An American Muslim Journal

Switzerland, Muslims, Minaret Ban: Islamophobia or something else?

The The New York Times this morning reported that Switzerland is poised to impose a ban on the construction of minarets.  Minarets are a common architectural feature of mosques serving both an aesthetic and functional purpose.  Minarets are commonly used as symbols of Islam as well.

Why are a majority of Swiss voters supporting a ban on minarets in their country?  Why is there an anti-Muslim movement in a country thought to be tolerant?  Why is there such a misunderstanding of Islam among the advocates of the proposed ban on minarets? 

Of the 7 million people who live in Switzerland approximately 300,000 are Muslim.  Most Swiss Muslims are immigrants from Turkey, Bosnia and Kosova.  Switzerland is home to the United Nations humanitarian agencies.  Switzerland is famous for its international neutrality.  With 4% of the Swiss population claiming Islam as their religion and given Switzerland’s history of tolerance it is disturbing to see Swiss opinion turn so negative towards a large religious minority within Switzerland.

The existence of an anti-Muslim movement is no longer surprising (it is still disturbing of course).  All it takes is a small handful of bigots to create a group.  But in the case of the Swiss, the minaret-banning legislation is poised to pass and that suggests popular support (at least of the voting public).  This development should be troubling to anyone who values religious freedom and values free societies that support religious pluralism.

According to the same NY Times story an opinion poll from earlier in the month found that 37 percent of Swiss were in favor of banning minarets, 10 percent were undecided and 53 percent were opposed to it.  Assuming for the sake of discussion that the poll was scientific and accurate, it appears that at least a few people who publicly said they were opposed to banning minarets had a serious change of heart in a matter of a few weeks.  Another possibility is that some Swiss harbor anti-Muslim sentiments but they are not comfortable voicing these bigoted opinions in public.  A third possibility is the confluence of a generally low voter turnout and a higher than normal turnout from the supporters of the minaret-ban legislation.

What is fueling the anti-Muslim movement in Switzerland?  Are Swiss Muslims doing something to fuel the bigotry?  Are Swiss Muslims integrating into Swiss society?  Do Swiss Muslims work with Swiss of other religious affiliations for issues of the common good?  Is the fact that only about 11% of Swiss Muslims are citizens a factor?  Is it difficult to become a naturalized citizen in Switzerland?

What do you think is driving Swiss citizens to curtail Muslim rights in Switzerland?

"Islam is of the Devil": Wayne Sapp, Stephanie Sapp, Ludger Boecken, Heike Boecken sue Alachua County School Board to protect their hate speech

Two Gainesville, Florida area families, the Sapps and the Boeckens, sued the Alachua County School Board (Florida) in federal court seeking protection for their children’s anti-Muslim hate speech in public schools.  The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida represents the plaintiffs.

Wayne and Stephanie Sapp and Ludger and Heike Boecken filed the suit on behalf of their minor children who are students in Alachua County public schools.  The complaint was filed on November 23, 2009 in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District Court of Florida (Gainesville Division).

The lawsuit alleges that the Sapp and Boecken children were disciplined for and prohibited from wearing t-shirts imprinted with the hateful statement “Islam is of the Devil”.  The Sapps’ and Boeckens’ lawsuit seeks to have the school board’s policies that prohibit the wearing of the hate-speech imprinted t-shirts ruled unconstitutional.  The lawsuit also asks the federal court to enter an order stopping the school board from prohibiting the wearing of the clothing displaying the hate messages.

WHAT IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DOES IT APPLY TO HATE SPEECH?

The freedom of speech is a fundamental right in the United States.  It is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and by similar provisions in state constitutions as well.
 
As a general principle it is easy to understand.  Application of the free speech principle, however, can be complicated.  When the speech being protected is pertains to equality, democracy, justice or other noble ideas it is easy to support.  But what about speech that promotes discrimination and bigotry?  The fact is that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment too.  Frankly, it would not be much of a right if this were not the case.

Over the years the First Amendment has been marshaled in defense of flag burning, cross burning, pornography, a Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois (at the time a predominantly Jewish town of Holocaust survivors), and fascist skinheads assembling and promoting their white supremacist venom in public.  Indeed, the First Amendment has a long list of very unsavory patrons.

While protecting hate mongers, racists and perverts is distasteful, the alternative is to fall prey to the tyranny of the majority and to the majority’s impulse to censor ideas with which it disagrees.  Censorship in one’s own hands never seems dangerous, but the true appreciation of its menace is had when one contemplates handing over the power of censorship to one’s ideological nemesis.  That is a frightening thought.

IS THE HATE SPEECH PROMOTED BY THE SAPPS AND BOECKENS PROTECTED?

The right to free speech under the First Amendment is very broad.  It is not, however, an absolute right.  The freedom of speech is limited by certain exceptions.  Speech that constitutes “fighting words”, or that is obscene or which interferes with another fundamental right, for example, would fall outside of the protection of the First Amendment.

According to the First Amendment Center speech within public schools is not unlimited.  First Amendment Center scholars note that minors are not accorded the same level of free speech rights as adults.  Additionally, when the government is acting as an educator (which is precisely the case with a public school) it has more leeway to develop and implement speech policies.  The overarching policy of a public school is teaching children in an environment that is safe and which is conducive to learning.

