For Muslims, Makkah, where the Ka’ba is located, is the epicenter of their faith and Madinah, home of the Prophet’s mosque, their sanctuary for spiritual bliss. These two cities happen to be in Saudi Arabia, which is once again in the news for the most chilling of reasons, presenting Muslims with a difficult decision to make.

Last week, we learned that the country likely killed one of its own citizens, in cold blood, inside its own consulate, in a foreign land. While we do not have incontrovertible proof, we know enough to be worried and concerned. How the great powers on the global stage respond is beyond our control. But what we choose to do as ordinary Muslims is not.

It is time to boycott Saudi Arabia. Stop visiting the country for umrah (optional pilgrimage) and hajj (obligatory pilgrimage). Such a call is indeed draconian and may even sound like contravening fundamental religious obligations. But the Quranic ideal of justice commands Muslims to take a stand, even at great discomfort to self-interest.

O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (Quran 4:135).

How can we continue to provide tacit support to the House of Saud as the custodians of the two holy mosques when they cannot be trusted as custodians of human life itself?

I am not advocating indiscriminate Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), which can hurt reformist voices inside Saudi Arabia, by making an already brutal regime even more hardline. But a significant reduction in pilgrims will send a powerful message to the House of Saud, who derive prestige from their self-anointed status as the guardians of Islam.

Saudi Arabia officially estimates that it earns nearly $8.5 billion annually from hajj alone, according to figures from 2014. About 70 percent of that expenditure comes from overseas visitors. Nearly nine times as many people perform umrah (19 million) than hajj (2.4 million). By 2022 experts estimate Saudi Arabia’s revenues from hajj and umrah will exceed $150 billion. The gruesome killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi ought to be the impetus that puts an economic dent on the Kingdom’s facade.

Saudi Arabia bears culpability in destabilizing a region, imprisoning dissidents, mercilessly extinguishing the lives of innocents and continuing to export an intolerant and perverted version of Islam. But its Yemen entanglement is significantly more insidious. While the crisis is well documented, it is not well publicized and certainly not adequately addressed. The European Union has described Yemen as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. In total, nearly 50,000 people have been killed, according to unofficial estimates from ACLED, a group that studies global conflicts. The United Nation estimates that 22.2 million people in Yemen need assistance, 8.4 million people suffer from severe food insecurity, and a further 10 million could fall under the same category by the end of the year, if action is not urgently taken. Millions are on the brink of starvation.

Make no mistake that this is a man-made crisis created by the very people claiming to be custodians of holiness and funded in part by the U.S.

The likely murder of Khashoggi is justifiably drawing a lot of attention. But, for the past two years the plight of Yemenis has, for the most part, escaped our collective consciousness. This gives credence to Stalin’s quote, “The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.” But in this instance, we have a chance to take the tragedy of one death to cast a light on the tragedies faced by millions.

While official American actions, in the form of cancellation of arms sale and imposition of the Magnitsky Act sanctions against the Saudi elite, may have to wait a change of regime in Washington (Trump seems to be looking the other way), Muslims need not wait to fulfill their personal fidelity to justice by taking a stand – silent no more.

Moral clarity requires that those championing BDS against Israel also advocate for a boycott of Saudi Arabia too. Under any objective standard, the behavior of the Saudi regime is comparable to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the other Holy Land.

When they were young, my children used to watch a video about a person who gave up the money he saved for hajj to feed his hungry neighbor. The story illustrated that the purpose of pilgrimage is not a mere physical journey to the heart of Islam, but more importantly a striving that is aimed at provoking a spiritual awakening. The goal is to link thoughts and actions to the will of the Divine by engendering compassion for humanity.

What good is our pilgrimage if the host regime uses our money and the legitimacy that our visit provides to not only engage in perpetrating the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time but also to commit cold blooded murder of journalists, for the ostensible purpose of squelching any dissent?

Terrorists who act in the name of Islam, have misappropriated many legitimate and peaceful actions of Islam.

The latest kerfuffle is over the New York terrorist saying “Allahu Akbar” soon after he killed eight and wounded 11, running them over with his rented truck.

The phrase “Allahu Akbar” is not found in Islam’s holy book, the Quran. But it is commonly used in many aspects of religious and secular life.

Arab Christians also use the phrase in social settings, similar to its usage by Muslims. Arab Orthodox Christians even say “Allahu Akbar” in their churches.

So what does “Allahu Akbar” mean? Literally it means God is Great, but it implies that God is greater than anything, greater than any of our challenges, aspirations and allegiances. It is a way to remember and praise God, an exercise hardly unique to Islam.

After the New York truck attack, right-wing media unfairly pounced on CNN’s Jake Tapper for saying that “Allahu Akbar” can be used under the “most beautiful circumstances,” which is indeed correct. Missing in the Tapper criticism is the fact that he also noted “Allahu Akbar” is “too often” used by terrorists.

Those committing terrorism in the name of Islam are part of a messianic cult who twist sacred texts to comport to their parochial view of religious supremacy and eschatology. The problem is hardly unique to Islam, although popular imaginations conflate fanatical misappropriation of sacred religious ideas as a particularly “Islamic” problem.

Muslims say “Allahu Akbar” many times in their daily prayers. The phrase is also used in mundane circumstances, from cheering for a favorite team after every success to whispering it into the ears of a newly born child.

An average Muslim will say “Allahu Akbar” well over 20 times a day, which translates to over 20 billion “God is Great” a day! So why is its misappropriation by terrorists normative of Islam but the billions of peaceful expressions not?

Islamic exceptionalism is pushed by both terrorists and Islamophobes.

Those who commit terror in the name of Islam want to present themselves as warriors in a cosmic battle between right and wrong.

Islamophobes suggest that militant interpretations of Islam are the norm and not the exception in a faith practiced by over 1.6 billion worldwide.

Often such cues comes from the top. President Donald Trump never wastes an opportunity to fan the flames of divisiveness. After a white man in Las Vegas killed 58 people and injured over 500, the president and his supporters decried any attempt at gun regulations, saying it was too soon to act after a tragedy.

But after New York, they wasted little time arguing against a diversity visa program that the New York killer used to gain entry. The Las Vegas killer was not called an “animal,” while the New York killer was.

Liberals have their own culpabilities. Ayan Hirsi Ali and Bill Maher are the leading edge of such bigotry.

Hirsi Ali once said that anyone who says “Insha Allah” (God-willing), another common phrase among Muslims, ought to be treated as a “red-flag.”

Maher noted that he never heard a Christian say “Merry Christmas” before detonating a bomb. Religion reporter, Sarah Harvard pointed out that the Christian equivalent for “Allahu Akbar” is not “Merry Christmas” but “Deus Vult” a Latin phrase that means “God wills it” and was used by Pope Urban II at the start of the first Crusade.

Today “Deus Vult” is a common hashtag among the far-right and has been used in several recent acts of violence.

Muslims will continue saying Allahu Akbar daily. Neither the terrorists nor Islamophobes are going to intimidate Muslims from peacefully expressing their religious identity and upholding their deeply cherished religious culture. We can use tragedy to drive deeper wedges or heal exacerbating wounds. That choice remains ours.

Egyptian writer Mona Eltahawy in a New York Times article recounted her 2005 encounter with Mohammed Akef, the then spiritual leader of Muslim Brotherhood. When she suggested to Akef that the verses in the Quran regarding women’s dress have several interpretations, Akef replied, “…There are no different interpretations. There is just one interpretation.” A 2012 Pew survey indicated that nearly 6 out of 10 Muslims believe that, “there is only one true way to interpret the teachings,” of Islam, ranging from a high of 78 percent in Egypt to a low of 34 percent in Morocco. Do such attitudes reflect the core values of the Quran and the historical diversity among Muslims?

The 2012 Pew survey (“The World’s Muslims: Unity and Diversity”), which was conducted in 39 countries covering nearly 67 percent of the world’s Muslim population, showed strong consensus among Muslims regarding devotional practices.

Nearly 9 out of 10 fast during Ramadan, 7 in 10 give zakat (charity), and 6 in 10 pray five times each day. Almost 100 percent declare their faith in God and believe that Muhammad (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) is God’s Prophet and Messenger. Nearly 9 in 10 believe in heaven/hell, fate (qadr) and angels; 8 in 10 believe the Quran to be the word of God. However, beyond such basic agreements, there is divergence in thought and actions, particularly as it relates to the religious pluralism.

Attitude of Muslims towards intra-faith pluralism is varied and often elusive.

Nearly 1 in 5 Muslims, do not consider Sufis to be Muslims, with a high mark of 44 percent in Egypt. Such opinions overlook the role played by Sufi orders in the spread of Islam. Equally concerning, nearly 1 in 4 Muslims do not consider Shias as Muslims. Egypt, the most populous Arab nation, tops the charts with 52 percent. However, in three countries where Shias constitute the majority of the population (Azerbaijan, Iraq and Lebanon), on average less than 6 percent of the respondents disregard Shias as Muslims.

