An American Muslim Journal

Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman: Young, headstrong, sometimes right, sometimes wrong - but 4 years in jail? That is unjust!

I believe in the freedom of expression.  God created humanity with the power to think and the freedom to exercise that power.  Expression is the articulation of person's thoughts and beliefs and he or she must be largely free to do so.

Freedom of expression is not an absolute right though.  There are limits.  American secular law (as well as other nation's laws) creates numerous exceptions to the freedom of expression.  Essentially these exceptions are the result of a balancing between one person's freedom of expression and his obligations to others.

Freedom is at the core of Islam.  And while a Muslim majority state may develop laws to protect (or regulate) the right of free expression based on the principles and commandments of the Quran (and as expounded upon by the Sunnah), God does not prohibit an individual's right to think and believe and express himself.  I'm sure there are many Muslims who would like to muzzle anti-Muslim and anti-Islam expressions but such beliefs run afoul of Islam's core value of freedom.

Blogger Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman, then 22, was arrested in 2006 and charged with publishing opinions aimed at disturbing public order, insulting the head of state and defaming Islam. He was expelled from al-Azhar University, Egypt's most prestigious seat of Islamic learning.

via Reuters

I've read some of what Kareem wrote.  He must not have been attending classes at Al-Azhar University because his understanding of Islam is deranged.  I am speaking in particular about his March 25, 2005 blog post entitled "The Naked Truth about Islam..." (it was originally written in Arabic) which has been reproduced, along with his other writings, at FreeKareem.org.

This blog post is the product of a frustrated, angry and demoralized person.  It seems to represent a mix of disgust over some very disgusting things (the looting and pillaging of Coptic Christians in Alexandria, Egypt in 2005) and his angst over studying Islamic Law when that was not what he wanted for himself.  Remember, he was only 21 when he wrote "The Naked Truth about Islam..." and he wrote it a day after seeing some truly horrible things.  I think that's a lot of mitigation.

But regardless of the existence of mitigating factors, Kareem should not be imprisoned for his words.  That is wrong and it is un-Islamic.

In my professional life I've been assailed for holding very strong views on the freedom of expression.  Even to this day people try to use what I've said and what I've done vis-a-vis the freedom of expression to attempt to smear my reputation.  Most recently some extremist Muslims have taken to "outing" my support for freedom of expression in support of allegedly anti-Muslim/anti-Islam speech by sending annonymous emails to my mosque and to the leaders of other mosques in my community.  So, I understand the vitriol that is directed at Kareem as he languishes in an Egyptian prison, jailed for his words.

Thankfully, I live in America and so far most of our civil rights and civil liberties are intact.  So I am going to exercise those rights to speak out for Kareem.  I don't like what he said and I don't share his opinions, but I cannot sit silently while he is imprisoned for his ideas.  That is neither humane nor Islamic.

Visit FreeKareem.org and find out about what has happened to Kareem.  In his case the Egyptian dictatorship is using Kareem's words about Islam as cover to suppress his other, more political commentaries about the Hosni Mubarak regime.  But rest assured that there are extremist Muslims running around in our own communities with some narrow understandings of Islam and these folks too would be keen and eager to mete out similar punishments to those of us who challenge their rigid set of interpretations.

So, regardless of what you think of Kareem's ideas, you should consider adding your voice to help all people around the world who are oppressed for their beliefs and for their words.  Kareem is among them.

_________________________________________________________________

Note: I realize that there are many other individuals throughout the world who are being held by oppressive forces simply because of what they believe and this blog post is in now way suggesting that this person's plight is more or less important than the others.

Domestic radicalization and FBI-American Muslim Relations: What is the best strategy?

Should the 5 young American Muslims picked up in Pakistan be charged with any crimes in the United States?

"Charging them and throwing them in jail is not the solution," said Nihad Awad, national head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which approached the FBI on behalf of the families. "The government has to show some appreciation for the actions of the parents and the community. That will encourage other families to come forward."

The men, ages 18 to 24, traveled overseas just after Thanksgiving without telling their families and were arrested near Lahore on Dec. 8. A Pakistani court this week ordered them held for up to 10 more days of interrogation, but officials say their likely return to the United States could take months. Pakistani officials say the men were in touch with a Taliban recruiter and were aiming to join up with al-Qaeda and battle U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

No one has been charged, and the men's friends and spiritual advisers say they never saw any sign of radical beliefs or activities.

