Main Blog Page

February 06, 2008

Give Up War for Lent

Unlike giving up chocolate or coffee, this Lenten observance won't complicate your Valentine's Day or make you cranky in the morning. By creating a Lenten online pledge to work and pray for an end to the War in Iraq, our friends at Catholics United have given Catholics the opportunity to deepen their spiritual practice and build the movement for peace at the same time. And unlike chocolate and coffee, war is not something you're likely to crave again once Easter rolls around.

December 19, 2007

Bush and Congress to America: Ba humbug

What did Congress give the American people for Christmas? A puppy? A new sled? Peace on earth? Goodwill?

Correct answer: a lump of coal. Not "clean coal," either. Plain old dirty black-lung-causing coal from a mountaintop-removal mine. Yesterday Congress allocated $70 billion in war funding with no timetable for withdrawal, and punted SCHIP expansion to 2009. The American people wanted the exact opposite on both counts.

Oh, there's plenty of blame to go around. Congress passed two bipartisan SCHIP expansion bills, but President Bush protected us from "socialized medicine" both times, and just enough brave Representatives stayed the course with him to beat back an override. Despite an overwhelming mandate for withdrawal from Iraq, Congress has attached nary a string to war funding, effectively giving the administration carte blanche to keep the military in Iraq in whatever numbers for however long it sees fit.

Direct defiance of the popular will is what the federal government gives us for Christmas. And it's doubly galling that they give us war and deny us healthcare while passing resolutions in support of celebrating the birth of the prince of peace, who healed the sick and brought good news to the poor.

December 03, 2007

60 Minutes: Terrible times for Christians in Iraq

A Baghdad clergyman estimates that 90 percent of Iraq's Christians, once thought to number over a million, have either fled or have been murdered by Islamic extremists.

From the time of Jesus, there have been Christians in what is now Iraq. The Christian community took root there after the Apostle Thomas headed east.

But now, after nearly 2,000 years, Iraqi Christians are being hunted, murdered and forced to flee -- persecuted on a biblical scale in Iraq's religious civil war. You'd have to be mad to hold a Christian service in Iraq today, but if you must, then the vicar of Baghdad is your man. He's the Reverend Canon Andrew White, an Anglican chaplain who suffers from multiple sclerosis and from a fanatical determination to save the last Iraqi Christians from the purge.

September 10, 2007

The dog and pony show vs. Iraqi reality

There's not much more to say about the hearings this week from a faith perspective -- yet this remains: blessed are the peacemakers. But is America making peace in Iraq?

But now the administration has gone from giving dog and pony shows to think tankers, congresspersons, and journalists to giving it to the American public directly this week. Or as Fox News names its exclusive interview with Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker: "A Briefing for America."

One of my favorite YouTube film projects is Hometown Baghdad, shot by Ausama, a medical student living in the Iraqi capital city. This video gets beyond the Petraeus charts and al Qaeda rhetoric and shows how American troops contribute to the problem, turning educated middle class Iraqis against the 'liberators" precisely because it is impossible for American troops to police without also disturbing the peace.

August 13, 2007

Game not over: Left Behind returns in Iraq

You may remember the media attention created a couple of months ago by several progressive Christian groups who kicked up a ruckus when the rapture/fundamentalist folks behind Left Behind released their video game.

CrossWalk America's The Rev. Eric Elnes writes: Just when you thought the Left Behind Games people had backed down - after negative publicity CrossWalk America helped create resulted in the firing of their senior VP and Left Behind Games stock plunging from $7.44 to $0.25 (and now at just over $.05/share), a new effort is underway to promote their horrific “convert or kill” theology.

The Nation's Max Blumenthal points out:

Actor Stephen Baldwin, the youngest member of the famous Baldwin brothers, is no longer playing Pauly Shore's sidekick in comedy masterpieces like Biodome. He has a much more serious calling these days. Baldwin became a right-wing, born-again Christian after the 9/11 attacks, and now is the star of Operation Straight Up (OSU), an evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among active-duty members of the US military. As an official arm of the Defense Department's America Supports You program, OSU plans to mail copies of the controversial apocalyptic video game, Left Behind: Eternal Forces to soldiers serving in Iraq. OSU is also scheduled to embark on a "Military Crusade in Iraq" in the near future.

Of course, it's perfect for Christian soldiers because it is "so young, so hip, so cool." Jesus Christ, it's like totally killer. . .

July 15, 2007

Catholics Mobilize. When will Congress?

