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

Donald Trump’s speech in Arizona about his signature issue of immigration terrified me. Of particular concern was the perception that anyone who is not in Trump’s image, will be objects of his ire. In a Trump presidency, I have three strikes against me – immigrant, Muslim and brown-skinned.

Trump’s slogan of making America great again sounds fascistic because by any objective measure America is not in serious decline. Yet he has been able to persuade many that people who do not fit the profile of the majority pose an existential threat to America. Noted CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria views Trump as a bullshit artist who is so oblivious about the world that he fails to recognize reality, even when it is obvious. This shows up in his lack of understanding about immigrants and their struggles.

In his Arizona speech, besides the dark picture he painted of immigrants, Trump advocated returning immigration levels to “historical norms,” a term he left undefined. This sounded like dog-whistle for returning America to the pre-1965 days when immigration was mostly limited to white Europeans. His speech gave the impression that America is awash with immigrants when in reality the number of legal immigrants to America has remained at about one million per year over the past two decades. The foreign born population in the U.S. now stands at only 13 percent, posing no threat to the native born majority.

In addition, the number of undocumented immigrants has decreased to around 11 million from its peak of 12.2 million in 2007. Net migration, the difference between people coming and leaving, from Mexico is now close to zero. By reasonable estimates, it is impossible to make the assertion that crime rates from undocumented immigrants are more than those from native born Americans. Trump’s statement that, “Illegal immigration costs our country more than $113 billion a year” was rated “Mostly False” by the fact-checking website PolitiFact.

Trump also played on the fears of refugees, some of the most vulnerable people on earth. Since 9-11, America has resettled 784,000 refugees, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Only three have been arrested for planning terrorist activity and only one of them for plotting to harm the homeland. As a so called “law and order” candidate Trump is silent about the many deaths resulting from police brutality or from mass shootings by people other than Muslims.

Trump also shows little reverence and understanding for the U.S. Constitution. Trump advocated the closure of mosques, because “some bad things are happening.” He was oblivious of the fact that the First Amendment protects religious liberty of all Americans. In his Arizona speech Trump advocated “extreme vetting” of visitors to the U.S., not just on understandable security grounds but on inexplicable ideological grounds. He called out “radical Islam” as one example requiring “extreme vetting.” How does one spot “radical Islam” at the border? How does a border agent determine which visitor is telling the truth about their true ideological beliefs?

Trump also lacks understanding of the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Trump not only wants to reinstitute the torturous practice of water boarding but he also advocates killing family members of suspected terrorists. Trump’s blanket ban on all people from “terrorist countries” is possibly unconstitutional because the definition of “terrorist countries” is vague and if any such definition only singles out Muslim majority countries, it could be viewed by a court as a thinly veiled guise for discriminating against Muslims. When Trump railed against a judge and proclaimed him unfit because of his Mexican heritage, he not only exhibited racial animus but also ignorance about the separation of powers idea in the U.S. Constitution.

There is no telling who Trump will target next. It’s bad enough that as a narcissist, he has Quixotic ideas about his own capabilities. But it is worse that as a demagogue he peddles falsehoods that threaten vulnerable communities. Trump scares me, not because any of his crazy ideas are practically feasible. My real fear is that his brand of bullshitting and nativism will become an indelible part of the American political and social landscape.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After giving the Muslim Brotherhood only a year in office, why did the Egyptian public turn against them? A New York Times article stated that before Morsi’s ouster there was erosion in support for the Brotherhood even in traditional strongholds. This was due to, “confusing economic policies of the Brotherhood-led government.” Another popular complaint against Morsi was that the Brotherhood was, “focusing too exclusively on his (their) Islamist base.”

The first complaint stems from the Brotherhood’s lack of governing experience. However, the second complaint is more foreboding as they go to the heart of the trouble with Islamist politics. Ambivalence about pluralistic values undermines democracy.

The Associated Press (AP) defines Islamists as, “advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam.” AP’s definition is useful but unsatisfying as it fails to distinguish between those who want the values of Islam to inform laws and those who want to impose their parochial interpretations of Shariah (the moral code and religious law of Islam). Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the Middle East and North Africa and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) in South Asia want the latter.

