Huffington Post, November 22, 2016

It will be an understatement to say that the world changed in the wee hours of Wednesday, November 9. For some in America, it marked the beginning of a new dawn as the party and ideology they voted for won and won big — not just winning the presidency, but also both houses of Congress and majority of state legislatures. For others, it felt like a descent into darkness. A return to the days of internment, mass deportations and rising hate crimes. However, the presidential elections of 2016 did not divide America. It simply laid bare the festering divisiveness that were never adequately addressed in the first place.

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.

The evidence about the possibility of Muslim presence in pre-Columbus America is controversial. Linguist Barry Fell in his work Saga America (1980) pointed out that in Inyo county, California, there exists an early American petrogyph (rock carving) which stated in Arabic: “Yasus ben Maria” (“Jesus, Son of Mary”), a phrase commonly found in the Quran. In addition he draws cultural parallels between West African people and certain “Indian” peoples of the southwest. I am not scholarly enough in this area to judge the authenticity of such claims. Here a review of Fell’s work (with pictures from his book):  http://www.fountainmagazine.com/article.php?ARTICLEID=823

Convergence of interests and values
by Parvez Ahmed*

It happens once in a blue moon — the convergence of Western military action with Arab and Muslim public opinion. The last time we witnessed such convergence was during the US-led interventions in the Balkans, which stopped an ethnic cleansing and eventually brought peace to a troubled region of the world. Contrary to assertions from some, Libya 2011 is not Iraq of 2003.

Whereas the war in Iraq lacked any international legitimacy, the military intervention in Libya has legal authority in the form of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. In addition, enforcement of the no-fly zone in Libya also has the support of the Arab League, symbolic as that support may be. But most importantly, unlike 2003, there are no mass demonstrations either in Arab or Western capitals opposing another Western military adventure in yet another Muslim majority country.

The lack of opposition should not be mistaken for a lack of concern. The history of Western military interventions in the region has been largely perceived as neocolonial imperialism. The fact that Iraq remains a bloody mess and Afghanistan a quagmire adds to the anxiety. And yet the hope that has sprung from the peaceful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt gives us reason to believe that military intervention in Libya, as abhorrent as the idea may be, was the right thing to do in order to thwart the brutality of yet another Arab dictator. Something has fundamentally changed in the Arab and Muslim world. The rest of the world is now being forced, albeit reluctantly, to contend with that reality.

Speaking to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, US Sen. John Kerry gave voice to the optimism being felt by many, despite lingering concerns. “If liberation can be translated into lasting democracy, then the new Arab awakening will carry a vital message: simply, that ordinary people everywhere have the ability to determine for themselves how they are governed. The developments in Egypt and Tunisia also represent a dramatic blow against the extremism that we have been struggling with this past decade or more — a blow against extremism that we could not have dealt ourselves.”

Sen. Kerry went on to say, “But just as the Berlin Wall could not be rebuilt, so we know that the old order of the Middle East cannot be restored.” To stop the restoration of the old order, military intervention in Libya became necessary. If the Muammar Gaddafi regime had overrun Benghazi, as they were poised to do, the Arab spring could have prematurely ended amidst deep suspicion that the West could have stopped the massacre but chose not to. This would have further emboldened the brutal repressions already under way from Yemen to Bahrain. In Yemen the defection of a senior military leader provides hope that if Western powers abandon their realpolitik and finally align their interests with their values, not only the people but also the extant power establishment may reject their brutal overlords.

Michael Gerson, speechwriter to former US President George W. Bush, in a recent op-ed to The Washington Post wrote: “When a government engages in genocide, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity — effectively waging war against its own citizens — other nations have the right and duty to intervene. In Libya, this abstract norm became a basis for action. The Obama administration deserves credit for its part in establishing this precedent.” The Arab spring has offered a Sputnik moment for US foreign policy. It appears that President Obama is slowly warming up to the idea that transformative change not only requires moral leadership of words but unfortunately necessitates the use of force when force becomes the only way to stop crimes against humanity. Rwanda still haunts us.