Federal prosecutors in Alexandria, where any criminal case would probably be brought, declined to comment. But law enforcement sources say prosecutors are likely to consider charges that include providing material support to terrorist organizations. Prosecutors face complexities that include whether the men's reported admissions to Pakistani authorities are admissible in a U.S. court and whether any statements were coerced.

Via the Washington Post

Did these 5 guys actually commit any crimes by the time they were apprehended?  What is to be gained by not charging them?  Does a greater prospect of domestic radicalization portend an even more strained relationship between American Muslims and the FBI?

There is an argument for U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to be lenient with these 5 young men.  There is a lot to be gained for restraining the full force of the law and instead trading leniency for a more concrete and collaborative strategy that brings together the American Muslim community and the FBI in order to curtail future radicalization within the American Muslim community and to also accelerate the weeding out of those violent extremists who now dwell amongst us.  Also, these men may be good candidates for de-programming or de-radicalization.  With that de-programming comes the opportunity to learn a great deal about what caused them to snap in the first place.

Some of the questions I would like answered include: (1) How did these 5 young men conceal their hatred for America so well?  (2) Was the radicalization an acute event with some particular event causing these young men to snap?  (3)  What kind of religious environment did they have in their home?  and (4)  What kind of involvement did they have in their mosque and how did they view that involvement (were they using the mosque as a cover or did they in fact seek and receive spiritual guidance there)?  These are some of the questions I would like to have answered, because I think answers to these questions will be helpful in understanding the thinking of these young men.

If Holder decides to prosecute them aggressively with the severest possible charges, then we run the risk of these men becoming recalcitrant and opting to use the criminal prosecution as a soapbox for their ideas.  The recent prosecution (and conviction) of Ehsanul Islam Sadequee in Atlanta, GA for terrorism related charges is an example of just such a situation.  Sadequee, a 23 year old U.S. citizen, opted to defend himself, and in so doing, he seems to have squandered his opportunity to defend himself in exchange for sermonizing and speech-making on Islam.

On the other hand, being lenient could send the wrong message to other would be hirabis.  Being lenient on these 5 young men may suggest to other would be violent extremists in our midst to continue with their schemes and plots with greater impugnity.

The one factor that may (should) tip the scale in favor of leniency is the fact that the families actively sought the help of the FBI.  That is precisely the kind of cooperation the FBI wants.  The American Muslim community in the DC area is no stranger to the sordid history of the FBI with American Muslims but they recognized that the FBI is a valuable resources in protecting American Muslims as well as the broader community and in the interest of protecting these 5 young American Muslims, the families reached out.  Thankfully, and possibly as a direct result of this early outreach, these 5 young men were scooped up in Pakistan before they could harm anyone (including themselves).

Sooner or later we will reckon with the fact that we cannot alienate and marginalize American Muslims and still expect to garner this community's support in rooting out extremism within the American Muslim community.  Partnering with the American Muslim community is the only way, short of shredding our Constitution, to combat home-grown hirabah.  This is an opportunity to begin mending fences and building some trust between the American Muslim community and the FBI.

Countering homegrown radicalization: Muslims Must Reclaim the Mosque as a Center of Religious Life

The news of so many home-grown terrorism schemes and plots being uncovered in the U.S. over the past two months is very disturbing.  The men who stand accused of these plots are not so different from me in age, religious observance and socio-economic status but their outlook on life seems incomprehensible to me.  With all due respect to some of our nation's dedicated American Muslim leaders and institutions who continue to downplay the problem, I do think the problem within our community is more dire than we are willing to state publicly.

When we discovered that British Muslims were responsible for the London bombings several years back and that they were born and raised in the U.K. there was a concern in the U.S. about something similar happening here.  With the exception of Hizb-ut-TahrirI could not think of any other Muslim organizations who were openly hostile to America and the West, and since, at the time of the London bombing Hizb-ut-Tahrir was long gone from the local scene (it had been many years since we had to endure their shouts and taunts in the mosques), I felt confident that the radicalization that took place among the London bombers could not happen here.  After all, we American Muslims are far more integrated into American society and comfortable with our identity as American Muslims.