Yet again, Congress and the President have squandered an opportunity to end the Iraq war. On Thursday the House of Representatives approved the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act 223-201, far short of the 290 necessary to override President Bush’s promised veto. The 219 Democrats and four Republicans who voted to end the Bush administration’s untenable, failed policy deserve commendation, but far too many of their colleagues refuse to heed the wishes of the American people and the faith community.

As reported in an article posted on Faith In Public Life's Daily News, Roman Catholic members of Congress recently stepped up their effort to enlist the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in the movement to end the war. While the Conference has not yet taken new action, grassroots Catholics have heeded the call.

Catholics account for more than 1 in 4 voters, and a post-election poll in 2006 found that 47 percent of U.S. Catholics considered the war in Iraq the most important issue that affected their vote. On Thursday Catholics for an End to the War in Iraq launched a campaign to give church members a new avenue to work for peace. They are providing sign-on petitions, media campaigns, and targeted local events to pressure leaders to begin a responsible withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Thousands of Catholics joined this effort on the first day. People of faith continue to take the lead in demanding that Congress and the President end the calamity that is the Iraq war. What remains to be seen is how long it takes for our leaders to follow.

July 09, 2007

Catholic activism to end war

On July 3, in an unprecedented move, fourteen Catholic members of Congress asked the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for help in stopping the Iraq war. Read the actual letter here.

The letter says, "If we understand the Catholic tradition correctly, thoughtful church leaders around the world do not believe that the war in Iraq meets the strict conditions for a just war or the high moral standards for overriding the presumption against the use of force. Our concerns are rooted in both the political realm and in our faith and manifest in our efforts to enact legislation that will bring an end to this war."

How far would you go to stop a war? "The Camden 28," airing on PBS's "P.O.V." series on September 11, 2007, recalls a 1971 raid on a Camden, New Jersey draft board office by Catholic activists protesting the Vietnam War and its effects on urban America.

Arrested on site in a clearly planned sting, the protesters included four Catholic priests, a Lutheran minister and 23 others. "The Camden 28" reveals the story behind the arrests — a provocative tale of government intrigue and personal betrayal — and the ensuing legal battle, which Supreme Court Justice William Brennan called "one of the great trials of the 20th century." Thirty-five years later, the participants take stock of their motives, fears and the costs of their activism — and its relevance to America today.

April 04, 2007

MLK: Speak for the weak

The Rev. Chuck Currie posts this juxtaposition of MLK's Riverside Church speech to religious leaders with powerful visual imagery from the Iraq. "We must move on. We are called to speak for the weak."

March 20, 2007

Blogs on the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq

In addition to the hundreds of MSM hits, there are over 270 blog hits for the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq.

Here's a sample from the people who went:

Yet Another Unitarian Universalist
shot this footage.

From at the crossroads' Karissa, an EMU student:

I went to a war protest this weekend.

I know, I know. Me? I was surprised too. But don't worry. I didn't hold any angry signs or yell obscenities. All I had was a small electric candle, symbolizing the light of Christ and his call for peace. And all I said, aside from conversations with my friends and strangers along the 4-mile walk from the National Cathedral to the White House, was "Peace," which we chanted at the White House. . . .At any rate, it was a beautiful, worthwhile event, and I am glad I went. Even though I never thought I would go to a protest:

From the Back Pew writes, "Even the name -- the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq -- is a revolutionary act."

On his MySpace blog, 28-year-old Hammer of Truth writes, "I felt the need to help sound the trumpet myself."

Don't Eat Alone notes: "A significant part of the protest was the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq, the combined conspiracy of most everyone from Adventists to Catholics and Pentecostals to the UCC." And the restaurateur adds,

"One of the reasons it is significant to me that this particular protest was explicitly Christian is the justification of the war in Iraq often carries religious overtones, as if the war is Christian vs. Muslim. Bush intimates, often without much subtlety, that God is on our side because we are fighting for freedom and God is for freedom. I’m proud of the people who conspired to say God is for peace and so are many American Christians."

Speaking of eating, An Old Curmudgeon writes:

"We would need to be at the Cathedral at about 5:00pm and were not sure when we would have another opportunity to eat. When feeding times are not certain, the only logical thing to do is eat big when the opportunity presents itself. We sat down to a fantastic lunch at the Old Ebbitts Grill. After cups of seafood gumbo and a crab cake, we again considered the uncertainty of supper and decided it would only be prudent to have some pie and ice cream. In these uncertain times, one cannot be too careful."

