An American Muslim Journal

Muslim - Christian friendship in Ghana

I had lunch today with a colleague who is from Ghana.  He shared a very interesting recollection of his life in Ghana vis-a-vis interfaith relations.

My colleague is Muslim.  He told me that when he was growing up in Ghana the relationship between Muslims and Christians was positive.  He said that during Christmas, Christians would have their rams or whatever other animal they intended to feast upon, taken to the local imam to be slaughtered according to Islamic law.  They did this, according to my colleague, because they wanted to share their feast with Muslims and they understood Muslims' observance of zabihah standards.

That's a wonderful story.  That's how interfaith relationships ought to be.  I wonder if the relationship between Muslims and Christians is still good in Ghana?

Chrislam: The case against religious harmony | buddhism, islam, taught - MARY READY - TheDestinLog.com

I have just read what I think to be the most insidious document ever written. It’s called the Common Word Between Us and You. This 2007 “open letter” to Christendom was composed by a consortium of Muslim clerics and scholars. Endorsed by religious academics at the Yale Center for Faith and Culture as well as over 300 Christian theologians and evangelicals, its contrived premise is reminiscent of rainbows, a cure for cancer, an end to world hunger, and tranquility across the planet.

There’s an ancient Greek word for the mind-set reflected in the Muslim document. It can be spelled “bologna” or “boloney.”

via www.thedestinlog.com

I understand where Mary Ready is coming from and I think she is quite right that some/certain Christians and some/certain Muslims take exception to the "Common Word" document. These people have an absolutist, black and white vision of religion truth is a zero sum game.

Thank God (yes - the one God who created us all) we have people willing to work together to develop a basis for peaceful coexistence. They are the folks Ms. Ready seems to think are the bad guys in all of this "Common Word" business.

The day after tomorrow - 8/16 - I will attend the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC) annual Ramadan Interfaith Iftar. It's a great event and it gives my spirit a real lift to see people of different faiths coming together.

I've been to enough of these events and have spoken to enough people at these interfaith dinners to know that none of the folks I've encountered were looking to create a "Chrislam" of which Ms. Ready speaks.

Who didn't cover today's interfaith press conference in Washington, DC? Fox, MSNBC, others...

The Christian Science Monitor ran a very interesting story today about interfaith press conference organized by the Islamic Society of North America.  It was partly about the the press conference but mainly about the limited media coverage given to it.  Very interesting...

CSM staff writer David Cook wrote:

Despite the passions stirred by the Islamic center near ground zero and a plan to burn Korans on Sept. 11, cable news outlets showed limited interest Tuesday afternoon in a press conference where church leaders from a variety of faiths called for a united religious front against perceived examples of Islamophobia.

It's hardly surprising that the media ignored the positive side of a story - in this case Americans of different faiths standing together against religious bigotry - but what is noteworthy and commendable is the story about the lack of coverage.  The story about the paucity of media coverage of positive news is old news of course, but seeing it being written about is refreshing.

Mr. Cook went to describe who did and did not cover the ISNA organized interfaith press conference:

C-SPAN and CNN carried the interfaith press conference live. Fox News Channel had no coverage, but instead had commentator Lou Dobbs holding forth on President Obama and the “sad isolated state this president has put himself in.” Meanwhile, MSNBC offered talking heads discussing Mr. Obama’s latest plans to spur the economy.

I've never taken a journalism course but I've heard it said that journalists must be balanced.  With all the negative attention given to Muslims and Islam over the past few months, and with the frenzied hate speech spewing from Taliban pastors, it would seem balanced to provide coverage to the voices of reason and peace which is precisely what the ISNA press conference represented.

The roster of interfaith leaders at today's press conference is impressive.  Their joint statement is strong and clear.  In the coming days between now and the 9/11 anniversary and the Muslim festival of Eid ul-Fitr it would be responsible journalism for all forms of media to share today's interfaith statement with the American public.

I can't say that I'm hopeful that this joint/interfaith statement will quell the Islamophobia that's raging in different spots across America, but it is worth a try.

American Muslims' integration efforts over last 9 years

The so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy brought a lot of Islamophobic feelings of some Americans to the surface.  Polls confirm that anti-Muslim or anti-Islam sentiments and mis-information about the religion and it's adherents remains very high.  American Muslims have reason to be scared.

