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.

London elects its first Muslim mayor to a sense of hope

Florida Times Union, May 16, 2016

Sadiq Khan, a Muslim, being elected Mayor of London, topples a pervading narrative and in its wake leaves behind unparalleled opportunities. The son of Pakistani immigrants rising to run one of the leading cities in the globe is almost as remarkable as the more celebrated story across the pond, that of a Black man rising to lead the world’s most powerful country. The parallels are uncanny. Both Barack Obama and Sadiq Khan were lawyers who met their wives while working as colleagues at a law firm. Both have two young daughters. Both were wrongly accused of palling around with terrorists and against heavy odds succeeded in beating back a dog-whistle campaign laced with racism and Islamophobia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given my long public record of correcting misperceptions about Islam and championing the rights of American Muslims, why was I consorting with the so-called “enemy”? If one considers Jews as eternal threats to Muslims, then discordant opposition may seem sensible and engagement foolhardy. However, I hold out hope, “that one day mankind will … be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive good will proclaim the rule of the land” (Martin Luther King, Jr.).

My journey, which was undertaken with 22 Muslim civic leaders, has unfortunately become a source of consternation in a small circle of influential activists. Particularly dismaying is a petition that casts aspersions on the program and its founder, Imam Abdullah Antepli.

While MLI has become the subject of attack, mostly by those with limited personal knowledge about its curriculum, overwhelming majority of MLI participants, both current and past, remain committed to engagement. Critics provide two arguments as central to their opposition. First, MLI violates the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes boycott of Israel as a way to end its occupation of Palestine. And second, MLI “faith-washes” the occupation.

BDS as an idea may have some merits, but by pushing social and academic boycott, it fails to distinguish between the policies of the Israeli government and the activities of its civil society. Conflating the two, not only marginalizes Jews who are striving for solutions to this intractable conflict but also Arabs who live in Israel and are engaged in finding common ground with Jews. Secondly, a decade after its inception, support for BDS is far from universal even among those sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians. For example, Turkey has significantly increased its trade with Israel, while trade with Egypt remains robust, gaining strength even under the Muslim Brotherhood government. Meanwhile, mistreatment and suffering of the Palestinian people has increased.

Critics also attack MLI based on an inflammatory and misleading claim that it “faith-washes” the occupation. The MLI program did not frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a struggle between Judaism and Islam. It accepted the fact that the conflict is a top concern and the most incendiary flashpoint between Jews and Muslims, not just Arabs and Palestinians. In addition, MLI’s curriculum neither justifies the occupation nor dilutes the suffering of Palestinians.

Rather than succumb to the narrative of perpetual conflict, I chose the path of engagement because the struggle for peace and justice requires mainstream American Jewish and Muslim communities making common cause, which is only possible in an environment of mutual trust. Given that nearly 8 in 10 Jews in the U.S. are either very or somewhat emotionally attached to Israel, and thus Zionists, any engagement effort by American Muslims will have to find creative ways to meet and dialogue with Jews in Israel. And yet I am under no illusions that my actions, as a private citizen, would magically alter the brutal politics of the region.

Faced with vitriolic opposition, saying no to MLI would have been the popular choice, allowing me to comfortably stay within my bubble without risking to ask if there is another way forward. However, the words of Donniel Hartman, President of SHI, resonated with me, “As a Jew, I do not want to live in a zero-sum-game world with Islam. I yearn to live in a world where Jews, Christians and Muslims of good faith reach out to each other, live with each other, disagree respectfully with each other and most importantly, learn from each other. That will only happen when we have the courage to meet and hear each other.” Abdullah Antepli and Yossi Klein Halevi, a Senior Fellow at SHI, provided further assurance, “Our purpose in promoting dialogue isn’t to seek consensus but mutual understanding and respect. We will continue to disagree about many issues.”

As advertised, my teachers at SHI were just as eager to listen as they were to convey. For many of them, MLI offered a rare opportunity to have meaningful dialogue with Muslims. The seminars and conversations were intellectually stimulating and emotionally challenging. But I could not overlook the obvious. Israel prides itself in being a Jewish state, which implies a significant commitment to the values of Judaism. And yet nowhere is such commitment severely undermined than in Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. My surreal experience of walking to the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron is illustrative. What should have been a short trek took well over thirty minutes. Between check-points and settler intrusions the entry way to the mosque now meanders through a mostly empty marketplace. Between arbitrary shutting down of buildings, citing security concerns, and the paucity of Israeli action to rein-in settler misbehavior, life along the alleyway leading to the Ibrahimi mosque has become untenable. And yet the unremitting spirit of the Palestinian people shone through in the meetings we held with civil society leaders in Hebron.

