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

by Parvez Ahmed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/parvezahmed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is South Asia becoming a beacon for democracy? On the heels of an inspiring voter turnout in Afghanistan, voters in India are mobilizing in one of the most impressive exercises in universal adult franchise. Just a few months earlier, Pakistan had its first peaceful democratic transition in power. Bangladesh, surprisingly, was an outlier when the ruling party swept back into power via a non-election election. A boycott by the opposition led to a majority of the ruling party members being elected unopposed. Despite this, the general trend in South Asia is positive, with India once again leading the way.

In India, this year, an estimated 814.5 million people are eligible to vote. This is up from 713 million voters in 2009, representing an impressive 14 percent increase, with the largest increase in voter registrations coming from younger Indians. Elections will be held in 28 Indian states and 7 union territories. Two national political parties are in contention — the Indian National Congress (INC), established in 1885 and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), established in 1980. There are well over 50 regional or state political parties, some of them splinter groups from the national parties, and others independently organized. However, it is the regional parties that will collectively decide the fate of the next Indian government as the neither of the national parties will win the majority of the seats being contested. Indian politics is increasingly Balkanized and a national election is really an amalgamation of many regional elections. Since 1989, no single political party has mustered a clear majority in any national election.

In its 16th general election, Indian voters will elect 543 out of the 545 seats of the lower house of parliament, called the Lok Sabha or People’s House. National elections take place once every five years unless the ruling party calls for an early vote or loses the confidence of a majority of its members. The Lok Sabha will select the prime minister, who is the head of government.

The Indian Election Commission, a constitutional body independent of the government, conducts the election. The campaign season mercifully lasts only eight weeks, although voting in some states can begin as early as two weeks after the official opening of the campaign season. Ballots are cast electronically over six weeks, from April 7 to May 12 this year, in nine phases. In the three phases completed thus far, voter turnout has been higher than the expected 60 percent. Results will not be announced until all regions have completed voting.

The Election Commission is required to have a polling place within 1.2 miles of every voter. To fulfill this mandate requires 10 million polling officials and security personnel in 930,000 polling stations. Election day in each region is a paid holiday for all non-essential workers. Even part-time workers are granted paid leave fulfilling an Election Commission mandate that every eligible voter shall be given the proper means to fulfill their right.

Indian democracy faces some of the same challenges that our American democracy faces, from the corrosive influence of money to the problem of incumbency. However, unlike the US, 75 percent of the source of funds to Indian political parties is unknown, according to the Association of Democratic Reform. Of the sources that are known, 87 percent of the funding comes from the corporate sector or business houses. In India where the average per capita income is a shade over Rs. 50,000 ($830), the largest donors lavished money on the political parties to the tune of several million dollars. Industrialist Aditya Birla’s group gave Rs. 360 million to INC and Rs. 260 million to its rival BJP.

The Association of Democratic Reform also reports that the average candidate owned Rs. 50 million worth in assets. In the last Lok Sabha, the average wealth of a member of parliament was Rs. 100 million. The average Indian will have to live longer than Noah to achieve these levels of wealth gains. More alarmingly, 30 percent of the candidates have a criminal case against them. India’s National Election Watch announced that of the 162 parliamentarians involved in 306 criminal cases, 76 are charged with serious crimes like murder, attempted murder and kidnapping.

The nationalist and Hindu fundamentalist BJP party is likely to muster enough seats to form a coalition government with Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister. Indians are poised to give the religious right yet another chance mainly because the secularist INC has failed to deliver on their promise of equitable economic growth and are now mired in many corruption scandals. After growing at 8 percent a year, the Indian economy has slowed down to a 5 percent rate of growth. Narendra Modi, who is head of the Indian state of Gujarat, has delivered above average economic growth for his state and projects to replicate this success all across India. His slogan toilets before temple have given hope to many that he will keep his fundamentalist roots subservient to his pro-business credentials.