Hoosier Daddy takes issue with the MSM coverage, noting the tendency for the media to lump the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq with the regular "anti" protests. He writes:

"However, this event Friday was in a whole different category of its own. It attracted no counterdemonstrators whatsoever. It was rooted and grounded in worship which filled the National Cathedral and in "divine obedience" in the middle of the night at the gates to the White House. It was definitely FOR something - for important and constructive goals that honor people, preserve life and work towards justice."

"President Bush is going to win this war come hell or high water. Maybe he's willing to forfeit his soul for his noble cause. He's not dragging me down with him," writes Les Enragés.

Here's an audio recording of Jim Wallis' speech.

Unexpectedly for herself, Margaret feels patriotic: "It's a pretty incredible country that will allow several thousand Christians to process down Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, DC carrying electric candles and various banners."

Texas-based Brains and Eggs notes that Bush has "lost the Christians."

From the buckle of the bible belt, Presbyterian minister Shuck and Jive simply notes: "they need to know that we want it ended."

On LiveJournal, thatjugglerguy writes: "It was an amazing experience to see people connected like that, taking a stand for what they believe."

March 19, 2007

A soldier's confession

The words of Joshua Casteel, an Iraq War veteran and conscientious objector, who served as an interrogator at Abu Ghraib. Footage from the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq service at the National Cathedral.

When I traveled outside the prison walls on convoys, terror surged through
my heart. I was not afraid of being killed. If you live by the sword, by the sword
shall you die. If I died with a loaded rifle, I could not be angry with God. The
terror that filled me … was the possibility of becoming one who kills. Once while
driving outside, I pointed my rifle as I always did, out the window of our armored
humvee. Through the sites of my rifle I saw the faces of three young shepherd
boys – probably eight years old, each. I realized in that moment that I had just
pointed a loaded weapon at three eight year old boys.

How was I, an ambassador of the love of Jesus Christ, supposed to recall that
day?

How can I talk of the freedom of Christ, while playing the role of captor?
How can I talk of faith when I only move from place to place by means of guns
pointed in all directions - even at eight year old shepherd boys?

(source: Joshua Casteel, Catholic Peace Fellowship, West Coast Tour, 2005)

March 09, 2007

Faith in Public LIVE Dr. Nazir Khaja and Islamoyankee: Islamophobia Rising, Part 6

Remember last month's exchange on Islamophobia and challenges facing the American Muslim community internally? Our writers are back to build on that conversation and break new ground. Dr. Nazir Khaja of the Islamic Information Service and FPL board member and blogger Islamoyankee of Islamicate will take on this subject and more throughout this week!



Part 6: Islamoyankee on the Reformation vs. Renaissance

Dear Nazir,

I think I would easily fall into the category of someone who is offended by the notion of an Islamic Reformation. The Reformation in Europe, broadly speaking, allowed immediate unfettered access to scripture. In and of itself this notion is problematic. However, the dominant narrative is that this access was a moderating influence on religion, effectively allowing for a more rationalistic approach to faith that succeeded in relegating it to the private sphere. Such a narrative ignores the rise of charismatic figures such as David Koresh (see also Jim Jones, Jung Myung Seok, Sun Myung Moon (2)), who took the scripture and created a violent and damaging reading of the text. Having said that, the use of the dominant narrative also ignores the realities of the Muslim world. In Sunni Islam, and in a different way in Ithna'ashari Islam, a strong, vibrant, legal (here I use the term to refer to all religious sciences) tradition existed. This tradition gave a framework for understanding religious enquiry that acknowledged diversities of interpretation. Since the Qur'an is proscriptive in only 6-7% of its pronouncements, any methodology must recognize the differences that come out of struggling with God's word. In fact, one of the earliest concessions made by all communities of interpretation was that God's Word was perfect, and as such humanity could not understand the true meaning of those words. This philosophy was practiced with various degrees of success throughout Muslim history. The methodology of approaching the text limited readings that would give rise to interpretations that would be on the excessive side of faith, either in making everything allegorical or literal. The collapse of the legal tradition in the colonial period gave us our reformation, and the result is the rise of characters such as Bin Laden and Muhammad Omar who see themselves as being the guarantors of faith, even though most students would laugh at the rigor of their arguments. In other words, the system we as Muslims had was to a certain extent what the Reformation brought to Europe, and the reformation that was thrust upon us brought us to where Europe was before the Reformation. It ignorance of both our history and European history that gives rise to this constant call for a reformation.