The picture for inter-faith pluralism is also gloomy. A 2006 Pew report (“The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other”) showed Muslims viewed Westerners as selfish, arrogant and violent, while Westerners viewed Muslims as fanatical, violent and arrogant. Examining the fallout from the publication of cartoons about Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper, the report noted,

“By wide margins, Westerners who had heard of the controversy believe that Muslim intolerance is principally to blame for the controversy, while Muslims, by even more lopsided majorities, see Western disrespect for the Islamic religion as the root of the problem. The clashing points of view are seen clearly in Nigeria, where 81% of Muslims blame the controversy on Western disrespect and 63% of Christians say Muslim intolerance is to blame.”

Not taking the time to understand each other creates the environment for toxic flashpoints.

WHO INHERITS HEAVEN?

Theological doctrines on salvation is an important issue in all religions. How such doctrines are put into practice may dictate attitudes towards interfaith relations. A2013 Pew survey titled, “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society” show that

on average (median) only 18 percent of Muslims believe that people of other faiths may inherit heaven. In Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, and Malaysia 9 in 10 Muslims believe that “Islam is the one true faith leading to eternal life in heaven.” However, in Bosnia, Kazakhstan, Cameroon, Chad, and Mozambique, nearly 4 out of 10 Muslims responded that, “many religions can lead to eternal life in heaven.” Among American Muslims (“U.S. Muslims – Views on Religion and Society in a Global Context”), 56 percent believe that many religions can lead to eternal life.

On arguably one of the most important questions that consume people of all faiths there is impressive diversity of opinions. However, the parochial views in major Muslim-majority countries ought to elicit concerns.

Although hardline conservatives often deny the salvific value of other faiths, Muslim scholars Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim noted that while heaven is eternal, hell is not. Al-Ghazali and Ibn Arabi inferred that the mercy of God cannot be held in such low estimation as to conceive that salvation is only attainable by Muslims. Mohammed Hassan Khalil, in his University of Michigan doctoral dissertation, “Muslim Scholarly Discussions on Salvation and the Fate of ‘Others’,” concludes that given the wide variety of opinions about the salvific fate of people of other faiths, Muslims should avoid one-dimensional answers to questions regarding salvation. Verses such as, “If God had so willed, He would have made you one community,…(5:48)” and “Each community has its own direction to which it turns… (2:148),” suggests that pluralism is an integral part of Quranic values. Abdulaziz Sachedina, professor of Islamic Studies at George Mason University, in his book the “ The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism,” cites chapter 2 verse 213 to argue about the pluralistic vision of Islam, “Mankind was a single community, then God sent prophets to bring good news and warning, and with them He sent the Scripture with the Truth, to judge between people in their disagreements.”

In addition, Kurdish theologian Said Nursi (1877-1960) and author of the Quranic commentary “Risale-i-Nur,” asserts that if followers of other faiths perform a genuine worship of God, then “the manifestations of the unseen and the epiphanies of the sprit, revelation and inspiration,” are not exclusive to Islam and can be found in other divinely guided faith traditions. Contemporary Turkish scholar, Fethullah Gulen stressed in a Fountain magazine article titled, “The Necessity of Interfaith Dialogue,” that Muslims cannot remain prisoners of their history and act out of “political partisanship” while cloaking it in the “garb” of Islam. He noted that Islam made history’s greatest ecumenical call by stating in the Quran, “Say, ‘People of the Book, let us arrive at a statement that is common to us all…(3:64).” In his view, this verse provides a big tent under which, “followers of revealed religions could end their separation.”

WHAT IS PLURALISM?

Merely accepting diversity is not enough, asserts Harvard Pluralism Project’s Diana Eck. In a multi-cultural, multi-religious world, it is necessary to “celebrate diversity,” which requires knowledge of the “other.” This does not imply relativism, often associated with watering down of one’s beliefs. Eck notes, “Pluralism is the process of creating a society through critical and self-critical encounter with one another, acknowledging, rather than hiding, our deepest differences” and a commitment to nurture constructive dialogues. Practicing pluralism holds out hope for a deeper human shared dignity.

For many Muslims, religious pluralism evokes deep-seated fears about Western-inspired secular relativism, given the absence of exact Quranic or Hadith terms about pluralism. In his 2009 paper, “Diversity and Pluralism, A Quranic Perspective” (Islam and Civilizational Renewal, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 29), Mohammed Hasan Kamali, former professor of law at the International Islamic University of Malaysia, advocates using al-ta῾ad-dudiyyah as the Arabic cognate for pluralism. Labeling every heterodox practice as “un-Islamic” erodes the fabric of the ummah and is the genesis of the takfiri attitude (calling Muslims as kafir or infidel), most violently manifested in terrorist groups. Decrying that Islam is the most misunderstood religion in the West, and yet succumbing to easy stereotyping of people of other faiths, leaves Muslims vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy. The Quran condemns such attitudes, “Do you order righteousness of the people and forget yourselves while you recite the Scripture? Then will you not reason? (2:44)”

INCLUSIVISM IN THE QURAN

The Quran states La ikraha fi-din, (There is no compulsion in religion…(2:256), where the use of “la” to start the verse indicates that the negation is inclusive of the past, present and future. This is akin to the use of La-ilaha (there is no god), in the Shahada (Declaration of Faith), which ends with the emphatic il-lal-lah (but God). Following la is the word ikraha, often translated as compulsion. The triliteral root for the word ikraha is kaf ra ha, the same root that produces the verb kariha, meaning dislike or hate. The word makruh, which not only literally means dislike, but is also used as a legal standard to denote actions that are displeasing to God, also comes from the same root. In other words, compulsion (ikraha) is forbidden because it is an action that is disliked or hated by God. “There is no compulsion in religion,” cannot then be viewed as merely a philosophical statement but rather a foundational value and an obligatory practice. Similar to 2:256, another Madinan verse also informs Prophet Muhammad (SA) that, “…, your only duty is to convey the message (3:20)” not compel people to convert. Thus, ideas about pluralism is not alien to Islam. Curtailing the freedom of conscience for any individual or group will be in defiance of the will of God.

The Quran also acknowledges cultural pluralism, “Another of His signs is the creation of the heavens and earth, and the diversity of your languages and colors (30:22).” In addition, the Quran notes that all Prophets and Messengers were sent to their people to preach in the tongue of the local population (14:4). The cultural, political, religious and economic pluralism, which we observe in all aspects of human civilization, is a purposeful divine action – “If God had so willed, He would have made you one community…(5:48).”

A contemporary scholar, Reza Shah-Kazemi noted in his paper “Tolerance” (in Amyn B. Sajoo, ed, A Companion to Muslim Ethics, London: I.B. Tauris, 2010),

“For Muslims, tolerance of the other is integral to the practice of Islam. It is not an optional extra, a cultural luxury. The Quran sets forth an expansive vision of diversity and difference, plurality and indeed of universality. This is all the more ironic since the practice of contemporary Muslim states, not to mention extra-state groups and actors, falls lamentably short of those expectations as well as of current standards of tolerance set by the secular West.”

Kazemi proposes developing pluralistic attitudes in Muslim societies as a, “principle at the very heart of the vision of Islam itself: a vision in which the plurality of religious paths to the One is perceived as a reflection of the spiritual infinity of the One.” InRisale-i Nur, commenting on the oft-cited Quranic verse of diversity (“People, We created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should recognize one another,” 49:13) Nursi said, “Being divided into groups and tribes should lead to mutual acquaintance and mutual assistance, not to antipathy and mutual hostility.”

Mutual assistance is possible when there is mutual respect, which is fostered by an unequivocal commitment to engage with diversity, not just merely tolerating it.

IS THE QURAN ALSO EXCLUSIVIST?

Muslims who ignore the message of universality in the Quran often cite 3:19 and 3:85 as evidence that salvation belongs exclusively to Muslims. In 3:19, the Quran states, “True religion in God’s eye is islam.” Later in the same chapter, verse 85 reads, “If anyone seeks a religion other than (islam) complete devotion to God, it will not be accepted from him: he will be one of the losers in the hereafter.” Several translations (such as M.A.S. Abdel Haleem’s. “The Qur’an – A New Translation,” Oxford, 2004) used the lowercase “i” suggesting that islam is being used as a verb, which means submission or devotion to God. It is not being viewed only as the exclusive name given to the religion of Islam as it is practiced today. Even if literal exegesis is given preference, they still do not deny the truth contained in other religions. Several verses in the Quran present the act of freely submitting to God as a universal religion. In 10:72, Noah is commanded to submit (muslimin) and in 2:131, Abraham is asked to submit (aslim). Abraham and Jacob advise their sons to not die except in willing submission to God (muslimun) in 2:132. Japanese scholar, Toshiko Izutsu in “God and Man in the Koran” (Islamic Book Trust, p. 199. 2000) asserted that if islam is meant as submission and not a distinctive religious identity, then it closes the door of exclusivism and provides material for, “a very eloquent understanding of religious pluralism, one wherein all revelations throughout history are seen as different ways of giving to God that which is most difficult to give – our very selves.”