Modi has a checkered past. He failed to stop mob violence against the Muslim minority in his state that lead to the death of over a thousand people with many more displaced. This is the primary reason Modi has been denied entry into the United States for nearly a decade now. About 16,000 Muslims displaced in the communal riots of 2002 still remain in relief colonies where they are denied even the most basic amenities. While Modi boasts of his state’s impressive economic growth he blames “vegetarianism and figure-conscious Gujarati girls” as the reason his state ranks high on malnutrition. Nearly half the children below the age of five suffer from malnutrition and nearly 70 percent children in Modi’s ‘Shining Gujarat’ suffer from anemia.

Modi’s religious fundamentalist roots are worrisome for women in India, who are increasingly the target of male chauvinism often emanating for religious fundamentalists. According to Human Rights Watch, women during the communal riots of 2002 Gujarat were stripped, gang-raped, then burned or hacked to death. Indian women are worried that violence against women will not receive the priority it should in the wake of several high profile rape cases. In Gujarat there are 918 women for every 1000 men. This is below the national average of 940, perhaps suggesting a high level of female infanticide in Gujarat.

Indians are caught between a rock and hard place. On one hand they desperately want the government to re-ignite India’s economic growth. And yet the party with the most pro-business credential is also cloaked in anti-modern social views that will further disadvantage India’s struggling minorities and women. Modi’s slogan, toilets before temples, sounds good but the fact that temples come ahead of improving social cohesion, should make Indians nervous. We have seen plenty of examples around the world where religious fundamentalists capitalized on the economic failure of the secularists but once in power they drifted rightward leaving the country more divided. Modi may turn around India’s economic performance but at what cost to the poor, the minority and the disenfranchised, remains a question and concern.

“No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you. We are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners. There is no sanction anywhere for the deplorable condition in which our women have to live”― Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan.

The first step to solving any problem is to recognize that there is one.

GENDER EQUITY GAP ACROSS THE MUSLIM WORLD

The World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap 2013 Report shows wide disparity in Muslim majority countries between men and women across for key areas of health, education, economics and politics. No Muslim majority country cracks the top 10 in gender equity. At the bottom end, 9 out of 10 countries are Muslim majority. Income level hardly explains such poor rankings. Among high income nations, 8 out of 10 bottom ranked countries are Muslim majority. Despite enormous wealth, countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE have been unable to sufficiently close the gender gap. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, almost all of which happen to be Muslim majority, ranks last below the less affluent Sub-Saharan Africa.

Yet the news is not uniformly bad. According to the World Bank, gender gap across MENA is reducing. Today more women than men attend universities and women mortality during childbirth is significantly below global averages. But despite progress in education and health, women are not empowered either economically or politically. Women account for only a quarter of the labor force, while in the rest of the world women workforce is about fifty percent. In Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan youth unemployment rates among women is twice that of men. More women are being educated but few have opportunities to start a career of their choice. Moreover, women hold only 9 percent of the seats in parliaments.

Faced with such dismal statistics, some countries such as Tunisia mandated that an equal number of women and men run as candidates on their electoral list. As a result women have secured one-quarter of the seats in Tunisia’s constituent assembly. In Bangladesh and Pakistan affirmative action has allowed women to account for nearly twenty percent of the parliamentary seats. In contrast, millions of women turned out to vote in the Egyptian parliamentary elections but, ultimately, made up only two percent of the lower house of parliament.

The anti-modern attitudes of many hardline Islamic preachers and the less the egalitarian vision of the Islamists only exacerbates the problem of gender inequity. For example, the fundamentalist, Darul Uloom Deoband seminary in India, issued a fatwa barring women from working as receptionists. While in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood, prior to its ouster, tried to undermine the work of the UN Commission on the Status of Women in stopping violence against women. This in a country where lack of women’s rights is endemic as evidenced by 8 in 10 Egyptian women reporting being sexually harassed. In Pakistan, after a video surfaced showing a teenage girl being flogged by the Taliban, Jamaat-e-Islami dismissed such reports as being a “Western conspiracy” and the beating incident a “small thing.”