In contrast, other political forces in the Muslim world, such as the National Forces Alliance in Libya, favor laws to be guided by the values of Islam but do not wish to impose Shariah. This puts them squarely with the majority. John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in “Who Speaks for Islam?” noted that “having an enriched religious/spiritual life” is an important priority for Muslims. Majorities in most Muslim countries want Shariah to be “a” not “the” source of legislation. This seems to be no different from the aspirations of a Christian majority country such as the United States. In 2006, Gallup Poll showed 46 percent of Americans saying they want the Bible to be “a” source of legislation.

The upsurge in support for Islamist politics is the confluence of two trends – a repudiation of the disastrous policies of past regimes and a growing view among Muslims that Shariah can be an effective bulwark against the oppressive corruption and monopolization of power by the elite. A recent Pew Poll shows that clear majorities support implementation of Shariah. However, Muslims do not have a unified understanding of what Shariah means in practice. In addition, the survey finds, “most Muslims see no inherent tension between being religiously devout and living in a modern society.” Muslims favor democracy, symbiotic coexistence with others and a system of governance that best reflects their own ethical values. Islamists like the ruling secularists they deposed have not been able to translate this aspiration into effective governance.

How to reconcile the desire for Shariah with the erosion in support for Islamists? The realpolitik of the Islamists that has left many disillusioned. In Egypt, the MB had left the powers of the military unrestrained, much to the chagrin of the Tahrir revolutionaries. In Libya, MB was viewed as pawns of foreign powers such as Qatar. In Bangladesh, the JI has been viewed with suspicion because of anecdotal accounts of their past collaboration with the Pakistani army in slaughtering hundreds of fellow countrymen during Bangladesh’s war of liberation. In Pakistan, the chief of JI described Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of Pakistani Taliban a martyr.

In Turkey, the conservative AKP came to power as a result of the failures of the secular elite in ensuring broad economic prosperity. During its first two terms AKP succeeded by delivering stunning economic results. All that has begun to crumble as the AKP is now embroiled in corruption scandals and have begun to push conservative social policies going so far as to suggest how many children women should have. AKP’s foreign policy is in shambles. A recent headline in the influential Foreign Policy summed it best, “How Turkey Went From ‘Zero Problems’ to Zero Friends.”  AKP’s growing unpopularity even with religious conservatives, such as the influential Fetahullah Gulen, may represent a turning point in not only Turkish politics but Islamist politics globally.

The twentieth century marked the rise of political Islam, from Jamaat-e-Islami in the South Asia to Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East and North Africa. But once in power the Islamists, with the exception of the early period of AKP rule, have proven to be ineffective. They are prone to the same abuse of power that characterized the ruling elites they deposed. From Egypt to Bangladesh Muslims are increasingly uneasy. Beyond their utopian slogans that “Islam is the solution,” there is little track record and consensus about how to practically implement Shariah in a way that will deliver economic and social justice for all people. Islamists need to espouse a more secular vision that is inclusive of all people and not subservient to their base. Secularists need to spiritualize their politics by espousing public policies that better reflect the public’s aspiration that fulfill the objectives of Shariah. Politicization of Shariah and Shariahization of politics are a disservice to the faith of Islam and they have proven to be divisive thus far.

This article first ran on Turkey’s leading English daily, Today’s Zaman.

by Parvez Ahmed and Mark Schlakman*

Brace yourselves.

You may know that protests erupted outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and that mobs subsequently attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi this past Tuesday on the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001.

Apparently this was at least in part in reaction to an anti-Islam film produced in the United States that objectifies the Muslim Prophet Mohammed, depicting him as a child molester, womanizer and ruthless killer.

You also may know the attack in Benghazi resulted in the tragic death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans as well as several Libyans who attempted to repel the attackers.

You also may be aware that some experts initially believed that a pro-al Qaida group targeted the U.S. Consulate. You may be wondering if the attack may have been an attempt to sabotage Libya’s improving relationship with the West under the guise of spontaneous outrage over the film.

For perspective, the Libyan people chose moderation over extremism in their recent elections.

You may be aware that protests erupted outside other U.S. embassies in Muslim countries. Although the situation remains volatile, you may have noted that the size of the protests dwindled.

Producer’s identity
You even may be aware of the initial questions surrounding the true identity of the producer of the film, first reported to be funded by a self-identified Israeli Jew, later reported to be a Coptic Christian.

You also may have heard that Terry Jones, the infamous pastor of Dove World Outreach Center, a small fundamentalist church in Gainesville whose orchestrated Quran burnings in early 2011 incited violence in Afghanistan, had been promoting this anti-Islam film.

You may be aware that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called Jones to ask that he withdraw his support for the video because of concern that violence incited by the film would pose risks to U.S. service members around the world.