The reticence of emerging democratic powers such as Turkey, Brazil and India to join hands in this effort remains a source of concern. Although negotiations remain the preferred way to end this standoff, Gaddafi’s intransigence coupled with his threat to go door to door to clean out “rebels” offers scant hope for a peaceful resolution.
The extraordinary convergence of Western policy and Arab/Muslim public opinion needs further cementing. Sen. Kerry wants to introduce legislation to financially support “new and fledgling democracies in the region.” Sen. Kerry asserts, “We ought to be helping governments reform their security sectors, building transparency into the fabric of government ministries, strengthening the rule of law and helping leaders to incorporate the views of their public in the day-to-day work that they’re engaged in.”

Turkey, with its long history of democracy and its experience as part of its European Union accession process as well as with enacting changes that brings laws and policies to the standards expressed by Sen. Kerry, must play a pivotal role going forward. Only then can Turkey’s aspiration of zero problems with its neighbors become a sustainable policy.

Huffington Post, Feb 1, 2011
Florida Times Union, Feb 2, 2011
A Sputnik Moment for U.S. Foreign Policy

The Jasmine Revolution has led to the ouster of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the autocratic leader of Tunisia and has sparked similar revolutionary fervor from Algeria to Egypt. The success in Tunisia has emboldened protestors across the Middle East demanding greater freedom and dignity. The many unforgettable images of the demonstrators are helping to erase the myth of Muslims and Arabs being apathetic to democracy and docile to authoritarian rule. Democracy deficiency has been a fact of life in the Middle East not because the people did not want it but because for decades American support propped up the Arab dictators, all in the name of stability. This policy is now in shambles. Today the region can boast neither stability nor freedom. The “Sputnik moment” opportunity is to reorient the arc of U.S. foreign policy from being solely motivated by American national interests to being guided by the universal values of freedom, liberty, rule of law and democracy.

American Presidents, both Republican and Democrats, have not been totally callous about the lack of freedom and liberty in the Middle East. But they have always made the need for stability in a region whose natural resources (oil) fuels America’s economic engine a more urgent priority. Although Egypt and Jordan does not supply the U.S. with oil, their peace treaty with Israel makes them important linchpins of American foreign policy. The dictators in the region obviously know all that and gladly play the fear-card to keep America in their corner, no matter how diametrically opposed their domestic policies are to American values. The Abdullahs and the Mubaraks have for decades successfully invoked the specter of religious hardliners coming to power in the absence of their iron-fisted rules. The distinction between religious conservatives and lawless terrorists were maliciously and deliberately blurred. With Western support Mubarak had cracked down on political opposition often in the name of fighting terrorism. Decades of such actions seeded the violence that convulses much of the Middle East today.

The Iranian experience provided a further pretext. The toppling of an unpopular U.S. puppet, the Shah, was followed by a government hostile to Western interests and restrictive of the freedom and liberty of its own people. When faced with calls for greater democracy, the U.S. foreign policy establishment often argued that the removal of a dictator in the Middle East will not necessarily increase the chances of a liberal democracy in the region. Underlying this assumption is a fallacy that often drives American public opinion about Islam, Muslims and the Arabs — the propensity to judge vast swaths of people, spanning different cultural backgrounds and historical experiences, with the worst behavior or examples from that part of the world.

For every Iran there is a Turkey. Muslims are neither monolithic nor merely shaped by their religious beliefs. Turkey and Bangladesh for example have held on to their secular democracy, even when religious conservatives rose to power. Instead of using the fear of an Iranian-type religious takeover in Egypt as a pretext to extend President Hosni Mubarak’s authoritarian rule, it will be far better to take into account the unique cultural contours of Egypt.

