Israel’s treatment of Palestinians they did not want their new government to walk away from Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel. While remaining skeptical about the motives of the Muslim Brotherhood, they welcomed diverse voices in the new Egypt. Their disappointments over American foreign policy did not make them break out into anti-American chants. When the state apparatus failed to protect innocent civilians from looters and thugs, youths acted in an impromptu fashion to protect the dignity of their families and their communities. Egyptians and Tunisians have best exemplified the slogan “Yes, we can.”

Standing at the edge of a new dawn, one cannot help but be hopeful. But this euphoria of hope should not detract attention from a basic fact — democracy is a process, not an outcome. The process requires engagement and vigilance. Removing a dictatorial regime is not enough, for democracy is not merely the rule of the majority but also necessitates the protection of minority rights and voices.

In my visits to Egypt I have always been impressed by the sense of civilizational pride that ordinary citizens expressed, from college campuses to coffee shops. Egyptians now have a chance to put their pride in their long legacy of monumental civilizational achievements to good use. Watching from afar, we may not be able to help much, but at the very least we can pray that the extraordinary sacrifices of the most ordinary amongst us is not wasted. Rather, it serves as a powerful motivator to truly usher in a new era of peace and healing to one of the most troubled regions of the world.

Additional Reading: Egypt’s Revolution: How Democracy Can Work in the Middle East
By Fareed Zakaria

Nearly two centuries ago, the Jewish poet Heinrich Heine wrote, “Those who begin by burning books will end by burning people.” Quran burning is a tool of provocation and intimidation. Despite admonitions from General David Petraeus, Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville vowed that he will go ahead with his plans to burn copies of the Quran on the ninth anniversary of September 11. While Pastor Jones is within his constitutional rights to undertake this despicable act, he is as misguided in his actions as the terrorists who abuse the Quran to justify their murderous acts. Both the terrorists and Pastor Jones erroneously make the same argument that the Quran sanctions violence.

In media interviews, Pastor Jones has admitted that he has never read the Quran. He harbors negative feelings about Islam while having little or no understanding of the faith. He fails to distinguish between the terrorists who misuse Islam and the overwhelming majority of Muslims who live Islam by being at peace and harmony with others. When this point is made, many well intentioned people raise the counterargument, “But what about all the violence being committed in the name of Islam?”

Graham Fuller, former CIA official and historian, says in his book A World Without Islam that the world would not be any different from the world today if Islam had never come into being. The West’s often bloody relationship with the Middle East is not about religion and predates the rise of Islam. “I’m not arguing that Islam has not had great impact on the Middle East region and its cultures and civilization,” Fuller says in an interview on NPR. “But I’m arguing that the nature of conflict between the West and the East does not depend on that, and precedes Islam.”

In other words, burning the Quran or equating Islam with Nazism or caricaturing Prophet Muhammad or stopping Muslims from building houses of worship will not solve any of America’s problems in Iraq or Afghanistan. Islamophobia is not only un-American; it is against America’s vital national interests. Rev. Richard Cizik, of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, summed it up best: “And to those who would exercise derision … bigotry [and] open rejection of our fellow Americans for their religious faith — I say shame on you.”

Bigotry and derision arises in part due to the fact that most Americans know nothing about the Quran, allowing themselves to be manipulated by demagogues. The Quran is to Muslims what the Gospels are to Christians: the Word of God. The Quran’s 6236 verses divided into 114 chapters interweave many facets of our existential experience. Using one or two isolated sentences (such as verse 9:5) to assert Islam’s lax attitude towards violence ignores a reality that all religions eschew cherry-picking sacred texts. No Christian will take this verse attributed to Jesus, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword,” as sanctioning violence. Nor are Crusaders or abortion-clinic-bombers representatives of their faith.

The Quran acknowledges and reveres previous messages and messengers, such as the Torah of Moses or the Gospel of Jesus. Ironically, Pastor Jones does not realize that in burning the Quran, he will be incinerating the name of Jesus, who is venerated in Islam and mentioned in the Quran 28 times. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is also revered, with an entire chapter named after her. The Quran acknowledges the miraculous birth of Jesus and his many miracles. Two verses of the Quran articulate the resurrection of Jesus, “So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)” (19:33).

Given the deep regard with which Muslims hold the Quran, Pastor Jones’ act of desecration has provoked outrage among Muslims both here and across the world. However, if Muslims in their protestations overstep the bounds of decency, they will play into the negative stereotypes of Islam. At the same time if people of other faiths remain silent at this extreme act of provocation, they will solidify the misperception that America is at war with Islam.