At the same time, American Muslims ought to look at themselves and ask some hard questions.  The leaders of American Muslim mosques, the mosque-going community and the many un-affiliated American Muslims all have some questions they need to think about and answer honestly.  Among those questions are these: (1) Are mosques in America working to serve the communities in which they exist and thereby adding value above and beyond the basic worship services provided? (2) Are mosque leaders investing donor resources into personnel who can serve to train and turn out mosque members for interfaith and bridge-building endeavors?  and (3) Are mosque leaders creating a welcoming environment within mosques to bring more American Muslims in the the "organized" religious fold?  With some notable exceptions I think the answer to all three of these questions is "no" and therein lies a big reason why Islamophobia continues to grow.

Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times writes in a recent story about the growing malaise among American Muslims:

For nine years after the attacks of Sept. 11, many American Muslims made concerted efforts to build relationships with non-Muslims, to make it clear they abhor terrorism, to educate people about Islam and to participate in interfaith service projects. They took satisfaction in the observations by many scholars that Muslims in America were more successful and assimilated than Muslims in Europe.

How many is the "many" about which Ms. Goodstein writes?  There are reportedly 6 million Muslims living in the United States.  When Ms. Goodstein says "many" is she speaking of 90% of the American Muslim community?  75%?  50%?

Reflecting on the past 9 years and looking back as far as 16 or 17 years (this is the period of time that I have personally been very active in the American Muslim community and a period of time in my life where I overtly raised my religious beliefs to the forefront of my personal identity) I question the notion that "many" American Muslims have been involved in building relationships with non-Muslims.  I actually think that only a very small number of American Muslims have really been actively engaged in building interfaith relationships and actively involved in educating the broader American community about what Muslims truly believe.

This New York Times article quotes Eboo Patel, founder and executive director of Interfaith Youth Core (an interfaith program based in Chicago, Illinois), to reinforce the supposed prevailing sense of American Muslims as being scared about the direction America is going vis-a-vis its views on Muslims and on Islam. Ms. Goodstein quotes a family in Ohio who are disturbed by the heightened levels of Islamophobia in America.

I'm sure Mr. Patel genuinely feels scared about the anti-Muslim sentiments in America.  And I empathize with the family featured in Ms. Goodstein's article.  Mr. Patel's organization is definitely engaged at the grassroots level working to build greater interfaith cooperation.  But his organization is small and it can only do so much.  What else is being done to foster tolerance and to nurture understanding between America's various faith traditions?

In this NYT article Ms. Goodstein writes that:

To address what it calls a “growing tide of fear and intolerance,” the Islamic Society of North America plans to convene a summit of Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders in Washington on Tuesday.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is an valuable resource for all Americans, and their efforts among the religious and political elites is an important component of a what should be a multi-pronged approach to setting the public record straight on who Muslims really are and what Islam really teaches.  And while I wish ISNA spoke for the majority of Muslims in America, I don't believe that it does. ISNA does not even speak for most American mosques and only a small fraction of America's Muslim community is mosque affiliated.

Interfaith dialogue and the bridge building cannot come solely via op-eds in newspapers, public service announcements via the internet, and interfaith dinners attended by the same folks from the various faith communities year after year.  People at the grassroots level need to be involved in interfaith dialogue and bridge-building as an integral part of their lives.  That's the only way to make an appreciable impact.

This is where I take issue with Ms. Goodstein's NYT article: my observations as an active member of the Muslim community suggests that few American Muslims have actually been actively involved in bridge-building and interfaith relations.  Here is a list of reasons why I doubt the accuracy of the word "many" in Ms. Goodstein's article:

1. Most of the organized interfaith and bridge-building efforts that the media reports on happens at the organized Muslim community level (mosques, organizations like Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Islamic Society of North America, etc);
2. Most Muslims in America are not regular members of any mosque or other Muslim institution;
3. Many mosques in America are unaware of the need for interfaith dialogue and bridge-building and often misunderstand such efforts and some may, as a result, even shun such activities;
4. Muslim leaders heading mosques and other Muslim institutions are ill-equipped to grapple with the strategic challenges facing American Muslims and often act reflexively from one crisis to another rather than engaging in long-term and pro-active engagement;
5. Organizations like the Council of American-Islamic Relations have been too successful in defending Islam and Muslims against hatemongers and Islamophobes and in the process have unintentionally engendered a victim-mentality among Muslims; and
6. It is very hard to get everyday American Muslims to participate in organized interfaith and bridge-building events in the worst of times (common excuses include being busy with work, with family and having previously set social events).

