President Trump’s uncharacteristically monotonic speech to a gathering of Muslim leaders in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, went off without any gaffes, to the great satisfaction of his advisers. Trump’s speech was similar to that of President Obama in Cairo, eight years ago. Both Trump and Obama, acknowledged the obvious commonality of the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and rhetorically extended an olive branch to Muslims by paying respects to their faith of Islam. Trump also acknowledged that Muslims are the primary victims of terrorism, a point made by Obama too, which however, Trump and his supporters till date had taken great pains in avoiding.

But can one speech erase the litany of anti-Muslim statements? In 2011, Trump not only peddled birtherism but also insinuated that Obama was born Muslim. He then went on to spuriously assert that, “if you’re a Muslim, you don’t change your religion, by the way.” Trump also famously said, “I think Islam hates us.” The pinnacle of Trump’s anti-Muslim sentiments shone through in 2015, when he said, “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” This statement is at the core of several court challenges on Trump’s travel ban of people from several Muslim majority countries.

Although commentators noted the similarities between Trump’s and Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world, Trump’s speech has generally been panned by Muslim activists. While Obama spoke to students at the historic Al Azhar University in Cairo, Trump addressed mostly kings and despots in Riyadh. Terrorism in the name of Islam emanates from disaffected youth. Stoking the egos of the very leaders that have robbed these young people of their dreams cannot be seriously taken as a new path forward. If Trump wanted to make amends on his harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies, then why not outreach to Muslims at home first? Trump appeared comfortable with the notion that Islam is a foreign religion with a glorious past. He seems uncomfortable accepting the reality that Islam is American, with a future intertwined with that of America.

Both Trump and his host, King Salman incorrectly alluded that Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islam. The geographical locations of the holy cities of Mecca and Madinah does not make Saudi Arabia Islam’s Vatican. To the contrary, Saudi Arabia exports a puritanical, Wahhabi, version of Islam, which forms the core teachings of many radical Muslim groups. While all Wahhabis are not terrorists, most Muslim terrorists have found ideological comity with them. The Saudi government may not be directly financing terrorist groups, but it is hard to imagine that an absolute monarchy, which tightly regulates all aspect of social life, is unaware of the money spigots sustaining Wahhabism at home and abroad. Saudi Arabia’s version of Islam is unrepresentative of the broader Muslim world and the export of this brand has been destabilizing many moderate nations.

Trump’s bellicose rhetoric towards Iran perhaps heralds a new era of Middle East conflict. While lecturing Muslims about unity, Trump and his Saudi hosts ignored the reality that Shias are as much part of Islam as Sunnis. Not having Iran, the largest Shia country, at the table where American relationship with the Muslim world is being discussed, is an omission with ominous foreboding. Peace in the Middle East will require a grand détente, not only between Israelis and Palestinians, but also between Saudi Arabia and Iran. In both cases, the U.S. will have to be perceived as an honest broker. Trump’s bear hug of the Saudis sent the wrong signal of America cheerleading for Sunni Arabs against Shia Persians. In addition, Trump’s willful disregard for Saudi Arabia’s complicity in the Yemeni humanitarian disaster undermined any perceived olive branch to Muslims.

Trump’s Saudi visit was much hypocritical ado about nothing. Many commentators failed to note that the four important words missing from Trump’s speech were – democracy, freedom and human rights. Securing a deal to sell more arms to a region already awash in arms is not a new turn for diplomacy. The arms deal may secure a few American jobs but those jobs will be built on the graves of more innocent souls, which in turn will fuel more radicalism, continuing a vicious cycle of reprisals and death in the Middle East.

I am not alone. Famed journalist Carl Bernstein called Trump a neo-fascist pointing out, “I think the word neo is crucial because it means new and it’s a peculiarly American kind of fascism.” While there are important historical divergences between Trump and Hitler, the parallels in their policy choices and their extolling of authoritarianism ought to be concerning enough to venture where political discourse seldom should go. The Economist’s Intelligence Unit, which provides risk assessment and business intelligence to corporations around the world, recently ranked Trump presidency as a top 10 risk facing the world. They cited three major concerns – disruption to the world economy, political chaos in the U.S., and heightened security threat to America and American interests around the world.