AMERICAN MUSLIM EXPERIENCE

In the US, there are no formal studies about gender gap in the Muslim community. However, the Women and the American Mosque study from Hartford Institute, shows that despite greater religious, social and economic freedoms in America, only 18 percent women attend Friday prayers and this percentage attendance has not changed in over a decade. Only 6 in 10 mosques have at least one woman on their board and 13 percent of mosques do not allow women to serve on their boards. Only 14 percent mosques scored “excellent” for being women-friendly. Compared to the rest of the world, American Muslim women enjoy greater empowerment but accessibility to places of worship and leadership in Islamic organizations continue to be an issue.

Among big-5 American-Muslim organizations (ISNA, MAS, CAIR, ICNA, MPAC), only one (MPAC) has more than two women serving on their boards while one (MAS) has none. One national organization (ICNA) did not list the names of its board members or executives on their national website. It is unclear how many women, if any, serve on ICNA’s leadership teams. Only one (ISNA) has elected a woman to its top leadership positions. Women representation on boards of American Muslim organizations is quite anemic. With the notable exceptions of Muslim Advocates and ING, none of the major national American Muslim organizations are led by a woman in executive capacity. In contrast, the younger generation has proved more progressive. The Muslim Student Association elected a female to its top position long before any other national American Muslim organization.

One influential American imam recently noted, “Based on the few studies that we have about Muslims in America, we know that 12-18% of Muslims in the United States experience physical abuse, and 30-40% experience emotional abuse.” These numbers almost mirror the rates in the general American population. Gender issues ought to receive more attention. In London a group calling itself Imams Against Domestic Abuse have issued a report titled, “The End to Hitting Women” stating, “Under no circumstances is (such) abuse against women, in its various manifestations, encouraged or allowed in Islam.”

ISLAM AND GENDER EQUITY

The attitudes of many Islamic groups contravene normative Islam, which when taken holistically supports gender equity despite the presence of isolated texts that are mistaken as relegating women to subservient roles. Chapter 4, Verse 1 from the Quran notes, “People, be mindful of your Lord, who created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate.” This verse along with 7:189 and 42:11 assert without any ambiguity that men and women have the same spiritual nature and they are created out of a single soul (nafsin wahida) and our mates (azwaja) are a part of us (min anfusikum).

The Quran states that both genders are recipients of the “divine breath” since they are created with the same human and spiritual nature, “When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit (15:29).” Given that both men and women have the same spirit thus it is only natural that the Quran obligates them to the same religious and moral duties and responsibilities. In 3:195 the Quran states, “I will not allow the deeds of any one of you to be lost, whether you are male or female, each is like the other.” And in 4:124 the Quran notes, “If any do deeds of righteousness be they male or female and have faith they will enter paradise and not the least injustice will be done to them.” And finally 33:35 notes, “For men and women who are devoted to God– believing men and women, obedient men and women, truthful men and women, steadfast men and women, humble men and women, charitable men and women, fasting men and women, chaste men and women, men and women who remember God often– God has prepared forgiveness and a rich reward.”

The repeated and separate references to men and women, was a radically progressive idea at the time when the Quran was first revealed. Why the special emphasis on the female gender? To inform patriarchal societies, to which Prophet Muhammad first preached, that fulfilling the grand purpose of Islam requires justice and fairness towards both men and women. Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph in Islam, is reported to say, “By God, we didn’t use to think that women had anything until God revealed about them what He revealed in the Qur’an, and distributed to them what He distributed.” This statement shows that the Quranic message was a radical departure from the gender norms in sixth and seventh century Arabia.