It is possible that the hate speech the Sapps and the Boeckens are promoting through their children’s attire falls outside of First Amendment protection.  The Sapps and the Boeckens’ complaint repeatedly alleges that the t-shirts worn by their minor children contained “non-vulgar” and “non-obscene” messages.  The plaintiffs are counting on their characterization of the messages (as “non-vulgar” and “non-obscene”) being taken as a matter of fact.  Their characterization should not be accepted at face value.  Their characterization should be vigorously challenged.

Is the statement “Islam is of the Devil” vulgar or obscene?  If it is considered vulgar or obscene, then the Alachua County school board is well within its rights to deem the message inappropriate and prohibit its exhibition in school.  This is the precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bethel School Dist. No. 403 vs. Fraser.  In that case the majority of the Court concluded that:

Surely it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse.

The majority in Bethel also noted that:

The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order.

The Bethel case sets out the rules or the law to be applied in the Alachua County case.  The question is only one of fact.

IS THE STATEMENT “ISLAM IS OF THE DEVIL” VULGAR OR OBSCENE?

Regardless of one’s proclivity vis-à-vis the First Amendment, most American Muslims would agree that the phrase “Islam is of the Devil” worn on a t-shirt by students in a public grammar school or high school would be seen as vulgar and obscene to fellow students who are Muslims.  I would also hope it would be deemed vulgar and obscene by classmates of other faiths as well.  Furthermore, the presence of such hate speech will inculcate lessons of divisiveness and incivility, both of which are antithetical to promoting “shared values of a civilized social order.”

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO UPHOLD ALACHUA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD'S DECISION?

First and foremost, it is necessary for the Alachua County School Board to commit itself to zealously defending its actions.  It is not a foregoing conclusion that Alachua County School Board will aggressively litigate this case.  The resources and expertise of the ACLU are formidable.  At the same time public schools across the nation are sorely cash strapped and as a result the vigor with which the school board battles in federal court may be dictated as much by finances as it is by its principles.

Furthermore, the case will hinge on whether the judge or the jury who ultimately hear this case at trial will find the statement “Islam is of the Devil” to be vulgar or obscene.  This will, in turn, depend on how well integrated the local American Muslim community is with the interfaith and community organizations in the region.

Hopefully the American Muslim community in that region of Florida has relationships of friendship with the broader community.  Hopefully the American Muslims of this particular region have allies in the interfaith community who know them, understand their religious values and know firsthand what it is that Muslims believe.  Whether or not the “Islam is of the Devil” statement is vulgar or obscene is not an academic question.  Bringing theologians to explain the articles of the Islamic faith and its roots in the Abrahamic tradition is not the solution. 

This is a question that has to be answered from the heart and from the gut.  In order for people of other faiths to share American Muslims’ sense of revulsion and disgust over this hate speech, they need to know American Muslims as real friends.

It will be up to Florida’s American Muslims to marshal their resources and their allies to aggressively defend against the Sapps’ and Boeckens’ hate speech lawsuit.  Ideally the battle will focus on the core legal issues and will steer clear of any advocacy that promotes censorship.  This is the kind of case where American Muslims stand to lose even in victory unless they are very thoughtful about how they tackle the crisis.
 

Kenney, Abusumayah and a hate crime in Tinley Park, Illinois

 
Valerie Kenney

Richard Roeper does not understand the law.  At least, he does not understand Illinois’ hate crimes statute very well.  Perhaps I can help him.

Illinois’ hate crime law is straight-forward.  Under Illinois’ Hate Crimes Statute (720 ILCS 5/12-7.1):

“A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors, he commits assault, battery…” (emphasis added)

In defendant Kenney’s case she battered Abusumayah when she pulled at her scarf and simultaneously made anti-Muslim comments to Abusumayah.  Her battery was motivated by her hatred of Islam and Muslims.  Her actions fit the statutory requirements of a hate crime.  The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office made the right call in charging Kenney with a hate crime.

Mr. Roeper is not happy about Kenney being charged with a hate crime.  He thinks it was merely stupid.  Yes, what Kenney did was stupid, but since it fits the definition of a hate crime, it makes sense for the prosecutors to bring the charge.  Kenney will have ample opportunities to defend herself against the hate crimes charge in court.  She may opt, as is her right, to be tried by a jury of her peers and allow the jurors to decide if she is guilty of hate crime.

The prosecutor has a mandate to protect the people.  It is not simply a matter of prosecuting people after they commit crimes but also about deterring crime by using the prosecutorial powers effectively.  I hope the thinking in Anita Alvarez’s office was that, post-Ft. Hood, there may be some very strong and misplaced anti-Muslim sentiments in the community and that it is a matter of public safety to deter people harboring such hatred from acting out criminally.  The prosecutor is doing all the ignorant would-be Kenneys in Cook County a favor by letting the community know that hate crimes against Muslims will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Mr. Roeper says that prosecuting Kenney under the hate crimes statute “cheapens the definition of a hate crime” because what Kenney did was merely “stupid and mean” but clearly he does not understand the role of prosecutors.  The prosecutors’ office creates public policy by exercising its discretion as to which crimes will be prosecuted and the manner in which they will be prosecuted.