CIVIC INTEGRATION: A BULWARK AGAINST RADICALIZATION

Even before 9/11 but certainly afterward, American Muslims stepped up their efforts to develop and execute strategies for civic integration into American society.  Unlike most other places in the world, the United States' affords many freedoms which empower American Muslims the ability to become "American" on their own terms.  A lot of us are taking advantage these freedoms to carve out our own unique American Muslim identity. 

The youth and the young adults seem to be the greatest beneficiaries of the freedoms.  Unlike places in Europe and even in a Muslim majority country like Turkey where public expression of one's Muslim faith is increasingly being curtailed, in America the freedom of religion still means something, and that allows American Muslim youth to develop a well integrated and stable identity. 

I see this process of integration taking place among the youth in mosques all over northern Illinois.  My own mosque in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, the Islamic Society of Northwest Suburbs (ISNS), is a good example of this positive development. 

This seamless melding of American and Muslim is particularly noticeable during congregational prayer.  In my mosque you see the youth lining up for the afternoon prayer with us at the end of Sunday school.  These kids are wearing their Bears and Bulls jerseys and the other trendy fashions.  The shoes, left just outside of the mosque's prayer hall, pretty much run the gamut of Air Jordan's to Transformers and Barbie brands and so on.  During breaks in between Sunday school classes kids will sneak out of the building to shoot some hoops or throw a football around.  This is level of integration is free form and perhaps due in large part to our consumer culture and the pressure to conform and be like everyone else.

Here in Illinois we have some very thoughtful and talent youth organizers who understand the challenges faced by American Muslims.  One youth organizer who rarely gets much attention but is doing outstanding work is Amal Ali.  Ms. Ali is the youth organizer for the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago(CIOGC) and she has both the academic training and hands on experience in the field of youth work.  Over the years Ms. Ali has been a personal mentor to scores of young American Muslims and through CIOGC she has developed programs to help build young American Muslims' self-esteem through retreats that feature mentoring, spiritual nourishment and tough physical challenges that blend individual courage with team efforts.   She works with the Muslim Students Associations in the Illinois universities and colleges to help build leadership skills and again, to provide mentoring from young American Muslim professionals and highly respected spiritual personalities that promote positive and constructive integration while also instilling a commitment to serve humanity.

These integration efforts are not just for the youth.  Again, CIOGC has played an important role in promoting civic integration.  Under the leadership of Dr. Abdul Malik Mujahid and now with Dr. Zaher Sahloul, the American Muslim community is effectively developing healthy interactions with civic and philanthropic boards and with elected leaders.  In May 2009 CIOGC took nearly 500 American Muslims from northern Illinois to Springfield for a day of common good advocacy.  CIOGC partnered with Faith in Place and Protestants for the Common Good to develop a common good agenda that went beyond Muslim "special interest" issues and addressed the environment and the inequities of Illinois' public education funding system.  I was there for this event and it was amazing to see the sense of empowerment among every age group from high school through senior citizens!

The idea is to forge an identity that allows American Muslims to be comfortable being American and Muslim.  Seeing and feeling the reality of civic integration is instrumental in building a positive sense of self among American Muslims.  That positive sense of self, that healthy American Muslim identity, is what empowers American Muslims to be passionate about the many injustices visited upon Muslims throughout the world with a sense that they have the power to do something about it within the system.  Civic integration empowers American Muslims to understand the tools and resources available to them and sustains hope that they can make a difference in a meaningful way.  In essence, civic integration can arrest the feelings of hopelessness and fear, and in the absence of these two emotions, American Muslims may be inoculated from radicalization.

NOT EVERYONE IS KEEN ABOUT INTEGRATION THOUGH...

Many American Muslims support civic integration, but there are individuals, groups and even mosques that pride themselves on their lack of integration.  It is not uncommon to hear an Imam shrieking during a Friday sermon about the sinfulness of befriending Christians and Jews.  Some American Muslims use our mosques and our communications tools to promote shallow Muslim supremacist ideas.