LI-TAA-RAFU (GETTING TO KNOW ONE ANOTHER)

The Quran in 2:113 and 2:120 condemns those Christians and Jews who assert that only their followers will be offered salvation by God. Why would the same Quran then endorse such exclusivist attitude by Muslims? Pluralism, as it is understood today, is certainly not a major theme in the Quran. And yet when placed in the context of state of human knowledge in the seventh century, the message of the Quran unequivocally celebrates diversity and encourages engagement (li-taa-rafu in 49:13). Persian poet Saadi Shirazi best surmises the Quranic ethos of pluralism in his celebrated poem Bani Adam,

“All men and women are to each other
the limbs of a single body, each of us drawn/from life’s shimmering essence, God’s perfect pearl;
and when this life we share wounds one of us, all share the hurt as if it were our own.
You, who will not feel another’s pain, you forfeit the right to be called human.”

(Gulistan, translated by Richard Jeffrey Newman (Global Scholarly Publications 2004).

Muslim scholars, political leaders and civic society must emphasize the pluralistic message of the Quran and urgently address the pervasive exclusivist attitude among many Muslims. Neglecting the pluralistic message of the Quran has allowed fringe groups to use anachronistic stereotypes about fellow Muslims, people of other faiths and entire nation-states, to unleash a form of violence rooted in extreme interpretations of Islamic eschatology (the study of end-of-time). From divisive identity politics to deranged messianic violence, all have their genesis in willful disregard of pluralism as a core Quranic value. It is not coincidental that societies that have embraced pluralism also tend to be more successful and peaceful.

The Fort Hood killings, the Times Square terror plot and the Boston marathon bombing were all ostensibly carried out in the name of Islam.

All terrorists are not Muslims and nor are all Muslims terrorists. Yet, a disproportionate number of perpetrators of violent attacks claim doing so in the name of Islam and defense of Muslims. University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database(GTD) shows that from 2000 to 2013, ISIS or ISIL, Boko Haram, Taliban and al-Qaida, all claiming to act in the name of Islam, killed 23,899 people and injured 31,140. In 2013, these four groups were responsible for seven out of 10 people killed in terrorist incidents worldwide.

Terrorism is indeed a threat whose impact far exceeds any body count. It elicits strong security response by national governments including, but not limited to, the U.S. Many of the security measures have curtailed civil liberties and often have disproportionately targeted Muslims. In addition, according to RAND Corporation, terrorism’s economic cost surpasses the direct loss of life and property from the incident. Increases to security costs, additional insurance premiums, and added military expenditure often outweigh the original attack’s direct economic impact. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz states that the loss of life and property from the September 11, 2001 attacks totaled $55 billion in New York alone. However, increased security ($589 billion), decreased economic activity ($123 billion) and other costs have totaled approximately $3.3 trillion.

Boko Haram, ISIS, al-Qaeda and Taliban have killed more Muslims than others. Thus, their claims that they are using “prophetic methodology” is absurd. The idea of killing Muslims to “save” Islam is not only irrational, but indeed poses an existential threat to Muslims, not only where these groups holds sway, but also where Muslims live as minorities, such as the United States. Each beheading spectacle overseas triggers a backlash. In addition, children, radicalized over the social media, are fleeing their homes to join up such groups overseas. Their parents’ anguish cannot be understated.

Radicalization of Muslim Youth

A 2014 report from the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, shows that 25 Muslim Americans were associated with violent terrorism in 2014, bringing the total to 250 since 9/11. Of these, 109 were alleged to have plotted against targets in the United States. The number of Muslim Americans plotting to harm their homeland may be small, but certainly not negligible. In the rare instance when such miscreants are successful, the harm caused is widespread and devastating. The Boston Marathon bombing killed three spectators and injured 264 others. At least 14 people required amputations. A major American city was on virtual lockdown during the manhunt that followed.

Much of the recent spike in terrorism cases involving Muslim Americans is related to individuals seeking to join overseas terrorist groups, mainly the Nusra Front (an al-Qaeda affiliate) and ISIS in Syria. A March 22, 2015 article by the New York Timesreported that, “Since 2013, 29 people in the United States have been charged or detained as juveniles on allegations of supporting the Islamic State.”

The demographics of these 29 defy easy description. While 11 are teenagers, the rest are between 20 and 47 years old. Eight are women and six are converts. However, according to the FBI, these individuals are a fraction of the suspects being tracked or surveilled by the U.S. government. In 2014, FBI Director James Comey said that the figure will be many times more than hundred, but could not give a precise estimate, because they are “so hard to track.”

Only nine of 35 people returning from serving with terrorist groups abroad engaged in plots aimed at targets in the United States, two of them succeeded — in 2013 the Boston Marathon bombers, the Tsarnov brothers who allegedly trained in Dagestan, and in 2010 Faisal Shahzad, who trained with militants in Pakistan, unsuccessfully attempted to detonate a car bomb in New York City’s Times Square.

Despite the increase in terrorist activity in the name of Islam abroad, very few Muslim Americans are joining and fewer are returning from terrorist training camps. In addition, financial support from Muslim Americans for such so-called jihad abroad remains very low, leading the Triangle Center report to conclude, “Muslim Americans have little contact with terrorist activities in the United States or overseas.” Another report by University of Maryland’s START Center found that there has been more individual radicalization from the American far right than from among Muslims in the United States.

A 2010 study titled, “Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim-Americans,” jointly produced by the Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill concluded that American mosques deter the spread of extremism by building youth programs, sponsoring anti-violence forums and often placing renewed scrutiny on the curriculum being taught. It was a Muslim street vendor who thwarted the Times Square bomber, and Muslims in Irvine, California, concerned about incitement of violence by a fellow Muslim, reported him to the police, only to later learn that he was an FBI informant.

It was the leadership of the Islamic Center in Jacksonville, Florida that reported to the FBI a person who was attempting to recruit youth to join jihad in the Middle East. The so-called underwear bomber’s father, worried that his son posed a threat, reported him to the authorities. This father placed the safety of others over his own paternal instincts. The largest single source of initial information involved tips from the Muslim American community. A 2011 study by the Muslim Public Affairs Councilreported that Muslim communities helped foil 14 out of 41 terrorist plots since 9/11, four of them prior to operational stage.

Responding to Muslim Radicalization

A 2011 report titled, “Rethinking Radicalization” by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University asserts:

Radicalization is complex. Yet a thinly-sourced, reductionist view of how people become terrorists has gained unwarranted legitimacy in some counterterrorism circles…

Only by analyzing what we know about radicalization and the government’s response to it can we be sure that these reactions are grounded in fact rather than stereotypes and truly advance our efforts to combat terrorism.

Some within law enforcement agencies and much of the mainstream media have developed simplistic theories of how Muslim Americans may become radicalized. These theories suggest that the path to terrorism has a fixed trajectory with identifiable markers. They posit the existence of a “religious conveyor belt” that leads from grievance or personal crisis to religiosity to the adoption of radical beliefs to finally terrorism. Little empirical evidence supports such a theory. However, actual connections to terrorist activity may be discernible, if community members and its leadership remain alert. For example, Sheldon Bell from Jacksonville, Florida was reported to law enforcement, not because he dressed conservatively or followed religious rituals meticulously. Rather, he came to the authorities’ attention because a parent, concerned that his son was being encouraged to join violent jihad in Syria, reported Bell. The assumed link between religiosity and terrorism alienates the very community whose cooperation will be crucial to defend against terrorists who claim to act in the name of Islam. The Brennan report asks, “Can a community simultaneously be treated as suspect and also be expected to function as a partner?”

Marc Sageman’s book Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century (University of Pennsylvania Press; 2008) asserts that most terrorists lack religious knowledge and were secular individuals until just before joining an extremist group. He concludes, “A well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalization.” Sageman, who analyzed more than 500 cases to understand how people “evolve into terrorists,” describes the radicalization process as having several stages, but emphasizes that there was no linear progression from one stage to the next. Muslim Americans should understand these stages and act to limit radicalization of their youth, no matter how small the number might seem. Steps such as public and private denunciation of terrorism, nipping extremist ideas at their bud, social networking and political engagement, have been helpful but need of further enhancement for better sustainability. While Muslim leaders and imams have issued general condemnations of terrorism, they have often not been specific in naming groups, and more importantly, have not directly refuted the claims about Quranic or Prophetic justifications for violent actions.