There is a palpable anti-Muslim sentiment in the community.  The minority of Americans who espouse hatred for Muslims are vocal and, as is obvious with Kenney, they are willing to break the social contract by acting out against those whom they perceive to be Muslim.  Roeper would prefer that we waited until someone gets beaten or killed or until a mosque is vandalized or a Muslim family’s home is burned down by arsonists.  The law-abiding, hard working American Muslim families in Illinois are not willing to wait around for something even worse to happen.

It would have been better for everyone if Kenney would have kept her hate to herself in that grocery store.  Alas, Kenney chose to expose her bigotry to the public and engage in criminal behavior as well.  Now it is up to our criminal justice system to work it out.  Mr. Roeper can continue to use his column irresponsibly by whipping up the Kenneys of our community into a hateful frenzy by suggesting that she will go to jail for 3 years and be fined $25,000 for what she did.
 
Rather than taking this foolish route, what Mr. Roeper should have done is come out squarely against Kenney’s actions and acknowledged that, if proven, her actions are a hate crime.  By doing this he would have affirmed his commitment to basic decency and the rule of law, and then he would have greater legitimacy to advocate for a constructive punishment that takes into account the severity of the battery, the injuries to the victim, Kenney’s past criminal history (if any) and the possibility of contrition (by Kenney) and community service as alternatives to a long incarceration and or an onerous monetary fine.

Instead, Mr. Roeper used his public stage as a newspaper columnist to indict himself as ignorant and insensitive to the concerns and fears of a large community of his fellow Americans.  Way to go Mr. Roeper.

CAIR-MI, ACLU and Interfaith Council for Peace & Justice Call for Investigation into Luqman Ameen Abdullah shooting in Dearborn, MI...Finally!

Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah

This should have been done weeks ago but the realities of limited time, limited resources and an avalanche of horrible incidents in our nation made it very difficult.  Today it was reported that a coalition including the Council on American-Islamic Relations - Michigan, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Interfaith Council for Peace & Justice send the U.S. Department of Justice a letter asking for an investigation into Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah's shooting and death in Dearborn, Michigan a few weeks ago at the hands of the local FBI.

There is no word yet on whether or not the U.S. Department of Justice will open an investigation or not.  The letter was to be released by CAIR-Michigan this evening.  It was not available on CAIR-Michigan's website this evening nor was it reproduced on Dawud Walid's (Dawud is the executive director of CAIR Michigan) personal blog.

Locally (in Illinois) the American Muslim community is silent (institutionally) on the shooting of Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah.  Despite numerous requests for comments or feedback to the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC) no information at all has been provided.  To date there is still no press release or statement even addressing the shooting.  This is a shame.

Congressman Don Manzullo - Republican - says Islam is a savage religion? Really?

 
Congressman Don Manzullo (R)
Illinois' 16th Congressional Dist

On Sunday (11/15) U.S. Rep. Donald Manzullo, a Republican member of the Illinois congressional delegation, said the detainees at Guantanamo Bay military prison follow "some savage religion."  All of the detainees at GITMO are reportedly Muslims or from Muslim majority countries.  It is safe to say Manzullo knows this fact.

Illinois is a great state and by and large the elected officials of this state have a good relationship with American Muslims.  That has a lot to do with the fact that American Muslims are very active and engaged in public and interfaith life in Illinois.  Even though we have some "less than enlightened" politicians run arounding still (i.e., Congressman Mark "It's okay to profile Muslims and Arabs" Kirk), it is still disturbing to hear one of our congressmen describe Islam as a "savage religion".

We all know that Islam abhors violence and mayhem and the killing of innocents and that oppression is considered reprehensible in Islam.  The world "Islam" means peace.  We also know that a powerful, multi-faceted and cunning campaign has been underway for many years even before 9/11/01 and those forces have tripled and quadrupled their vicious attacks on Muslims and Islam in America and abroad.

Manzullo's calling Islam a savage religion is sickening.  Thankfully Senator Durbin and Gov. Quinn have both come out to let Illinoisans know that what Manzullo is doing is pure fearmongering.  They pointed out that Manzullo's comments are meant to use fear of Islam to kill a plan that would bring GITMO detainees to a currently unused prison in far northwest Illinois.

Manzullo and other Republicans in Illinois can disagree with Sen. Durbin and Gov. Quinn about the effectiveness of selling the prison in Thomson, Illinois to the federal government for the purposes of housing and trying GITMO detainees.  Manzullo and his Republican colleagues should, however, try to use sound and persuasive arguments and not slip into bigotry.  That is wrong.  That is disgusting.

Whatever his true feelings are Manzullo is doing the right thing now by rephrasing and explaining his comments.  According to the Chicago Tribune Manzullo explained:

"I never once said that Islam is a savage religion. It is a false conclusion or assumption. These terrorists have perverted the peaceful nature of Islam for their own demented purposes."

Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Chicago office of the Council on American Islamic Relations, was quoted in the same Chicago Tribune story as saying:

"It is outrageous and very sad that a representative of the people would partake in an attack against a global faith.  He could have said, 'a savage ideology' or 'a savage interpretation' or any type of nuance that a politician like himself knows how to do."

