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.

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.

The veil, the Quran, and the Muslim women's movement / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Islamic feminism faces strong resistance from the faith’s conservatives who want to preserve the male interpretation of Islam. But the movement’s roots in the Koran give it a better chance at changing attitudes than a transplanted women’s liberation movement from the West. In the end, the Koran may be an Islamic woman’s most direct route to equal rights.

This is pulled from the Christian Science Monitor. I'm glad someone is talking about this topic and shedding light on the critical thinking over women's rights in Islam and human interpretation of Islam vis-a-vis the Quran and the Sunnah in general.

Articles and editorials in the Christian Science Monitor are great because it helps the broader community better understand the diversity of thinking among Muslims in America and abroad. I hope Muslim organizations, Muslim thought-leaders and mosques will pick up this issue more often and with greater urgency in the very near future.

I respect Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab. What bothers me is the imposition of segregation and second class status on Muslim women. I am speaking about behaviors in the U.S. and in particular those behaviors that take place in mosques.

I attend and serve on the board of the mosque my father helped found. Things are improving in many facets but women's rights remains a hurdle.

Interestingly, many of my fellow board members agree that the offensive barrier used to segregate men and women in our activity room during events is not religiously required and that it is therefore demeaning. To boot, it impedes participation in the mosque's activities by women.

A few weeks ago we had an Eid dinner at the mosque. We had agreed a few weeks earlier that we would create a space for those women who felt they needed to be segregated and that we would provide them access to the speakers and so forth via a live television feed. The rest of the space (the majority of the space) would be set up for an integrated family seating arrangement.

When I arrived at the mosque an hour early my jaw dropped as I saw the room divider splitting the room in two.  I saw our board president and I asked him what this was all about.

"I knew you'd bring this up" he replied.  He and I had an intense discussion.  I had told my family and friends to come to this event and to become a part of our mosque because, as I saw it, we were really becoming the mosque I've wanted to be associated with.  Now they were going to come and see this room divider. 

Sigh. Same old same old.

My colleagues on the board buckled under the pressure of the vocal members of our mosque who wanted to separate the men and women with a barrier.  My colleagues on the board wanted me to be patient and to go slow and ease into the more open and respectful treatment of women (that's not how they phrased it but that's how I took it).

"No" I told the president.  We ve been dickering around this issue for 2 decades.  We cannot go any slower for fear of going backwards (and going backwards is a real concern since we have made solid strides elsewhere when it comes to civic engagement).

In the end the mosque president pulled out his ace card to end the discussion.  What was his ace card?  Democracy. 

He said the majority of the members wanted the segregation.  That's where we ended our discussion for the evening but frankly, that is not the end of this issue.

I am asking American Muslims who are not already members of a mosque to come and become a member of mine.  I need other like minded folks to join so that we can leverage the facilities and the resources of the mosque for programs and activities that we need and want.  We cannot sit on the sidelines and lament the direction that some of our co-religionists are taking our faith.  If we do not approve of it, then we need to get up and do something about it.  That call to action is a core part of our faith.

That said, I do not believe the majority supports the divider but the majority is afraid of raising the ire of the aggressive and outspoken minority of men whose most articulate argument is "Quran and Sunnah brother" as if uttering the words "Quran and Sunnah" is somehow meaningful as an explanation.  Most members of our mosque are very low key and opt to avoid confrontation, and as a result they keep their head down and avoid getting too involved with the mosque.  They come for Friday prayers, they drop off their kids for Weekend Islamic School and they attend an dinner here or there and that is the extent of their involvement.

I do not blame them for their approach.  Life is complicated and stressful.  Butting heads with the folks who want to keep women behind walls and barriers is frustrating and time consuming.  And who among us has a bunch of spare time on her hands?

I am not interested in getting into arguments and fighting over these issues either.  The mosque should be a place of prayer, reflection, education and social justice.  But I am not afraid to stand my ground either and that is precisely what I am going to do.

My daughter asked me after the eid dinner a few weeks ago: "Baba, why did they put all the girls and moms behind the wall?  That's not fair."  Voila!  There's my inspiration.

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. 

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.
 

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.

"Children of Dust" by Ali Eteraz makes for interesting reading but not for the reasons author gives (Book Review)

Ali Eteraz is a wonderful storyteller.  His memoir, “Children of Dust”, is an engaging story of  life as a child in Pakistan to his adolescence and young adulthood in America with several pit stops  in between.  “Children of Dust” is very well written.  Eteraz’s life story provides a startling look inside the painful lives led by many Pakistani children.

Subtitled “A Memoir of Pakistan”, billed as creative nonfiction, and promoted as a “searing memoir revealing the truth about militant Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan”, “Children of Dust” is more a story of child abuse and neglect, a horribly deficient primary education system in rural Pakistan, perverted and sadistic religious teachers and their devastating impact on a young man’s life.  Islam certainly played a role Eteraz’s narrative, but what really stands out is the psychological damage that abuse and neglect had on his life and the behavioral issues that stem from them.

In the book’s prologue Eteraz writes:

"This book is about a thoroughly Islamic childhood and about a boy's attempt not merely to know his identity, but to assert his sovereignty."

