Published in the Florida Times Union, Feb 7, 2021.

by Parvez Ahmed

When terrorists claiming to act in the name of my faith attacked the homeland on Sept. 11, 2001, Muslims in America were not only targeted for surveillance, they were also repeatedly asked to condemn terrorism even when the only thing they shared with the terrorists was their religion. Frenzied protests were mounted when a group of Muslims wanted to build a spiritual community center not far from the World Trade Towers.

At a personal level, I recall with pain, my own saga going through the process of being confirmed as a Human Rights Commissioner for the city of Jacksonville. City Council members grilled me on “Islamic” terrorism and cared little about my views on human rights. During the confirmation hearing one Republican council member went as far as asking me to pray to “my God” before voting against me.

Despite having no material connections to any terrorists, many Muslims were hounded by the media, their loyalty questioned in public and frequently discriminated at work. The frenzy reached its peak when candidate Donald J. Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the U.S. and followed up with his first executive action to essentially criminalize my faith by enacting a travel ban from several Muslim majority countries. The U.S. Supreme Court later upheld a watered-down version of this discriminatory policy. Post 9-11 realities, from government-sanctioned detentions at airports to privately ginned up “protests” by hate groups, have left a deep scar in ways unimaginable. All this in the name of national security.

Fast forward to the Capitol attacks on Jan. 6. The rioters, far from being an impromptu flash mob, were incited by repeated assertions of a big lie that the presidential election was stolen. They planned in plain view to storm the Capitol. They wanted to kill or kidnap the next two in the line of succession to the President – Trump’s own Vice President and the Democratic Speaker of the House. A report released in October 2020 concluded that white supremacist groups pose a grave danger to the nation. And yet no one is asking all elected Republican officials to put out clear statements of condemnations. No one is demanding that Republican voters explain why their side is aiding and abetting terrorism. No security agency is engaged in surveillance of Republicans.

Despite my trauma of being harassed and surveilled, I am not advocating for its reciprocation. I am weary of additional intrusive laws against domestic terrorism that could lead to stereotyping and when the inevitable abuses happen, Black and Brown communities will be its primary victims. However, it is hard to miss the contrast in the treatment of Muslims versus Republicans, both Americans.

That White perpetrators of terrorism are being treated differently than Black or Brown perpetrators, is no accident of history. This is the outcome of our caste-based system so graphically and eloquently outlined in Isabel Wilkerson’s bestseller “Caste – The Origins of Our Discontents.”

The long arc of American history is not just the rosy stories we tell ourselves about the triumphs of justice but the stories we hate to admit – the perpetuation of our caste-based society where “a fixed and embedded ranking of human value” is based on, “the presumed supremacy of one group against the presumed inferiority of other groups on the basis of ancestry and often immutable traits.”

If not the presumed superiority, what explains the hypocrisy in the way terrorism committed by Muslims is distinguished from terrorism committed by Whites who responded to the incitement of a Republican President? It appears that once again as a society we are failing to hold White supremacy accountable for its sordid history of violence and sedition.

Parvez Ahmed is Director for Diversity and Inclusion and Professor of Finance at UNF’s Coggin College of Business. His views are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of UNF or the Coggin College of Business.
 
You can read more about the author here.

Follow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/parvezahmed

As it was in 2008, the campaign for the Presidency of the United States has turned ugly over the question of religion. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has attacked President Obama over his “phony theology,” which he later said was in reference to President Obama’s “radical environmentalist” agenda. That environmentalism, even if supposedly radical, is being confused with theology is beyond bizarre.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney accused President Obama’s administration to have “fought against religion,” a reference to the Obama administration asking all employers, including faith-based (but not churches), to cover contraception in their health insurance drug plan. President Obama’s compromise, which allows women to receive contraceptives without religiously affiliated organizations having to directly pay for it, has earned the support of many Catholic employers and women’s health providers. But it was not enough to stop Mitt Romney from making ludicrous accusations. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, not to be outdone, has accused President Obama of “infanticide.”

During the contraceptive controversy, a few religious leaders accused President Obama for allowing the state to interfere with religion, certainly a line that should never be crossed. But this principle should be equally applicable to both state and religion. Religious leaders should not interfere in matters related to state.

While many religious leaders act responsibly by refusing to use their pulpit to sway voters, some have waded into the thicket of political fights by acting as surrogates to political candidates and parties. Franklin Graham, a well-known evangelical preacher, recently cast doubt about the president’s faith. The candidates for president all remained silent, suggesting a tacit encouragement for using doctrinal purity to determine eligibility for political office. Such silence seems paradoxical given that three of the candidates are religious minorities, two Catholic and the third a Mormon. Moreover, why has religion been narrow-casted so as to revolve around a few hot button political issues of abortion, contraception and gays, to the exclusion of arguably more important topics such as poverty, justice and corruption, issues that all religions discuss at length?