Groups like Hizb ut Tahrir are returning to the mosques and promoting a shallow message of top-down theocratic world domination and selling that simplistic notion as the answer to all the ills and suffering faced by Muslims through out the world.  Other groups are less public but equally resistant to integration.  Within our mosques we have co-religionists who are intolerant of others who do not accept other's understanding of Islam.  Reason and freedom of conscience have no place in such people's outlook.  I have had many unsavory encounters over the past 15 years with these types of American Muslims.

Their favored tactic is to attack the sincerity and genuineness of another's faith in Islam.  For example, when I disagree with a point of view or a particular interpretation I am accused of deviating from the Quran and Sunnah (which, in my view, is tantamount to an accusation of apostasy).  This extremist approach has a chilling effect on some mosque administrators.  Rather than cutting off the extremists from institutional power, they are allowed to participate in mosque governance and often times they impose the "hecklers' veto" on programs and projects that do not comport with their particular religious understanding.

BRINGING MORE AMERICAN MUSLIMS INTO ORGANIZED RELIGIOUS LIFE IS ESSENTIAL

As we grapple with concerns over the radicalization of American Muslims it is critical that we recognize that we need American Muslims to be more involved in organized religious life.  At first blush it may seem counter-intuitive, but organized religious life is the best means of inoculating American Muslims from the extremist ideologies proliferating on the internet.

The five young American Muslims who recently traveled to Pakistan in search of jihad were largely radicalized via their exposure to violent extremist propaganda and e-fatwas extolling the merits of terrorism.  Where was their mosque's youth program when it was needed most?  Many mosque youth programs focus on apolitical issues in part because of the presence of the extremist voices that impose the "hecklers veto" on thoughtful discussions.  The educational forums offered by mosques rarely discuss socio-political or civic aspects of American Muslim life as well.  Again, this is due in part to the extremists' "hecklers veto".  As a result, many American Muslims, the vast majority who espouse mainstream and healthy Islamic values, feel either uncomfortable in mosques or feel that the mosques simply do not offer them anything useful (outside of Friday and Eid prayers).  Research on the American Muslim community suggests that only a fraction (perhaps as little as 5%) of American Muslims are affiliated with a mosque.

The isolated religious existence, while protecting American Muslims from the vocal minority of extremists within the mosques, can also become an incubator of extremism as well.  Maj. Nidal Hassan is one recent example.  While he attended the mosque for prayers on a regular basis, Nidal Hassan was not very actively engaged in an American Muslim community environment.  His spiritual and religious outlet came via the internet and blogs and electronic bulletin boards.

Done right, a mosque can provide a wholesome and nurturing environment that promotes an authentic application of Islamic values and creates a community life that supports a healthy Muslim self-image.  But to do it right, a mosque has to be an open and welcoming environment.  Women must be made to feel welcome.  The programming has to be engaging.  It has to be in English (except for the ritual prayer).  The imams who lead the spiritual life of the mosque should be well attuned to and positive about American culture because, at the end of the day, that is the culture of the vast majority of the 6 to 7 million American Muslims today.  The religious education for the youth and the the adults needs to be tailored to an American point of view in order to be effective.  The mosques must serve as a social safety net for a range of issues ranging from unemployment, hunger, substance abuse and domestic abuse.  And of course, there must be a social component within mosque community life (particular for the youth) as well.

SHIFTING PRIORITIES, BEING MORE BOLD

American mosques are largely funded by domestic contributions from American Muslims.  Since Islam forbids interest-based transactions, American mosques are purchased and built with cash.  And the mosques in America are being built in more and more places and existing mosques are expanding all the time.  I suspect that 90% of mosque donations are used to maintain physical structures and to fund expansion projects.  The vast majority of American mosques are also run and administered exclusively by volunteers.

American Muslims need to shift their priorities from bricks and mortar to programming and human resources.  Beautifully titled prayer halls with traditional domes and ornate chandeliers and exquisite Quranic calligraphy adorning the walls are not the antidote to radicalization.  In fact, these things are not even the answer to bringing more American Muslims into the mosque.  And yet, we continue to channel millions upon millions of dollars to support these types of projects.