All of these reasons contribute to keeping the American Muslim masses disengaged from interfaith and bridge-building efforts.

The interfaith activities in the Chicago metropolitan region (the city of Chicago and the 40 to 70 mile radius surrounding it) are attended largely by a well-intentioned fellowship of religious leaders and active laypersons.  It's the same Muslims who attend the interfaith events over and over again.  Annually the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago holds a Muslim-Catholic interfaith Iftar and almost every year Cardinal Francis George and other key figures from the Northern Illinois Catholic Church attend.  Dr. Shakir Moiduddin (a local physician) and Azam Nizamuddin (a lawyer and adjunct professor of Islam) are the CIOGC co-chairs of this effort.  

The messages shared at the annual Muslim-Catholic interfaith Iftar that Dr. Moiduddin and Mr. Nizamuddin work very hard to articulate rarely filter down to the local mosques.  Besides the dialogue with the Catholic Church, the CIOGC maintains regular dialogue at varying levels regularity and formality with Jews, Methodists, Presbyterians and other faith communities.  The problem with those dialogues is the same: the same Muslims are involved year after year and the messages rarely filter down to the mosques.

I currently serve on my mosque's board of directors.  For about 1 year I served as the full time executive director of CIOGC where I worked with mosque leaders to get them more involved in the interfaith and bridge-building work (as described above).  Getting mosques to commit themselves and their members to participate in interfaith and bridge-building activities was pure torture (there were notable exceptions and those mosques stand out on their own as excellent examples of interfaith communicators - check out the Mosque Foundation in Bridgeview for an example).  Most mosque leaders simply wouldn't return phone calls and if I happened to catch someone on the phone or at the mosque I often received a heavily qualified commitment that ultimately wouldn't pan out because one of the many contingencies would inevitably occur and take precedence.

As a mosque "leader" I've had the opportunity to see the deliberations over interfaith and bridge-building in the mosque boardroom.  At least in my mosque there is a minority of extremely aggressive and vocal members who espouse strident views towards interacting with non-Muslims.  To them any dialogue that is not intended to convert the non-Muslims is not worth the time.  Speaking to these folks about nurturing understanding between faith communities and fostering respect are lost on these folks.

Then there are the majority of our board who are in favor of being engaged in interfaith and bridge-building efforts.  These folks, however, give the nuts and bolts administration of the mosque priority over other activities and by the time this basic work is done, they retreat back into their private lives to pursue their personal obligations.  The result is well-intentioned lip service to interfaith dialogue and bridge-building but very little real action.

There is no (or very limited) understanding of "community organizing" within my mosque so any efforts to support a group like CIOGC translates into a few announcements, an email blast and maybe a phone blast as well to the members.  The communications at our mosque are actually fairly comprehensive when compared to the efforts at other mosques.  Nonetheless, the act of "announcing" an event is a far cry from really getting people motivated and getting them to turn out.

My colleagues on the mosque board, and our counterparts at other mosques, know how to convince people to get involved.  The best example of this is the number of mosques and Islamic schools that exist in the community.  Since Muslims do not engage in interest-based transactions (at least on the communal level), the vast majority of Muslim institutions were built with cash.  That cash came from the pockets of American Muslims.  And they had to be convinced to part with that cash!

This brings me to the issue of strategic thinking.  Our mosque leaders today, by and large, come from a generation that sought to build physical structures for the Muslim community.  Even today these mosques cajole thousands of American Muslims to donate large sums of money to expand the parking lots adjacent to their mosques and to expand the prayer space within the mosques to accommodate large once a week gatherings for prayer (Friday afternoon congregational prayer).  

Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on bricks and mortar even today to the mutual exclusion of money being spent on hiring community organizers and program directors and other professionals needed to help develop meaningful community outreach programming.  As long as mosques continue to neglect their human resource needs, and instead throw the burden onto the shoulders of volunteer leaders, the problem of getting more American Muslims engaged in interfaith and bridge-building will continue.

Then there is the pervasive victim complex among American Muslims that dissuades many from trying to do something proactive or positive.  