Had Mitt Romeny, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich been consistent in their defense of religious liberty, one may have been slightly forgiving of their hyperbolic rhetoric. But they chose to wave the flag of religious liberty only when it suited them politically, after all Catholics make up nearly one quarter of the electorate. Disconcerting is their silence when other religious minorities are subject of government intrusion of their constitutionally protected rights.

A recent Associated Press investigation has revealed that the New York Police Department monitored Muslims in New York and surrounding states for no other reasons except their faith. According to the AP,

“Police trawled daily through student websites run by Muslim student groups at Yale, the University of Pennsylvania, Rutgers and 13 other colleges in the Northeast. They talked with local authorities about professors in Buffalo and even sent an undercover agent on a whitewater rafting trip, where he recorded students’ names and noted in police intelligence files how many times they prayed.”

No wrongdoing was alleged for any of the monitored students. The AP report shows a disturbing infringement of the constitutional rights of freedom of religion (First Amendment) and freedom from illegal search and seizure (Fourth Amendment). Silence from the Republican presidential candidates, including the libertarian Ron Paul, is deafening.

President Obama’s silence is also disconcerting. However, in the past his Justice Departmentassured Muslim leaders that the Obama administration will remain vigilant against religious profiling. Following an investigative report in the Wired Magazine, which showed material being used for training law enforcement contain many falsehoods about the American Muslim community, FBI Director Robert Muller met Muslim and Arab leaders. He assured them that the Bureau is removing from the curriculum any material that contains factual errors or stereotypical depiction of Muslims and their faith. Recently, President Obama apologized when reports surfaced of Qurans being mistakenly burned at the U.S. military bases in Afghanistan.

Religion is very close to the heart of all who practice their faith. Making religion a wedge issue is a great disservice to our nation, where diversity of religious views is our strength. The great poet Rumi pricked our conscience best when he asked, “Why do you stay in prison, when the door is so wide open?” Why take a narrow view of religious liberty and only express outrage when it is politically expedient? Such opportunism undermines the pluralistic fabric of our nation, which requires all of us to work together to solve our problems, even while holding dear our deepest differences.

Guess where in the world candidates for political office are pandering to religious conservatives, using religious imagery in political advertisement and participating in political forums in houses of worship? Where some voters are unwilling to support candidates because they do not belong to the majority faith, dismissing a candidate because they are women, and using religious purity as a litmus test for eligibility? If you said Iowa, USA you will be correct. Cairo, Egypt also qualifies as the correct answer.

The nexus between politics and religion has been on the rise globally for quite some time now. It is an irony that it is the religious right in each country that often expresses the most misgivings about the rise of the religious right in other countries. In America, Republican presidential candidates, with support from the religious right, are the most vocal in their criticism of Islamist politics. On the other hand, Islamists are quick to conflate American hegemony in their region with a war against Islam. The mutual paranoia is palpable.

Elections are underway in Egypt for a new parliament. Openly vying for seats are political parties from the puritanical Salafis, to the conservative Ikhwanis (Muslim Brotherhood) and a plethora of smaller secular groups. After the first round of voting it appears that the religious right, Salafis and the Brotherhood together, will have majority control of the parliament. Similar Islamist victories in Tunisia and Morocco portend an unmistakable trend of increased intertwining of religion and politics in the region.

A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that while a majority of Muslims prefer a significant role for Islam in their politics, substantive differences persist across regions. Majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria favor changing current laws to allow religiously sanctioned capital punishment for adultery, stealing and apostasy. In contrast, Muslims living under secular democracies in Turkey or Lebanon overwhelmingly reject fundamentalism and self-identify themselves as modernists, even when actively practicing their faith.

As politics face a rightward religious tug across the globe, it will be hasty to stereotype the trend. In the U.S., although the Christian right exerts an enormous influence in politics but the state remains neutral towards religion, the occasional display of Christmas trees in government buildings notwithstanding. Such institutional separation between state and religion is lacking across the Middle East, most disconcertingly in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Will the wave of popular opinions that favor a greater role for Islam in politics inevitably lead to a theocratization of the nascent Middle Eastern democracies? Chances are good that the new democracies in Tunisia or Egypt are unlikely to resemble Saudi Arabia or Iran, but neither will they be Jeffersonian.