Trump being fascistic was based on my understanding of the broad strokes of history. Authoritarian leaders inevitably bring chaos all the while promising utopian fixes. While the U.S. is not the dominant world power it once was, mostly due to the inevitable rise of other countries, it still remains a nation with formidable hard and soft power. Perhaps one of the best places to look will be U.N.’s Human Development Index (HDI) that measures, “richness of human life, rather than simply the richness of the economy.” In 2015, the U.S. ranked #8. Countries outranking America are those whom Bernie Sanders hold out as models, such as Norway and Switzerland, and whom Trump dismisses as socialists. From 1990 to 2015, America’s HDI score improved by 6.5 percent, despite encountering several economic recessions along the way.

The area where U.S. performs worst is something that Trump never talks about – income inequality. After taking taxes into account, U.S. has the second highest level of income inequality, behind only Chile. According to a report from Pew Research, “U.S. tax and spending policy does relatively little, compared with its peers in the developed world, to reduce inequality.” Trump’s supporter are ostensibly angry because of economic sufferings, but the most important factor behind that suffering is virtually non-existent in Trump’s platitude of making America great again. The headline from Fortune magazine says it all, “Donald Trump’s Tax Plan Would Make the Rich Richer, Uncle Sam Poorer.” Debt will explode as the government takes-in less revenue. The economic populism that is supposedly behind Trump’s rise is mostly smokes and mirrors.

So what is fueling his rise? A study by Vox.com showed that people who favor conformity and are wary of outsiders correlate well with Trump supporters. Social scientists call such people authoritarians. Trump supporters may not view him as a dictator but his aggressive tone and polices resonate with their fears and anxieties. Trump’s odious views do not necessarily rise to fascism unless coupled with Trump’s incitement of violence. When he threatens to punch protestors or alludes to riots if the Republican Party does not coronate him, he is using the playbook of bullies. And when his supporters beat up Mexicans and Muslims, his threat is not protected free speech but akin to yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

If you are not a Mexican, you may not be impacted by Trump’s characterization of Mexican immigrants as “rapists”. But those who are Mexican or perceived to be Mexican are already facing violent backlash at schools. If you are not Muslim, you may not care about imposing a ban of undefined length on all Muslims entering the U.S. But for those with family, social, and business ties to one-fifth of humanity, such ideas represent a clear and present danger. If you care not about international laws and treaties, you may turn a blind eye to Trump advocating torture and illegal killings of civilians. But those American service women and men, whose safety depends upon reciprocity, are undoubtedly at risk if Trump indeed follows through on his bluster. Recently when asked about his foreign policy advisors, Trump said he talks to himself. In other words, his is a cult of personality not a movement of ideas. If this is not fascistic, tell me what is?

Nationalism, condescension towards human rights, use of scapegoats for a unifying cause, sexism, threats to free journalism, subordinating all other concerns for national security, fetish for police power, are some of the common traits of fascism. Trump check marks on all of them, albeit in a modern American context. Trump has already disrupted social cohesion. Imagine how he may react when he feels the power of having his finger on the nuclear button. It is never too late to oppose fascists and there is no shame in switching sides to stand up to bullies.

One may contend that the genesis of ISIS (or ISIL) dates back to U.S. invasion of Iraq.Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who broke away from al-Qaeda and on whom the U.S. government once had a $25 million reward for any tip leading to his arrest, can be considered the ideological godfather of ISIS. However, the group entered into the consciousness of most Americans only after gruesome beheading videos made media waves. This has tipped a slight majority of Americans (53 percent) to now support yet another war in the Middle East.

It bears reminding that in 2003, 72 percent of Americans supported going to war with Iraq, titillated by spurious claims of mushroom clouds and weapons of mass destruction. Yet a decade later, most Americans wanted U.S. troops out of Iraq. The fickle public is once again the victim of fear mongering. The unsuspecting public cheers on as bombs and missiles generate shock and awe. As the media echo chambers glorify the sounds and fury of war, the public is assured that only the “bad guys” are dead. If anyone dares to question the death of civilians, they are branded as propagandists for terror. Very little time is spent questioning the efficacy of the war, and there is virtually no discussion about what happens the day after, assuming that the war on terror can actually be won anytime soon.

