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?

Remember the "gook" comments in '00? Today it's "that one"...

   

by    Junaid M. Afeef
        Attorney, Community Organizer, Writer

Senator John McCain pointed to Senator Barack Obama and referred to him as "that one."

That one?  What on Earth did Senator McCain mean when he referred to Senator Obama in this manner?

It did not sound right to my ears.  Was that a not-so-subtle attempt by McCain to talk down to his U.S. Senate colleague?

Yes, this was John McCain losing a bit of his cool and letting his true feelings creep out into the public square.  Throughout the debate there was a bit of a scowl on McCain's face and after the debate it was not clear whether the two candidates shook hands.  In one instance Obama came over and placed his hand on McCain's back.  McCain did not shake his hand but instead moved away.  McCain's wife then shook Obama's hand in lieu of McCain doing so himself.

Calling Senator Obama "that one" smacks of racism.  Calling Senator Obama "that one" sounds like he is referring to him as a commodity or as chattel. 

I thought Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addressed this problem back in 1865, no?

This little slip of the tongue by John McCain certainly does not come as a surprise to the Asian American community.  During the 2000 presidential campaign Senator McCain told reporters:

"I hated the gooks.  I will hate them as long as I live."

Of course he later qualified his "gook" comment by noting that "gook" to him only meant the sadistic prison guards that held him captive as a prisoner of war (click here to read more).

That sounds surprisingly similar to other racists who suggest that "nigger" is only meant for bad black people.  Of course!  The "gook" comment was in this same vein.

The "gook" comment from the past and tonight's "that one" reference are not isolated incidents.  This past summer "Gook: John McCain's Racism and Why It Matters" by Irwin A. Tang was published.  The book explores John McCain's relationships and contact with racists and with racist ideas.

Come to think of it, maybe tonight's "that one" remark wasn't a slip up at all.  Perhaps Senator McCain was sending a message to the good ole boys who hate MLK Day but love their confederate flags. 

His message: "That one's not gonna get into the White House on my watch!"

Obama vastly more poised and effective in debate #2

  

by    Junaid M. Afeef
        Attorney, Community Organizer, Writer

Barack Obama was very poised in today's debate.  John McCain was very rigid and uptight by comparison.

Both candidates answered the questions with ease, but the quality of the answers tips in favor of Obama. 

One of McCain's missteps in tonight's debate was trying to attack Obama as not having the experience to be the commander in chief.  Obama showed a strong command of facts and spoke with confidence about war strategies, counter-terrorism and foreign policy.  This exposed McCain's attack on Obama's experience as empty rhetoric.

The townhall meeting is the favored forum for John McCain.  The expected edge in McCain's favor did not materialize.  So Obama edged out McCain in a traditional debate setting and now in the townhall setting as well.

This evening's debate was a great resource for undecided voters.  It should give Obama another boost in the polls.

McCain's campaign will likely get extremely negative from this point forward and I suspect that the final debate will be a bare-knuckled brawl between Obama and McCain.

Pitbull Palin becomes mindless attack dog - Shame on McCain!

  

McCain and Palin cannot hope to win this election on their own merits so they've gone negative.  Shame on John McCain.  Nobody should be fooled into blaming Palin for the vile and unsubstantiated attacks against Barack Obama.

Sarah Palin seems to be doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in this regard.  Of course, why wouldn't she?  It's the only thing she has left.  He folksy charm is wearing thin with all but the most diehard Republicans.  For example, conservative columnist Kathleen Parker  still felt, even after Palin's debate against Joe Biden, that Palin was not even close to being fit for the office she seeks, let alone the one from which she will be but a heart beat away. 

Palin has confirmed, time and again from her words, that she's not even a Dan Quayle when it comes to substantive matters.

Palin told a crowd in Florida recently that she was reading the New York Times...

Yeah right.  More like the National Enquirer!

Palin goes on in that speech to bring up Bill Ayers and conflates Barack Obama's casual relationship with Ayers as having a personal relationship with a domestic terrorist.  That would be red meat for the campaign trail but no one is going to buy it outside of the staunchly committed Republicans.

This comment from Lynn Sweet's column in the Chicago Sun Times today sums it up well for me on this issue:

Re: "Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths"

Let's compare.

Obama was 8 years old when a guy he later knew in Chicago planned bombings. Obama had nothing to do with the plans.