The Quranic message was transformative with respect to gender equity, at least among the first generation of Muslims. The first person to believe in the message of Prophet Muhammad was a woman, his first wife Khadija. Two of Prophet Muhammad’s wives, Ayesha along with Umm Salama are among the greatest narrators of Prophetic traditions. Much of what Muslims practice today is transmitted via the scholarship of these two great women. Asma Afsaruddin in her book, “The First Muslims: History and Memory” notes that another women companion, Nusayba bint Kaab, was celebrated for her military skills as she took part in the battles of Uhud, Khaybar, Hunayan and al-Yamama and she was present at the signing of the Treaty of Hudhaybiyah. As a combatant in Uhud, she is said to have sustained wounds on her body while defending the Prophet. Praising her valor, Prophet Muhammad said her position on the battlefield that day was unsurpassed by anyone else, man or woman.

The most sacred place on earth for Muslims, Makkah (Mecca), was founded by Hajar, the wife of Abraham. Her diligence and faith was as remarkable as that of her celebrated husband. It was she who had to face the desolate desert with no water, no shelter, and no food but with responsibilities for an infant baby. It was she who negotiates a deal with the tribe of Jurhum who wanted to settle down around the well of Zam-Zam. Hajar exhibits faith, fearlessness and independence. The first martyr in Islam was a woman, Sumayah. The world’s first academic degree-granting institution of higher education, which is still in operation today, the University of Qarawiyyin in Fes, Morocco, was established by a woman, Fatima al-Fihri.

These examples from the early history of Islam show women participating in every walk of societal life. They were not excluded from public life despite being part of a culture, which prior to Islam, was quite hostile to women. So what happens later? With the passage of time, the public space gained by Muslim women begins to recede. Islamic scholars, mostly male, begin to formulate opinions about women that were less informed by sacred texts and more reflective of their cultural norms. Contemporary scholars have shown that what often passes as religious legacy is in fact a historical product of male subjectivities, a problem that is not unique to Muslims.

CONTESTED READINGS

Dr. Jamal Badawi in his short book, “Gender Equity in Islam” makes the following observation, “Nowhere does the Qur’an state that one gender is superior to the other. Some mistakenly translate “qiwamah” in 4:34 as superiority, when in reality it implies a greater degree of responsibility.” The aforementioned verse 34 in Surah an-Nisa (4) says, “Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions.” The word “qawwamoona” in this verse has contested meanings. At-Tabari, who was lived only two centuries after the Prophet, conceptualized the relationship of qiwamah as being conditional upon the man being able to take care of the socio-economic needs of his wife. This cannot be generalized as any inherent superiority of men over women. In the Quran “qawwamun” is used three times and in all three occasions it is conjoined with the idea of justice and fairness. Thus, “qawwamun” gives limited and conditional right husbands to assume family leadership so long as their responsibilities are executed with justice and fairness.

Later in the same verse, 4:34, another word “waḍribuhunna” also has contested meanings. The verse reads, “And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them, then forsake them from physical intimacy, and then waḍribuhunna.”  The word waḍribuhunna is derived from the triliteral root ḍad ra ba, from which 55 verb forms result in the Quran. These verbs have wide variations in their meanings – from strike (idrib) to travel or put forth (darabu)  and yet Muhammad Asad translates waḍribuhunna as “beat them,” Yusuf Ali as “beat them (lightly)” and Pickthall as “scourge” and Thomas Cleary as “spank them.”

The fallacy of reading sacred texts literally is obvious. Literal reading causes words such as waḍribuhunna to be abused by some men to justify spousal abuse. Domestic violence is as much a real problem across the Muslim world as it is in other societies. World Health Organization says that violence against women is global health problem of epidemic proportions. In some Muslim majority countries the statistics are egregious. For example, in Pakistan, 80 percent of women reported experiencing domestic violence and 50 percent reported being physically battered. In Egypt, 85 percent of women report experiencing sexual harassment.

If waḍribuhunna is indeed beating and since hitting is criminal, does the Quran then sanction a crime on one hand and yet on the other hand speak about justice (qist) and mercy (rahma) as being the foundation of the relationship between a husband and wife? Such contradictions are inconsistent with the overall message of the Quran.

In Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon one of the definitions of daraba, the root to waḍribuhunna, is “to go away”. This then allows waḍribuhunna to have alternative meanings than the commonly understood “beat” or “strike.” Literally translating waḍribuhunna as “beating” contradicts the central Quranic message of fairness and mercy. Moreover, violence cannot be a cure for marital woes and thus any advice that suggests wife-beating as a way to marital bliss is absurd. In addition, there is no report that Prophet Muhammad ever struck or beat of his wives, even though he like most mortals encountered many marital challenges.

Contemporary Islamic studies scholar, Sadiyya Shaikh, notes that classical scholars such as At-Tabari and Ar-Razi both viewed 4:34 as a staged way to reduce marital conflicts in a culture where violence against women was rampant. At-Tabari went on to note that waḍribuhunna means striking without hurting. But Ar-Razi did not even allow that in his exegesis. He quoted a Prophetic saying stating that men who hit their wives are not among the better men. Ar-Razi suggested that 4:34 was not a license but a restriction on the prevailing male violence. Thus this verse is more descriptive of gender norms at the time of the Quranic revelation not prescriptive of how Muslims in contemporary times should practice spousal relations.

THE LIGHTNING ROD – HIJAB

There is an inordinate amount of obsession by both Muslim conservatives and by many non-Muslims (both on the far left and right), about a simple scarf on a woman’s head. Conservatives use hijab (or head covering) as a litmus test for a woman’s piety. Many non-Muslims view hijab as a sign of oppression. The Quranic verse suggesting hijab as sign of modesty for women actually starts with an admonishment to men, “Say to the believing man that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty…” (24:30) Men who flaunt such rules often turn around and blame the victim. One case in point, during the 2013 protests against Mohammed Morsi, during a four-day period ninety-one women were raped and sexually abused.

Like every other aspect of Islam, hijab is a choice. It is woman’s right to determine her own identity and it is her personal expression of devotion to God. It is between her and God. No compulsion can be used to wear or not wear hijab. The most important point about empowering women is to realize that they must be empowered to choose their own paths in life without fear, intimidation or coercion by anybody, neither the fiery mullah nor the radical liberal.

THE VISION OF ISLAM 

The goal in Islam is for believers to deepen their relationship with God. Social norms are a means to the goal of seeking nearness to God. In trying to deepen this relationship believers must strive to remove any spiritual obstacles that impede their path. The Quran notes God saying, “I will not allow the deeds of any one of you to be lost, whether you are male or female (3:195)” and, “If any do deeds of righteousness be they male or female and have faith they will enter paradise (4:124).”

Thus clearly, from the Quranic perspective, gender is no barrier to spiritual seeking. What then gives men the right to put hurdles in front of women when God places no such additional burdens on them?

An anecdote reported by Sadiyya Shaikh about Ibn Taymiyya and a woman named Umm Zaynab Fatima bint Abbas al-Baghdadiyya is illuminating. Umm Fatima was a spiritual leader, a jurist and provided practical legal responses to people’s questions. She studied with Ibn Taymiyya in Cairo during the fourteenth century. On one occasion Ibn Taymiyya praised Umm Fatima in public circles, not only for her intelligence and knowledge but also for her personal qualities of enthusiasm and excellence. Umm Fatima is known to have delivered public lectures in the mosque and this apparently troubled Ibn Taymiyya, “It unsettled me that she delivered lectures at the mosque and I wished to forbid her, he continued, “until one night I beheld the Prophet Muhammad in a dream and he rebuked me saying “This pious woman performs good works.”

The Muslim community is paying a price for not being able to shake off those cultural norms that have drowned out Islam’s egalitarian vision. Treating women with the inherent dignity that she was created with, ensuring that their rights are preserved and advocating that they are given equitable opportunities to succeed is necessary to uphold the Quranic vision, “O you who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in upholding justice,” (4:135).  The way forward requires leveling the playing field, by changing hearts and minds, if possible, or by instituting affirmative actions, when antiquated cultural norms prove too intransigent.

