In 2011, along with millions of people around the world, I was mesmerized by the peaceful popular uprisings in Tahrir Square that eventually led to the end of three decades of dictatorial rule in Egypt. As the youth cheered, I felt solidarity in declaring “we are all Egyptians now.” I cannot say the same now. Two years ago Egyptians rejoiced in unison as the birth of people’s power seemed possible. Today many of the same people seem apathetic to army bullets killing fellow Egyptians.

Long before the General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi forcibly removed Mohammed Morsi from the Presidency, Egyptian society was descending into a spiral of polarization. A poll conducted in May of 2013 by the Arab American Institute showed that more than 90 percent of those who identified with the Islamists said they were “better off” than five years ago. However, more than 80 percent of those associated with the opposition and the “disaffected plurality” claimed that they were “worse off.” Among those Egyptians not affiliated with either the Islamists or their opposition only one percent claims that they are better off today while 83 percent perceived that they are worse off. And yet such disaffection does not justify a coup d’etat, which has only exasperated polarization not resolved it.

The Egyptian military is like a hammer that sees every political problem as an existential security nail. So predictably, knowing only how to wield a hammer, they resorted to solving a political problem by hammering a nail into the coffin of democracy. And while they did so, many Egyptians cheered, unfazed by irony that they were essentially burning the village to purportedly save it.

While the military is blameworthy the Muslim Brotherhood can hardly claim innocence because they failed to pay heed to the disaffection that preceded their rise to power. A 2012 opinion survey by Brookings showed that 71 percent of Egyptians felt that it was a mistake for the Brotherhood to renege on their promise to not field a candidate for the Presidency. The Brotherhood incorrectly perceived their electoral victory as a mandate to inject religion into politics. While 6 in 10 Egyptians wanted Sharia to be the basis of Egyptian law, 83 percent wanted Sharia to be adapted to modern times. Fifty-four percent of those surveyed wanted the Egyptian democracy to be modeled after Turkey, a secular republic currently being successfully ruled by moderate Islamists (the Gezi park fiasco notwithstanding).

Most of all, Egyptians sought good governance and a relief from the crushing 13.2 percent unemployment that has resulted in 8 out of every 10 jobless Egyptians being under the age of 30 with more than a quarter of them holding university degrees. The Brotherhood by pursuing a parochial agenda essentially missed an opportunity to demonstrate that like Turkey’s Islamists they were a marked improvement over the regime they replaced. Not all of its failings were their fault though. The New York Times recently reported that Egypt’s deep state had conspired to make the Morsi government look bad. The day after Morsi was ousted, gas supplies and electrical power magically returned to normalcy.

Despite my euphoria in 2011, I had sounded a cautionary alarm, “Standing at the edge of a new dawn, one cannot help but be hopeful. But this euphoria of hope should not detract attention from a basic fact — democracy is a process, not an outcome. The process requires engagement and vigilance. Removing a dictatorial regime is not enough, for democracy is not merely the rule of the majority but also necessitates the protection of minority rights and voices.”

The Brotherhood missed an opportunity to unite Egypt by creating an inclusive constitutional process, underscored by the fact that only 1 in 3 eligible voters participated in the constitutional referendum. The opposition was just as incompetent by being unable to mount a viable counter narrative and now appears unscrupulous by cheering a coup d’etat that is witnessing the return of the old Mubarak cronies. The Brotherhood and its opposition each in their zeal to prevail are blinded to the reality that only a democratic and inclusive Egypt that respects the dignity of all its citizens, including women and all minorities will truly honor the aspirations of the Arab Spring when Egypt stood united and people worlds away from Tahrir felt like saying we are all Egyptians now. Two years ago, the millions on the street inspired hope. Today they evoke fear.

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.

A Malaysian political leader has asked political parties in his country to stop using the word “Islam” in their names so that, “nobody can make use of the religion for their political gains.” This progressive thought is ironically closer to the classical understanding of Islam’s sacred texts. For in the early century of Islam, use of the word “Islamic” (Islamiyyah in Arabic) was limited in its scope. When opining on the permissible (halal) and the impermissible (haram) the classical scholars eschewed the blanket usage of “Islamic” or “un-Islamic” often opting instead to using terms such as “valid”, “accepted”, and “allowable” or their antonyms.

Attaching Islam or Islamic to otherwise secular activities such as politics or art is a newer innovation whose proliferation is traceable to the identity movements that sprang up in the Muslim world in the 1960s and 70s. Even if one were to provide convincing raison d’être for the fields of Islamic Art or Finance, how does one explain Islamic Olympic Games, Islamic Music, Islamic Quizzes, etc.? In their quest to preserve identity, Muslims may have lost sight of the big picture.