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is an excellent organization and effectively produces a message that the Islamophobia that is running rampant in America is unacceptable.  The message is well crafted and delivered by very bright, very eloquent American Muslims and the message does get on the air quite often (albeit juxtaposed to some vile and rabid Islamophobes).

The problem is that this messaging is also shared broadly with the American Muslim community and it can be damaging to some people's psyche.  The idea for broadly disseminating its work is reasonable - it is to educate the community on what efforts are being undertaken on their behalf.  Unfortunately, this news can be overwhelming and I've seen it cause otherwise positive thinking and capable people to adopt defeatist mindsets.  What can we do in the face of such organized hate, some ask.  Others use CAIR as a crutch - CAIR needs to step up and do something, they say.

And CAIR, for its part, is often loathe to be critical of the American Muslim community.  In order to stay on message and to avoid criticism from their strongest constituents (American Muslims), CAIR will rarely point out the community's own shortcomings (i.e., the general complacency of the broader American Muslim community) in a public way that reaches the masses.

Lastly, there is the problem of the masses.  Despite the portrayal of an organized and nefarious "fifth column" in American society set on subverting America's free society, the truth is that most American Muslims are just as caught up in consumerism-focused lifestyles as any other Americans.  As a result, most American Muslims can't be bothered to break away from their regular routines in order to do something positive in the area of interfaith and bridge-building.  I know this from years of trying unsuccessfully to bring new people into interfaith and bridge-building efforts that this is the case.

While Ms. Goodstein's NYT article is appreciated for helping to shine more light on the problem of the rabid Islamophobia that is raging in pockets of America today, it overstates the efforts made by American Muslims to find common ground with non-Muslims over the last 9 years.  If by "many" efforts at interfaith dialogue and bridge-building Ms. Goodstein means for the word to be understood in relative terms (vis-a-vis the efforts made pre-9/11) then it may be accurate.  However, in absolute terms American Muslims have a long ways to go before they can collectively say that they've done a lot in the way of nurturing interfaith dialogue and bridge-building.

Claremont School of Theology raises ire and praise for interfaith vision

Developing opportunities for American Muslims to learn Islam in a rigorous and systematic academic setting is long overdue in the United States.  Presently there are very limited formal learning opportunities in the U.S. for Muslims to become bona fide imams or scholars.

Imam Hamza Yusuf and Imam Zaid Shakir are developing Zaytuna College for this purpose.  Several online and weekend seminar-based programs exist as well such as Darul Hikmah, Sunni Path and Al Magrib Institute. There are also some interfaith dialogue programs for Muslims at Christian seminaries across the country. The Catholic Theological Seminary and the Hartford Seminary are two that come to mind.

The Claremont School of Theology is planning a new program that seeks to fill this void.  The Los Angeles Times reported that:

In a bow to the growing diversity of America's religious landscape, the Claremont School of Theology, a Christian institution with long ties to the Methodist Church, will add clerical training for Muslims and Jews to its curriculum this fall, to become, in a sense, the first truly multi-faith American seminary.

Not surprisingly this announcement has been met with mixed reviews.  

Christians have voiced their concern. One News Now, a conservative Christian online news source conducted an online survey asking the question: How would you describe this seminary's plan to teach its student about the "legitimacy and integrity" of other faiths?  Over 50% of the respondents said this shift in teachings constitutes apostasy. Only a handful of respondents (19.10%) described it as misguided tolerance.  None of the survey respondents said anything clearly positive or supportive of the move.

Dr. Muzammil Siddiqui of the the Islamic Center of Southern California seemed to be very positive about Claremont's new program, but his mosque is going to oversee the Muslim/Islamic curriculum at Claremont so his support is to be expected.  How will the majority of American Muslims respond?

What do you think?  Respond with your feedback.

Franklin Graham is a bigot - revoking invitation to Pentagon prayer service is the right thing to do

Our government should not support religious bigotry.  Franklin Graham is a religious bigot.  It was a mistake to invite him to a prayer service at the Pentagon.  Disinviting him was the right thing to do.

Mr. Graham should not be invited to speak to any gathering organized by our government.He is open and notorious about his hatred for Islam and is on record in numerous, reputable media sources with his bigoted comments about Islam.  He can believe and say just about anything but just not on the taxpayer’s dime.