Reformist scholars of Islam have asserted that Sharia ought not to be codified as state law. The reasons are tantalizingly simple. A state is a political institution, not a religious authority. A state has to be neutral and beneficial towards all its citizens, not just those who belong to the majority. The Muslim belief in the divineness of Sharia is obviously not shared by people of other faiths. Moreover, the interpretation of Sharia is a fallible human endeavor, often leading to conflicting juristic opinions, which then leaves unanswered the question of whose Islam should the state endorse.

While public policy may reflect the values of the citizenry, it should not be promulgated in the name of any one religion. Even when religious values inform a certain policy, the primary reason for enacting public policy must be secular. A wall separating religion from statecraft is good for both religion and state. Once a state begins to enforce the laws of any religion then the coercive power of the state becomes the primary factor in the determining how religion gets practiced. The state loses credibility and faith loses spirituality. The Quran unequivocally states that there is no compulsion in matters related to religion.

Even in the rough and tumble world of Middle Eastern politics there are faint signs of hope. The Islamist leaders in Tunisia have spoken about the secular democracy of Turkey as their aspiring model. A New York Times report quoted a conservative party leader in Egypt saying, “We don’t accept tyranny in the name of religion any more than we accept tyranny in the name of the military.” The yearning for freedom may ultimately overcome parochial religiosity in politics. From Iowa to Cairo, the world watches with trepidation.

Good evening. Shalom, Peace and Salaam-

It is my great honor and pleasure to be here today.

Today is a day whose memories are seared into our individual and collective consciousness.

Today is a day that is profound and yet instructive.

Today is a day that is solemn but also a reminder of our capacity to triumph over tragedy.

Rabbi Alvin Fine in his celebrated poem, “Life is a Journey” wrote:

“Birth is a beginning and death a destination.
…..
From innocence to awareness
And ignorance to knowing;
From foolishness to discretion
And then, perhaps, to wisdom;
From weakness to strength
…
From offense to forgiveness,
From loneliness to love,
From joy to gratitude,
From pain to compassion,
And grief to understanding –
From fear to faith….”

The good Rabbi in poignant words reflected eternal truths. Such sentiments are not only part of his Jewish spirituality but are also at the heart of all other great religious traditions. Rabbi Fine could have read this from the pulpit at a mosque or a church and the congregation would have nodded approvingly.

Such commonality between the essential core of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, what we often call the Abrahamic traditions, ought to be our springboard to transform ourselves “From Fear to Faith, From Grief to Understanding.”

Grief, fear, ignorance, loneliness, pain, weakness and foolishness are all part of our human existence. These emotional responses sometimes are useful defense mechanisms, allowing us the means to cope with tragic situations. And yet if such feelings linger then they can also be debilitating.

And so with the passage of time and by reaching deep into our indomitable human spirit we hope to arrive at place where we develop understanding, gratitude, compassion and love. In this journey to rebuild and renew, we stand in need of God and we stand in need of each other.

On the 10th anniversary of the fateful terrorist attacks against our country, it is fair to ask – have we overcome our fears and regained our trust in humanity. Have we overcome our grief and gained new insights about the world we live in?

While we had no choice in being attacked we did and do have a choice on how we respond. Ten years ago we asked questions such as – Why us? Why they hate us? Where were you when you heard the news? What did you feel?

Today the relevant questions are we safer? Are we freer? Are we better off? And finally, where do we go from here?

The fact that there has been no large scale attack since 9-11 creates a perception that we are safer. And yet Americans continue to die at the hand of terrorists. Sometimes the terrorists are foreign born, such as the 9-11 attackers.

Sometimes they are people who we entrusted to protect us, such those who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma in 1995 or the Army major who gunned down his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009. And sometimes the terrorists are our neighbors, such as the gunman who went on a rampage in Arizona killing several innocent people and nearly killing a U.S. Congressman.

Terror comes in many forms. While being vigilant we must also restrain ourselves from applying superficial narratives, which can do more harm than good.

The lingering fear of another attack has caused us to significantly change our lifestyle. In our effort to guard against any and all possible attacks, we have sacrificed essential liberties and accepted cosmetic security measures. Even if we accept the argument that we are safer, we are not the same America we used to be. In the words of my friend David Cole, professor at Georgetown University, we are less safe and less free. Benjamin Franklin’s prophecy that those who trade away liberty to be more safe deserve neither has sadly come true.

But are we better off today?