Rehab is exactly on point.  Manzullo should work harder to avoid defaming the faith of 6 million of his fellow Americans.  His 16th congressional district, which includes the cities of Rockford, Crystal Lake and parts of East and West Dundee, is home to many Muslims.  There are at least 4 mosques in his congressional district and the American Muslim constituents are hardworking and patriotic Americans.  Shame on Manzullo for being so callous.

Some argue that Manzullo should be given some slack for clarifying his comments.  Taking Manzullo to task in the media and hopefully through some targeted civic actions in his district is not about being harsh or vindictive.  It is about saying enough is enough to Islamophobic rhetoric by our leaders.  It is about sending a message to Manzullo that he needs to step up and defend American Muslims from Islamophobes like his fellow Republican congressman Mark Kirk (R - 10th Dist - IL) and national Republicans like Rudy Gulliani.

American Muslims have a responsibility to speak out against violence and extremism done in the name of Islam.  American Muslims have been doing this since long before 9/11 and certainly a lot more since then.  They do this not because they are responsible for the actions of other Muslims but because their fellow Americans deserve to know what Muslims really believe.  Given the power and reach of Islamophobes through extremist Christians like Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham and through the right-wing media such as Faux News and right-wing talk radio, it is up to American Muslims to share the truth one neighbor at a time if need be.

The battle against religious extremism cannot be won by using Islam and Muslims as scapegoats.  American Muslims are America's greatest asset in the battle against religious extremism and terror conducted in the name of Islam.  It is about time that Manzullo and others recognized this fact and stopped making the same old tired and bigoted comments.

Manzullo has the thanks of American Muslims for his after-the-fact explanation.  Better something than nothing and better late than never.  As a follow up act Manzullo needs to make sustained efforts to reach out to, connect with and help his American Muslim constituents just the same way he helps others in his district.  In order words, he needs to treat his American Muslim constituents fairly.

Muslims getting a pass from Media Elites over Nidal Malik Hasan, Ft. Hood Massacre?

I concur with Ta-Nehisi Coates - the media folks who are not hyper-ventilating over Nidal Malik Hasan's religion are doing the right thing.  Coates said this on The Atlantic blog:

If we grant that Hasan was motivated by religion, what does that actually tell us? What is there  beyond the fact that people will, at times, interpret religion as a justification to commit heinous acts?

Coates is responding to Jeff Goldberg who thinks the media is not making enough of a ruckus over Nidal Malik Hasan's religion.  Goldberg said this on The Atlantic blog:

But I do think that elite makers of opinion in this country try very hard to ignore the larger meaning of violent acts when they happen to be perpetrated by Muslims.

Jeff Goldberg is wrong.  Too much is made of religion when a violent crime is committed by a Muslim.  At the very least, more is made of religion when a violent crime is committed by a Muslim.  The media coverage back in June 2009 over the fratricide in Arkansas and the murder of a physician in Kansas is an excellent example of this - in the former the alleged shooter's religion (Islam) was an immediate center-piece of the media coverage and in the latter the alleged shooter's religion (Christianity) was completely downplayed.

The coverage over the Ft. Hood massacre has been spotty.  Last night Lou Dobbs (I know, not the paragon of journalistic integrity) actually said something like "Since Nidal Malik Hasan's religion is tangentially related tot he shootings, this case should be treated as terrorism."  Huh?  There is a long ways to go before American Muslims get the fair treatment they deserve.  Until then it is up to American Muslims to continue speaking out and saying what they stand for - especially when a co-religionist is alleged to have done something as vile as murder.

Ft. Hood Murders & Illinois interfaith reaction: Presbytery of Chicago prayers for Muslims

This afternoon I received a very comforting email from Dr. Jay Moses, Pastor of Congregational Ministries at the First Presbyterian Church of Wheaton.  It was about a prayer that he led in his church today.  It was unexpected but not surprising to hear about this prayer (not surprising because I know how generous my Christian and Jewish friends can be).

I have not known Jay for very long - we met over the summer during meetings between the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago and the Chicago Presbytery.  Although we only worked together organizationally for a short time, I really enjoyed connecting with him. 

Our second meeting was very thought-provoking.  We spent a lot of time talking and getting to know one another.  It was during this meeting in August 2009 that I learned some more about the distinctions between Protestants and Catholics and the meaning of evangelism and the attitude of various Christian communities to evangelism.  We compared it to those traditions within the Islamic community which are equally focused on "da'wah" or inviting people to Islam.  I know I enjoyed the conversation mostly because Jay let me do most of the talking - and about myself as well!

I'm really glad that Jay opted to stay in touch with me post-CIOGC.  Interreligious dialogue is something that is very important in these times and whenever I can build a new interreligious relationship and maintain it and grow and nurture it I feel I have made important strides in this work.