With its three millennium of civilizational experience, Egypt is far more tolerant and pluralistic than many on the outside are led to believe. While religious movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood enjoy some support in Egypt, they are not universally adored. Although, it is likely that in an open and democratic Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood will play some role (unlikely to be dominant), there is no need to fear monger such a possibility. The next Egyptian regime will have to bear in mind that the so-called Arab street is now wide awake. They will not tolerate any government that fails to meet the demands of their people. If a brutal dictator ruling with the unqualified support of the West could be removed in a few days of street protests, as in Tunisia with Egypt hopefully being next, then no regime that rules without the consent of the governed will ever be safe. In addition, the successes, both at home and abroad, of a religiously conservative government in secular Turkey provide a practical model for conservative political forces to emulate in the region.

The time has come for the U.S. government to demonstrate to the Arab and Muslim world that it is indeed on the side of the people. Support for the true democratic aspirations of the people in the region can go a long way in restoring America’s image in the Arab and Muslim world. Anything less will only plunge these societies into further darkness from whence could emerge ever more dangerous reactionary and militant forces. The Sputnik moment has arrived. Will President Obama exhibit transformational leadership to provide meaningful American support in transitioning this region to democratic rule of law? Will the Egyptian people see America on their side or will they interpret the mantra of “orderly transition” as code for keeping the Mubarak regime alive, albeit on life support.

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Parvez Ahmed slept in. After teaching a late-night investment class at the University of Pennsylvania, and working in his home office until after midnight, he took the rare luxury of sleeping past 8 a.m. His parents, visiting from Calcutta, milled about downstairs with his wife Savana, fixing breakfast and watching the morning news. When the first jetliner crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m., Savana called up to her husband. Ahmed was just coming down the stairs when the second plane
crashed at 9:03 a.m.

Like everyone in the United States, Ahmed’s family spent the day in shock. By 10:30 a.m., both the south and north towers had collapsed, killing more than 3,000 people. By 4 p.m., CNN was reporting that radical Muslim extremist Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization was responsible.

Click here to read more of this week’s cover story.

Listen to a radio interview on WJCT’s First Coast Connect. Listen to the Dec 6, 2010 show.

A group called the ACT! For America, which by most accounts is a hate group, organized a smear campaign to oust me from the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission, to which I was confirmed just a few months ago. You may remember the contrived controversy my nomination generated at that time. If you need a refresher, visit my blog. Most of April 2010 entries on my blog are about that controversy.

Unfortunately, once again the media played into ACT’s ploy and gave legs to the unfounded allegations made by ACT. The local NPR station, on their show First Coast Connect analyzed the situation. Click on Fri show of First Coast Connect.

On Sunday Dec 5, 2101 the Florida Times Union today, published a summarized version of my speech stating, “We are running excerpts from the speech on this page so readers can judge for themselves. The entire speech can be read on our Opinion Page Blog: jacksonville.com/opinion.”

Guest column: Is Islam compatible with American democratic values?
Source URL: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2010-12-05/story/guest-column-islam-compatible-american-democratic-values

In 2005, a Danish newspaper printed a cartoon depicting Muhammad, who Muslims believe to be the last Messenger and Prophet of God, with a bomb in his turban. This set off an international row as protests erupted from Europe to Asia.
In some Muslim countries, newspapers that reprinted the cartoon were closed. European countries evacuated staffs of embassies and Muslim countries withdrew ambassadors. The fallout also had economic repercussions. According to the Gulf News, Danish exports began to fall as consumers in Muslim countries shunned Danish products in protest.

This provoked the question: Is Islam incompatible with Western values? Are Islam and the West destined to have a clash of civilization?

Those who answer yes point to events like 9/11 or the cartoon controversy as proof positive of the inherent incompatibility of Islam and with the West.

Others who are more knowledgeable about Islam and Muslim societies say that neither 9/11, nor the cartoon controversy, are indicative of any inherent clash of values. The antecedents of such events are socio-political. Religion may at best be a contributing factor.