Despite that criticism of terminology, I do agree with the thrust of your argument, that the Muslim community needs a Renaissance, a rebirth, of the message of Islam. From my perspective, such a Renaissance would actually entail a return to a structured, systematic, and methodological approach to faith. Such an approach would hopefully limit the rise of charismatic figures who read their ideology into the text rather than having world-views emerging from the sources of the faith. I do believe that the US is in a unique position in being able to spread its ideas throughout the world, and as such American Muslims have a unique responsibility, but I also think that it is problematic for us to see ourselves as the only, or even the primary, beacon of thought in the Muslim world. Iranian intellectuals, as well as Indonesian and Malaysian thinkers, are engaged in some fascinating debates as to work with tradition and modernity. The reality is, most Americans, including American Muslims, are unaware of the real debates happening in the Muslim majority world. At some level we still privilege Arab as Islam, and don't recognize the pluralistic traditions of Muslims in Indonesia and India, or in various African nations.

As American Muslims, we do have a challenge and responsibility, and we have a great opportunity to help revive our traditions and make them respectable again. Aside from the work we do in our own country, I think we need to emphasize the idea of the ummah, the universal Muslim community, and reach out to like-minded Muslims across the world, particularly where these debates are already happening at a highly sophisticated level.

Regards,
islamoyankee

Part 5: Dr. Khaja on Reform and the American Muslim Community

Hi Hussein,

To summarize it seems that we both feel that Islam currently is in a volatile state, engaged in internal and external struggles. islamophobia in both of its dimensions, the internal, and the external is a real entity. Obviously it is a complex subject and the analysis of each of these dimensions will keep us engaged in this forum for a long time.

To start with however as concerned Muslims we must look at the issue of reform within Islam. This is necessary. Otherwise to place the fear, bias and animosity of others towards Islam ahead of reform would be like placing the cart before the horse.

You and I both know however that even the mention of the word reform to Muslims evokes an angry rejection. I do not hold any hopes for this process going forward in the so-called Muslim countries for obvious reasons. We American Muslims clearly must step up to the plate. We abide in freedom and interact with others in pluralistic framework. The majorities of Muslims elsewhere are lacking in this experience and are controlled coerced and manipulated not just by their secular leaders but also by most of their religious leaders also. The concern regarding Islam’s threat to others is necessitating not only political realignments and restructuring but more importantly ideological retooling Despite the adverse impact of 9/11on Muslims here and Islam and also recognizing that there is indeed distrust presently in America about us. The concern regarding Islam’s threat to others is necessitating not only political realignments and restructuring but more importantly ideological retooling.

We can yet play a critical role in lessening the tensions on both sides. The long over-due liberal reform is likeliest and possible here. And I choose the term liberal deliberately to mean all the processes of inclusion through which Islam gained acceptance and spread in different parts of the world without armed conflict or coercion However as we discussed before, unfortunately this community here has not yet evolved in their experience and approach to measure up to the task. Most here realize that a change or "ideological retooling" is necessary as a need of their own to make Islam more meaningful to themselves. Yet as you have rightly pointed out the majority of the Muslim community which is still the immigrants with their cultural baggage, is not yet ready. Their affiliations to diverse and contending views of Islam and also their unfamiliarity with working in a democratic pluralistic framework are still a problem. Leadership continues to be in the hands of this group which is lacking in confidence ---confidence to see Islam outside the frame of "literalism". This itself is a major obstacle to reform within Islam. The most important feature of all religious text is not what they actually say but how their followers understand and say about it.

From the unchanging past charting a course into an uncertain future is not proving easy for us. With "hot rhetoric" alluding to utopian plans and historical nostalgia, and with no intermediary steps of analysis or practical program of implementation, the confusion remains unabated.

We have already talked about our unfamiliarity with the processes that are fundamental in effectively engaging democracy. A major source of confusion and also a major source of tension and disunity within our ranks is the idea that politics and religion are the same. While this has been the dominant belief among Muslims historically and is still the hallmark of Muslim societies it has been long discarded here and elsewhere in the west. The sooner we Muslims start to deal with these core issues the more effective overall we will be not just in stemming this tide of Islamophobia but also pushing the envelope of reform within Islam…..