You may know that President Barack Obama immediately condemned the attack and declared, “Make no mistake. We will work with the Libyan government to bring justice to killers who attack our people,” and that he deployed two warships and other military capability to the area and increased security at other diplomatic posts.

You even may know that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney departed from longstanding protocols when confronting a foreign threat by immediately and sharply criticizing Obama’s response to the events that unfolded in Libya and Egypt based upon an unvetted preliminary statement released by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and that Romney was subsequently rebuked by Democrats and some Republicans for injecting politics into the crisis.

Complex issues
But there is much that we still don’t know.

The underlying issues are exceedingly complex. Why does anti-Americanism seem to persist across the Muslim world even as the threat from al-Qaida seems to be diminishing and more countries are transitioning toward democracy?

Why do more Americans harbor anti-Islam views today than in the immediate aftermath of 9-11? Such issues test the limits of free speech against the backdrop of compelling national security imperatives. An array of competing agendas only exacerbates the challenge.

If there is one guiding principle to embrace, it’s to resist the simple narrative. The corollary would be to exercise restraint until certain key facts are known and can be placed in context.

Parvez Ahmed, is a Fulbright Scholar and associate professor at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville.

Mark Schlakman is a lawyer, former foreign affairs officer and serves as senior program director at The Florida State University Center for Advancement of Human Rights in Tallahassee.

Also, CLICK HERE to view Parvez Ahmed speaking to Shannon Ogden on First Coast News’ On Point (Sunday, September 16, 2012).

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.

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.

Let us get one thing correct — Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez, Octavia Nasr and Juan Williams are neither racists nor bigots. By all accounts they are good journalists. But by expressing negative stereotypes about a racial or religious group they are guilty of breaching the ethics of fairness, crucial ingredients to succeed in journalism. Thus their forced resignation or firing from Hearst, CNN and NPR respectively is the right action. Having publicly expressed their biases they could no longer be viewed has having the credibility to be impartial arbiters of news.

In firing Juan Williams, NPR did not violate his First Amendment rights. It asserted the fact that his views were inconsistent with the NPR brand of impartiality much like CNN did with Sanchez and Nasr. In contrast, Williams’ other employer, Fox News felt that his opinions were consistent with its brand of hard-charging opinion making. Fox News rewarded Juan Williams with a new and more lucrative contract. Folks who prefer thoughtful discussions will likely support the firing because they perceive Juan Williams to have 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.

The firing of Williams, while the right thing to do, is also a lost opportunity to confront the kind of fears leads to the formation of stereotypical views about Islam and Muslims. It is likely that NPR, by doing the right thing, may have drawn more negative fire towards Muslims, a community already on the receiving end of some of the harshest criticism in this country. No other American ethnic or religious group elicits the kind of negative sentiments that Muslims do.

Juan Williams expressed fear of people in a “Muslim garb.” What did he mean by “Muslim garb?” What makes him afraid of someone’s dressing style or free expression of their religious beliefs? 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 create more fear about a group of Americans who are already negatively perceived and against whom hate crimes are on the rise. Such fear mongering hurts the type of reasoned discourse that NPR prefers. As Americans we can and should have vigorous debates. But bigotry simply has no place in a civilized society. Institutions like 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.

The firing of Juan Williams, has unleashed a firestorm of protest by folks like Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich. Yet they stood silent when Thomas, Sanchez and Nasr were fired for essentially the same guilt of making stereotypical and insensitive comments about Jews. What is also disturbing is that groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (full disclosure, I served as its National Chairman from 2005 to 2008), honored Helen Thomas at their recent banquet and yet called on NPR to take actions against Juan Williams. Either all these firings/resignations are outrageous for they purport to curb free speech or they are the right action to take in order to preserve trust in journalism. One cannot have it both ways.

Are media outlets right in demanding its employees live up to journalistic ethics? Or is this excessive political correctness? Each case is different, but one thing is true that each business sets its own ground rules for what it will tolerate from people who speak in its name. NPR wants sanity, Fox News craves controversy. To each their own audience and to each their own brand.

In the greater scheme of things such firings may not necessarily improve journalism. Because it only pushes such harsh and insensitive opinion making to the margins without addressing the root causes that led to such erroneous opinions. The fact that Juan Williams has been rewarded by Fox News will make bigotry more commonplace in the public square. This election season has 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. That to me is the biggest tragedy and lesson from the Juan Williams saga.

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

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