The Global Terrorism Database (GDT), a service provided by National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, records approximately 125,000 cases of terrorist incidents committed by 2,437 groups between 1970 and 2013. Over the past four decades, nearly half of the incidents of death from terrorism have occurred in the 12 years since the declaration of the so-called “war on terror” in 2002. Data also show that terrorism is not only being committed in the name of Islam, by well-known groups such as al-Qaeda; just as ominously, it is also being perpetrated in the name of Christianity by lesser-known groups such as the Lord’s Resistance Army, and by non-religious actors such as the Communist Party of India (Maoist). Between 2002 and 2011, the Lord’s Resistance Army ranked fourth in the number of fatalities linked to it, while the Communist Party of India (Maoist) ranked fifth. Ranking at the very top of the list are the Taliban, with whom the U.S. launched “peace talks” in 2013.

Undoubtedly, ISIS gained currency in the cauldrons of Syria’s bloody civil war, which has killed nearly 200,000 people, with of half of them being civilians. The conflict has displaced 6.5 million people, and over half of Syria’s pre-war population of 23 million is in need of urgent humanitarian assistance. President Obama called for Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, to step down, but he has never enacted any strategy to make this possible or — more importantly — offered any plan regarding what happens the day after. ISIS swept into Iraq partly because the Obama administration showed no will to confront the sectarian nature of Iraq’s democratic government, despite that government’s survival depending upon U.S. largesse. The parochial worldview of the Iraqi government alienated and radicalized Iraq’s Sunni minority. Only after ISIS captured vast Iraqi territories did Obama put pressure on Iraq’s Nuri al-Maliki to step down. Too little, too late.

ISIS is a terrorist group. But is it America’s responsibility to defeat them, particularly given the fact that no case has been made regarding the extent to which they pose a threat to the homeland? Saudi Arabia and Iran both claim that ISIS represents an existential threat to them. Why are they not cooperating with each other to defeat ISIS? A Shia-Sunni rapprochement led by Saudi Arabia and Iran would be far more effective and less costly than the over $10 million per day that the U.S. is currently spending on bombing ISIS. Who will ultimately pay for this war effort?

“ISIS is a response to state monopolization of violence,” noted Kambiz GhaneaBassiri, a professor of religion at Reed College in Portland. If indeed so, then this threat cannot be defeated via more state violence (i.e., military might) only. U.S. efforts to combat al-Qaeda have not diminished the threat from terrorism, as evidenced from the GTD data. Osama bin Laden’s absence has not defeated terrorism. It has created a power vacuum that has been filled by groups more radicalized and more ruthless than al-Qaeda. Once again the absence of a day-after strategy remains the Achilles heel. America keeps playing the terrorist Whac-a-Mole. There is no grand strategy, only arbitrary lurches from crisis to crisis.

That Saudi Arabia, along with Egypt, is opposing ISIS is an irony and hypocrisy. Governments in both states have enabled ISIS, Saudi Arabia through bankrolling its puritanical version of Islam (pejoratively labeled “Wahhabism”), and Egypt by brutally suppressing the aspirations of the Arab Spring. Moreover, can Saudi Arabia really claim any moral high ground given the fact that in Saudi Arabia beheadings are a public spectacle?

While Muslim religious leaders have indeed unequivocally condemned ISIS, they have not yet taken stock of the fact that the extreme conservatism fanned by many clerics and Islamist groups continues to enable ISIS to recruit globally. The penchant that hardline clerics and Islamist groups have for denying religious pluralism and their constant projection of victimhood have, in perverse ways, conspired to create the cesspool from which ISIS is successfully recruiting. Simply condemning ISIS is not enough. Muslim clerics and organizations must reexamine their message and methods. Factors ranging from the disempowerment of women to a lack of tolerance for unorthodox views are helping radicalize individuals and society. It is from this cesspool that ISIS and other militants are drawing sustenance.

Bombs and missiles cannot defeat terrorism, because they play into the narrative of the terrorists that the only effective response to state monopolization of violence is more violence. And so the cycle repeats. In the words of Admiral Mullen, the U.S. must prepare for a multi-decade military entanglement in the Middle East. And yet there is hardly much will to debate this generational commitment to an open-ended war. Tragically, there’s only the fervor to cheerlead.

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.