Regards,
Nazir

Part 4: Islamoyankee on Institutional Challenges

Salaam Nazir,

I think if we are to focus on institutions of the Muslim American community and how have failed us, I would focus on two parts. The first part is the failure for us to build institutions. As I mentioned previously, I believe many of “our” national institutions have, at the least, invested their mission with normatizing a particular understanding of Islam. By this, I mean that by representing “Islam,” they are have to define what “Islam” is; for most Muslims, Islam is not 1400 years of history, it is not the interaction with faith and dozens of cultures, it is not about understanding how we got to the nuances and contradictions we live with day-in and day-out, it is not about the disputative tradition that makes the Muslim intellectual tradition so vibrant. The “Islam” that these institutions present is the “Islam” the founders of these institutions know, which is not terribly rich. Their ignorance of Islam plays well to a certain constituency that finds surety and comfort in a national voice representing their “Islam.” Unfortunately, that ignorance keeps non-Muslims ignorant, and it keeps Muslims looking to understand their faith better ignorant. When I spoke of Muslims being a ghetto before, this is part of what I was alluding to; “our” current institutions came out of a ghetto mentality, and they are structured to maintain that ghetto. They were necessary when they were founded, and they serve a purpose now, but they no longer represent the reality of American Muslims, and they never represented “Islam.” While it may seem like a semantic issue, if a group seeks to represent Islam, they will fail, as Islam is not a monolith, even if Muslims wishes it were. A group that claims to represent Muslims has a much better chance of success, in my opinion, and will have the ability to evolve as Muslim understandings of the Divine Message evolve. The institutional failure to address Islamophobia exists because these groups present ignorance as the basis of our faith, if not in word, in deed. It is easy for others to dismiss and demonize Muslims, when their “leaders” dismiss understanding Islam.

The second issue is the ease in which we are dismissed from the mainstream. As an example, let me refer you to recent smear campaign instituted against Sen. Barack Obama. Fox News recently claimed that he trained at a radical Wahhabi terrorist school in Indonesia, and that he was raised as a Muslim. These accusations were quickly dismissed, and Sen. Obama's office issued a letter addressing the issue. In his letter, intentionally or not, he sounds as though being called a Muslim is a smear (see here for a good breakdown the relevant part of the letter). Sen. Obama may be light on foreign policy credentials, but his personal history makes him aware of the diversity of the world in which we live. How could he have written such a letter? Are there really no Muslim Americans in Chicago people on his staff could interact with? Are there no Muslims on his staff? Could not anyone involved in writing this letter have thought, I know a Muslim, and I don't want to denigrate them like this? So the key issue is where are the Muslims? As you've said, we are an extremely well-educated community, and we work in medicine, law, finance, and as entrepreneurs. When we wear the doctor's coat, do we stop being Muslim? At an individual level, why is it so difficult for non-Muslims to think of Muslims as people? I would suggest that we have failed to either present ourselves as Muslim, or to present ourselves as people. The other sub-text is that Muslims are not necessarily going into fields other than law, medicine, and finance, so campaign staffs don't have Muslims who are comfortable claiming to be Muslim. That is a cultural failure on our part.

Not all is lost. We need new institutions that represent Muslims who know no other homeland than America, regardless of where their parents were from. These institutions need to represent Muslims, not Islam. We need to make the diversity of Islam normative, so that all Muslims feel comfortable talking about being Muslim, and the questions we get asked as individuals are about what it means to us as people to be Muslim, not for all of us to be able explain “Islam.” We have to have pride in our Muslim identity, but we don't have to be militant or strident about it. Once we have reached comfort in ourselves, I believe our representation will reflect that comfort, and non-Muslims will be comfortable with us.

Salaam,
islamoyankee

Part 3: Dr. Khaja on Looking Inward

Dear Islamoyankee,

Thank you for responding to my piece on Islamophobia. As we look at the issue in terms of Civil Rights and questions of authority, how American Muslims' loyalty to their adopted homeland is being called into question is everyday news. At the official level it is under the blanket of "Security"; in the public arena it is the result mainly of ignorance compounded by the post 9/11 fear.

A major contributing factor is the failure of the American Muslim Community to effectively engage with the experience of participating in a democratic framework. The requirement for this is "instititutionalisation" and as you have pointed out there are hardly any Muslim institutions here which have the strategic depth and resources to face the burgeoning challenges. This is ironic because the American Muslim community is the most educated of Muslim communities and individually Muslims have attained high level of success and prosperity in this country.

This then brings us back to the issue of "Civil Rights". The message that we as Muslims must understand is that there really can not be any rights without responsibility attached to it. This dovetails into the discussion of Leadership and Organization.