McCain was an adult aged 52, and a US Senator representing Americans, when he himself executed corruption that led to bank meltdown of Lincoln Savings and Loans and cost American taxpayers $2 billion out of their own pocket to bail out the bank. Sound familiar? Obviously, that is relevant to today's economic crisis.

Mr. Ayers donated two hundred dollars to Obama's campaign, as a personal choice, with no strings attached.

Mr. Keating donated $112,000.00 to McCain, in return for policy changes of deregulation.

That's a stronger "association" to a criminal, for which McCain was investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee, than a mere "co-existance" where Obama happened to live near and work with some guy in his hometown.

In articles where you discuss Obama's co-existance with a questionable character, perhaps it would be useful and fair to also include an apples-to-apples comparison of the characters that McCain "associates" with.

America is better than this.

Indeed, America is better than the divisiveness John McCain is serving up.

No doubt John McCain wants any negative vibes to be pinned on his attack dog running mate Sarah Palin, but voters must remember that it is John McCain who is pulling Palin's doggie puppet strings in the background.

It is John McCain who is slinging mud in the final hours to salvage his last hope for glory.  American voters should not give John McCain a pass on his campaign's dirty politics. 

Sarah Palin is a nobody recruited on a half-backed and ill conceived strategy that no one can really figure out at this juncture.  She isn't making any decisions in this campaign so any assertions that her attack speeches are her own doing is laughable.

Shame on John McCain.  These negative tactics are an insult to all American voters.

There is a reason Sarah Palin keeps getting "clobbered"

     

Sarah Palin did not like the questions Katie Couric asked her. 

Dagnabit that Katie Couric!  She's a sneaky little main stream media liberal trickster!  What was Couric thinking asking Palin questions she wasn't prepared to answer?

Apparently Sarah Palin just wants to talk to us Americans without that pesky media filter.  Okay Guv - but you'd better start raising more money - television air time is expensive!

Furthermore, according to a CNN report, Palin did not feel Couric "asked enough issue-based questions."

In the interviews with Palin, Couric asked the Republican vice presidential candidate about such things as: (1) McCain's record on regulation issues, (2) Palin's own views on the financial bailout, (3) her experience with foreign policy, (4) where she likes to get her news and (5) decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

What was Couric thinking?  This is Sarah Palin the Washington outsider, the Alaskan hockey mom.  She's only been at the national leadership game for a short 5 weeks.  Americans don't expect this gal to deal with the complexities of our national economy, foreign relations and our judicial system.  Heck no!

Palin apparently told Fox News:

"I feel there were a lot of things [Couric] was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a VP candidate stands for, what the values are that are represented in our ticket."

So what are these issues that everyday Americans want to talk about with vice presidential candidates?  At a time of national economic crisis while America wages war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Palin feels questions about said issues are not what people want to hear.

Hmm?  Gee whiz Guv - what should Couric have asked you about?

For one thing, Couric should have asked easier questions!  Hard questions tend to trip up folks who don't know the answers.

Palin reportedly told Fox:

"Man, no matter what you say you are gonna get clobbered."

Well Guv - if you keep saying dumb things, then, yes, you are gonna get "clobbered."

Of course Palin had no qualms about using that very mainstream media to "clobber" Obama yesterday.

Palin didn't hesitate to "clobber" Barack Obama over some comments Obama made in a 2007 town hall meeting where Obama commented on coalition troops air-raiding villages and killing civilians in Afghanistan. 

An AP Fact Check determined that Obama was right - coalition forces were killing more civilians than were the insurgents.  Oops, another slip up.  That troublesome mainstream media's probably gonna "clobber" Palin for this slip up too.

Uuggh!  The mainstream media is sooooo predictable!

Biden vs. Palin

 

Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin squared off on Thursday, October 2, 2008 for their one and only vice presidential debate. 

Sarah Palin did not answer the questions.  Apparently she does not understand what a debate entails.  Palin spent the bulk of her time talking about the "Maverick."  On Palin's side it was more of a pep-rally for the John "the Maverick" McCain.

Partisans will feel satisfied that their candidate did well.  Biden certainly turned in a good performance, and Palin was, relative to her various post-convention soundbytes, on script.