While people debate the place of Islam in American society, another reality is taking shape right before our very eyes.

According to The New York Times, a record number of Muslim workers are complaining of workplace discrimination ranging from being called “terrorist” to being barred from wearing headscarves or taking prayer breaks.

According to federal data, discrimination complaints by Muslims are up 20 percent from last year and up 60 percent since 2005. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has found enough credibility in these complaints that they have filed several lawsuits on behalf of Muslim workers.

This summer we have seen tensions boil over as a pastor attempted to burn the Quran and many opposed to building of an Islamic community center in New York descended to embarrassing levels of incivility.

Unlike you, who are attempting to dialogue and learn, most Americans choose to remain ill-informed. As a result, today more people have a negative view of Islam than in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Our media outlets, mostly cable news shows and radio talk shows, are major contributors to this trend that bodes ill for the long-term sustainability of our national interests.

A few politicians and religious leaders have only exasperated the situation by trying to ride the coattails of fear of Islam to electoral victories.

The situation has gotten so out of hand, that Time magazine ran a cover story, “Is America Islamophobic?” with the following comment: “In France and Britain, politicians from fringe parties say appalling things about Muslims, but there’s no one in Europe of the stature of a former House speaker who would, as Newt Gingrich did, equate Islam with Nazism.”

So how do we go past this rancor? By doing exactly what you are doing today. Trying to learn and attempting to dialogue.

President John Kennedy summed it best, “Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one’s own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.”

To the question: Is Islam compatible with American values? The answer is yes.
Why? Because in a normative sense (Excerpted from Michael Wolfe’s The Next American Religion):

Islam is democratic in spirit. The Quran, on which Islamic law is based, enjoins Muslims to govern themselves by discussion and consensus.

Islam is tolerant of other faiths. Like America, Islam has a history of respecting other religions. In Prophet Muhammad’s day, Christians and Jews in Muslim lands retained their own courts and enjoyed considerable autonomy. It was the Muslims who made it possible for Jews to return to and live in Jerusalem after centuries of being outcasts.

Islam encourages the pursuit of religious freedom. The Quran clearly states that there is no compulsion in matters related to faith and religion.

Islam emphasizes individual responsibility. Every person is responsible for the condition of her or his own soul. Everyone stands equal before God. America is wedded to an ethic of individual liberty based on righteous actions. For a Muslim, spiritual salvation depends not just on faith, but also righteous actions.

Islam is egalitarian. The Pledge of Allegiance (one nation, “under God”) and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (all people are “created equal”) express themes that are also basic to Islam. If you visit mosques in America, you will find them among the most racially integrated congregations of faith.

Democracy and Islam

I would like to spend a little bit more time on the issue of democracy and Islam with particular emphasis on Sharia.

The former deputy prime minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim wrote:
“It is true that the founding principles of constitutional democracy, as we know it today, have their antecedents in the political philosophy of John Locke, which entered France through the writings of Voltaire and then deeply influenced the framers of the U.S. constitution.

“But the fact that these principles of political freedom and democracy were first articulated in the West does not preclude them from universal application, nor can it be asserted that they have not been expressed in other contexts.”

A majority of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims live in democracies, ample proof that there is no inherent discord between Islam and democracy.

But what about those Muslim majority countries, most of them in the Middle East, which are not democracies?

Is Islam the reason for them being held back?

The Council of Foreign Relations concludes that “a mix of historical, cultural, economic and political factors – and not Islam as a religion – explain why democracy has failed to take root in many Muslim countries.”

In fact, surveys by Gallup and Pew show that clear majorities in the Arab world would favor democracy as a form of government. The people most animated about this are the so-called Islamists.

Outside of the Middle East (which accounts for fewer than 20 percent of the global Muslim population), Alfred Stepan in the Journal of Democracy argues that Muslim nations are on par with – or outpace – comparable non-Muslim developing nations in terms of civil liberties and free and fair elections.