Jay sent me a prayer that he and others in the Presbyterian Church recited (not sure that's the right word) in today's services.  Here is the prayer:

Though the sea should roar, though the mountains shake, God of all Mercy, gird us up this morning.  As you protected life in ancient days from the monstrous plans of Tiamat, from the treacherous howls of Levian, protect those who are weak today, mourn with those who mourn, comfort the comfortless, shut up the mouth of death.  In the darkness of hopelessness, you split the night and forced your light into this world.  As you created space for your people so long ago, as you set boundaries on the waters of the earth, and provided a place of refuge, and hope for creation, we gather together today to find that place of gathering, and of safety.  In your strength, in your compassion, set the bounds of terror far from the innocent this morning, may you rain discernment upon us, breath into us your image, so that we may choose life from death, and death dealers from strangers in our midst.  Raise up justice, so there may be peace.

In Jesus Christ you have given us a sign of your presence in the worst of circumstances.   As the crowds turned so quickly on that day, as Wisdom could not be found, as the sky darkened again against the sin of the cross, of the cross purposes of our own desires, you spoke hope to simple and faithful servants at the break of dawn so as to create hope rather than despair….Be close to your servants on this day, lift them up, let them speak, may true leaders of Wisdom be found.  Give us Christ on this day, a crucified one, to sturdy us up for what the future may bring.

Spirit of life, blow upon the earth on this day, blow the crooked straight, close the eye of the quick to judge, fill the broken hearted with signs of your work, cleans the wounds of our hearts, and the dirt from our eyes, so that we may see and be a people of Wisdom, of Reconciliation, and of the Kingdom once more.  Create in us a clean heart O God, and renew a right spirit within us….
 
We lift up the sick, the downtrodden within our church….
We lift up the legislation for Health care….

We lift up the victims of the outbreak of violence at Ft. Hood….We pray for the families of the wounded and their recovery, of the 13 slain, we pray for the families of Michael Cahill, Libardo Caraveo, of Justin DeCrow, John Gaffaney, Frederick Green, Justin Hunt Amy Krueger, Aaron Nemelka, Michael Pearson, Russel Seager, Francheska Velez, Juanita Warman, Kham Xiong,   Save us from the violence within our hearts, the violent ways our religions can be manipulated by the hopeless and sick…..God give us eyes to see the troubled within our societies,  heal our minds, protect us from what is easy and challenge us to work towards what is necessary for stability and life for our children.

We pray for the millions of innocent muslims in the United States in the upcoming days….We pray for those of Arabic descent and their treatment within our neighborhoods and towns….We pray for Wisdom O God….. (emphasis added)

We pray as Jesus taught us to pray….

Knowing that Jay and his congregation were thinking of us felt like a getting an incredible and unexpected gift.  I sent Jay an email from my blackberry as soon as I got the prayer text and asked if this was a prayer that had been recited in his Church.  Jay sent me back this response:

It was,I just wanted to let the muslim community know a little bit of the prayers going on today....we are going to need many more....

Salaam

Thank you for this gift Jay.

Nidal Malik Hasan & the Ft. Hood Massacre - A "Jihadi" Attack or Criminal Act of Mentally Disturbed American? Responses & Reactions the Day After

Nidal Malik Hasan, an American Muslim from the East Coast serving as a psychiatrist in the U.S. Army at Ft. Hood, went on a random and bloody shooting spree that killed 13 innocent people and wounded another 31 unsuspecting Americans yesterday (11/5/09) at Ft. Hood, Texas.  Americans of all points of view and from all walks of life and points of view have added their opinions over the past 24+ hours.

AMERICAN MUSLIM RESPONSE

Three major national American Muslim organizations, all mainstream and reputable, released statements immediately after word of the horrific attacks made the news.  The Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America and the Council on American Islamic Relations all spoke out quickly and clearly in statements that condemned the massacre of innocent fellow Americans (read more here).

That is important.  These organizations, collectively, represent the voice of mainstream Muslims and authentic Islam in America.  But there are grassroots organizations like mosques and even individual American Muslim who are also making their voices heard.  These are voices that need to be heard by all Americans.

A West Point Graduate, a Physician and an American Muslim in Afghanistan React

To be clear, I am talking about one individual here.  Dr. Imad Haque is a surgeon in the United States Army and is currently serving in Afghanistan.  I was able to reach Dr. Haque via email yesterday.  I asked him if he would share his reaction to the Ft. Hood massacre.  I did not know he had been deployed to Afghanistan when I emailed him.

Dr. Haque responded to my email last night.  This is Dr. Haque's first message to me:

Junaid-

Salams. Good to hear from you... alas it is under such circumstances...Waking-up in Afghanistan- I just heard about the events at Ft.Hood. I will get my thoughts together and get you something in a few hours from now.Thanks again for your message.

Imad

About 14 hours later - mid-morning on Friday for me - I got another message from Dr. Haque.  His first concerns and thoughts were for the victims and their families.  This is what Dr. Haque wrote to me - from his deployment in Afghanistan - about his initial feelings:

Salams Junaid-
Well it's been a long contemplative day here-as a Soldier, a Doctor and a Muslim. My first feelings go out to the victims. Having been in a pre-deployment center very much like the one at Ft.Hood only a few months ago- I can only imagine the terror the victims must have experienced. My next thoughts are for the families that will be notified about the death or injuries of their loved ones. Then I think of my colleagues at Darnell, Scott and White and Methodist Hospitals who do what I do for a living- operate and try to save the lives put in jeopardy so senselessly. I prayed today for all of them.