Apparently those responsible for selecting a speaker for this Pentagon prayer service were unaware of his open notorious hatred of Islam which Mr. Graham has gone on the record with in various, reputable media outlets.  People make mistakes so cut the prayer service organizer some slack.  What matters is that the right decision was finally made.

I hope an appropriate explanation was given to Mr. Graham as to why he is not welcome to the Pentagon prayer service.  The explanation accompanying the withdrawal of the invitation should be clear in stating that the invitation was extended in error because Mr. Graham’s bigotry was not known by those planning the event, and now that it has been brought to light, the government, out of respect for the American people, is looking for a speaker who better represents Christianity.

Granting Mr. Graham a platform to speak or pray at a government event using government resources is counterproductive to the ongoing integration of Muslims into American society.  It creates a sort of cognitive dissonance among the Muslim community when, on the one hand our government speaks of outreach to and inclusion of Muslims in America, and then on the other hand promotes an Islam hater like Mr. Graham.

Why should we settle for Mr. Graham anyhow?  There are better Christians in America who are far better representatives of Christianity than is Mr. Graham.  Who, you ask?  I can go through my blackberry contacts or my Facebook friends list and name quite a few.  

You want only bona fide clergy?  No problem.  I know many wonderful Christians of various denominations.  Right here in Illinois I can think of Rev. Jay M. of the Presbyterian Church or Rev. Ed H. of the United Methodist Church or Rev. Allen E. up in the NW suburbs and Sister Joan of the Catholic Church. And I’m certain I could get some other great Christian clergy by asking my Christian friends.  We don’t need to settle for Mr. Graham.

True, Mr. Graham is only one voice of Christianity.  Yes, he is a well-known voice of Christianity.  And sadly, yes, he does have a fair number of followers.  So what?  None of that makes him a good choice for the Pentagon, because he does not represent the mainstream of Christianity.  

I base that last statement on anecdotal evidence.  A lot of it.  I believe this is true because I’ve pretty much lived my entire life in America and along the way I’ve been taught by, roomed with, worked for and with, befriended and lived next to a lot of Christians, and the vast majority have been incredibly decent people.  Mr. Graham is not at all like them.

Mr. Graham knows that we in the Muslim community don’t care much for his hate.  It’s hard to like a guy who calls your spiritual compass evil.  So our concern over his invitation is not helpful in persuading him to mend his hateful ways.

It may be better of his fellow Christians told him (or, in the case of those who do, continue telling him) that his behavior does not comport with the example and the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Tell him precisely why he is being disinvited and keep the door open for a future speaking engagement if and when he repudiates his hateful views.  To me that seems like a good Christian (or Muslim or Jewish) thing to do.

Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden - The Bumbling Balloon Boy Sheriff thinks killing Muslims is funny!

The bumbling baffoon doubling as a sheriff in Larimer County, CO - Jim Alderden - is now adding to his infamy.  You may remember Alderden from his oafish handling of the "boy in the balloon" hoax.

Now the man who couldn't find the little boy in a single family home and instead led first responders on a costly wild goose chase is showing off some more of his mental muscle.  He thinks killing Muslims is funny.  Or at least that's what he said to a group of Marines at a social function recently.  But don't blame the Marines in the audience for outing Alderden.  No, this self-described "straight shootin' John Wayne" posted his comments on his office website.  No, not on his personal blog, but on the sheriff's office website.  Nice job fella.

One reader at Coloradoan.com said this about Alderden:

One more ignorant statement from Jim is like one more tree in the forest. There's so many you hardly notice them anymore.

Another reader at Coloradoan.com said this:

Freedom of speech, yes, but not freedom from the consequences of speech.

Amen to that.

I am angry about Alderden's stupid words.  Bigots like him make it harder for good people like the ones who posted the comments on the Coloradoan.com website to build bridges within our communities.

Make no mistake - Alderden is a bigot.  He fits the definition - one who regards or treats the members of a group (racial, ethnic, religious) with hatred or intolerance - and that does not bode well for the people of Larimer County, because that kind of ignorance can be unleashed on others in the future.  That's not exactly a sought after trait among law enforcement.

Hopefully the good people of Larimer County will get rid of him.  Whether he apologizes or explains away his stupid comments or not, it's hard to feel secure knowing that the person charged with protecting the community is such an idiot.

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.
 