The proponents of “Islamic-anything” perform a difficult juggling act. In his book “Islamic Finance”, Mahmoud El-Gamal outlines the dilemma faced by the Islamic finance industry, for example. On one hand the Islamic finance industry tries to be similar to conventional finance so as not to be in any jeopardy of national or international laws. On the other hand, the industry portrays itself to be different by using Arabic words to describe mundane secular contracts and attempting to conform to the sacred texts of Islam, even when such conformity is no more than form over function. This dilemma of being same and yet different is also faced by other Islamized disciplines.

Continuing with the example of Islamic finance, it is common knowledge that Islam prohibits riba (usury), gharar (excessively risky) and maysir (gambling) in financial transactions. But creating a separate industry called “Islamic Finance,” has not eliminated riba, gharar and maysir even in financial transactions branded “Islamic” or “Sharia-compliant.” Moreover, Islamic finance has not led to more equitable distributions of wealth or the elimination of the many vices that plague the finance industry. Thus, even in Muslim majority countries, the success of Islamic finance is limited, because users find little to differentiate it from conventional finance.

Since Islam makes no distinction between the sacred and the secular (defined in Webster as “of or relating to the worldly or temporal”), the rebranding of otherwise secular ideas in religious terms, is a contradiction. A cobbler once asked the Protestant reformer Martin Luther how he could serve God within his trade of shoe making. Luther did not ask the cobbler to make “Christian” shoes. He asked the cobbler to make the best shoe possible and sell it at a fair price. Thus affirming a theme consistently present in the sacred texts of almost all religions, namely that being fair and striving for excellence is part of being religiously righteous.

Islam cannot be of service to all humanity if Muslims confine discussions about Islam to issues related to identity only. Instead of being separate but equal, Muslims should integrate without assimilating. A Muslim women weightlifter is trying to do exactly that. Instead of competing in Islamic Games, she is competing in regular weightlifting competition but petitioning the respective sports bodies to allow her to compete wearing modest clothing including a headscarf.

Islamic games or Islamic political parties limit their participation to Muslims. It is natural for people of other faiths to feel excluded even when the limits are not explicit, much the same way Muslims will feel excluded if someone tried to organize “Christian Games.” The Quran in Chapter 49, verse 13, “We have created you from a male and female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other,” celebrates the plurality of people having a singularity of purpose – getting to know each. How can we know each other if we use identity to seclude us?

Our global struggles today are not between Islam and the rest but between the forces of divisiveness and the champions of inclusiveness, between general welfare for all and the preservation of privileged status for a handful. In such a struggle, Islam can be a force of moderation as long as Muslims treat Islam more as a system of values that can benefit all humanity and less as a “club” where people with certain cultural habits congregate. It is not coincidental that Turkey’s AKP party has grown in popularity despite practicing Muslims governing a secular state, while the identity-driven Islamists in the rest of the Muslim world struggle to find their voices in democratic politics.

Creating an apartheid system of Islamic versus un-Islamic will not address the bigger issues at stake. Subjecting secular endeavors of politics or finance to parochial tests of religiosity will neither benefit Muslims nor the rest of humanity. Rather Muslims should follow Luther’s advice of honestly making the best possible shoe and selling it at the fairest price possible. Actions that benefit the broadest cross section of people, best fulfills the Prophetic mission of being “rahmatul lil alamim” – a mercy to all humanity (creations to be exact).

MEMO TO OSAMA BIN LADEN, NOW DEAD
Parvez Ahmed

Although rejoicing death is not part of the religious traditions of Muslims, Christians or Jews, I cannot help but feel a sense of joyful relief now that you are no longer capable of plotting your evil. Your elimination as a terrorist threat is a victory for peace and justice. Thousands of people from different nationalities, ethnicities and religions around the world have reacted with understandable emotions. Capital markets have reacted by bidding oil prices down and stock prices up, indicating that they are hopeful of greater stability in the Middle East.

You have caused untold misery to people who had no enmity with you. You have dragged the good name of Islam through the mud by wrapping your heinous actions with the banner of Islam. Your views and your methods have long been discredited by credible and mainstream Muslim scholars. But that did not persuade you from ceasing to poison the minds of gullible and vulnerable youths. You took our children brainwashed them into being maniacs and then used them as weapons against us. And in the end you did not even prove your self-proclaimed warrior mantle. You hid behind a woman and used her as a human shield. You are not a martyr. You are a criminal who deserves to be punished by death, under American, international and Sharia laws.

The cancer that you have left behind will still be with us. We will still have to deal with terrorists like you. But we hope that your death will inject rationality in the discourse about terrorism. It will allow our policy makers and leaders to see terrorism less as a political football and more as a criminal activity undertaken by mafia figures like you. Instead of criminalizing a faith, our leaders will use sensible method to go after the criminals without stigmatizing the faith group they belong to.