Perhaps most illuminating was a visit with Palestinians living in Israel, who now number 1.6 million, approximating 21 percent of the Israel’s population. I was inspired meeting with Mohammad Darawshe from the Center for Shared Society whose mission, “is to build an inclusive, socially cohesive society in Israel by engaging divided communities … based on mutual responsibility, civic equality and a shared vision of the future.” Thanks in part to his efforts, Arab share of students at Technion (Israel’s MIT), stands at 21 percent up from just 11 percent about a decade or so ago, with the ratio of Arab men and women at nearly 50-50. This success has been greatly aided by Jewish philanthropists. Such small flowers of hope bear intoxicating fragrance of optimism.

Dialogue is an inclusive process that entails learning, not just talking. More often than not, dialogue leads to sustainable resolutions of conflicts, not just cessation of hostilities, because dialogue recognizes the humanity of “others.” MLI offers a modest pathway towards improving Jewish-Muslim relations by creating a safe-space for honest dialogue about each other’s narratives.

There are no guarantees for success and yet a program that allows the development of mutual trust seems a better way forward as it also offers an opportunity to mitigate the Islamophobia and anti-Semitism roiling our communities. I look forward to continuing my journey because I do not want my children and grandchildren to inherit a world where Jews and Muslims view each other as interminable enemies. Engagement is not appeasement. Dialogue is not capitulation.

This is first of a series from my visit to Israel and Palestine earlier this summer.

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

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

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

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

Radicalization of Muslim Youth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responding to Muslim Radicalization

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

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

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

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

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

What Muslim Communities Can Do Now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steps in Countering Radicalization

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been co-authored with Rabbi Jack Romberg, Temple Israel, Tallahassee, FL.

We write this as two friends, a Jew and a Muslim, both with leadership roles in our respective communities. Together we have broken bread, facilitated interfaith dialogue, and come to the realization that we have the same goal of peace, understanding and respect for people of all faiths and backgrounds. The recent spate of violence between Hamas and Israel presents a new test for us. Yet, in the end, even as we might have some disagreement on the details, or in parsing the conflict, we find that we share the same hopes, ideals and values. We both must wrestle with some inconvenient truths.

Whether the blood spilled is Israeli or Palestinian, it is red. Responsibility for spilling that blood is on the hands of both Israel and Hamas. Both of us recognize that while the rocket attacks on Israel are a despicable act of terror, we also both recognize it is the civilian Palestinian population that is paying the steeper price with its blood. In looking for reasons why this situation exists, one of us would first point to Hamas’s refusal to accept the existence of Israel, its constant use of terror tactics, and its indiscriminate launching of rockets against Israeli civilians. The other would emphasize the brutal blockade of Gaza that has created shortages of the basic necessities of survival for the residents of Gaza, the refusal of the current Israeli government to work seriously towards a two-state solution, and the horrifyingly high level of civilian deaths, especially children, with each Israeli reprisal.

Despite our obvious deep connections to different sides in this conflict, we both are appalled by the never-ending cycle of violence — rockets get fired, Israel responds. Israelis keep running to shelters, Palestinian civilians keep dying. Both of us are appalled by the evidence that Hamas is placing innocent Palestinians in harm’s way to score sympathy points. Both of us are appalled by Israel’s shelling of four Palestinian teens playing on a beach while professing not to be targeting children. We are both tired of narratives that cast one side as “good” and the other as “evil.” We both believe that Israelis and Palestinians have a right to exist in peace, prosperity and freedom.

Neither of us are politicians. Neither of us are experts in foreign policy. We do not have any understandings of the palace intrigues that take place in the great halls of power. So we offer no long term diplomatic solutions. But we do have opinions that are aspirational without being utopian. Start with an immediate cease fire. The warring parties need to cease and desist immediately. No more Hamas rocket fire. No more Israeli shelling. And most importantly, both sides need to not cheer the death and destruction of the other. War is never holy. Perhaps sometimes war can be just, but there is nothing holy or just about Hamas targeting Israeli civilians or the death of Palestinian children caused by Israeli bombardment.