Eteraz’s childhood, in reality, had very little to do with Islam.  Certainly, Islam as a cultural talisman permeated his life but to call it “thoroughly Islamic” is a distortion of reality (based on his own account).
 
His early education in religion was not about the broad concepts in Islam, nor about its basic articles of faith.  Instead, his earliest exposures to Islam were related to concepts such as “Koh-e-Qaf” (from ancient Persian mythology – a sacred place beyond the mountains according to some) and “jadu” (black magic), and his grandmother’s supposed regular meetings with Prophet Muhammad (s) in her dreams.  It is not exactly the firm foundation upon which to build a young Muslim’s religious life.

Early in the story Eteraz writes of his experience sexually harassing a servant girl just a few years older than him at his home Pakistan.  This is the first signal that Eteraz’s childhood was neither wholesome nor idyllic.  He was seven years old and the servant girl was only a few years older.  Eteraz writes of how he forced the girl to undress, of how he exposed himself to her and then attempted to grope her naked body.
 
Eteraz says nothing about attending public or private primary schools in Pakistan where he spent his early years.  The only formal education he writes about are intermittent stints in various madrasahs where his parents sent him to memorize the Holy Qur’an.  Eteraz suggests that his parents sent him to these madrasahs because they had no alternatives.

Madrasah is an Arabic term for school but Eteraz’s accounts of the madrasahs he attended are frightening images of non-stop physical, psychological and sexual abuse of young boys.  Eteraz writes a riveting account of the fear he felt while he attended the madrasahs.  He writes of sadistic teachers at the madrasahs who beat children with sticks for making mistakes, of locking up children in prison cells and of child molestation.
 
Eteraz writes of his own rape at the hands of two other boys while in Pakistan.¹  It is an eerie narrative.  While his description is unmistakably of rape, Eteraz couches it in benign imagery.  The narrative Eteraz uses is something one might expect a child to use in order to protect himself from the psychic trauma of re-living the assault.

The experience with “Islam” once he comes to America is only slightly better than what he suffered in Pakistan.  He came to America in the 1990s, a time when mosques and established religious life for Muslims was just becoming more institutionalized but was fraught with cultural and political overtones (many of which remain in place even today).

Eteraz’s life story in America is one that is familiar in most aspects, if not all, to many American Muslims who grew up in America and attended high school and college in America in the 1980s through to the present.  He experienced the need to fit in and a frustration with the overbearing and superficial Islam pushed by his parents as a means of vaccinating him from the social ills of American society.

The end of high school and the start of college mark the midpoint of Eteraz’s book and covers about two-thirds of his chronological age.  Eteraz does an amazing job in telling a compelling story up to this point.  Thus far Eteraz has written in great detail about what he saw, what he heard and what he felt.  It is compelling storytelling.

While the book remains readable and entertaining to the very last page, from this point forward Eteraz’s narration changes.  Rather than continuing to tell a story with details and experiences, much of the remaining book summarizes events and then liberally sprinkles in political and religious editorials.
 
Eteraz chronicles his college years as being filled with sexual exploits, outward religiosity and inner conflict between Eteraz the religious Muslim wanna-be leader and Eteraz the young college kid who indulged many of his sexual impulses.  It reads more like a summary than a story.

The book’s final chapters are the least detailed and are heavy on self-reflection.  Eteraz describes “Children of Dust” as creative nonfiction and by the last few pages one cannot help but wonder if these final experiences are heavy on the “creative” and easy on the “nonfiction” because the story seems almost too perfectly tailored to accommodate the religious or philosophical epiphany with which “Children of Dust” climaxes.

Throughout the latter part of the book Eteraz works very hard to build himself up as an Islamic fundamentalist.  Presumably this is because, in his mind, his life’s story is about his personal exposure to radical Islam with a redemptive ending.  However, what Eteraz writes about vis-à-vis his activist Muslim college experience is not so different from the experiences of many other American Muslim college students.

Still, Eteraz’s epiphany at the end is intriguing.  The realization that he confronts about his religiosity in the final pages of “Children of Dust” is an interesting and thought-provoking notion.  The book is worth reading for this epiphany alone, but there are other good reasons too.

“Children of Dust” provides some insight into the humanity of one American Muslim.  By telling his own personal story, with all the painful experiences, Eteraz humanizes and contextualizes the otherwise one-dimensional “American Muslim” that most Americans read about but never get to know.

America needs to hear more stories about young Muslims with the same boldness as Eteraz’s “Children of Dust”.  Americans want to really know Muslims and especially those living in America.  “Children of Dust” gives Americans a great insight into the mind of a somewhat typical American Muslim.  That is an invaluable resource.

______________________________________________

Title:  "Children of Dust: A Memoir of Pakistan"
Author: Ali Eteraz
Copyright 2009
Publisher:  HarperCollins and HarperOne
ISBN: 978-0-06-156708-7

¹UPDATE (11/23/09): An earlier version of this article stated that the rape occurred in a madrasah.  This was inaccurate.  In fact the rape occured, accordingto Eteraz, when he was away from the madrasah he was attending.

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.