The democracy deficiency in the Arab world is more a function of oil than religion.
State ownership of oil has stifled the development of market economies and government transparency. Oil has allowed the monarchies in the Middle East to make a Faustian bargain with their citizens.

That bargain: Governments will not tax its citizens (oil revenues pay for government budgets) and in exchange the citizens will not demand voting or representation.
Let me quote Anwar Ibrahim, the erstwhile deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia: “If democracy is about giving dignity to the human spirit, then freedom is the sine qua non.”

Within Islam, the great Andalusia jurist Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi in the 14th century, articulated a perspective on the Maqasid al-Shari’a (the higher objectives of the shari’a), demonstrating the central role of freedom as a higher objective of the divine law. The very same elements in a constitutional democracy are moral imperatives in Islam – freedom of conscience, freedom to speak out against tyranny, a call for reform and the right to property.”

Juan Williams is neither a racist nor a bigot. But by perpetuating negative stereotypes he breached the ethics of fairness, crucial ingredients to succeed as a journalist. His firing from NPR, while admittedly handled in a clumsy way, was ultimately the right action. At a time when public discourse has descended to freighting levels of incivility, holding professionals accountable to the highest ethical standards may not be a bad thing. We can and should have vigorous debates. But statements that perpetuate negative stereotypes simply have no place in a civilized society. Just as a doctor or teacher will be rendered ineffective if they were to express their “true feelings” about every situation they encounter, so is true for journalists. Like every other specialists we expect journalists to be professionals who provide us with accurate accounts and unbiased analysis of news. Public expressions of their own biases render them ineffective.

In firing Juan Williams, NPR did not violate his First Amendment rights. NPR asserted its right that the views of those who speak from its platform are consistent with its perceived brand of impartiality. In contrast, Fox News felt that Williams’ opinions were consistent with its brand of hard-charging opinion making and immediately acted to reward him with a lucrative contract. Thus both NPR and Fox made decisions that were consistent with their respective world views.

Consumers make similar choices. Those who prefer thoughtful discussions are likely to be supportive of firing Juan Williams, because they perceive that he violated his fiduciary duties. In contrast, people who enjoy the daily shout-fest at Fox News will welcome the addition of Williams to its all-star lineup of over-the-top opinion makers. NPR wants sanity, Fox News craves controversy. To each their respective audience. To each their own brand. The highest rated NPR show boasts over 13 million listeners while the highest rated show on Fox News averages slightly over 3 million viewers. In contrast, NBC Nightly News average over 7 million viewers. More Americans clearly prefer civility over rancor.

The firing of Juan Williams, has unleashed a firestorm of protest from the far-right with Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich leading the charge to cut-off public funding of NPR. Yet they stood silent when for Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez and Octavia Nasr were fired/resigned for making stereotypical and insensitive comments about Jews. Also disturbing is the double standards of groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations, which recently honored Helen Thomas and yet lead the charge against Juan Williams. Either all such firings/resignations are an outrage, for they purport to curb free speech or they are the right thing to do because they preserve trust in journalism. One cannot have it both ways.

In the greater scheme of things such firings may not necessarily improve journalism. Because it only pushes harsh and insensitive opinion making to the margins without addressing the root causes that led to such erroneous opinions. Juan Williams expressed fear of people in a “Muslim garb.” What did he mean by “Muslim garb?” Did the 9-11 hijackers wear any “Muslim garb”? And even if they did, what connection does a dress have with criminal behavior? Besides the sheer idiocy of attempting to define “Muslim garb” Williams is also guilty of trying to legitimize the irrational fear of American Muslims, a group that is already negatively perceived and against whom hate crimes are on the rise.