All the while, mosques have no budgets for youth organizing, hiring trained professional youth workers and counselors, or for attracting more American Muslims to pursue careers as imams and Islamic spiritual leaders.  There is little money allocated to programming to create meaningful and engaging activities for American Muslim youth and young adults.  These are, however, the things that mosques need to spend on in order to create the kind of mosque-centric life that will help counter the radicalization being promoted on the internet and even within our mosques through the unregulated and unstructured study circles and discussion groups held in mosques but without much oversight by mosque administrators.

Moving forward, American Muslim leaders and administrators must be bold.  We have to stop kowtowing to the extremists within our community.  We lament the need to defend Islam and ourselves against the violence perpetrated by our co-religionists, but what we should really be angry about is how mosques have allowed the intolerant behavior of some extremists to stifle ideas, projects and programs that would create a more welcoming environment in our mosques.

If mosques will not provide thoughtful programming and an environment conducive to building a wholesome Muslim community, then American Muslims need to go the route of the Mohammed Webb Foundation in the western suburbs of Chicago.  The Webb Foundation is organization that provides a lot of the civic, social and educational programming in an open and welcoming environment that mosques should be providing but often do not.  We know what our priorities ought to be, and now we need to act boldly in pursuit of them!

ONE VIOLENT EXTREMIST IS ONE TOO MANY

It is true that the vast majority of Muslims, in America and throughout the world, are peaceful and faithful people committed to living an Islamic life of peace and justice.  And in the face of bigots and Islamophobes who viciously malign Muslims and Islam as violent, we are right to point to the billion plus Muslims who categorically denounce violent extremism as a solution.

We must, however, hold ourselves to higher standards.  One violent extremist is one too many.  In a community of 6 to 7 million American Muslims the handful of individuals accused of plots of violence is not even 1% of our community but its still unacceptable.  As American Muslims we have an enormous obligation to the rest of the world.  It is not about American Muslim "exceptional-ism" but rather, it is a simple matter of resources and opportunities.  We have the freedom and the resources to do much good for Islam and for the cause of justice at home and abroad.

We hamstring ourselves by allowing our co-religionists to succumb to the hirabi creed promoted by Al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups.  There is too much at stake for us to allow this to continue.

U.S. to announce transfer of detainees to Ill. prison

CHICAGO -- Dozens of terrorism suspects being held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will be moved to a little-used Illinois state prison that will be acquired and upgraded by the federal government, an Obama administration official said.

from The Washington Post

This decision is going to place a lot of attention on the substantial American Muslim community in Illinois.  There are approximately 400,000 American Muslims in Illinois. 

It is a well integrated community with strong civic and interfaith relationships.  The Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (which is due for a name change as it now represents a much broader geographical region within Illinois) brings together mosques and other Muslim institutions (schools, professional associations and social service agencies) will need to develop a recommended policy on how the region's American Muslims will interact with this influx of Muslims from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  The policy must address services to this population including religious services, legal services and in the case of those inmates who are subsequently exonerated, rehabilitative services too. It is a tall order but one that this particular community is well equipped to undertake.

Republican congressman Mark Kirk, the man who infamously blurted out that he supports racial and religious profiling of Muslims and Arabs, is running for the U.S. Senate and he has staked out his claim as the race's fearmonger-in-chief.  As part of his fearmonger-in-chief duties during the campaign he has raised the unfounded fears of security threats from bring the GITMO detainees to northwest Illinois.  His irresponsible comments may soon be the fuel that promotes more anti-Muslim sentiments in Illinois.  This is yet another challenge that Illinois' exemplary American Muslim community will need to step up and face.

I am confident that Illinois' American Muslim community is up to the challenge.  It is a problem only in that it again diverts the community's attention from focusing on other important issues that deal with the common good within our community.

Major American Muslim Leader says "Repentance is the only option for the Fort Hood killer"

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) executive director Salam Al-Marayati in which Salam made two main points: (1) Maj. Nidal Hasan needs to repent for his heinous crimes and (2) Hasan's understanding of the Quran is woefully misguided as evidenced by such things as the powerpoint he presented to colleagues at Walter Reed Medical Center and other comments and writing attributed to Hasan.

Both points need to be made in the media by well respected and thoughtful American Muslims like Salam.  I'm sure that, for those not already decidedly anti-Muslim but confused about why a religious person would do such horrible things, Salam's expertise on the subject may help distinguish the alleged criminal's actions from his Islamic faith.