What Muslim Communities Can Do Now?

Groups such as ISIS proclaim a messianic vision that portends an apocalyptic end-of-time battle between Muslims and the kuffar (many Muslims have been labelled kafir after fatwas proclaiming them as murtads, i.e. those who renounce Islam by their actions). Those joining their ranks believe that they are doing so for the cause of Allah. In the aforementioned article in New York Times, one of the people who left the U.S. to join ISIS described his mission as, “The Words of Allah, The Quran, that’s what brain washed me.” This person ignored pleas from his sister to come back saying that, “I want jannah (paradise) for all of us.” Growing up, this person seemed like a normal kid who loved playing basketball. How do otherwise normal kids get brainwashed into joining a cult like ISIS?

ISIS uses social media and the internet to attract disenfranchised youth searching for meaning. Their assertion that they are giving believers a chance to earn Jannah is tantalizing to some. Mere condemnation of the ISIS ideology is not enough. Imams and scholars need to refute the dangers that come from the lack of contextualization of the sacred texts that ISIS uses to propagate their dark vision. One of the hadiths frequently used by ISIS is the following:

The Last Hour would not come until the Romans land at al-A’maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth at that time will come from Medina (to counteract them).

– Narrated by Abu Hurrairah and reported in Sahih Muslim Vol. 41, Chapter 9, Hadith# 6924

ISIS uses this hadith to imply that the great battle between the “Roman West” and “Islam” is imminent, and the believers should join ISIS given that only they claim to be the one khilafa (caliphate) on Earth today. They invoke hadiths that suggest pledging allegiance to the khalifa is a sacred duty of every Muslim. Not coincidentally, Dabiq (the name of the place mentioned in the hadith cited earlier) is also the name of ISIS’s slick magazine that not only shows graphic images of beheadings and murder, but also justifies them by quoting sacred scriptures. Left unchallenged, such spurious interpretations will assume an air of authenticity. Imams, scholars and leaders need to directly refute the un-contextualized interpretation of such hadiths and highlight the dangers that stem from excessive literal reading of sacred texts.

One of the best antidote to radicalization is better social integration and accepting the fact that responsibility towards citizenship must go hand-in-glove with assertion of rights. Complaining about Islamophobia, but doing little to promote dialogue and understanding, creates an attitude of victimhood, which in its most radical form can lead to violence. A 2006 study titled, “Countering Radicalization,” by the Dutch Clingendael Centre for Strategic Studies, provides a way to measure social integration, arguing that better social integration can reduce chances of being radicalized. The study asserts that there are ten factors, which are necessary for social integration:

1. Acceptance – an individual’s perception for being accepted in society.
2. Welcome – an individual’s feeling of being welcomed or warmly greeted by society.
3. Integration – an individual’s involvement in activities outside of their own ethnic or religious groups.
4. Entitlement – an individual’s feelings about their citizenship rights.
5. Equal Opportunity – an individual’s perception of fairness in their professional life.
6. Social Access – an individual’s feeling about being accepted in or have easy access to local clubs, sporting groups etc.
7. Loyalty – an individual’s loyalty or allegiance towards their country of residence.
8. Citizenship Pride – an individual’s satisfaction in being a member of the national community.
9. Social Values – an individual’s attitude towards social values, such as freedom, human rights, etc., of the broader society.
10. Language – an individual’s fluency in the local language of the country they reside in.

Scoring low on these factors increases the risk of radicalization. The propensity to radicalize is a multifaceted and complex process that needs help from both the Muslim community and the society at-large. Community organizations need to proactively institute programs that allow young Muslim Americans to develop positive attitude towards their society even when facing hardships. Redressing grievances in an inclusive way can engender positive feelings towards citizenship and foster loyalty. In addition, first generation immigrant Muslims need to be better integrated into American civic society. Youth alienation is closely linked to their parents’ insular attitudes.

While Muslim Americans are better educated and earn more than the average American, the number of hours or dollars committed to volunteer activity is relatively low. The average American volunteers about 20 hours a week and donates 4.7 percent of their pretax earnings to charity. A 2011 Pew Research Center report suggests that nearly one in two Muslim Americans, attend weekly services at their mosque. However, given that fundraising remains a constant struggle at local mosques, it is safe to conclude that the rate of charity by Muslim Americans is not at par with that for their fellow Americans.

Undoubtedly, progress has been made over the past decade with more Muslim Americans voting than ever before and getting involved in local civic projects — from feeding the homeless to establishing free medical clinics. While the Muslim American leadership, particularly its plethora of civic organizations such as ISNA, MPAC and CAIR remain committed to interfaith work, engagement at local grassroots level is usually limited to a few Imams and the occasional Islamic center leadership. Muslim Americans legitimately worry about the increasingly negative perception of Islam and Muslims in the public square. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that Muslim Americans are ignorant about the religious practices of other faith communities. Understanding is a two-way street. Mutuality must be the cornerstone of the quest to make society more civil. While many churches and synagogues invite Muslim speakers to address their congregations, examples of reciprocal gesture by mosques is few and far between. Ignorance breeds radicalization. Insularity allows victimization to fester.

Steps in Countering Radicalization

• Embrace Pluralism – Mosque communities need to develop and project an attitude that is inclusive of the multitude of ways in which Islam is practiced, from the orthodox to the liberal. Pluralism does not mean a mere toleration of diversity. Harvard University’s Pluralism Project defines pluralism as “energetic engagement with diversity” and an “active seeking of understanding across lines of difference.” This needs to be applied both in interfaith and intra-faith relations. A greater appreciation of diversity can counter the poison of “takfir” spilling over the internet and social media. Pluralism in general, particularly intra-faith, can become a bulwark against the takfiri ideology.
• Political Mobilization – Increased political mobilization will stunt radicalization by providing to Muslims both here and abroad a model for peaceful resolution of conflict though democracy and working within the confines of law. Political mobilization with a broader coalition will increase the chances of success, which will draw out more members of the community to rally behind common causes. American political and civic leaders must step forward to aid integration by establishing regular contact with their local Muslim communities.
• Relationship with Law Enforcement – In light of the many media exposes about FBI infiltration of the Muslim American community and about how agents goaded vulnerable youth toward radical views, Muslim American leaders find it increasingly difficult to trust law enforcement. However, cynicism must not replace pragmatism. Efforts towards meaningful dialogue with law enforcement need to be sustained and enhanced. In addition, youth need to be encouraged to seek careers in law enforcement. Serving one’s country, whether through military, police or civil service, should not only be encouraged, but also celebrated. Consistent presence of law enforcement and civic society officials at Muslim events can also help create mutual trust.
• Access – Nearly two out of three Muslim Americans are first-generation immigrants. Some, especially those coming as refugees from war torn nations, may struggle to adequately provide for their families often due to poor English language skills or lack of higher education. Parents may work double or triple shifts to make ends meet with little time for their children, particularly the youth. Such youth are often vulnerable to unsavory networks, particularly via today’s social media. Muslim Americans in partnership with public agencies, need to provide resources such as youth centers, health clinics, and English language courses to struggling immigrant families. The community must invest in developing institutions that will help youth practice Islam within the context of American pluralism.

Despite the setbacks on civil liberties, the United States remains a land where Muslims can practice Islam freely. Muslims must use the freedom they enjoy to effectively respond to the trials recent incidents have created about the compatibility of Islam to American values. The publications of cartoons ridiculing holy figures, such as in Charlie Hebdo or the Danish newspapers pose a particular challenge in balancing between freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

While speaking out against perceived affront to Islam, Muslims must uphold the principles of free speech, no matter how unpalatable that may sometime seem. The First Amendment gives Muslims the right to freely practice Islam without coercion from government. The same amendment also guarantees freedom of speech, albeit with certain limits. Muslims cannot demand selective enforcement of First Amendment rights. Moreover, taken holistically, Islam also upholds free speech rights and teaches an unequivocal commitment to the rule of law. Citizens have the right to protest unfair treatment, and if they believe laws to be unjust, they should work to change such laws by using peaceful advocacy.

This year marks the 50th Anniversary of the march from Selma to Montgomery. It remains an inspiring reminder about non-violence in the face of unimaginable oppression. Promising integration lies in embracing pluralism, engaging in civic work and mobilizing politically. Random violence is immoral and ineffective. It can never be justified no matter how severe the underlying grievance — this message needs constant reinforcement from the mosque pulpit to the kitchen table.

Islamists, defined by AP as those who favor, “reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam,” view their interpretation of Islam as Islamic, often to the exclusion of other point of views. In the West, an amalgam of ideologues, from the far-right conservatives to the libertarian atheists, also insist that any and all bad action by Muslims are derived from Islam and thus Islamic. Several years ago, I wrote an article questioning the authenticity of using the label “Islamic” to characterize otherwise secular functions such as politics, art or finance. Labels such as, Islamic Republic, Islamic Finance, or Islamic State, are an exercise in hubris arrogantly suggesting that whatever takes place under such banners is sanctioned by Islam. Islamic Finance, for example, may reflect certain values of Islam, but in practice it often violates the spirit of Islam, if not its letter.