Institutions such as NPR by trying to be impartial are attempting to build a firewall against this bigotry. Fox News on the other hand profits from fear-mongering. This election season we have already seen a spike in orchestrated demonization of Latinos and Muslims. So long as consumers reward Fox News for its incessant attack on whoever is the flavor of the day, Fox News has no incentive to change. The excuse that one is expressing their “feelings” is not a substitute for civility. A democracy suffers when our public discourses become loud, cantankerous and caustic. When moderate voices vacate the field we are left with extreme opinion making, which is unlikely to produce sustainable solutions for the many problems that confronts us as a nation.

If you are a Canadian or American Muslim ( Imam, scholar, community leader, journalist, author, writer, or cartoonist) and would like to add your signature, please send an email with your name, title, and organizational affiliation (if any) to tameditor@aol.com.

A DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH BY AMERICAN AND CANADIAN MUSLIMS

We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.

We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation.

We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims. We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur’an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.

We affirm the right of free speech for Molly Norris, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and all others including ourselves.

As Muslims, we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance, respect, and forgiveness.

The Qur’an enjoins Muslims to:
* bear witness to Islam through our good example (2:143);
* restrain anger and pardon people (3:133-134 and 24:22);
* remain patient in adversity (3186);
* stand firmly for justice (4:135);
* not let the hatred of others swerve us from justice (5:8);
* respect the sanctity of life (5:32);
* turn away from those who mock Islam (6:68 and 28:55);
* hold to forgiveness, command what is right, and turn away from the ignorant (7:199);
* restrain ourselves from rash responses (16:125-128);
* pass by worthless talk with dignity (25:72); and
* repel evil with what is better (41:34).

Islam calls for vigorous condemnation of both hateful speech and hateful acts, but always within the boundaries of the law. It is of the utmost importance that we react, not out of reflexive emotion, but with dignity and intelligence, in accordance with both our religious precepts and the laws of our country.

We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority.

We therefore call on all Muslims in the United States, Canada and abroad to refrain from violence. We should see the challenges we face today as an opportunity to sideline the voices of hate—not reward them with further attention—by engaging our communities in constructive dialogue about the true principles of Islam, and the true principles of democracy, both of which stress the importance of freedom of religion and tolerance.