Maybe I am reading more into this than Dr. Haque intended but I found it notable that he described himself as a Soldier first.  And that he took time today to pray for all those who were affected is a testament, in my opinion, to the strength of his faith.  Dr. Haque then turned his attention to the proverbial elephant in the room - Nidal Malik Hasan:

After these thoughts subside- my next thought is for my fellow military, American-Muslim physician. A career track not dissimilar to my own. Born to immigrant parents. Attending elementary and high school here. His choice of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences reflected a real commitment to the military and his country.

As a physician that has deployed and has cared for American Soldiers at nearly every level of care in the military health system- from a level II Aid Station to major hospitals in Germany and at home- my next question is what went wrong? What happened to my colleague that led him to undertake such an unspeakable act? I am not a psychiatrist by training- but I certainly remember the most basic tenants of the field- identify a patient if they represent a threat to themselves orothers. This is one of the most basic concepts in his field- yet he was unable to control these thoughts or have the insight to seek help.

Two men with similar backgrounds and upbringing and a seemingly shared commitment to service and yet two very different responses to the call to serve in a war zone.  Dr. Haque is deployed in Afghanistan faithfully serving his country while Nidal Malik Hasan lays in a hospital bed under constant guard awaiting a military tribunal that will ultimately decide his guilt or innocence. 

What is it about Dr. Haque that drives him to serve, far away from his beautiful family, while his fellow soldier and co-religionist resorted to a horrific homicidal rampage?  I think the last part of Dr. Haque's email sheds some light on this last question - the question of what motivates him to be a dedicated Soldier in the United States Army and a devout Muslim at the same time:

As a Muslim, Physician and Soldier- I chose to serve my country because of the opportunities it has afforded me. Most profound of these is the Freedom to be a Muslim and practice my faith more freely than anywhere in the world. Though I may not agree completely with all foreign policy decisions made or how they are executed- I do my duty as a soldier. As a citizen, I have an equally important duty to exercise my right to chose and change my leaders if I feel they do not represent my beliefs- not through the end of a gun- but through the very Islamic concept of Democracy.

I've known Dr. Haque - Imad - since we were both kids playing baseball at recess during the summer-long, day-long Islamic school we attended together at the Islamic Foundation Mosque & School in Villa Park, Illinois in the 1980s.  We lost touch over the years and reconnected via Facebook recently.  I've always thought it was laudable that he chose a life in the military.  But until now I've never really understood what an asset he is to us - to all Americans.  That is because he is a real life example of an American Muslim living the ideal of patriotism and God-consciousness together in harmony.  Outstanding indeed Imad!

Another American Muslim physician and a living, loving example of Islam

Dr. Hesham Hassaballa, a medical doctor in Chicago and another dear friend, shared his private thoughts and emotions in the wake of the Ft. Hood murders.  Dr. Hassaballa, like me and Imad, has lived his whole life in America and is now raising his own family as distinctly American Muslim.  All Americans should take the time to read Dr. Hassaballa's thoughtful reflections on God, faith and the vision of the peaceful coexistence of all people at his blog - God, Faith, and a Pen: Living in the Light of His Love.

In reflecting on Nidal Malik Hasan's murders yesterday Dr. Hassaballa wrote this:

My heart, my thoughts, and my prayers go out to the families of the brave soldiers who died at the hands of this barbaric murderer. Their sacrifice and loss is no less noble, no less important, no less appreciated than the loss of a fellow American in battle overseas. As a parent who has lost his own child, I know far too well the pain of the parents right now who have come to the horrific realization that they will outlive their child. May God be with them all.

I appreciate Dr. Hassaballa's blog posts because he puts himself out there completely for the sake of promoting greater understanding between people of different faiths.  This past summer he lost one of his children, a beautiful little daughter, to a long term battle with a crippling disease.  Most people (myself for certain) would be loathed to put that hurt out in the public's eye, but Dr. Hassaballa does just that, and he does this so that he can connect with us on the most intimate and personal level.  I challenge even the most hard-hearted extremists - of any faith or no faith at all - to be unmoved by Dr. Hassaballa's commentary.

EXTREMIST RESPONSES

The Islamophobes are, of course, foaming at the mouth over this tragedy at Ft. Hood.  The individuals over at places like "The Jawa Report" do not seem to care much for the victims so long as they can take unsubstantiated shots at any and all Muslims.  If you are an upstanding Muslim indivdual or organization then the "writers" at this blog will do their best to sully your name by labeling you a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. 

And then there are the Debbie Schlussels of the world.  The idea of driving more eyeballs to her vile website gives me pause but it is important for honest and decent people to see the unmitigated hate that some folks are spewing online and on talk radio (I believe Ms. Schlussel is keen to promote herself there and where ever else she can get some attention)(read more about Ms. Schlussel here and here).

The gist of these anti-Muslim and Islamophobic extremists' argument is that since Nidal Malik Hasan is a Muslim then his murders are, ipso facto, terrorism.  It does not get any more bigoted and narrow-minded than that.