The Arabic for “Islamic” is “Islamiyyah,” a word that is not found in the Quran. When opining on the permissibility or the impermissibility of any action, classical scholars of Islam eschewed using “Islamic” or “un-Islamic” as a label. They often opted for legalistic terms such as “valid”, “accepted”, and “allowable” to determine Islamicity. This legal paradigm allowed for nuances and contextualization. For example, drinking alcohol is impermissible in Islam but if life depended on its consumption then an impermissible action becomes obligatory, as saving life takes precedence. Thus, the binary worldview of “Islamic” versus “un-Islamic,” does not find support in the sacred texts of Islam. Ironically, the proliferation of the label “Islamic” is traceable to the Islamist identity movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-e-Islam, which sprang up in the post-colonial Muslim world.

In not labeling ISIS or ISIL as an “Islamic” group, President Obama was refusing to play into the narrative of the extremists, who are desperately trying to cloak their heinous actions with the legitimacy of Islam. To President Obama’s detractors, this was not viewed as either smart or strategic, but rather capitulation. If you cannot label the terrorists properly, how can you defeat them, so they howled? This argument over labels has distracted us from the real debate over ISIS – not what to call it but how to defeat it.

In a controversial article Atlantic’s Graeme Wood asserts that “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.” In the same article, Wood goes on to state that “nearly all” Muslims reject ISIS. How can something be “Islamic” if “nearly all” Muslims reject it? Wood’s main source to determine the religious authenticity of ISIS is Bernard Haykel, a Princeton scholar of Islam. The fact that Wood did not interview Muslim scholars of Islam to determine the authenticity of the “Islamic” credentials of ISIS, is a major omission. In addition, the only Muslims interviewed by Wood are fringe characters, such as the notorious British extremist Anjem Choudary, who despite claims that he motivated many British youth to join the Syrian war, remains free to give lengthy interviews to British newspapers and casually chat with American journalists in coffee shops. The Muslims interviewed by Wood who purportedly were providing the Islamic rationale behind ISIS, do not command any pulpit or lead any congregation. How can someone with no pulpit and no congregation become representatives of a religious faith practiced by 1.6 billion people?

Haykel notes that ISIS is reviving medieval interpretations of Islam. The fact that ISIS has to rely on anachronistic traditions of Islam certainly places them on the fringe of a modern-day Muslim, a fact that Wood does not adequately weigh when insisting that ISIS is Islamic. Thus ISIS is certainly not universally Islamic although it may rely on using words and images that suggests some tangential connection to Islam. ISIS is as much Islamic as the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda is Christian.

Despite glaring weaknesses in his article, Wood perceptively points out important differences between ISIS and its parent al-Qaeda. While al-Qaeda remains focused on hitting distant targets, such as the U.S., ISIS is mostly aiming to teach a lesson to “deviant” Muslims in the region and cleanse the land they control from any un-Islamic influence. In other words, ISIS is more of an existential threat to Muslims and Arabs in the region than they are to Western Europe and America. Moreover, ISIS unlike al-Qaeda espouses a brand of eschatology that favors an apocalyptic end-of-time clash between Islam and non-believers. Understanding this ideological underpinning is crucial, as Wood rightfully asserts. Thus, by avoiding characterizing ISIS as “Islamic,” President Obama is denying terrorists the comfort of thinking that the rest of the civilized world will indulge them in furthering their messianic visions. Any armed conflict with ISIS will have to be evaluated on the basis of security for the homeland and stability for the region, not on any messianic vision.

What ISIS wants is less important. They are a violent group that craves and revels in violence. No surprises. Defeating ISIS will depend more on understanding the factors that gave rise to them and less on how to label them. Without the US invasion of Iraq, there will be no ISIS. Without the disastrous post-war polices of de-Baathification, the Sunni minority would not have felt marginalized and gravitated towards their own Sunni devils (al-Qaeda) shunning the Shia devils, who as part of the government in Iraq, were just as brutal. Thus, the primary factor behind the rise of ISIS is a foreign occupation, a lesson that seems to be lost in the hullabaloo over how to label ISIS.

The second factor favoring the rise of ISIS is the repeated failures in governance. Without the failure of the Assad regime in Syria, there will be no space for ISIS to incubate. Not just Assad, but the dictators that have ruled across Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have by-and-large failed to provide their citizens with good life. The UN Arab Development Report makes it clear that most of the nation-states in the region failed to make a smooth transition towards the new world order, which required both strong national identities and adherence to international charters. The lack of clear national identities is the result of forced repression of “cultural, linguistic and religious heterogeneity” that was a fact of life in the region. Pluralism remains an idea too foreign across much of the MENA region. As successive iterations in socialism, capitalism, democracy, and authoritarianism failed (sometimes due to internal follies and sometimes due to undue interventions by America and its Western allies), a “medieval” and thus out-of-context interpretation of Islam began to gain currency among the dispossessed. Islam is the solution, sounded plausible. Lack of human development (economic, social and political) is the root cause of terrorism, a narrative too often ignored in discussions about terrorism in the name of Islam.

But can Islam itself be absolved? Islam like other ancient faith traditions is replete with multiple and even contradictory interpretations, particularly in the realm of social contracts. Taking stock of Islam’s history of development and progress, one can easily detect interpretations that range from accommodationist (accepting of differences) to separationist (positing Muslim exceptionalism and apartheid). The fact that a small band of thugs and criminals are banding towards a separationist camp, is hardly a revelation. However, the fact that thugs now control vast swaths of land and have the capacity to inflict so much violence cannot be trivialized either. Thus, Muslim scholars, leaders and activist should challenge ISIS on their core ideology and discredit their interpretations as invalid and out-of-context. So far, this has not been done at a sufficiently large scale to make any difference.

The Organization of Islamic Conference, a transnational body made up of 57 Muslim majority countries had instituted an observatory for Islamophobia but none to study and debunk extremism in the name of Islam. Muslim groups in the West routinely publish reports on Islamophobia, which is an important problem to be addressed, but so far have not researched and debunked the twisted ideology that undergirds the deranged violence of those who perpetrate violence in the name of Islam. While ISIS is producing slick magazines and engaging in impressive social media campaigns (one report suggested 45,000 Twitter accounts by ISIS supporters), the Muslim apex bodies either governmental such as the OIC or non-governmental civic advocacy groups such as CAIR in the US or MCB in UK have not developed any comparable campaign to discredit and marginalize the fallacious ideology that ISIS and their ilk propagate. Neither condemnations by Muslim groups nor dropping bombs by Western and Arab governments is sufficient to defeat ISIS. Security operations and statements of condemnations have to go hand in glove with exposing and discrediting the corrosive ideology being propagated by ISIS.

The debate over labels is thus a red-herring. The call for more condemnations by Muslims often masks ugly stereotyping presuming that Muslims have a monopoly on religious violence. Furthermore, increased militarization as solution is being tone deaf to the lessons from history. The real solution remains the same today as it was after 9/11 – reversing the downward spiral of human development across MENA. President Obama has asked Muslims to do more and certainly more can be done to debunk the ideology of ISIS. But President Obama has fallen short of laying out how he and his Western allies will nudge governments across MENA to speed up reforms that are necessary to give people in the region hope thus giving them less reason to buy into the messianic apocalyptic vision of ISIS.

The lack of a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often used as a pretext for anti-Jewish backlash. In the same vein, violence in the name of Islam is often used as a justification for the anti-Muslim backlash. Just as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is nuanced, with Jews expressing a variety opinions spanning from the far left to the far right, violence in the name of Islam is also caused by a multiplicity of factors; religion could be one of many but is certainly not an exclusive factor. A study by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point suggests that terrorism in the name of Islam kills more Muslims than non-Muslims. This alone ought to suggest that terrorism has little to do with Islam. The terrorist narrative that they are some vanguard protecting Muslims against Western aggression holds no credence. Victims of terrorism in the name of Islam are 38 times more likely to be non-Westerners and eight times more likely to be Muslims.

Often lost in all the attention-grabbing headlines about violence and hatred are the many quiet acts of heroism. One of the policemen killed during the attack on Charlie Hebdo was Muslim, Ahmed Merabet. The hashtag #JeSuisAhmed was trending on Twitter because Ahmed died defending the right of others to express their opinion, no matter how abhorrent those opinions were to him. Ahmed’s brother Malek spoke out, saying, “I address myself now to all the racists, Islamophobes and anti-Semites. One must not confuse extremists with Muslims. Mad people have neither color or religion. … [D]on’t tar everybody with the same brush, don’t burn mosques or synagogues. You are attacking people. It won’t bring our dead back and it won’t appease the families.” The hostage taking at the josher shop, which prompted the Grand Synagogue in Paris to close, also had a Muslim hero. Lassana Bathily, described in media reports as a practicing Muslim, was credited for saving the lives of seven Jewish shoppers by hiding them in a freezer, switching it off along with the lights, before risking his life by exiting the shop to alert policemen about the location of the hostages.