The World Economic Forum asserts a simple truth, “Countries and companies can be competitive only if they develop, attract and retain the best talent, both male and female.” Not only governments need to do more, but so do businesses, civil society and media. Empowering women should be as much a man’s responsibility, as it is a women’s aspiration.

This article was adapted from a Friday Sermon delivered at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida on December 13, 2103. 

Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev resemble Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine gunmen who killed 13 people using guns, explosive devices and bombs rigged to cars. And yet, unlike with the Tasrnaevs, no one dug into which church Harris and Klebold worshiped at. Timothy McVeigh, the self-radicalized Oklahoma City bomber who killed 168 including 19 children under the age of 6, was motivated by radical Christian and anti-government views. And yet no one asked his family or members of his faith if they were patriotic Americans. The apparent double standard is one of many troubling aspects of expert commentary in the aftermath of the Boston tragedy.

U.S. government sources indicate that Tsarnaevs were not connected to any outside terror group. How then did an otherwise “normal” person turn to such deranged violence? To the Fox News crowd, the motive is Islam and the trigger is jihad. Underreported is the fact that Muslim groups and Islamic Centers around the country have been unequivocal in their condemnation of the bombings and in expressing their solidarity with the citizens of Boston. Killing innocent people in the name of Islam is not jihad, which is semantically translated as striving for good. Its murder and criminal. Also underreported is the fact that imams (Muslim religious leaders) in Boston are refusing to give Tamerlan proper Islamic burial rites.

The Brennan Law Center in its 2011 report, “Rethinking Radicalization” wrote, “The path to terrorism does not have a fixed trajectory with each step of the process having specific and identifiable markers.” Any assumption that terrorism is linked to a religion is gross oversimplification of a complex process that social scientists indicate has no set pattern. Experts have repudiated the “religious conveyor belt” theory, which suggests a linear progression from religiosity to radicalization to violence. Not everyone who holds hardline conservative religious views becomes a terrorist nor is every mentally ill person a step removed from being a mass murder. Placing mosques under scrutiny and American Muslims under surveillance, as has been suggested by some in the U.S. Congress, only alienates the very community whose help is needed to thwart any radicals in their midst. In fact several terrorists have been nabbed because of cooperation from the American Muslim community. The Brennan Report went on to say, “There is no profile of the type of person who becomes a terrorist; indeed, the process by which a person embraces violence is fluid, making it nearly impossible to predict who will move from espousing “radical” views to committing violent acts. …. Islam itself does not drive terrorism. In fact, the most recent research suggests that a well-developed Muslim identity actually counteracts jihadism.”

The first step toward radicalization is usually discontent, which may precipitate an identity crisis. It appears that Tamerlan was seeking a new identity after, for unknown reasons, failing to embrace his American identity. As often, though not always, is the case, he turned to religion, primarily via the Internet, where he engaged a mysterious character named Misha, who reportedly harbored extremist views (latest reports suggests that Misha was not Tamerlan’s radical teacher). Successful recruitment occurred because Tamerlan was ignorant of mainstream Islam and became pliable in the hand of his manipulator and gullible to the many conspiracy theories proliferating cyberspace. Former CIA officer Marc Sageman, in his book “Leaderless Jihad,” notes that most terrorists lack religious knowledge and were secular individuals until just before joining an extremist group.

Sustaining a radicalized state of mind requires isolation from mainstream society. Tamerlan cut himself off from society, giving up boxing and music. Besides being aloof, Tamerlan was angry and excessively critical of society. He was thrown out a Boston mosque after violently protesting a sermon that praised Martin Luther King’s non-violence. This was yet another tell-tale sign. While the mosque leaders did the right thing by throwing him out, should they have gone a step further and engaged Tamerlan in a conversation? It is hard to know with certainty if such a conversation would have stopped Tamerlan but it may have unearthed information that flagged him as potential threat to society. However, given our constitutional protections, it is unclear as to what law enforcement could have done had they received such a report.