But was the point of the debate to shore up the partisans?  This certainly was not the case for Biden.  The Democratic faithful don't need to be reassured that Biden is a good selection.  As such, his focus  was on the undecided voters.  By and large he did well in this regard.

Shoring up the base was something Palin needed to do.  Forget the swing voters - Palin had to convince Republicans that she wasn't a dummy.  I suppose an undiscerning ear would have heard the buzz words and noted the absence of any major stumbles and sighed a sigh of relief.

But the more careful Republican listener had to notice how scripted Palin was and that has to register as a negative.  It's not impressive that she can commit a host of facts and phrases to memory and then rattle them off.  That's not what anyone (Republican or Democrat) is looking for in the person just a heartbeat way from being Commander in Chief.

Her folksy attitude got old quickly and was not a complete cover for her lack of knowledge.  I can't imagine undecided/independent voters being won over by Palin's performance tonight.

Senator Obama on Eid ul-Fitr

 

Eid ul-Fitr is the celebration that marks the end of Ramadan.

Ramadan is the month in which Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset each day.

Senator Obama sent his good wishes to America's Muslims:

I want to convey my greetings to the American Muslim community on the Festival of Breaking the Fast that marks the end of Ramadan.  Through fasting, prayer and charity, your observance this past month of the universal values of patience, generosity and caring for the less fortunate is an important reminder of the values that have helped make America great.  As a nation, we must commit ourselves to that greater cause to ensure that the less fortunate are never forgotten or ignored.  On behalf of Michelle, Joe and Jill Biden and I, we hope that Ramadan brought you happiness, good health, and a sense of renewal.

Thank you very much for the Eid greetings.

Dr. Corbin: You are race-baiting and fear-mongering

By:    Junaid M. Afeef
        Attorney, Community Organizer, Writer

Will there be race riots in America if Barack Obama loses the election?

One self-described Christian news source reports:

"A political scientist at a Christian college in New York City warns that if Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama loses the election on November 4, race riots could break out in large U.S. cities."

I find this notion totally absurd.

This "political scientist" is Dr. David Corbin.  Dr. Corbin is an adjunct assistant professor of politics at The King's College.  Dr. Corbin received undergraduate and graduate degrees from University of New Hampshire.  He received a PhD in Political Science from Boston University.

Corbin has an interesting history leading up to his most recent absurd statement.

Before earning his PhD Corbin served in the New Hampshire State Legislature from 1998 to 2000 and was an unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate in New Hampshire in 2002.  He ran in all elections as a Republican.

According to The Dartmouth Review David Corbin served on Alan Keyes 2000 presidential campaign as the state chairman of the campaign in New Hampshire. 

Corbin seems to have distinguished his political career on the issue of public education in New Hampshire.  Corbin had a problem with providing all of New Hamsphire's public school children with adequate state funding.

In 2002 during Corbin's failed gubernatorial race The Dartmouth Review reported Corbin as saying he did not believe that the children of New Hamsphire had a right to an education.  Specifically, Corbin said "to say the state encourages an educated public and to say there is a state-wide right to education are two different things."

While Corbin was in the the New Hamsphire legislature he authored legislation that told the State Supreme Court that the legislature would not recognize the Court's ruling that required the state to fund an adequate level of public education (click here to read more).

This brief look at Corbin gives an interesting sense of who he is: an Alan Keyes Republican that does not want to provide adequate public education funding.  This gives one a sense of who Corbin is, but it does not explain his most recent pronouncement - race riots in the event of an Obama loss.

Corbin references the O.J. Simpson and Rodney King incidents and notes that these "seemingly small stories" sparked terrible riots.  He reasons that if such "small stories" could cause such riots, then the loss of the first African American president candidate would be much more severe.

Corbin says:

"I think a lot of people are looking to an Obama presidency to affirm the notion that somehow Americans aren't racist and, if for some reason Senator Obama loses, then it's just, 'Oh well, it's said and done.  We must be a racist nation.' "

First of all - were there riots after the O.J. Simpson verdict?  I don't recall any riots after the O.J. Simpson verdict.

Second, the Rodney King police brutality case is an entirely different set of circumstances from the 2008 presidential elections.  In 1992 four white L.A. police officers were acquitted of brutalizing a black motorist (Rodney King) even though the heinous attacks were captured on videotape and the jury saw this videotape. 