American Muslims, Veterans Day 2009, Ft. Hood Massacres and Islamophobes

The Ft. Hood murders made this year's Veterans Day a lot more meaningful than in years past.  This year I made a concerted effort to use this day (which I had off for the first time in about 8 years) to think about our veterans and to teach my children about the sacrifices our veterans make to serve and protect our society.

VETERANS DAY SPENT FOCUSING ON VETERANS - A FIRST

Over breakfast I talked to my kids about what they know about Veterans Day.  We talked about why we need a military and that the men and women in the military have families just like ours, and the big diffference is that the member of the family in the military is sometimes gone for a year or more and that their lives are at risk whenever they are working.

The concept of being away from family seemed to make an impact.  One of the challenges I've had in our family is being away a lot at work and they seemed to use that as a point of reference.

After breakfast we headed over to the local Veterans Day service.  We just made it in time.  My high school's band was at the service - which was remarkable because school was off today so these kids put on their uniforms and came out together when they could have remained at home.  They received a well-deserved round of applause for their commitment.

It was a decent turn out.  I have not been to a Veterans Day service in my hometown before so I cannot say whether it was bigger than usual.  When you take out the veterans, the first responders and the elected officials, the gathering was made up of about 50 or so senior citizens.  The people who turned out for this service are the same folks who come to the 9/11 remembrance every year (which is a service at which I speak annually so I have gotten to know that crowd).  Outside of the high school marching band my kids were about the only people there under the age of 18 years.

I'm glad I took my kids to the service.  Afterwards we visited the veterans memorial in our town.  The Marine Corps flag was at half-mast in memory of a local Marine who had died and was being remembered.  A young Marine Corps recruiter was at the service and my kids had a chance to meet him, shake his hand and say thank you.  As we walked back to the car we passed by two veterans who were at least 70 years old each.  Both were dressed in their military uniforms.  We took a moment to say hello to them and to thank them as well.

I was really pleased with my daughter later this afternoon.  As we left the library my son complained to me about not being able to see the Astro Boy movie.  We were not able to fit the movie into our schedule because we had attended the veterans day service.  Without a single word from me my daughter said "it's the least we can do to go and say thank you when they are dying to protect us - I think the movie theaters should be closed on Veterans Day."  I was very proud of her.

AMERICAN MUSLIM LEADERS OVERWHELMED & DIVIDED ON VETERANS DAY

Throughout the day I followed my emails on my blackberry.  With one crisis on top of another - dealing with the Ft. Hood murders' implications for American Muslims, the recent words of praise from an extremist imam (Anwar al Awlaki) for Nidal Malik Hasan's alleged homicidal rampage, a GOP-Illinois press release calling on a major immigrant rights organization in Illinois to cut its ties with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) over allegations of CAIR's alleged links to Hamas, the arrest of two Chicago men just a few weeks ago on allegations of terrorism, the shooting death of Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah by the FBI in Dearborn, Michigan and the other arrests of American Muslims in Chicago, Dallas, Colorado and Massachusetts all alleging terrorism - the local leadership seemed to be overwhelmed and divided on how best to move ahead.  And as if this were not enough, it was discovered yesterday at a well-known hate group called ACT! for America (led by radical Islamophobe Brigette Gabriel) is planning to hold a "discussion" on radical Islam in St. Charles, Illinois on Saturday, November 14.

The emails went back and forth with well-intentioned and highly capable community leaders debating whether we should be speaking out and apologizing for the crimes and sins of other Muslims and whether it is tactically advisable to confront the Islamophobes in St. Charles and so on.  It is obvious that the confluence of multiple crises is beginning to seriously tax the largely volunteer administrations of American Muslim institutions in Illinois.

Still, despite the many challenges being confronted the the American Muslim community, the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC) did issue a thoughtful and timely statement for Veterans Day on behalf of Illinois' American Muslim community.  This was absolutely critical.  Had CIOGC missed this important opportunity to speak about the sincere sentiments of Illinois' Muslim community, the Islamophobes would have seized the oversight as an example of American Muslim disloyalty.  Here is what CIOGC said this Veterans' Day:

The Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago today asked fellow citizens to thank and honor all those who served honorably in the armed forces- in wartime and peacetime- in any capacity.
 
“Today we pay tribute to those who protected our freedom and our nation; we honor their legacies and their loved ones,” said Dr. Mohammed Zaher Sahloul, the Chair of the CIOGC. “We pray for all innocent victims of war and ask God Almighty to help us ending eight years of continuous senseless wars that added a lot of stress on our veterans, many of them returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with deep, long lasting physical and psychological injuries”.
 