SIGNATORIES:
Prof. Hassan Abbas, Quaid-i-Azam Chair, South Asia Institute, Columbia University
Imam Johari Abdul Malik, Director of Outreach, Dar-Al-Hijrah Islamic Center
Mehnaz M. Afridi, PhD, Adjunct Professor (Judaism, Islam & Genocide Studies) Antioch University
Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, PhD, Director, Minaret of Freedom Foundation
Ahrar Ahmad, PhD, Professor of Political Science, Black Hills State University
Prof. Akbar S. Ahmed, PhD, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University
Prof. Parvez Ahmed, PhD, Fulbright Scholar & Assoc. Prof. University of North Florida
Barbara Al-Bayati, Co-Founder, Orphan Whispers
Wajahat Ali, playwright, journalist, and producer of “Domestic Crusaders”
Sumbul Ali-Karamali, JD, LLM (Islamic Law), author of “The Muslim Next Door”
Salam al-Marayati, Pres., Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)
Shahed Amanullah, Editor-in-Chief, Altmuslim
Aref Assaf, PhD, President, American Arab Forum
Hazami Barmada, Pres, American Muslim Interactive Network (AMIN)
Victor Ghalib Begg, Senior Advisor, Chairman Emeritus, Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan
Farah Brelvi, Board of Directors, ACLU-NC
M. Ali Chaudry, PhD, President, Center for Understanding Islam (CUII)
Kamran Cheikh, Activist, Committee member, Muslims for Peace, Justice & Progress (MPJP), researcher for Deen Research Center (DRC)
Robert D. Crane, JD, author of numerous books
Almoonir Dewji, blogger – “That We May Know Each Other”
Lamia El-Sadek, political and human rights activitist
Mohamed Elsanousi, Director of Communications and Community Outreach for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
Mona Eltahawy, journalist
Aziz Enhaili, Political analyst, columnist for Tolerance.ca
Prof. Mohammad Fadel, PhD
Fatemeh Fakhraie, Editor-in-Chief, Muslimah Media Watch
Mike Ghouse, President, World Muslim Congress
Iftekhar Hai, President, UMA Interfaith Alliance
Hesham Hassaballa, M.D., author, journalist, blogger – “God, faith, and a pen”
Amir Hussain, PhD, Professor of Theological Studies, Loyola Marymound University
Arsalan Iftikhar, author, human rights lawyer, blogger – “The Muslim Guy”
Jeffrey Imm, Director, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)
Ghazala Irshad, journalist, blogger – “The Floating Lotus”
Nakia Jackson, writer
Prof. Muqtedar Khan, PhD, author of several books, Blogger – “Globalog”
Farah Kinani, Journalist, blogger – “Global Voices”
Faisal Kutty, Visiting Asst. Prof. of law, Valparaiso University School of Law and Adjunct Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School (Toronto)
M. Junaid Levesque-Alam, writer, blogger – “Crossing the Crescent”
David Liepert, M.D., blogger and author of “Muslim, Christian AND Jew”
Radwan A. Masmoudi, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID)
Shelina Merani, community activist, artist, founder of Muslim Presence
Melody Moezzi, JD, MPH, writer and attorney
Daniel Abdal-Hayy Moore, author of many books of poetry
Ebrahim Moosa, Assoc. Professor of Islamic Studies, Dept. of Religion, Duke University
Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, President Sound Vision
Sheila Musaji, Editor, The American Muslim (TAM)
Muneeb Nasir, President, Olive Tree Foundation, Editor IQRA Canada
Aziz H. Poonawalla, PhD, scientist and blogger – “City of Brass” on Beliefnet
M.Waheed-uz-Zaman Rana, Imam, Prof. Emeritus, Dept. of Surgery, Saint Louis University
Hasan Zillur Rahim, PhD, journalist
Prof. Hussein Rashid, PhD, blogger – “Religion Dispatches”
Shafi Refai, President, United Muslims of America
Louay Safi, PhD, Common Word Fellow, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Christian Muslim Understanding, Georgetown University
Robert Salaam, blogger – “The American Muslim”
Raquel Evita Saraswati, activist, writer, blogger
Sarah Sayeed, President of One Blue
S. Abdallah Schleifer, Distinguished Professor, Dept. of Journalism & Mass Com, American University in Cairo
Jafar Siddiqui, blogger – “Penjihad”
Prof. Laury Silvers, PhD
Prof. Ibrahim B. Syed, PhD, President of Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc., author,
Pamela Taylor, Co-founder Muslims for Progressive Values, Panelist for On Faith
Tayyibah Taylor, Editor, Azizah Magazine
Dr. Hashim El-Tinay, President, International Peace Quest Institute (IPQI)
Tarik Trad, writer, humorist, photographer, artist and activist
Asma T. Uddin, Attorney, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Editor, Altmuslimah
Wahida Valiante, President, Canadian Islamic Congress and Chair of Islamic History Month Canada
Amina Wadud, PhD, consultant on Islam and gender, visiting scholar Starr King School for the Ministry
Svend White, blogger – “Akram’s Razor”, activist, writer
G. Willow Wilson, author of “Butterfly Mosque” and “Air” graphic novel series

The numbers are sobering. Nearly 1 in 8 Pakistanis are homeless as a result of an epic flood. Besides the staggering human cost of the tragedy the geo-political importance of Pakistan to US security interests cannot be overemphasized. With over 100,000 U.S. troops stationed in nearby Afghanistan and American drones routinely dropping bombs on suspected terrorist hideouts in Pakistan, both American security and American moral authority is at stake.

And yet according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, “Twenty-two U.S. aid groups have raised a total of $10.6-million to assist the estimated 20 million people affected by the floods; two-and-a-half weeks after the Haiti earthquake, 40 aid groups had brought in a total of $560-million.”