Without going off on a tangent and analyzing the Rodney King riots, it is enough to say that the acquittals of Rodney King's assailants were an acute trauma delivered to a community which had a long history of discriminatory police actions.

If Barack Obama were to lose the presidential election, it is possible that race will have played a role in that loss.  But if this were to happen, it would be easily distinguishable from the Rodney King incidents.  The discrimination in this election is more akin to a chronic ailment that has been festering for centuries in America.

The impact of an Obama loss on the African American community may well be significant, but it will not induce rioting!  Many Americans, particularly African Americans, are anxious to see America's first African American president, but they are, simultaneously, girded for the possibility of loss.

On what research or even anecdotal evidence does Corbin rest his case of riots?  There seems to be none.  Dr. Corbin: you are race-baiting and fear-mongering.

Why debate watch parties are a good idea

  
The Kids on the Block Puppet Training Tools

This is message to all of my Muslim friends...

It's Friday evening.  You've returned home from a long work week and you're tired.

The kids' homework doesn't have to get done just now.  It can wait until later this weekend. 

The kids are in the best mood of the week.  Friday nights are happy nights for the kids because there hours upon hours of fun in store.  No school to dread.  Mom and Dad will be home.  There may even be some pizza or Mikey D's in the cards too.

So, with relatively placated kids squared away and at least a day and a half of rest ahead, you settle back into that nice lazyboy and turn on the tube.  It's time to watch Obama and McCain square off.

Maybe a little Anderson Cooper 360 before the candidates lock horns and, just for fun, maybe even a little Fox News afterwards to remind yourself just how effective and scary echo chambers and spin machines can be.

If you're like me, then you'll have your pjs on and your laptop just off to one side with the internet buzzing.  Aaah!  This is relaxing.

But wait!  This is not how we, the politically savvy grassroots mobilizers, do things!  No!

You can't watch the presidential debates alone!  You have to watch them with your friends and neighbors!  And not just your South Asian and Arab neighbors either.

Break out of your comfort zone and find a place to watch the debates with others - real others. 

I'm not saying walk into a hotbed of rabid Republicans (okay, I'm sorry, I know not all Republicans have rabies but you know the effect I'm going for), but just go where not everybody knows your name, where they don't all look the same.  Believe me, they'll still be glad you came.

Debate watching parties are an excellent way to share your point of view with folks who might not otherwise be exposed to your way of thinking.  Plus, it gives other Americans a chance to see and hear from people whom they usually see as tv news caricatures.

Over the last 2 years I have engaged more with my neighbors than at any other point in my life.  I know for a fact that I've developed more relationships in two years than my parents did their entire lives to date!

I've learned a lot in the process.  People are generally very nice.  It sounds weird but in world where neighbors barely acknowledge each other, you just don't have a sense of what others are like until you reach out to them.

People are very polite and often times very naive as well.  And when it comes to politics, its a subject that people generally don't chat about with neighbors unless its a close friendship.

That's why debate parties can be so fun.  Because it's a political debate, politics are no longer taboo.  Since its a party people start talking in a more relaxed manner (versus the stilted hi, how are you conversation at the edge of the driveway or at a PTA meeting).

In this one small chunk of time you can do more to destroy negative stereotypes, inject fresh points of view into the discussion and create a living, breathing example of what an American Muslim really is, than you ever will writing checks to congressional candidates (not to say you shouldn't do that - just don't limit yourself to it).

Where are these debate parties?  Well friend, they can be as close as your own living room!  Some soda, some chips and popcorn, maybe some coffee and cake and your all set. 

All you need to do is walk over a few days before the debate with a homemade flyer (the less fancy the better) that says "You're Invited!  Come Watch the Presidential Debate at Our House!" and then put down yours and your spouse's name, address, home telephone number and the time.  That's it.

Sounds scary?  Okay, no worries.  Let's start slow. 

Start off by attending a party elsewhere.  Go to either presidential candidate's website to find out where the debate parties are in your neighborhood (Obama | McCain).  Gather up one (just one, because otherwise you'll be a party within a party) friend and head to the party.  It's that easy.

We're going through some incredibly tough times as nation, as a religious community and as a human race.  We need to do our part to make things better. 

The Ostrich method has been proven, time and again, to be ineffective.  We need to get out of our comfort zones.  I honestly believe that, hard as it may be in the beginning, you'll end up with a stronger sense of community in the end!