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

by Parvez Ahmed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/parvezahmed

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”