The Council also expressed its support for a newly established fund by the Islamic Society of North America and the Texas-based Freedom and Justice Foundation, to assist the victims of the families of the Fort Hood tragedy. Recognizing the important sacrifices made by our soldiers and their families, it is imperative for all Americans to join hands in supporting those affected by this tragic incident.
 
"Two members of the armed forces lost their lives in the Ft. Hood tragedy are from Illinois, James Pearson from Bollingbrook and Francheska Velez from Chicago. We join their families in grieving their loved ones during the Veteran Day and we ask God Almighty to heal the wounds of the injured and bestow His solace and patience on the families of the victims and on our nation” said Interim Executive Director Kiran Ansari. "We are calling on all mosques and faith partners in Illinois to show support for the victim's families by contributing to the Fund."

Donations may be made to:

"Fort Hood Family Fund"
c/o ISNA
P. O. Box 808
Plainfield, IN 46168
 
Donate online at:
www.forthoodfamilyfund.com

ISLAMOPHOBES FLOODING THE INTERNET NARROW-MINDED, HATEFUL & IGNORANT CHATTER

It is indeed their right to blather on and on with their Islamophobic hysteria, but I do not have to like the bigots who spew this nonesense.  Plus, it is very hard to hear the outlandish lies and gross errors in describing Islamic beliefs and doctrines by some members of the media and many extremists in the blogosphere.

Today Mary Kate Cary published a very smart blog entry entitled "Muslim Leaders Need to Condemn Violence" and in her blog post Cary writes that she was asked if she thought Islam is a religion of peace and she said she did not think so.  Her reason for thinking so?  Here it is from her own blog:

The reason I don't think Islam is a religion of peace is that I am not aware of a single Muslim cleric stepping forward to denounce acts of violence committed in the name of Islam. This has happened over and over, and yet the mainstream Muslim leaders—presumably peaceful religious leaders who are not radicals—never step forward to call for an end to murderous rampages and terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam.

Cary suggests that Muslim religious leaders have not condemned terrorism.  She is wrong and she could have saved herself the embarrassment of appearing ignorant and lazy by doing just a little bit of online research.

In 2005 the Fiqh Council of North America issued a relgious ruling (a fatwa) against terrorism.  The statement was widely circulated to the national and international media at the time.  In part the ruling states:

The Fiqh Council of North America wishes to reaffirm Islam's condemnation of terrorism and religious extremism.
 
Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians’ life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram - prohibited in Islam - and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not “martyrs.”
 
The Qur’an, Islam’s revealed text, states: "Whoever kills a person, unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a person, it is as though he had saved all mankind." (Qur’an, 5:32)

The text of the ruling appears on websites of many major American Muslim institutions and on Muslim blogs.  How Cary missed this is difficult to explain.  Perhaps she doesn't know about Google.

In May 2008 the Islamic seminary Darul-Uloom Deoband in India issued a ruling (fatwa) against terrorism as well.  According to The Times of India the ruling, signed by Darul-Uloom's grand mufti Habibur Rehman, 

asserts that "Islam rejects all kinds of unjust violence, breach of peace, bloodshed, murder and plunder and does not allow it in any form".

This was a very talked about ruling because Darul-Uloom Deoband is a major scholarly center for Muslims from India and Pakistan (which together account for at least 1/3 of the world's Muslim population).  Again, how did Cary miss it? 

In addition to these two examples there are countless statements by American Muslim institutions denouncing terrorism and condemning the targeting and killing of civilians.  These statements are posted on the websites of major American Muslim organizations.  They are sent to reporters throughout the media from U.S. News & World Report to the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, and everything in between.

Mary Kate Cary, a University of Virginia alumnus, is a professional political speech writer.  Most of her blog posts over the past several months seem to be about politics.  This recent foray into religion seems to be a relatively new undertaking for Cary.  As such, it may be that she is not an Islamophobe but rather a very uninformed journalist who really screwed up a blog post. 

If that is the case then she should write a mea culpa soon.  Clearly there are a lot of bigots who read her blog.  The comments were just disgusting.  Hopefully Cary does not not identify with the bigots who read her blog and hopefully she has the guts to set the record straight.