But alas, Muslims are not ones to be out done in the extremism department.  At the discussion forum of the notorious Hizb ut Tahrir one commentator said this of Nidal Malik Hasan's murderous actions:

To be honest, a lot of people cast doubt on the iman of a Muslim who agrees to join the British or American army but I see this as a good thing that there must have been some iman in there for him to take such a big step as this.

So, according to this person who is described as a "senior member" of the discussion forum at Hizb ut Tahrir, Nidal Malik Hasan's homicidal rampage is a sign of his faith?  People of sincere faith know that this is an absurd notion but it does not stop extremists from espousing it and promoting it.

OTHER RESPONSES

In addition to the American Muslim response and the extremists' response there was also quite a bit of thoughtful reflection from columnists, interfaith leaders and friends and neighbors from coast to coast.  A friend of mine wrote on my Facebook page:

I'm just so upset that we have to defend this maniac's religion in the first place. After all, no one asks me to defend Timothy McVeigh....It's just a clear commentary on where the Muslim-Arab population (and those perceived as such) stand these days. We all know killing people is wrong. Why should anyone have to apologize?!

Essentially this friend was responding to an earlier blog post and some other comments that were posted on Facebook in response to the blog post.

John Nichols of The Nation weighed in very early yesterday with a very thoughtful piece entitled "Horror at Fort Hood Inspires Horribly Predictable Islamophobia".  In the article Mr. Nichols said:

The point here is not to defend the soldier or his alleged actions -- the evidence at hand suggests that he was, at the least, a deeply troubled man whose statements and actions should have raised concerns among his superiors long before Thursday's incident. By Friday, there were news reports that he shouted "Allahu Akbar" ("God is great") before opening fire. There was clearly something wrong with this imperfect follower of Islam. But that does not mean that there is something wrong with Islam.

These comments, one from a friend posting a note of support, solidarity and encouragement on Facebook and the other from  The Nation news magazine, a major news and opinion publication, illustrate that the responses to the heinous murders at Ft. Hood do not have to be couched in anti-Muslim and Islamophobic rhetoric to be fair and balanced.

CONCLUSION

It has been a day and half since the shootings.  We still have a lot to learn about Nidal Malik Hasan.  Hopefully he will survive and will stand trial.  In this short time we have seen a wide range of reactions both good and bad, accurate and inaccurate.  It is important for us as a pluralistic, diverse nation to understand these events and to process them in a way that is fair and reasonable, not because it is good for American Muslims, but because our future ability to coexist in peace depends on it.

American Muslims condemn Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's Ft. Hood shooting & killing

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's shooting and killing spree at Ft. Hood in Texas was horrific, cowardly and unjustifiable under any circumstances.  May God bless and protect the survivors and the friends, families and colleagues of all who were killed or wounded by Hasan's violence.  May God grant those innocent souls who were killed today by Hasan peace.

One the most well known, reputable and representative American Muslim organizations in the United States, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), issued a written statement at 5:30pm today (11/5/09) condemning the shooting and killing at Ft. Hood in Texas.

In this afternoon's statement MPAC stated as follows:

MPAC and the Muslim American community unequivocally condemn this heinous incident.  We share the sentiment of our President, who called the Fort Hood attack "a horrific outburst of violence."  We are in contact with law enforcement and US federal government officials to gain more facts from this tragic incident and work together in dealing its aftermath.

"Our entire organization extends its heartfelt condolences to the families of those killed as well as to those wounded and their loved ones," said Salam Al-Marayati, Executive Director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. We stand in solidarity with law enforcement and the US military to maintain the safety and security of all Americans.

MPAC reaffirms its call to all members of American Muslim communities to be in contact with local law enforcement for the safety and security of their communities and their institutions.

MPAC is reflective of the broader American Muslim community.  It's organizational values set it at the top of American Muslim institutions for its unwavering commitment to peace and justice for all people while being equally committed to strengthening America domestically and internationally.  MPAC's programs and efforts consistently encourage American Muslims to serve American society and to address the challenges to Americans domestically and internationally through civic engagement at all levels.

Another major American Muslim organization to come out with a timely and unequivocal statement of condemnation is the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).  ISNA's statement was very clear:

The Islamic Society of North America condemns in the strongest terms the attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, resulting in the murder of at least a dozen soldiers and the wounding of many others.  We express our deepest condolences to the victims and their families.

ISNA works closely with the many American Muslims who honorably serve our country in the military and the statement noted that one of ISNA's leaders, Dr. Louay Safi, was working with military chaplains at Ft. Bliss, Texas.

Also adding its voice this after is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).  CAIR issued a statement which said:

We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law. No religious or political ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.

These three organizations, MPAC, ISNA and CAIR, are among the leading American Muslim institutions nationally.  It says a lot that each of them came out quickly and unequivocally with a statement condemning the murders at Ft. Hood.

I know that when something like this happens many fellow Americans want to know why American Muslims do not speak out.  Even though reputable news outlets like CNN have noted that this case does not have a terrorism link, we American Muslims are speaking out.  After all, even if this was not a case of terrorism, many innocent people were killed and wounded.  It is not too much to ask that people of faith speak out and pray.  That's what we are doing now.

Please share this message with others.