Given the lack of any pattern in radicalization, both law enforcement and community leaders face a very difficult task as to how they go about unearthing violence-prone radicals. As a free society, we will have to manage such threats without veering away from our constitutional principles. Fear of terrorism should not change our way of life. Truth be told, according to some experts, the chances of dying from terrorism is 1 in 1.7 million. The chances of dying in a car accident are 1 in 100 and by gun violence 1 in 25,000. A little perspective may help us better cope with the frenzy.
—————-
An abbreviated version of the article above ran in the Florida Times Union under the title “Double standard for how terrorists are viewed is troubling” ]]> http://forcommongood.com/blog/?feed=rss2&p=285 0 http://forcommongood.com/blog/?p=268 http://forcommongood.com/blog/?p=268#comments Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:57:02 +0000 Parvez Ahmed http://forcommongood.com/blog/?p=268 Huffington Post, July 5, 2012

Also on Patheos, July 5, 2012.

Nearly 4 in 10 Americans hold an unfavorable view of Islam and Muslims. That number has remained steady since 9-11. Several factors contribute to this negative perception, certainly none greater than Muslims, albeit a few, committing terrorism in the name of Islam. The media exasperates this negativity, as aptly noted in Edward Said’s 1981 classic Covering Islam. However, some media outlets are more egregious than others. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found that the majority of Fox News viewers perceive that Muslims want to establish Shari’a law in America and express the distressing view that Muslims are NOT an important part of America’s religious fabric. Nearly 7 in 10 viewers of Fox News believe that the values of Islam are at odds with American values. In contrast fewer than 4 in 10 viewers of Public Television hold such negative perceptions.

The difference between Fox News viewers and those who watch Public Television is palpable. Spurring the gulf of difference is the content of programming. Fox News did not find anything morally objectionable with airing the virulently Islamophobic movie “Obsession: The Threat of Radical Islam.” While cognizant of the threat from those who kill in the name of Islam, public television and radio has better grasped the importance of providing viewers and listeners with the opportunity to develop a more holistic view of Islam. The fact that 4 in 10 Americans have never socially interacted with a Muslim, necessitates such holism.

On Friday, July 6 at 9 pm EST, PBS will nationally broadcast a documentary titled, “Islamic Art: Mirror of the Invisible World” narrated by Susan Sarandon. The documentary is a timely reminder about the many contributions made by Muslims to art and culture. As an educator, I am looking forward to this documentary as it adds to a growing collection of well-made documentaries that provide a semblance of balance to the general propensity in the media to stereotype Muslims.

Recently I was conducting a Sunday school class for a group of Muslim teenagers at my mosque. To my great disappointment, but not surprise, I found that the Muslims are almost as ill-informed as my non-Muslim elderly students who attend my continuing education class on Islam that I teach at my university. Both groups did not have an appreciation for the many innovations that the Muslim world has given us, which we take for granted in our daily lives. The word coffee has its genesis in the Arabic qahwa, which became the Turkish kahve then the Italian caffé. The game of chess originated in India but it was introduced to Europe by the Moors in Spain during their tenth century rule. The word rook comes from the Persian rukh, which means a chariot. A millennium before the Wright brothers, Abbas ibn Firnas made several attempts to build a flying machine. He had constructed a device that allowed him to stay in flight for over 10 minutes. He crash landed and correctly concluded that he had forgotten to give his invention the tail it needed to stabilize while landing. Shampoo was introduced to England by a Muslim who was appointed Shampooing Surgeon to King George IV. Many of the modern-day surgical instruments are nearly the same design as devised by a Muslim physician named al-Zahrawi in the 10^th century. Almost half a century before Louis Pasteur, children in Turkey were being vaccinated to inoculate against small pox.

The British non-profit and non-religious organization the Foundation for Science, Technology and Civilization through their 1001 Inventions exhibits and research is helping to reintroduce these facts to not only the Western world but also to Muslims. They have held exhibitions and film shows from New York to Istanbul.