We are hopeful that your demise will bring some measure of comfort to all the families who have to contend daily with the loss of their loved ones. We are also hopeful that your departure provides renewed opportunities for building stronger bridges of understanding across faiths and cultures.

As peace loving Muslims, we unequivocally reject terrorism and reiterate that no grievances can ever justify the taking of innocent human lives. Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. Any group that imitates your methods is just as guilty as you are of crimes against their faith and all of humanity.

We are heartened by the fact that no Muslim country took the responsibility of your burial. It is permissible, in fact recommended in Islam to not afford terrorists full burial rites. Terrorists are considered deviants and thus denying them the opportunity for burial rites that seek mercy and forgiveness for the deceased are religiously accepted.

President Barack Obama has eloquently reminded the world that you were not a Muslim leader. He went on to say, “Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.”

In your death you have united us as Americans once more, the same way we were in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Today, like that ill-fated day, people of conscience are once again ready to rediscover the value of peaceful coexistence, so jaded by your rhetoric of war. Even when lamenting or protesting unfair and unjust conditions, we do not want to forget our Prophet’s teachings of seeking peace and forgiveness even in the midst of our harshest hardships. Your fellow Arabs are increasingly rejecting your messianic worldview. In Egypt and Tunisia they have peacefully overthrown dictators. What your violence never achieved, their peace did.

It is my hope that your life and death serve as a lesson to all who ever contemplated using the shortcut of violence to satisfy their desires and needs. In your death as in your life, you have failed. You have dishonored your family and the over one billion Muslims from whom you hijacked the good name of Islam.

Abuse of Women is Sadly Endemic
Parvez Ahmed

Amidst all the euphoria about Egypt’s peaceful revolution, the news of CBS news reporter Lara Logan being sexually assaulted hits like a ton of bricks. The people of Egypt, especially its youth, have been such an inspiration that any hint of deviant behavior understandably elicits gasps and should provoke soul searching. Sadly the incident is not as isolated.

A 2008 survey by the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights shows 98 percent of foreign women and 83 percent of Egyptian women reporting being sexually harassed. Six in 10 men admitted to such behavior. How is it that Muslim society’s, which often pontificate about conservative values and uses such mantra to advocate segregation, that women are denied the most basic of dignity?

The Islamic scripture is unequivocal that the proper treatment of women is a cornerstone in developing personal piety and societal harmony. In chapter 9 verse 71, the Quranic paradigm is clear, “The believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey God and His Messenger. On them will God pour His Mercy: for God is Exalted in power, Wise.”

Expounding on the subject of gender relations, noted Islamic scholar Jamal Badawi writes, “Under no circumstances does the Quran encourage, allow or condone violence (against women). In extreme cases … it allows for a husband to administer a gentle pat to his wife that causes no physical harm to the body nor leaves any sort of mark. …. In the event that dispute cannot be resolved equitably between husband and wife, the Quran prescribes mediation between the parties through family intervention on behalf of both spouses.” Badawi is attempting to contextualize the Quranic verse 4:34. And yet many Muslim religious leaders do not place this verse into its proper context, making it ripe for abuse both at the hands of Muslim men and by those who blame Islam for all that ails the Muslim world.

Contradictions between the teaching in sacred texts and the reality on the ground are not limited to Egypt or the segregated and repressive Gulf States. In Turkey, 4 out of 10 women are physically abused by their husbands, according to a recent study titled “Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey.”

To be fair, abuse of women is not exclusively a Muslim problem. The same day that the Lara Logan story broke, news media also reported that female members of the U.S. Navy were alleging cover up of widespread rape. A U.S. Justice Department study shows that 1 in 6 American women are raped during their lifetimes. Nearly half of all murders of women in the U.S. are committed by a romantic partner. Abuse of women is just as problematic in conservative Muslim societies as they are in the liberal West. This underscores the need for less finger-pointing and ought to provide the impetus to collectively address the issue.

The abuse women in Muslim societies are particularly jolting because of its stark contrast with the normative teachings of Islam. I often have the privilege of speaking to people of other faiths about Islam and Muslims. Such contradictions are what most troubles my audience and why they continue to harbor negative opinions about Islam and Muslims. Islamophobia cannot be overcome by merely preaching Islam. It will require Muslims to live Islam and their societies to reflect Islam’s values and ethics. While Muslim preachers rail against those who prevent women from wearing headscarves or hijab they are largely silent on the endemic abuse of women. While Muslim countries, particularly in the Middle East, are quick to defend segregation as a way to “protect” women they have taken few measures to stem the pervasive mistreatment of women in their own backyards.