It is therefore useful to have an inward look at our failures as we examine the attitude of others towards Islam, that of fear, phobia and prejudice. Where do we start?

Best,
Nazir

Part 2: Islamoyankee on Learning to Speak American

Salaam Nazir,

I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. I agree with you concerning the issues facing the Muslim community in the US regarding Islamophobia. However, my approach is slightly different than yours. Following the outline of your post, there are two broad areas you identify: Civil Rights and questions of authority. The first, while not unique to Muslims in the US, has a particular American flavor that makes sense to deal with at a national level. The second point is a more universal concern in the Ummah, and one that I would like to address more broadly.

Muslims in America, whether we like it or not, are basically divided into two camps: immigrants and non-immigrants. Immigrant Muslims are generally those who are 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, while non- immigrant Muslims are those who came to Islam, or whose family came to Islam, in the United States. More colloquially, immigrants are non- Latino brown and immigrants are black (and nobody has thought which is more denigrating to Latinos yet, so they are unclassified). This point is a generalization that holds true throughout popular discourse, irrespective of a persons actual point of origin. Hakeem Olajuwon is not seen as Muslim in the same way I as being of South Asian descent am, even though he immigrated from a Muslim majority community and I was born and bred in New York. As a result, immigrant Muslims are seen as more authentic, and more radical. The term Muslim, when used to describe an undesirable element, is the polite way of saying “sand nigger,” or “towel-head;” it has become a racial category as much as a religious one. I raise this point for two reasons. The first, is when we are talking about Muslims in America, the dominant discourse almost always dictates that we are talking about immigrant Muslims, or brown Muslims. This is a convention that I will follow in my postings this week. The second point, is that we need to recognize how insular the immigrant Muslim community is in terms of its activism, and sometimes that can only happen by recognizing the bifurcation in the Muslim American community.

As American Muslims we constantly reference 9/11 as a moment when everything changed. Things may have changed in terms of scale, but not in terms of content. The US has a long and varied history with Islamdom (reading list at the end of the piece). However, as recently as 1991 and the First Gulf War, Islamophobia has been part of the national discourse, un-named, and more virulent than after the 1979 Iranian Revolution (see “Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World” (Edward W. Said)). To hate Arabs, at the time a synonym for Muslims, was condoned. Popular media reveled in the idea that the new enemy was the brown Muslim, look at True Lies or Air Force One, to get a sense of how prevalent that image was (see “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People” (Jack G. Shaheen)). Aside from a brief period in the late 1960s (The Hate that Hate Produced), black Muslims have not been persecuted for their faith as much as they have been for their race. In my eyes 9/11 was a catalytic event, speeding up a process already taking place; it did not begin a new reaction.

While the rhetoric of Islamophobia has become more formal and institutionalized since 9/11, the process began much sooner, and to me, the key question is where has the immigrant Muslim come since 1991. Were we ready? If not, why not? If so, why? Are we becoming part of the American public sphere, or are we continuing a drive towards insularity that will relegate our existence in American politics to irrelevance? Regarding Civil Rights, you mention the case of Rep. Keith Ellison. To me, this is a perfect case of some of the problems facing the Muslim American community, specifically, coalition building. I saw some responses from Muslim American groups like CAIR; I saw some responses from Jewish and Christian groups (see here), but I don’t recall seeing a joint statement from Muslims and Jews and Christians (I’m not Googling this, because I want to make a point from the perspective of someone who follows the news more closely than most that appearance is as important as fact). Much like a situation with Fleet Bank (now Bank of America) several years ago (see here), we are missing the opportunity to create coalitions and make ourselves part of the discourse on what it means to be American.

What we have done at this point is scream that we are victims and we are being victimized. Yes. True. However, by claiming this is a Muslim problem, we are addressing nothing. One component of identity is identification against an “other.” During the Cold War, the American “other” were the Soviets. Such an “other” is rarely considered an equal, but an inferior, or made to seem inferior through the process of “othering.” Now, Muslims are the “other,” because we are perceived of as weak. We can claim we are victims, but we are victimized because we are weak, and as long we play the role of weak victims, we will continue to be victimized. We need to decry Islamophobia as being un-American; we need to build coalitions with those who are interested in keeping American society open and welcoming. So far, most of what I have seen has been people living in ghettos, building institutions that are ghetto-minded, and maintaining the ghetto at all costs. We have not yet learned to speak American. I’ve often heard of politicians referred to as whores, who’ll do anything for the highest bidder, so at Muslim outreach efforts I hear boards talking about gaining political influence by essentially being “Johns,” hiring the cheapest politician we can to satisfy our needs. Such an effort proves we don’t understand the American system, and offers us no long-term solutions. American politicians also gave us the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Gettysburg Address, the “Kitchen Cabinet,” the warning against the Military-Industrial Complex, and a certain speech at the 2004 DNC against discrimination. I’ve only read one Muslim who has attempted to speak both “American” and “Muslim” (“What's Right with Islam: is What's Right With America” (Feisal Abdul Rauf)). In my mind, the best way for us to battle Islamophobia in America is start learning to speak “American,” with a Muslim accent of course, instead speaking Muslim, and hoping someone will listen.