Criticism of Muslims, when warranted, is a legitimate exercise in public discourse. But our national interests are ill-served if we only criticize and never appreciate. We are still paying the price of our many adventures in the Muslim world often initiated on a foundation of misguided views about the beliefs, history and culture of Muslims. Recently TIME magazine ran a cover story asking the rhetorical question “Is America Islamophobic?” I do not believe so. PBS airing yet another documentary about Islam suggests that a small but critical mass of Americans remain open minded about better understanding other cultures and religions. Critics of public radio and television, I am sure, will accuse PBS of a pro-Islam bias. And many Muslims may hastily conclude that the negative attitude of Fox News viewers is representative of the general unawareness of Islam in America. PBS’s Friday night national broadcast provides both critics countervailing facts to reconsider their stereotyping.

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.

Islam is a religion or faith. Muslims are the people who follow the religion or faith of Islam.

As an analogy consider this – Christianity is the faith. Christians are the people who follow the religion of Christianity. Judaism is the faith. Jews are the people who follow the religion of Judaism.

Here are some of the scriptural references to the word Islam and Muslim.

“Our Lord! make of us Muslims, bowing to Your (Will), and of our progeny a people Muslim, bowing to Your (will); and show us our place for the celebration of (due) rites; and turn unto us (in Mercy); for Your are the Acceptor of Repentance and the Dispenser of Grace.” [Holy Quran 2:128]

“O you  who believe! Enter into Islam whole-heartedly; and follow not the footsteps of the evil one; for he is to you an avowed enemy.” [Holy Quran 2:208]

“Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender (Islam) unto Me shall be your religion.” [Holy Quran 5:3]

“The religion before God is Submission to His Will (Islam)” [Holy Quran 3:19]

“And behold! I inspired the disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Messenger. they said, ‘We have faith, and do bear witness that we bow to God as Muslims‘” [Holy Quran 5:111]

“Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from your Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.” [Holy Quran 16:102]

Worldwide Distribution of Muslim Population (Pew Forum, 2009)

The Pew Forum has completed an interesting study on the Muslim population worldwide. Muslims make up 1.57 billion of the 6.8 billion people worldwide. Muslims make-up 1 in 5 people in the world. More than 300 million Muslims live in countries where Islam is not the majority religion. In India Muslims make up 14% of that countries population and yet the number of Muslims in India exceed those in Egypt and Turkey combined. There are nearly as many Muslims in Indonesia than in the Middle East. To read the entire report CLICK HERE.

Arabic speaking world

People who speak Arabic as their primary language make up fewer than 20% of the Muslim population worldwide. The adjacent map shows, in green, places around the world where Arabic is spoken as the primary language. A person is regarded as an Arab if they meet one of the following three criteria:

1. Someone who can trace their ancestry to the tribes of Arabia (the Arabian Peninsula).
2. Someone who speaks Arabic as their primary language.
3. Any person who is a citizen of a country where Arabic is the national language.

Although the words Arab and Muslim are often used interchangeably they do not mean the same thing. Many Arabs are not Muslims and most Muslims are not Arabs.

Given that Islam originated in Arabia at a time when history was being meticulously recorded allowed Arabic to be infused into many of the ritual practices of Islam. The fact that the Quran was revealed in Arabic and it has been preserved till date in the language of its revelation affords the language of Arabic a special role in Muslim communities.

Certain religious rituals, such as prayers, require some of the utterances be made in Arabic. This is no different than the practices in many Christian denominations which require prayers to be in Latin. Judaism also requires ritual prayers in Hebrew. Similarly, Eastern religions such as Hinduism also require certain religious rituals to be conducted in Sanskrit.

Many non-Arab Muslims make extreme effort to learn Arabic as this enhances their ability to access sacred texts without the need for any translations. Understanding Arabic allows Muslims to better appreciate the linguistic majesty of the Quran, which they view to be the final revelation from God.