In the general gloom and doom of the Middle East, once again it is the educated and enlightened Muslim youth that is providing a ray of hope. Visit the Facebook page titled, “Lara Logan: An apology from Egypt.” The messages of apology seem heartfelt. Many Egyptians are rightfully ashamed of this ignominy. My fervent hope is that they turn this moment of shame into motivation for positive change that eradicates this ‘social cancer.’ Can Arabs and Muslims once again turn their hopeful eyes towards Egypt leading the path to civilization? CNN producer and camerawoman Mary Rogers gives voice to the hope of many, “Perhaps it will be people power, the same people power that brought down a regime, that will successfully combat sexual harassment. But the only real protection women can have is when the attitudes of men change.”

[Professor Parvez Ahmed is a Fulbright Scholar and Associate Professor of Finance at the University of North Florida.]

We are all Egyptians now

I am mesmerized by the peaceful popular uprisings calling for the end of three decades of dictatorial rule in Egypt. Often the news from the Muslim world is depressing. Not today. The impact of this is still unknown.

But one thing is unmistakably clear: We are all Egyptians now. The young voices from Egypt fill me with hope and optimism about the future of the Middle East and the Muslim world. In the unlikeliest of places and in the most trying of circumstances, the Egyptians are not just demanding their freedoms but, unbeknownst to them, are helping to shatter several myths along the way.

The unforgettable images from Tahrir Square are helping to erase the myth of Muslims and Arabs being apathetic to democracy and docile to authoritarian rule. It is also erasing the lore of the archetypal Muslim male — conservative and angry — and the stereotypical Muslim woman — compliant and veiled. Like any other society, Muslim communities boast a range of voices. Many practicing Muslims favor separation between mosque and state, viewing this as a position closer to normative Islam, while others desire that national laws reflect their religious values, fervent in their belief that such an action is pleasing to God.

Along with the Jasmine Revolution of Tunisia, the popular uprising in Egypt is a deathblow to the urban legend that change in Muslim societies can only be brought about by force. For over a decade al-Qaeda and its affiliates have successfully exploited the lack of freedoms and dignity in parts of the Muslim world to foment terrorism, euphemistically calling them martyrdom operations. Overwhelming majorities in Tunisia and Egypt by their actions emphatically rejected the nihilism of al-Qaeda. They instead chose the Gandhian approach of non-violence and peaceful assembly to redress their grievances. This sign of hope must not be extinguished by the intransigence of Hosni Mubarak to step down. Orderly transition cannot be a pretext to extending his iron-fisted rule.

Equally impressive is the shattering of yet another myth, often the bedrock assumption behind America’s unquestioned support for the Mubaraks and the Abdullahs of the world. For long the Mubaraks and the Abdullahs have sold the notion, and America bought the idea, that choices in the Muslim world are bipolar — the ruthless dictator or the parochial religious fundamentalist. To most Muslims these are false choices. Like their counterparts in other parts of the world, most Muslims care less about the ideology of their government and more about the services which that government can deliver. Palestinians in Gaza did not choose Hamas for their ideological bent, but rather they voted Fatah out for failing to deliver basic services to the people. Many Turks may not agree with the socio-religious views of their conservative prime minister, but time and again they back his party at the polls because they deliver on their promises of good governance.

The young voices in Tahrir Square showed that in a few days of freedom they have earned a lifetime of wisdom. Even when angry at Israel’s treatment of Palestinians they did not want their new government to walk away from Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel. While remaining skeptical about the motives of the Muslim Brotherhood, they welcomed diverse voices in the new Egypt. Their disappointments over American foreign policy did not make them break out into anti-American chants. When the state apparatus failed to protect innocent civilians from looters and thugs, youths acted in an impromptu fashion to protect the dignity of their families and their communities. Egyptians and Tunisians have best exemplified the slogan “Yes, we can.”

Standing at the edge of a new dawn, one cannot help but be hopeful. But this euphoria of hope should not detract attention from a basic fact — democracy is a process, not an outcome. The process requires engagement and vigilance. Removing a dictatorial regime is not enough, for democracy is not merely the rule of the majority but also necessitates the protection of minority rights and voices.

In my visits to Egypt I have always been impressed by the sense of civilizational pride that ordinary citizens expressed, from college campuses to coffee shops. Egyptians now have a chance to put their pride in their long legacy of monumental civilizational achievements to good use. Watching from afar, we may not be able to help much, but at the very least we can pray that the extraordinary sacrifices of the most ordinary amongst us is not wasted. Rather, it serves as a powerful motivator to truly usher in a new era of peace and healing to one of the most troubled regions of the world.

Additional Reading: Egypt’s Revolution: How Democracy Can Work in the Middle East
By Fareed Zakaria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy and Islam

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

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

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

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

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

Is Islam the reason for them being held back?

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

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

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

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

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

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