Huffington Post, Nov 5. 2010

Also in Florida Times Union, Nov 12, 2010

On the heels of a bruising election, President Barack Obama is undertaking his longest foreign trip that will take him to several Asian countries including India. Some media accounts of this trip, primarily Fox News and its affiliates, has focused on an un-sourced report that erroneously suggested the President’s trip to cost $200 million per day. The fact is that the true costs of Presidential foreign trips are kept a secret for security reasons. The General Accounting Office, about a decade ago, had released one report on President Clinton’s foreign trips. It showed that the cost of such trips total in the tens of millions nowhere near the exaggerated figure of $200 million per day. The hullabaloo over such triviality is once again robbing Americans of an opportunity to engage in a civic dialogue about India and its strategic importance to America.

India is not just an exotic country thousands of miles away. The Indian diaspora in the U.S. is 2.7 million strong. Over a dozen Indian Americans are part of the Obama administration and two Indian Americans have been elected Governors. India is neither the caricature on NBC’s Outsourced nor the heartless gloom portrayed in Slumdog Millionaire. In his book The Argumentative Indian, Nobel laureate Amartya Sen presents a succinct description, “India is an immensely diverse country with many distinct pursuits, vastly disparate convictions, widely divergent customs and veritable feast of viewpoints.”

India is the world’s largest democracy. It is thus not coincidental that America, the world’s oldest democracy, shares a bond with India, which transcends economics. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton alluded to this by assuring the people of India that they “should know they have no better friend and partner than the people of the United States.” The Obama administration has stated that it wants to deepen its relationship with India on four strategic areas — energy and climate change; economics, trade, and agriculture; education and development; and science, technology and innovation. And yet progress has been anemic.

Progress is complicated by a sluggish U.S. economy, particularly in the area of job creation. Politically it helps the President to rail against U.S. companies that outsource jobs to India but strategically such outbursts are not helpful. Outsourcing is not the reason why U.S. businesses, despite posting healthy profits, are not hiring. The fault lines remain in the banking and financial sector. Obsessing on the ills of outsourcing belies a pertinent fact that America is now the preferred destination for outsourcing. India is third. In 2007, 20% of InformationWeek 500 companies reported that they’ve taken back outsourced work. The recent rise of prosperity in India has dampened the lure cheap labor.

Beating up on outsourcing will only make Indians reluctant to open up their markets to American exports. President Obama has correctly identified exports as one of the major sources of new jobs in the U.S. The rising upper and middle class in India offers new opportunities to sell American products. This explains why the President has a large contingent of business leaders in tow. Companies such as Boeing, GE, Caterpillar and Harley-Davidson are all looking forward to seal large deals with their Indian counterparts. Hopefully, the President will be able to impress upon these businesses that such deals should ultimately generate employment in the U.S. The President’s legacy and reelection depends on such successes.

During this trip to India, President Obama is expected to visit the tomb of Mughal emperor Humayun, which was commissioned by his wife Hamida Banu in 1562. The tomb is a UNESCO World Heritage site and is precursor to the architecture and vision that inspired the Taj Mahal. By visiting this site, President Obama is giving a nod to India’s pluralistic history, a history shaped by a rich inter-religious and cultural interaction between Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity. This is not to suggest that the interactions between the faith communities have always been egalitarian. But the somewhat natural tensions between the faithful did not prevent them from cooperating to create great art, music, literature and philosophy. Prior to the British colonial rule, India was the world’s economic superpower. Interestingly, Humayun’s tomb also connects India to Pakistan. For it is here that many Muslims took refugee during their arduous migration to Pakistan. The symbolism is powerful as America’s Af-Pak policy will partly hinge on the role India plays or does not play.

Disappointingly, President Obama will skip visiting the Golden Temple, the holiest site for Sikhs. To enter the temple, all male visitors are required to cover their heads. He fears that his head covering will be mistakenly linked to the persistent rumors that Obama is a Muslim. Caving into fear-mongers only emboldens them. Sikhs have paid an unfair price for their mistaken identity. They have been targets of anti-Muslim discrimination. And a few days after 9-11, a Sikh was killed in Arizona by a man who mistook him for a Muslim.

There is a lot riding on Mr. Obama’s visit to India. Americans can and should hope that President Obama’s visit opens up new opportunities for badly needed exports. Indians are hoping that President Obama will support India’s bid to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, a step that will help solidify India’s ascendency on the world stage.

Professor Parvez Ahmed is a Fulbright Scholar and Associate Professor of Finance at the University of North Florida. He is also a frequent commentator on Islam and the Muslim American experience.