This is a long-winded response to the first part of your post. I hope during week we’ll be able to tease out some more ideas, and hopefully return to the issue of authority.

Khuda Hafiz,
islamoyankee (aka Hussein)

Reading List on Islamdom and America:

“Islam in America” (Jane I. Smith)
“Servants of Allah: African Muslims Enslaved in the Americas” (Sylviane A. Diouf)
“The Crescent Obscured: The United States and the Muslim World, 1776-1815” (Robert Allison)
“American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945” (Douglas Little)
“Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present” (Michael B. Oren)
“Islam and Arabs in Early American Thought: Roots of Orientalism in America” (Fuad Shaban)
“Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror” (Mahmood Mamdani)
“Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (American Empire Project)” (Robert Dreyfuss)

Part 1: Dr. Khaja on Islamophobia Rising

Dear Islamoyankee,

I’m happy to join in this exchange with you, and thank Faith in Public Life for arranging it. There are a number of crucial challenges facing the Muslim community today, so I hope this forum will allow us a public space to discuss a number of them.

Since 9/11 questions abut Islam, its nature, its distinctive identity, its potential threat to the West have seized center stage in intellectual and political debates and discussions. Worldwide fears and misconceptions, combined with lack of credible information, continue to foster a climate of fear and hostility. This is partly the fault of the media and partly the inability of the Muslims to effectively engage with the process of correcting the misconceptions on both sides.

It is no surprise therefore that "Islamophobia" is a very real entity. What is becoming increasingly disturbing is how pervasive it has become. Existing at all levels of society it is now a part of the discourse in framing governmental policies here and abroad. Many complain that "political correctness" inhibits them from questioning or discussing Islam and its practices, yet the Pope, preachers, politicians and pundits all seem now to express their fears quite openly.

In the U.S and Europe, new laws are being enacted under the umbrella of security concerns. The Patriot Act and other surveillance programs impact the civil liberties of all Americans, but bring particular intrusions in to the lives of American Muslims and others who look different or have different sounding names.

The recent uproar over the oath of office for newly elected first American Muslim to the Congress Keith Ellison further highlights this growing Islamophobia. Rep. Ellison wanted to take his oath of office on the Quran, much to the loud objections of radio talk show hosts like Dennis Pranger. Even more disturbing than the talk show hosts was Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode's fear mongering. Goode wrote to his constituents, “I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt strict immigration policies.” The Constitutional protection of all religions from discrimination disappears in the face of this fear of Islam.

All of the above is to highlight how real the problem is. As you no doubt know, numerous other examples of discrimination and hostility have arisen in the past few months. And with the continuation of wars, occupation and unresolved conflicts in Muslim lands, one can predict that the fear of Islam and Muslims will only increase. In a world of anger and violence as it seems now there has to be a break from the traditional "us versus them" approach .The recycling of historical animosity from the Crusades to the post-Cold War demonization of Islam must end.

This is not going to be easy. The frame of conflict between Islam and the West has become a dominant media theme on issues both political and social. Media, politicians, faith leaders and average citizens share a responsibility to challenge this twisted pattern of discourse.

Muslims have their work cutout, especially those who live in freedom and are educated. It is their responsibility to reject the message of the extremists whose worldview and actions are not only a serious affront to Islam but also to the peace and stability of this world.

It seems to me that the key question that they must tackle is one of control--control of interpretation of the Quran and the authentic teachings of Islam. In other words: who decides, by what process and in what context, which reading or text to promote? Presently the control is with those who lack any experience in pluralism and see the world in Manichean paradigm. In this struggle within Islam, which is mainly about power rather than faith, lies one of the root causes of the violence sectarian and otherwise. By engaging with these important questions the Muslims here can lead the way in stemming the rising tide of Islamophobia.