I applaud the Wall Street Journal for opening its pages to a highly respected American Muslim leader like Salam Al-Marayati.  This newspaper has a decidedly conservative readership and this community, general speaking, is less aware of authentic Islam and more prone to look to sources clearly espousing anti-Muslim sentiments for insights into Islam.  Allowing Salam to share important insights into the Fort Hood shooting from an American Muslim perspective does a lot for the Wall Street Journal.

Salam is very clear about Nidal Hasan's gross misunderstanding of the Quran when he writes:

His now infamous PowerPoint presentation is rife with distortions of the Quran. Entitled "The Koranic Worldview As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military," it provides anything but a Quranic perspective. Maj. Hasan's critical fault in understanding the Quran was his failure to distinguish between two very important categories of verses: those tied to the specific context of seventh-century Arabia, and those that are absolute and permanent.  He ignores the Quranic mandates, for example, to stand for justice even if it is against your own interest, and to avoid transgression in the pursuit of justice.

These are some very basic and very important points that too many people simply do not understand about Islam.  And then Salam concludes very nicely by pointing out what we all know but are happy to hear from one of the top American Muslim leaders in America: Nidal Hasan committed heinous sins and that he must repent for what he has done.

Not surprisingly, the comments on Salam's essay on the Wall Street Journal's website included some of the same old bigoted and Islamophobic views with which we are now so well acquainted.  These comments are important to note by all Americans.  It is short-sighted to dismiss them.

Despite years and years of tyring to speak out and putting forth an accurate picture of Islam and of Muslims to counter the hateful images advanced by Osama bin Laden and other violent extremists, some Americans just do not know what an authentic and accurate reading of Islam looks and sounds like.  Reading these comments is critical to understanding the challenges that lay ahead for Muslims and for all Americans.

The challenge is not simply to correct Islam's image.  It is also about confronting religious extremism in the Muslim world (including the American Muslim community) and the perverse interpretations of the Quran that lend support to religiously inpsired murders.The challenge is also to push back against the forces of fear trying to tear apart America's religious pluralism by leveraging the violence of Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and their ilk to advance a radical Christian vision of America as the solution to their "Islamic boogeyman".

These challenges are not for Muslims alone.  All Americans have an obligation to become engaged in safeguarding our freedoms.  One the one hand, American Muslims will have to continue doing a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to conveying an accurate portait of Islam and of Muslims (this includes confronting extremism within the Muslim community whenever and where ever it appears).  But non-Muslim neighbors and friends and relatives can do their part by witnessing the sincerity of the Muslims in their lives to others who may not have personal relationships with Muslims. 

C.I.A. to Expand Use of Drones in Pakistan: Civilians certain to be among the dead - A Citizen's Duty?

"Fog of war."  "Collateral damage."  "War is hell."

I am not a soldier.  I have never fired a gun.  For me, the idea of killing another person is very difficult to imagine.  Video games are as close to war as I have ever come.  I have played video games and in video games I have killed bad guys.  The characters in the games look and sound real - amazingly real actually.  But no matter how real the games appear, it is hard to register an emotional or moral reaction. because in the end, it is a video game.

Would it make a difference if my kills on the television were real?  Certainly that is a significant additional variable.  I wonder aout this because real warfare looks more and more like the video games we play.

Today's warfare includes CIA officers operating drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan from the safety of Langley, VA.  From thousands of miles away these agents receive images and data and at their controls are deadly weapons that they may chose to unleash at their discretion.  And they have.  So, when the CIA agents kill people on what looks like video games, do they undergo the same physical, psychological and moral calculations experienced by real soldiers on the battlefield?  Do these CIA agents feel any angst over killing people in this manner?

In August 2009 Baithullah Mehsud, a Pakistan Taliban leader, was killed using CIA remotely controlled drones.  The drone attack on Mr. Mehsud also killed his wife and his parents-in-law.  According to an unnamed CIA official quoted a recent New York Times article the drone controllers knew that their strike would kill the non-combatant family members but the CIA agents chose to go forward anyways.  Collateral damage, I guess.