Next, the borders of Gaza must open and the blockades by Israel and Egypt must end. Hamas must be disarmed and if necessary, peace monitors can be put in place to insure both sides abide by the agreement. Let us recognize that Hamas is a failed organization whose rockets have not purchased one ounce of improvement for the Palestinians of Gaza. Given the tools to create a workable economy and government in Gaza, they have chosen violence and despair for Palestinians. Let us recognize that by perpetuating the blockade of Gaza, in essence creating a large open air prison, Israel has created a situation that breeds violence.

Both of us believe that peace will come to the Middle East only when all sides love their own more than they hate their adversaries. Peace will come when the benefits of living with each other exceeds the cost of killing each other. Peace will come when our own country, the United States, acts as a true neutral broker and not heed those voices that marginalize Arabs and Muslims and sees further militarization as a solution to the conflicts in the region. Israelis and Palestinians both have a proud history of survival and heroism against all odds. Both need to recognize that an eye for an eye only makes the world go blind.

Parvez Ahmed a Fulbright Scholar teaches at the University of North Florida. Rabbi Jack Romberg is with Temple Israel in Tallahassee, FL.

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.

Guess where in the world candidates for political office are pandering to religious conservatives, using religious imagery in political advertisement and participating in political forums in houses of worship? Where some voters are unwilling to support candidates because they do not belong to the majority faith, dismissing a candidate because they are women, and using religious purity as a litmus test for eligibility? If you said Iowa, USA you will be correct. Cairo, Egypt also qualifies as the correct answer.

The nexus between politics and religion has been on the rise globally for quite some time now. It is an irony that it is the religious right in each country that often expresses the most misgivings about the rise of the religious right in other countries. In America, Republican presidential candidates, with support from the religious right, are the most vocal in their criticism of Islamist politics. On the other hand, Islamists are quick to conflate American hegemony in their region with a war against Islam. The mutual paranoia is palpable.

Elections are underway in Egypt for a new parliament. Openly vying for seats are political parties from the puritanical Salafis, to the conservative Ikhwanis (Muslim Brotherhood) and a plethora of smaller secular groups. After the first round of voting it appears that the religious right, Salafis and the Brotherhood together, will have majority control of the parliament. Similar Islamist victories in Tunisia and Morocco portend an unmistakable trend of increased intertwining of religion and politics in the region.

A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that while a majority of Muslims prefer a significant role for Islam in their politics, substantive differences persist across regions. Majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria favor changing current laws to allow religiously sanctioned capital punishment for adultery, stealing and apostasy. In contrast, Muslims living under secular democracies in Turkey or Lebanon overwhelmingly reject fundamentalism and self-identify themselves as modernists, even when actively practicing their faith.

As politics face a rightward religious tug across the globe, it will be hasty to stereotype the trend. In the U.S., although the Christian right exerts an enormous influence in politics but the state remains neutral towards religion, the occasional display of Christmas trees in government buildings notwithstanding. Such institutional separation between state and religion is lacking across the Middle East, most disconcertingly in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Will the wave of popular opinions that favor a greater role for Islam in politics inevitably lead to a theocratization of the nascent Middle Eastern democracies? Chances are good that the new democracies in Tunisia or Egypt are unlikely to resemble Saudi Arabia or Iran, but neither will they be Jeffersonian.

Reformist scholars of Islam have asserted that Sharia ought not to be codified as state law. The reasons are tantalizingly simple. A state is a political institution, not a religious authority. A state has to be neutral and beneficial towards all its citizens, not just those who belong to the majority. The Muslim belief in the divineness of Sharia is obviously not shared by people of other faiths. Moreover, the interpretation of Sharia is a fallible human endeavor, often leading to conflicting juristic opinions, which then leaves unanswered the question of whose Islam should the state endorse.

While public policy may reflect the values of the citizenry, it should not be promulgated in the name of any one religion. Even when religious values inform a certain policy, the primary reason for enacting public policy must be secular. A wall separating religion from statecraft is good for both religion and state. Once a state begins to enforce the laws of any religion then the coercive power of the state becomes the primary factor in the determining how religion gets practiced. The state loses credibility and faith loses spirituality. The Quran unequivocally states that there is no compulsion in matters related to religion.

Even in the rough and tumble world of Middle Eastern politics there are faint signs of hope. The Islamist leaders in Tunisia have spoken about the secular democracy of Turkey as their aspiring model. A New York Times report quoted a conservative party leader in Egypt saying, “We don’t accept tyranny in the name of religion any more than we accept tyranny in the name of the military.” The yearning for freedom may ultimately overcome parochial religiosity in politics. From Iowa to Cairo, the world watches with trepidation.