While 3 million people were affected in Haiti the number affected in Pakistan is 7 times as much and climbing. As the flood waters recede, human misery is escalating.

Official U.S. contribution to the relief efforts stands at nearly $170 million accounting for nearly 1 in every 5 dollars pledged. The European Commission is next with nearly $95 million in assistance while Saudi Arabia comes third at $75 million. Impressive, but not nearly enough, given the scale of the disaster. Donations from China, which calls Pakistan its closest ally, is a paltry $18 million and neighboring India, which stands a lot to benefit from winning the hearts and minds of Pakistanis, have only $25 million in “uncommitted” pledges.

In contrast, total official relief to Haiti is over $3 billion in funded aid and another $1.15 billion in “uncommitted” pledges. Pakistan facing a much larger catastrophe has received just over $1 billion in total aid. The biggest difference makers — while official U.S. aid to Haiti is over $1.16 billion that to Pakistan is only about a tenth at $170 million. Also, private individuals and non-governmental organizations pledged over $1.23 billion for Haiti but for Pakistan the number is only $95 million. According to the Pakistan’s High Commissioner to Britain, the cost of rebuilding Pakistan is estimated at $10 to $15 billion and will take nearly 5 years.

Several reasons have been offered as possible explanation for the lethargic response to the Pakistan floods. Donor fatigue, concerns about corruption in Pakistan and weariness about Pakistan’s lackadaisical effort countering radicals and terrorists are most cited. The reasons may be legitimate but this is no time to let the people of Pakistan down. Doing so will not only further destabilize an already wobbly nuclear power but it will also give radicals another pretext to continue their mindless violence. A proper tone must be set at the highest levels.

President Obama needs to articulate a sense of urgency if not for humanitarian reasons then at least as a national security imperative. His ability to cook dal may tickle Pakistanis but what will endear him is aid that will allow the 20 million displaced Pakistanis to cook dal, a staple diet in South Asia. Former Presidents Clinton and Bush (both W. and H.W.) have in the past teamed-up to raise funds for Indonesia and Haiti. They can do the same for Pakistan. This could be President Bush’s moment of redemption for getting Pakistan so wrong.

The list of people who can help Pakistanis at their moment of crisis is not limited to U.S. Presidents. Hollywood can do its part. Angelina Jolie in her role as the UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador donated $100,000 and is urging that more be done. A quick way for ordinary citizens to follow her lead will be to text the word SWAT to 50555 for a $10 donation. But to raise the kind of money needed will take more creative efforts from Jolie’s Hollywood compatriots. Sean Penn has set a great example in Haiti. Who will do the same for Pakistan?

Bollywood with its propensity to copy Hollywood can certainly take the lead in helping its neighbors in Pakistan much like Hollywood stars have thrown their support behind rebuilding neighboring Haiti. Hosting benefit concerts or telethons should not be too much to ask. Bollywood stars have as much following among Pakistanis as they have among Indians. Is it not time that they transcend the caustic India-Pakistan border politics and make a humanitarian gesture that may very well be the first salvo for lasting peace in the region?

The Pakistani Diaspora in the US, Europe and Middle East can also do more. In the US they should lobby members of Congress to increase US humanitarian aid to Pakistan perhaps by reallocating military spending towards humanitarian aid. They should also hold benefit events appealing to a broad cross-section of the society to participate. The Pakistani and Indian Diaspora in the US can also set a good example by working together to raise funds. Such gestures will not only accomplish the immediate funding need but also could very well become the seed for long run peace in the region. Failing to revive Pakistan will only make it more vulnerable to radicalization. If not for the humanitarian reasons then at least for national security reasons we must do more and inspire others to do more.

To see a list of how governments and private donors are helping relief efforts in Haiti and Pakistan and other ongoing humanitarian tragedies visit: ReliefWeb.

How can you help Pakistan? Click here to find out.