While I do not consider myself a pacifist, I find it very hard to accept the idea of dropping a bomb on an enemy when I know for a fact that it will kill innocent people as well.  I am thinking about this now because President Obama's new Afghanistan War strategy calls for our military's increased use of remotely operated drones to target and attack our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  I am very concerned about the hundreds and possibly thousands of civilians who will be killed by our remotely controlled drone attacks.  Just months ago there was talk of scaling back on these antiseptic forms of remotely controlled killing because of civilian deaths. 

The violent extremists - the Taliban and Al Qaeda - target civilians with suicide bombs as an integral part of their terror campaign.  One way to stop terrorists from killing more people is to capture or kill their leaders, disrupt their operations and decimate the size of their fighting corps.  The remotely controlled drones are an antiseptic and seemingly American-casualty free means of engaging terrorists towards these objectives.

By using remotely controlled drones we are lessening the risks borne by our troops.  We do this, however, at the increased cost of civilian deaths.  Our government claims that the risk to civilian life is minimal and that thus far drone attacks have resulted in as few as 20 civilian deaths.  I am skeptical of this number.  Other organizations in the United States studying the effectiveness and impact of drone attacks argue that the number of civilian deaths resulting from drone attacks is between 94 and 250.  Taking our government's figure, for the sake of arugment, I ask myself if 20 is an acceptable price to pay in civilian deaths in order to guarantee that none of our soldiers are put into harm's way?  What about 94 dead civilians?  250?

Again, I am not a soldier and outside of Tom Clancy novels and movies I have no understanding of military operations.  Then why am I even pondering these questions?  I do not have any military expertise upon which to rely.  And is it not better for the men and women who have to go into combat and who put their lives on the line to be the ones who make such calculations?

If we were a military dictatorship then such decisions would rest in the hands of the military.  We are, however and thankfully, a democracy and the policy questions about the risks we are willing to endure in terms of our soldiers' lives and in terms of the risk to the lives of civilians are ones that we must make.  And because we are a democracy, I as an American citizen have a duty to study this issue, to think about it and to act in accordance with what I believe to be the right thing to do.

I value all human life as sacred. I also believe in the notion that with great power comes great responsibility.  As such, I am struggling with the the idea of us undertaking a strategy that will result in hundreds and hundreds of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Certainly, a powerful nation such as ours can develop a strategy that does not sacrifice civilian lives for our own political and national security interests, right?  We may never be able to completely eliminate civilian deaths in war, but I believe we can devise strategies that lessen their exposure to certain death, but it will be at the expense of our own blood and treasure.  That means we, the citizens of America, have to be willing to pay this price.

There is no a moral equivalence between the targeted bombing of civilians by the Taliban and Al Qaeda and the civilian deaths caused by our remotely controlled drone attacks.  But killing women and children is wrong no matter what one's motive may be, and if those deaths are the result of an action that could have been avoided, albeit at the risk of U.S. soldiers' lives, then we need to think long and hard about it.

I do not relish the idea of putting our soldiers' lives at risk.  By now, given the large number of Americans actively serving in Iraq and or in Afghanistan, most Americans know someone who is serving in these wars.  Personally, I have at least one friend in Afghanistan serving in the Army and I know that among my friends and neighbors there are also many others.  Their spouses and children would like nothing better than to know that their loved ones are spared from going into harm's way any more than is absolutely necessary

This should be our thinking as active and engaged citizens as well.  That calculation to minimize sending our military into harm's way should be a constant calculation but never more so then before we enter into a conflict.  True, the war in Afghanistan is justifiable on the grounds that the violent extremists who attacked us on 9/11/01 planned and operated from there under the protection of the then ruling Taliban government.  However, our politically influenced military strategy of using drones now in Afghanistan and in Pakistan is not-so-subtly affected by the enormous price we have paid in blood and treasure in Iraq.  In stark contrast to Afghanistan, the war in Iraq is not in any way justifiable.  We have a responsibility to bear the consequences of our mistakes and sending so many of our soldiers to die in valiant service to our nation in Iraq was, most certainly, a major mistake.

At this juncture we need a military strategy that minimizes further civilian deaths and takes the longer view of securing and building a viable civil society in Afghanistan.  Did we not make the mistake of exiting the Afghanistan conflict in the 1980s too soon and before the ravages of war with the Soviets could be remediated?  If we do not look to the longer term impact will we be making the same mistakes as last time?  After all, the drone attacks in Pakistan are just an extension of the Afghanistan War.