Islamophobic response: Maligning legitimate civic action in the wake of Luqman Ameen Abdullah shooting

It was bound to happen sooner or later.  The Islamophobes are out in force maligning the legitimate efforts of American Muslims to engage in civic action that seeks to bring about an independent investigation into the shooting death of Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah by the FBI on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 in Dearborn, Michigan.

The reliable Islamophobes of Jihad Watch (a biased an hateful blog that is proudly Islamophobic) unfairly (surprise surprise) twisted the legitimate calls for justice at Abdullah's funeral last week by describing them this way:

They're trying to shift attention away from the jihadist violence allegedly being plotted at the Masjid al-Haqq, and onto the supposed excess of the FBI reaction.

Jihad Watch is also suggesting that because American Muslims called for justice at the funeral this means that the shooting of Abdullah was unjust.  No, that is not what it implies.  A person was shot and killed.  What were the circumstances surrounding the shooting?  Was the shooting necessary?  Did the FBI act properly before, during and after the shooting?  A call for justice is a call to have these legitimate questions answered.

The tactic is well known but too many honest people who are looking for a better understanding of Muslims and Islam fall for this tactic because these bigoted people are adept at creating an echo chamber of anti-Muslim hysteria that unfortunately gets passed off as legitimate information.  The tactic is to impute a negative intent on otherwise benign words and then repeat the false charge over and over again until it "appears" that this is the popular and correct assumption.

In this case Jihad Watch and Steve Emerson and Robert Spencer and others are trying to argue that anything short of uncritical support for the FBI in its handling of the attempted arrest of Abdullah is a support for the alleged views and actions of Abdullah as recorded in the indictment and affidavit that predicated the arrest warrant.  This is not the case at all.  The allegations about Abdullah as set forth in the Leone affidavit are repugnant.  But the allegations, not matter how heinous they may be, do not justify an unlawful shooting. 

Unfortunately, it appears that the Islamophobes can notch this case up (at least thus far) as a success.  Although major American Muslim organizations have called for an investigation (see here), there has been very little done at the grassroots level in places like Chicago to call for an independent investigation.  This is possibly the result of fear.  American Muslim leaders are afraid of speaking up because they are worried that their calls for justice will be perceived as support for the alleged actions and views of Abdullah.

What a shame.  It is a shame that leaders of the American Muslim community have not taken a more vigorous stand on this issue.  This is a time when American Muslim leaders can show that they understand how civic engagement works by effectively organizing and mobilizing people into constructive civic action that brings about a fair, full and independent investigation into the shooting death of Abdullah.

Locally in Illinois the largest (at least based on self-professed reach and scope and capacity) Muslim organization - the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago - is silent on the shooting death of Abdullah.  One of the past chairs of CIOGC sent an emotional email to the community's leaders (it had its various shortcomings too) calling them to stand up and act for justice in the wake of the Abdullah shooting.  Nothing came of it, and so far as public information discloses, nothing more is forthcoming from that past chair or anyone else.

The current chair, Zaher Sahloul, is surprisingly mum on the issue.  That is very odd since he speaks of CIOGC as an institution that brings American Muslims together and works for justice and the common good.  Today Sahloul said in an editorial that

CIOGC has been working relentlessly toward this goal of a justly balanced community, where Muslim Americans can play a role in bearing witness to their fellow Americans by defending justice, promoting common good and fighting evil.

I will concur that CIOGC has done some very good work in working for justice and promoting the common good.  But where is it now?  What is CIOGC doing vis-a-vis this issue?  Sahloul invokes Imam Siraj Wahaj in the editorial this way:

According to Imam Siraj Wahhaj, chair of the Muslim Alliance in North America, the Council is one of the few organizations in the nation that is doing real work in the field to integrate the indigenous Muslim communities and the immigrant Muslims through its Mosque-pairing initiative and Intrafaith action.

What better way to show CIOGC's efforts to bridge the gap between the immigrant Muslims and African American Muslims in our community then by taking a stance on the shooting death of an African American Muslim?  Interestingly, Sahloul's editorial is entitled "the power of unity".  There certainly is power in unity, but is unity something that can be embraced when it is convenient and not at other times?  Is that really unity?

Just talking the talk is not enough.  It is (or it should be) unacceptable to let this important issue (the call for an independent investigation into the shooting death of Abdullah) fester while attention is focused on the community's elite rubbing elbows with Governor Quinn and complimenting one another on what greatly leaders we are at Saturday's annual community dinner.

There is still time to do the right thing.  Sahloul can use the annual dinner as an opportunity to place the spotlight on the Abdullah shooting.  Sahloul has some incredible people on the professional staff.  He and his board can work with the professional staff to put together petitions for the dinner's attendees to sign.  These petitions can be addressed to the Illinois congressional delegation asking them to support the call for an independent investigation into the shooting death of Abdullah by the FBI.  Sahloul can raise tough questions during the dinner as members of the FBI will be there as guests as well.  The question is, do our leaders have the will to speak out for justice when it may be uncomfortable or even inconvenient for them to do so?

Let's hope the maligning rhetoric of Islamophobes does not stop our leaders in Illinois from taking up another cause for justice.