Ahmed Merabet and Lassana Bathily are not isolated names. Preceding them in France are other Muslim heroes who have also shown uncommon courage to reject the forces of evil. One name that comes to mind, now more than ever, is Noor-un-Nisa Inayat Khan. She was the daughter of an Indian Sufi master and his American wife. Noor was recruited by the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) in 1942 to serve as radio operator in France. She was the first female wireless operator sent to Nazi-occupied France during World War II. She resisted numerous opportunities to escape to safety and has been credited with saving numerous lives while bravely sacrificing her own. Just before being gunned down by a German firing squad, she cried out, “Liberté.” She acted out of her deep aversion to fascism and her deep attachment to her faith. Noor was posthumously awarded the George Cross in Britain and the Croix de Guerre in France. During troubled times like ours, we should remember Ahmed, Noor and Lassana. Their heroism should give us hope and inspire us to work towards overcoming hatred and bigotry.

In America we have a strong tradition of interfaith dialogue that helps us transcend our religious differences when radicals threaten to drive a wedge between faith groups to usher in their messianic vision of apocalyptic end of times. And yet it is not easy, because the propensity to stereotype is ingrained in our human character. It takes courage to understand and dialogue with those we view as the “other.” Through dialogue and discussions, Germany overcame its anti-Semitism. It can do the same with its Islamophobia. France’s prime minister rightfully feels that a flight of Jews will be a great loss to the French Republic. To translate this concern into action, France must reengineer social policies that will help address the rising anti-Semitism, particularly among its poorer immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa. Muslim leaders and imams, while speaking out loudly against Islamophobia, must also unequivocally denounce anti-Semitism. “Je suis humain” should be the battle cry against those who want to divide us on the basis of our nationality, race or religion.

I admire Charlie Hebdo for standing up against threats to free speech, but I am saddened to see them pay such a heavy price for their beliefs. Cartoons and satire, even the most provocative ones, remain vital for a healthy civil society. Only the deranged are threatened by them. Charlie Hebdo wanted to spread a little laughter, albeit in ways that are were often distasteful and provocative.

The killers in Paris did not nothing to defend Islam’s Prophet. They made the faith of 1.6 billion look like a murderous cult that views beheadings, bombings, kidnappings, and mass killings as religiously sanctioned response to grievances. They forget that the pen is mightier than the sword. The very Prophet whose name they are purportedly defending said, “The ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of the martyr.”

It is indeed heartening to witness Muslim leaders condemn the barbarism in Paris that killed the editor of Charlie Hebdo and several of its cartoonists. The killers also gunned down two policemen, one of whom happened to be Muslim. However, beyond the condemnations lurks a murky question: Why is some of the most egregious violence being repeatedly carried out in the name of Islam? Charlie Hebdo had offended Jews, Christians and a myriad of political leaders. Why did only Muslims lash out in such a violent manner? Certainly Muslims have no monopoly on deranged individuals.

Imams and Muslim leaders have usually responded by asserting that such killers do not represent “real” Islam. While a modicum of truth is indeed inherent in this argument, it does not illuminate the situation. While many acts of violence are being perpetrated in the name of other faiths, by actors ranging from Christian militias in Africa to Buddhist monks in Burma, the acts of violence in the name of Islam shock the conscience like no other. The gunning down of cartoonists, the beheading of journalists, the bombing of schools — all are headlines from just the last two months!

The rage sweeping through certain parts of the Muslim world and the Muslim diaspora is indeed rooted in the pervasive feeling of helplessness and hopelessness. This culture is exasperated by a sense of perpetual victimhood that undergirds the narrative of most Islamist groups. (Islamists are defined as those who use Islam as a fundamental pillar of their politics.) Psychologists define victimhood as a mentality that makes one feel powerless to affect their own circumstances, so for every wrong suffered, they blame and lash out at others. While many Islamists are engaged in peaceful political struggles, their fanning of victimhood often triggers violence, particularly among the marginalized victims.

The grievances of the Islamists and their militant counterparts overlap. Both groups dream about the establishment of a utopian society with Islam and Muslims at the top of the totem pole. However, the peaceful Islamists and the militants differ in their means of achieving this goal. Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami want to transform society into voluntarily accepting Shariah as the law of the land. Militants such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda and ISIS want to implement Shariah by brute force and feel no moral outrage at the idea of killing others to achieve their goals.

Even moderate Islamists such as the AKP in Turkey seem threatened by free speech. In recent months the Turkish government has jailed journalists, cartoonists and even children who allegedly mocked the president. In Saudi Arabia a blogger was publicly flogged for allegedly insulting Islam. In Pakistan blasphemy laws are used as tool of political oppression. Such intolerance often gives way to the violence of extremists as the distinction between peaceful advocacy and deranged violence is too easily blurred because not enough commitment has been made to the principles of nonviolence, neither by the state nor by the Islamists. Even amongst the Muslim diaspora in the West, free speech and freedom of religion struggle to find unequivocal acceptance.

It is ironic that the very week that this heinous political violence erupts in Paris also marks the release of the epic film Selma, which chronicles the transformative power of nonviolence in the face of state violence. The Prophet Muhammad urged his followers to never be afraid of learning something useful and beneficial, even from those who do not share their faith.

Therefore it is time to look beyond condemnation. It is time for Islamists to unequivocally embrace nonviolence and distance themselves from all forms of militancy in the name of Islam. It is time for repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia to open up their societies to free speech and free exercise of religion. It is time for Muslim democracies such as Turkey to end their paranoid attacks on freedom of the press. It is time for Islamic republics like Pakistan to repeal their blasphemy laws. It is time for Muslim imams to lead their flocks in recognizing free speech and free exercise of religion as integral part of Islam. It is time for Western societies to stop asking Muslims what they feel every time radicals perpetrate yet another spectacular act of violence. Only then will “Je suis Charlie” find real meaning.

Nicholas Kristof from the New York Times provided an an excellent response to Bill Maher in his column The Diversity of Islam.

“Let’s not feed Islamophobic bigotry by highlighting only the horrors while neglecting the diversity of a religion with 1.6 billion adherents — including many who are champions of tolerance, modernity and human rights. The great divide is not between faiths, but one between intolerant zealots of any tradition and the large numbers of decent, peaceful believers likewise found in each tradition.”

Venue: Islamic Center of Northeast Florida
Date: July 4, 2014
(Note – It is customary to recite verses from the Quran in Arabic. In the interest of space and formatting, this write up omits the Arabic verses and only provides their English translations)

HOMILY (RECITED IN ARABIC)
Praise be to Allah (God)!  We praise Him and seek help from Him; we ask forgiveness from Him; we repent to Him ; and we seek refuge in Him from our own evil and from our own bad deeds. Anyone who has been guided by God, he is indeed guided; and anyone who has been misguided will never find a guardian(except God)to guide him. I bear witness that their is no deity except Allah, the Only One without partner.; and I bear witness that Muhammad is His Servant and Messenger. O Allah, let Your Prayers, Your Peace and Your Blessing be upon Your servant and Your messenger Muhammad and upon his family and all his companions.

“Faithful believers! Revere Allah with due reverence, and do not die without conscious submission to God.”  (3:102)

“O humanity! Be reverent toward your Lord, who created you from one soul and created its mate from it, and from these two disseminated many men and women.  Be reverent toward Allah by whom you ask (your rights) of each other and be reverent toward relationships; for Allah is watching over you.” (4:1)

“Faithful believers! Revere Allah and (always) say a word directed to the Right: That He may make your conduct whole and sound and forgive you your sins: he that obeys Allah and His Apostle has already attained the highest Achievement. (33:70-71).

As to what follows – The best of speech is the Book of Allah, The best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (SA).

“O my Lord! expand me my breast.  Ease my task for me.And remove the impediment from my speech.  So they may understand what I say.” (20:25-28).

INTRODUCTION
My dear brothers and sisters in Islam, The essence of fasting in Ramadan is to attain taqwa (God-consciousness). “O you who believe! Fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you, that you may attain taqwa.” (Qur’an 2:183)

Taqwa (God-consciousness) is a profound recurring value in the Quran. It is mentioned as a verb 166 times (e.g. tattaqu, ittaqu, etc.). Thus, taqwa is not merely an attitude, it is also a process. As an attitude, it helps us to orient our hearts and minds towards the Divine with love, devotion, and fear.