I look forward to your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Nazir

June 29, 2006

Inaugural FPL Board Member Post: "We May Have Become Tone Deaf" by Rabbi Steven Jacobs

The headline in the Los Angeles Times screams at us, “War’s Iraqi Death Toll Tops 50,000.? But we may have become tone deaf. At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion! The toll is devastating. The documented cases show a country descending into violence, as the headline article elaborates. The tone deafness on our part to others’ suffering is due to the fact that we only focus on our own 2520 U.S. deaths. It’s only our blood that matters. This is a war to save the civilization, and damn those who oppose this administration, while the most threatened and hated Americans are Muslims.

It is not only death, but it is the fact that untold numbers of civilian lives are broken and fractured. There is a loss of the sanctity of life.

We in the religious community must stop courting death. We must sanctify life with our own weapons of respecting all and reaching out to our enemies, not destroying them. We must fight hatred for the rest of our lives. We must not be silent or indifferent to the intricacies and manipulations of government leaders, whether Republicans or Democrats.

Our religious vision of revenge must be in fighting hatred with the power that we bring in the interfaith community. We must lower the walls of ignorance that have allowed hatred to ferment to such heights. We must stand up to the rising cultures of hate, accusation, and deceit.

Finally, the sacredness of life was best articulated by the father of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal journalist beheaded and killed in 2002. Judea Pearl, sharing lunch with me last week, spoke of hatred. “Military battles,? he said, “are won in two parallel ways: by making your enemy weaker, and by making your troops stronger.? The same applies to battles of hatred. In addition to curtailing ignorance in the world at large, we must empower the troops of peace here at home, and our children and grandchildren to be the elite forces of these troops.

This is what the sanctity of life must be! There are powerful voices in our community who are speaking out against the immorality of war. It is time we come together to speak out.

Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs, Faith in Public Life Board Member
RabbiStevenBJacobs@yahoo.com
(818-917-9691)

June 16, 2006

First Ever Progressive Faith Blog Con!

It's an exciting time to be a blogger interested in faith and progressive politics. There are more of us every day (we'll be featuring some of the best here at FPL), and national leaders in our community are becoming more and more aware of how important blogs can be in spreading the good news about their work. With all that energy in the cyber-air, it's almost providential that we get to announce that the first ever Progressive Faith Blog Con is on its way.

The Blog Con will take place from July 14-16 in Montclair, NJ (just outside of New York). It's the brain-child of some of the best minds in our corner of the blogosphere, and will feature Velveteen Rabbi, Mainstream Baptist, Chuck Currie, Pastor Dan of Street Prophets, XPatriated Texan, Talk to Action, Philocrites, CrossLeft, JSpot, Rabbi Arthur Waskow, and many, many more. Check out the site for more details on attending. You won't want to miss it! The buzz about the event is already building here, here, here, here, and, well, you get the point.

We at FPL are thrilled to be working on this, and will be sure to keep you all up to date as the calendar ticks down to July 14. Register now (space is limited!), spread the good word on your blogs, and make sure you're there for this landmark event.

Welcome to Blogging Faith

Welcome to Faith in Public Life’s corner of the blogosphere! We’re glad to join the hundreds of bloggers out there in this growing and exciting community. Like any responsible new neighbor, we’ll try to make a good first impression, keep the yard looking tidy, and not make TOO much noise.

As you’ve hopefully noticed from the rest of this website, Faith in Public Life isn’t a normal organization. We exist as a resource center for faith communities working for justice and the common good. When we do our jobs right, we provide faith leaders and community members with the tools they need to more effectively carry out their work. When our partners win, we win, so to speak.

In keeping with this mission, this blog won’t be entirely normal either. We’ll feature our share of staff-written content on current events at the intersection of religion and politics, but we’ll spend most of our time featuring the best work of others, in an attempt to build up the strongest voices for justice and the common good in our community.

What does it mean to use a blog to provide resources to the community? We’ll frequently feature cross posts from bloggers whose voices add to the national debate on faith in politics. We’ll have guest blogs from our board members and partners who don’t maintain regular blogs but who are excited by the chance to engage in conversations with this community. We’ll put together a weekly highlight reel of the most interesting posts from far and wide in the faith blogosphere. And we’ll use the blog to post audio and video clips of our partners making an impact in mainstream media outlets.

We hope that this blog can play a role in building up this exciting community. Leave comments, tell us all what you think, and spread the word about Faith in Public Life as a resource center for bloggers who care about faith, justice, and the common good.

Faith In Public Life