My personal conflict with the strategy of using more drones is not impacted by whether or not it is the wisest strategy from a Realpolitik perspective.  I am troubled by it because of its moral implications.  But I am willing to marshal other, Realpolitik-type, arguments if it helps to save innocent lives.

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?

President Obama greetings for Eid al Adha; Hamid Dabashi says Muslim revolutionary Malcolm X critical to America's civil rights movement, who we are as a nation today

American Muslims seem to be reflecting a lot about what it means to be an American and a Muslim this thanksgiving.  Thanks to the confluence of the American Thanksgiving holiday and the Muslim Eid al Adha, many American Muslims are thinking out loud about their place in American society.

President Barack H. Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama sent Muslims in the U.S. and across the globe an Eid al Adha greeting.  This is what our President and First Lady said in their message:

Michelle and I would like to send our best wishes to all those performing Hajj this year, and to Muslims in America and around the world who are celebrating Eid-ul-Adha.  The rituals of Hajj and Eid-ul-Adha both serve as reminders of the shared Abrahamic roots of three of the world’s major religions.

During Hajj, the world’s largest and most diverse gathering, three million Muslims from all walks of life – including thousands of American Muslims – will stand in prayer on Mount Arafat.  The following day, Muslims around the world will celebrate Eid-ul-Adha and distribute food to the less fortunate to commemorate Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son out of obedience to God.

This year, I am pleased that the Department of Health and Human Services has partnered with the Saudi Health Ministry to prevent and limit the spread of H1N1 during Hajj.  Cooperating on combating H1N1 is one of the ways we are implementing my administration's commitment to partnership in areas of mutual interest.

On behalf of the American people, we would like to extend our greetings during this Hajj season – Eid Mubarak.

That's great.  I've said this over and over again but it is worth repeating: this is the sort of small but meaningful messaging that will empower my children to be even more committed to America and to Islam than is my generation.

I know that other presidents have issued formal greetings in the past as well.  I am grateful to them all.  This year, with everything going on around us at home in the U.S. this message comes at a very critical time.  Thank you Mr. President.

THANKFUL FOR MALCOLM X AND THE MUSLIM CONTRIBUTION TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT?

The civil rights movement was critically important to getting us closer to a world where bigotry and racism are nonexistent.  We are not there yet but without the struggles of African Americans in the mid-20th century our society would still be suffering a lot more from the hatred espoused by American racists.

Hamid Dabashi, the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University in New York, argues in an opinion piece at CNN.com that we are long overdue in appreciating Malcolm X's contributions to the civil rights successes most often attributed solely to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Professor Dabashi brings up Malcolm X the American Muslim and his pivotal role in the civil rights movement as a means of piercing the American psyche's apparent resistance to accepting Islam as a contributing force for good in contemporary American society.  In his CNN.com essay he writes:

To avoid singling out Islam as diabolical, it is imperative for Americans to come to terms with the collectively repressed fact that by far the most important social uprising of their 20th century -- namely the civil rights movement of the 1960s -- is not as exclusively a Christian phenomenon as it is made out to be: The towering figure of a Muslim revolutionary named Malcolm X is of great importance in the history of that movement.

Professor Dabashi compared the roles of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X as follows:

The way the history of the civil rights movement is mostly remembered now, an overwhelming role is assigned to the Southern Baptist genealogy of Martin Luther King Jr. Malcolm X is delegated to a radical fringe -- portrayed as more of a menace and a hindrance than a positive force in the civil rights movement.

But without the simultaneous presence of Malcolm X as a Muslim revolutionary, the Southern Baptist pacifism of Martin Luther King Jr. would not have been as formidable a force.

Malcolm X and Martin Luther King were the yin and yang of the civil rights movement -- ennobling anger and vision coming together in hopes of realizing the dream of equality.

Privately this is something I've thought about as well.  The problem or the challenge has always been that most Americans have a demonized picture of Malcolm X in their minds.  He stirs images of anti-semitism and black nationalism.

Perhaps, if scholars like Professor Dabashi lead the way in bringing this perpsective into the mainstream this very poignant example will help to re-frame Islam and Muslims in a positive domestic perspective.

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.