Our love is to Allah, which is the primary source of goodness and beauty. Our devotion is to Allah’s boundless wisdom and majesty. But even when in a loving and devoted relationship with Allah, we fear that we may fail to truly understand His divine intent and thus fail to have an appropriate relationship with Him.

Simply claiming love and devotion to Allah is not enough. We need to translate those feelings into action. Thus, to what extent we truly understand and internalize taqwa (God-consciousness) will be revealed in our character. Prophet Muhammad (SA) said, “God has sent me to perfect good manners and to do good deeds.”

If done right, taqwa ought to transform our character in a way that reflects the sublime values of the Quran – accountability, justice, kindness, mercy, love, equality, honesty, compassion, and fairness.

If done right, taqwa should prevent us from becoming reductionists i.e. reducing religious piety to a set of rituals or using arbitrary markers such as dress code as litmus tests of righteousness.

Rather we should be mindful that religious rituals, like praying and fasting, ultimately must bring about moral and spiritual upliftment. There are many aspects to moral uprightness. In the interest of time, I will touch upon only one aspect.

In 2009, our President, Barack Obama, delivered a historic speech in Cairo where he said, “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

Today being besides being Ramadan is also Independence Day, I will devote this khutbah (sermon) to the topic of “Justice in Islam,” because justice is not only a foundational value of Islam it is also the value on which our country was founded 238 years ago today.

WHAT IS JUSTICE?
In Ayat 135 of Suran Nisa, Allah (SWT) says, “O you who have believe, be persistent in standing firm for justice as witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is well, acquainted with whatever you do.”

The Quran is emphatic in stating that as believers we have to stand for justice and do so regardless of circumstance. In other words, we cannot cry injustice when we feel offended but stay silent when the rights of others are being violated.

For example, if you knew that the government is preventing Muslim women from wearing the hijab while getting a driver’s license, you will be outraged and perhaps voice your protest. But will you do the same if you learnt that Sikh men were being denied their religious right to wearing the turban? If you feel the same moral outrage for the Muslim sister as you feel for the Sikh man, then you have justice in your heart.

Verse 4:135 also states that we have to testify to the truth even if it is against ourselves or our loved ones. How many amongst us can honestly claim that we are courageous enough to hold our friends and family to the same standards that we use to pass judgment on others?

There are two main words that convey the idea of justice in the Quran – qist and adl.
Qist which is derived from the triliteral root qāf sīn ṭā occurs 25 times in the Quran. People who practice qist are described in the Quran as beloved of Allah (49:9). So, one of the ways to earn the love of Allah is to be just and fair in all aspects of our lives, whether dealing with friends, family, employees, employers, community members or even our enemies.

The other word for justice – Adl is derived from the triliteral root ʿayn dāl lām and it occurs 28 times in the Quran.

Every Jumuah (Friday), most khateebs will end their khutba by reciting, Ayat 90 from Surah an-Nahl (16), “Allah commands justice and the doing of good.” Thus there is no goodness without justice.

And in Ayat 8 of Surah al-Maidaha, Allah (SWT) says, “O you who have believed, be persistent in standing firm for Allah as witnesses to justice.” Later in the same verse Allah (SWT) commands us, “Be just, it is nearer to be being pious or conscientious of Allah.” Thus there is no taqwa (God-consciousness) without qist (justice).

Why are qist (justice) and taqwa (God-Consciousness) related? Because one of the central purposes of God’s revelation is to establish justice among people.

In Surah 57, Ayat 25 Allah says, “We sent Our Messengers with clear signs and sent down with them the Book (kitab) and the balance (mizan) in order to establish justice among the people (li-yaquman-nasu bil-qist).” The phrase ‘Our Messengers’ (rusulana) shows that justice is not only the goal of Islam but it is also the central purpose of all revelations and scriptures sent to humanity.

In hadith al-qudsi, the Prophet (SA) said that Allah said, “O My servants, I have forbidden injustice for Myself and forbade it also for you.  So avoid being unjust to one another.” (Saheeh Muslim).

INJUSTICE = LACK OF SUCCESS
Injustice not only takes us away from taqwa (God-consciousness) , but there is also a worldly price to pay. And the price is not only what our injustices may do to others. Perhaps the greater price for being unjust is that it is the primary cause of our own failures. In Surah Al-Anam Ayat 21 Allah (SWT) says, “Indeed the people who commit injustice are not successful.”

Now let us look at the state of justice across the Muslim world. Endless sectarian conflicts continue to cause the death of hundreds and thousands of innocent people, millions of people have been displaced, women face barriers to empowerment, minority groups are routinely traumatized, corruption is rampant and life in general is difficult. Which among the Quranic values of freedom, accountability, justice, mercy, equality, honesty, fairness etc. do you think is properly reflected in Muslim societies?

Two economists, Mahbub Ul Haq from Pakistan and Amartya Sen from India created a measurement called the Human Development Index, which measures education, health, life expectancy, wealth etc. for countries. The latest results show that not a single Muslim majority nation is in the top 25 in terms of their human development. In contrast, among the bottom 25, the vast majority of the countries are Muslim majority. And yet a state of besiegement in Muslim societies discourages public criticism and as a result we never seem to have constructive conversations about our own internal failures. In fact, those who attempt a critical study often get scorned.

Whether we acknowledge it or not, there is a gulf of separation between what our Holy Scriptures say and what we do. From the injustice of corruption to the injustice of racism and gender discrimination, these challenges are not unique to Muslims. However, the failures of Muslim societies seem particularly glaring for two reasons – First, the numbers are staggeringly bad, no major Muslim country has reached top rankings in any criteria related to human development, not in education, not in science and technology, and not even on public morality, as violence against women seem endemic across many parts of the Muslim world. Second, and more importantly such failures are happening despite the Quran and Sunnah providing us with clear guidelines on how to uphold the enduring and universal moral value of justice.

The practical lesson for us is that if we do not uphold justice, then we too as a community are likely to experience failures. Perhaps no other weakness of the Muslim ummah (community) hurts us as much as our inability to practice justice - qist and adl.

If you travel to the Muslim world, you will generally find masjids full and people fasting during Ramadan. People appear to be following religious rituals, then how is it that those same societies are also among the most corrupt? What good does the Quran do for us if we cannot use its teachings to create a society of orderliness where laws are willingly (not grudgingly) obeyed and if certain laws happen to be unjust then people strive peacefully and with wisdom to change them?

HOW TO PRACTICE JUSTICE?
Practicing justice means giving each individual what he or she deserves regardless of whether you agree with them or not, whether they practice your religion or not, whether they speak your language or not, whether they have the same color of the skin with you or not. It is easier to be fair towards your loved ones. Doing so is not justice. It may be love. But justice requires fairness towards all, including those we do not like.

Even when living as a religious minority, it does not absolve us of our most sacred of duties to practice qist and adl. In fact the responsibility to uphold justice is even more important when we are a religious minority because only the example we set by our actions can bear witness to the goodness of Islam. Leading by example should be a constant endeavor, whether we are doing so among ourselves as Muslims or we are doing so when in the company of people of other faiths.

But how do we as small religious minority make a difference? Firstly, by practicing justice in our own internal affairs. We cannot preach that which we do not practice. Secondly, working with others on issues of common concern. In Surah Al-Imran Ayat 64 Allah (SWT) gives us an action plan. 3:64 Say: “O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you.”

In our ritual worship we may not necessarily perceive a lot of common ground. For example, on the outside it appears that people of the Book do not pray, like we pray. Our theologies may also appear to be in conflict. Although People of the Book are monotheists like us, our conception of God is apparently unique. But these differences existed even during the time of the Prophet (SA) and yet Allah commanded us to seek common ground with people of other faiths. So where can we find that common ground? One place is around the idea of justice, qist and adl.

Every religion has the golden rule – do unto others as you would them to do unto you. Thus, we can come to common terms with people of other faiths on the idea of mutuality and justice.

Since 9/11 the American Muslim community has been subject to many challenges. Many of these challenges result from the unjust application of laws or the injustice in some of the laws themselves. American Muslims have spoken out against these practices with varying degrees of success. Sometimes our complaints yielded results and sometimes they did not. Sometimes we were the only ones complaining and sometimes we had others who joined us in our efforts.
The experiences of the past dozen years have been varied for us. Some of us were the direct victims of injustices while others knew friends and families that were the victims of injustices. Some of us sought relief through legal mechanisms while others sought relief using the power of persuasion.

This is the challenge of our time. On one hand we are the victims of many injustices but we are also the recipients of not only many random acts of kindness from our neighbors and co-workers but more importantly as Muslims we claim to be the recipients of God’s final message, which unequivocally calls on believers to advocate not only for their own rights but also those of others. And so my first question of the day for you today is this – How much time and effort have you expended to stand up for justice when the rights of others  are being violated?