In 2001 the U.S. GDP per capita was second in the world and the U.S. economy the undisputed and unchallenged leader in the world. In 2011 U.S. GDP per capita is 9th in the world with several major economies closing in fast. China was ranked 129th in 2001 is now ranked 24th.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was around 9600 on September 10th 2001. On Friday the Dow closed at a little below 11,000. This represented an anemic 1.4% annual growth rate in the decade after 9-11. In the decade preceding 9-11 the Dow grew at the rate of about 22% per year.

In 2001 the U.S. had a 128 billion dollar budget surplus. In 2011 we have a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. Gas was about $1.50 per gallon in 2001 and is nearly $3.60 per gallon today. Unemployment rate was 4.9% and today is it 9.1%, more than doubled.

It is true that not all of the economic problems are related to 9-11 or even connected to it. Much of the bleak picture is attributable to the economic recession and financial market troubles that started in 2007. Yet it is undeniable that the costs of 2 ½ wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya) has crossed 1.24 trillion dollars and has had an indelible impact on our life at home and our image abroad.

The changing face of the world after 9-11, is most easily recognized every time we go to the airport to take a flight. The changing face of the world after 9-11 is most readily felt by the military families who bear the disproportionate burdens of keeping us safe. The human toll from the death of soldiers to soldiers returning with life altering wounds has been staggering and yet as a society we have mostly paid lip-service to their plight.

Today we are also less tolerant of each other and generally uncivil in our public discourse. One minority community, the American-Muslims, have been particularly challenged after 9-11. In addition to the things that worry all Americans, Muslims have to put up with increased scrutiny of their activities and constant second guessing of their motives, not to mention discrimination or profiling. Last year, a survey released by Time showed nearly six in ten Americans held an unfavorable view of Muslims. A Gallup poll released the same year revealed four in ten Americans admitting to “feeling at least ‘a little’ prejudice” towards Muslims.

The tragedy of 9-11 naturally evoked fear and many of our fellow citizens mistakenly felt that reducing the freedom of others will increase our safety. During difficult times we need the courage to understand others. Mutual respect is the cornerstone of great civilizations. All great religions of the world teach us this.

In the Jewish tradition, one of the basic teachings of Avot, understood to be Ethics of the Fathers, is the necessity of respecting others – respecting their space, their property, their right to opinions and their humanity. Respect for humans is a distinctive Torah value, as respecting human’s leads to appreciation and reverence of the Almighty Himself.

The Christian tradition asks that honor and dignity be afforded to everyone. “For in the image of God has God made man.” (Genesis 9:6)

In the Islamic holy text the Quran we read – “O mankind! Surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you in the sight of Allah (God) is the most righteous of you; surely God is Knowing, Aware of all things.” [49:13].

And yet many times throughout history, people of faith have fallen short of these ideals. A small minority among all faith groups have developed a militant form of piety. The genesis of such militancy is the world view, common to extremists, that God is on their side. They fail to heed the common sense sentiment of Abraham Lincoln that rather than falsely claiming whose side God is on, it is far better that each one of us strive to be on God’s side.

Unfortunately many of my fellow Americans have mistakenly concluded a link between terrorism and my faith of Islam. A closer scrutiny reveals that such heinous actions are a misrepresentation of core religious teachings. The Quran emphasizes sanctity of life, “and do not take any human being’s life (the life) which God has declared to be sacred.” (Chapter 6:151).

The Islamic traditions honor Christians and Jews as People of the Book and states, “Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures), and the Christians, and the Sabians, and who believe in God and the last day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve.” (2:62)

Terrorism is not a result of any religious teaching. Equating terrorism with any religion makes a community of faith doubly vulnerable – to both the random acts of terror and the ensuing backlash.

All of us can make a difference. We must regain the best of our faith traditions and our core American values. In my faith tradition there is a famous saying: “Do you want to love God? Then start by respecting those you live with.”

Such inward introspection will help us live up to Rabbi Fine’s optimism that from within the depths of unimaginable tragedy can arise the best of our collective and common values.

I will leave you with a poem from my native India, from a poet named Tagore who in his Nobel Prize winning work the Gitanjali (Ode to God), wrote,

In desperate hope I go and search for her in all the corners of my room; I find her not.
My house is small and what has gone from it once, can never be regained.
But infinite is Thy mansion, my Lord, and seeking her I have to come to Thy door.
I stand under the golden canopy of Thine evening sky and I lift my eager eyes to seek Thy face.
I have come to the brink of eternity from which nothing can vanish–no hope, no happiness, no vision of a face seen through tears.
Oh Lord, dip my emptied life into that ocean, plunge it into its deepest fullness.
Let me for once feel the lost sweet touch – the allness of the universe.

Thank you.

May God bless you. May God bless the United States of America.