CONTEMPORARY AMERICA
Just 2 days ago, we celebrated the 50^th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is viewed as one of the most impactful laws in the past century. It is safe to say that without that law being passed 50 years ago, you and I would not be sitting here today. Today we are celebrating 4^th of July, commonly viewed to be the date when the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, 238 years today.

Both the documents, the Civil Rights Act and the Declaration of Independence reflect the values of Shariah insofar that they aspire for adl and qist. The aspirations of these documents are indeed lofty and just. But in practice it took people of conscience and courage to translate those ideals into action. Hundreds and thousands of people, blacks and whites; Muslims and Jews; Protestants and Catholics; atheists and agnostics; all made sacrifices so that today we live in a country that is closer than ever before to its ideals of liberty and justice.

America’s imperfect present is a long way from its shameful past when slavery was legal and segregation was normal. But this did not happen without great struggle. From the Civil War to the Civil Rights movement, so many sacrificed so much so that we can live with dignity. How can we express our gratitude to them? After all gratitude is also an important Islamic value. In my view, by forging a fellowship of humanity centered on the universal principles of justice - adl and qist. 

CONCLUSION
There is nothing in Islam that says one cannot be a good Muslim, if he or she is also a good American. And nothing about American values says that one cannot be a good American by being a good Muslim.

So in my conclusion, I will lay out 5-core principles of Islam, which will illustrate the common ground between the values of Islam and the best aspirations of America. Such an understanding is important so that we are to be inspired by our faith to pursue justice for all in America.

1. Faith in the One Universal God: Islam is founded on the belief that there is only one God. The Declaration of Independence, not only acknowledges the existence of our Creator but goes on to state that our fundamental rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are unalienable (meaning cannot be dismissed by any human authority) because they come to us from our Creator.
2. Universality of all Faiths: Addressing the entire human race, the Qur’an states: “O humankind! We [God] have created you from a single [pair] of a male and a female and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you may come to know one another (not despise each other).” 49:13. Our first President, George Washington in a famous letter written in 1790 said, “May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants — while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.” Religious pluralism and universality of all faiths has been part of the fabric of America. Occasionally the politics of the moment may make it difficult to see this value reflected in society. Our job is to practice this value of pluralism because our faith demands so and our country expects so.
3. Universal Human dignity: In today’s geo-political context of seemingly endless conflicts it may be hard to believe that Muslims are commanded to respect the sanctity of life and uphold due process.  “…if anyone slays a human being, unless it be [punishment] for murder, or for spreading mischief on earth, it shall be as though he had slain all humankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all humankind” 5:32.  The Quranic aspiration of due process finds home in the U.S. Constitution, for example, through the 5^th and 14^th Amendments. Due process is justice because due process safeguards all from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property.
4. Universal justice: Islam’s goal is voluntary submission to the will of God and the path to this submission is rooted in the pursuit of social, economic and political justice. “O you who believe! Stand out for justice, as witnesses to God,.. ”  4:134. The American ideals of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness did not prevent slavery or segregation or gender discrimination. It took a Civil War and cascades of social movements to set America free from its unjust practices. Martin Luther King, Jr. aptly noted, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” My second question of the day to you is – Are we going to be players or spectators in the continued evolution of America towards a more perfect union?
5. Acceptance of plurality in human societies: The Qur’an is quite explicit in reminding that if God willed, He would have made all mankind into one nation [11:118]. Likewise, the Qur’an states that had it been God’s will, He would have made all people believers, [10:99]. Forcing people to believe runs against God’s decree of free will. America too is founded on the principle of religious liberty. Not only religious liberty is guaranteed in U.S. Constitution, it is part of the founding history of America. Ben Franklin, one of the founding fathers of America wrote, “so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.” Religious consciousness is not possible without a commitment to be involved in the upliftment of the society where we live.

The Prophet’s mission was not to just teach us religious rituals but also to strive for the freedom and dignity of all people, not just Muslims, not just people of his own tribe, not just for rich and powerful but for all people. The Prophet (SA) beautifully and succinctly surmised, “The best among you is the best toward people, all people.”

The Prophet (SA) did not just preach, he led by example. He asked a black freed slave to call the believers to prayer and a slave’s son to command an army. He (SA) gave voice to the rights of underprivileged in society such as orphans and women so that they can gain public space in social, political, economic and even military affairs.

In this Ramadan, as we rightfully focus on our fasting and prayer, let us also reflect on how to use these rituals as springboards to enhance our commitment to justice. Doing so will help us attain taqwa (God-consciousness), which is the central purpose of Ramadan, and this will in turn help us ultimately gain the love Allah (SWT).

SUPPLICATIONS
Our Lord, let not our hearts deviate after You have guided us and grant us from Yourself mercy. Indeed, You are the Bestower. (3:8)

Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that perhaps you will be reminded. (16:90)

Recently a friend commented that even if the Muslim community engaged in a thousand interfaith dialogues, the headline that a Nigerian Muslim extremist group, Boko Haram, has abducted school girls threatening to sell them as slaves is enough to overshadow efforts at building bridges of understanding. Groups like Al Qaeda and Boko Haram claim to operate in the name of Islam while clearly being irreverent to its spirit and core values. On closer examination, much of the violence in the name of Islam is less motivated by faith and more so by poverty and desperation.

As smart and witty as Bill Maher is, he has a blind spot about religion in general and Islam in particular. On his recent ‘Real Time‘ show on HBO, Bill Maher asserted that extremism among Muslims is not limited to “a few bad apples.” Many Muslims are indeed committing gut wrenching violence in the name of Islam – from beheadings to suicide bombings. But Muslims are hardly alone. According to the U.S. Department of State, the Ugandan Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) is one of “Africa’s oldest, most violent, and persistent armed groups.” UNICEF estimates that at least 66,000 children have been abducted by the LRA, which wants to create a state based on the biblical Ten Commandments. In Burma, Human Rights Watch cites, “Buddhist mobs attacked Muslim communities …. At least 44 people were killed and 1,400 mostly Muslim-owned businesses and houses were destroyed.”

To prove his point, Maher trotted out the example of Ayann Hirsi Ali who suffered genital mutilation in her native Somalia. He went on to note, “which almost all women do in [Somalia] and many other Muslim countries.” Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a scourge in many parts of Africa and the Middle East. However, its practice cuts across religious boundaries. For example, in the Christian majority nation of Eritrea, 89 percent of women between the ages of 15 and 49 have experienced FGM. In Ethiopia, another Christian majority nation, 74 percent women have suffered from FGM. And yet FGM is almost unheard of in many Muslim countries.

Boko Haram translates as “Western education is forbidden” and yet education was a top priority for Prophet Muhammad. There are well over 40 sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammad exhorting the seeking of knowledge. Among the most succinct are,

“To acquire knowledge is binding upon all Muslims, whether male or female”

and

“Acquire knowledge and impart it to the people.”

The only stipulation was that knowledge be beneficial. In one of the famous hadith (traditions) of Prophet Muhammad he is reported to have said,

“God, His angels and all those in Heavens and on Earth, even ants in their hills and fish in the water, call down blessings on those who instruct others in beneficial knowledge.”

It is common for Muslim moms to remind children to recite the following Quranic prayer before any school exam,

“Rabbi zidni ilma” meaning “O my Lord! Increase me in knowledge” (20:114)

Neither in the Quran nor in Prophetic sayings has the Arabic word for knowledge “ilm” any qualifier that knowledge be Eastern or Western, religious or secular.

In the maelstrom over Maher and Boko Haram something is remiss. Muslims majority societies are generally lagging behind the rest of the world in education, gender equity and social justice. The 2013 Global Gender Gap Report shows wide disparity in Muslim majority countries between men and women across for key areas of health, education, economics and politics. No Muslim majority country cracks the top ten in gender equity while at the bottom end, 9 out of 10 countries are Muslim majority. The Human Development Index, a composite of education, life expectancy and income, shows Muslim majority countries as lagging behind with not a single Muslim majority country ranking in the top 25 while the majority in the bottom 25 being Muslim majority.

Bill Maher has plenty of reasons to be critical of Muslims. However, by focusing on Islam, a faith that comforts and motivates hundreds of millions of people to do the right thing, he is alienating the very people whose efforts will be critical in eradicating the root causes that create such monsters as Boko Haram and al-Qaeda. Critics of Maher will also need to focus on confronting the retrograde preachers, the strident Islamists and the incompetent secularists whose actions or lack thereof underpin the rise of extremism. Maher is wrong. But he is not the problem. If Muslim societies lead the world in education, freedom and social justice, we will not have to deal with the scourge of Boko Haram or feel slighted by the incoherent rants of Maher. To use the clearly un-Islamic behavior of Boko Haram as a ploy to attack Islam is despicable. But it pales in comparison to the abuse of Islam’s sacred texts the extremists have engaged in to justify their nihilism.