Main Blog Page

September 25, 2007

Churches fight human trafficking

On CBS' The Early Show, Not For Sale campaign's David Batstone talks about the religion-based abolition movement's efforts to stop modern slavery.

According to a relatively long article in Sunday's WaPo, the abolition movement achieves highly levels of bi-partisan support in Congress.

Throughout the 1990s, evangelicals and other Christians grew increasingly concerned about international human rights, fueled by religious persecution in Sudan and other countries. They were also rediscovering a tradition of social reform dating to when Christians fought the slave trade of an earlier era.

And although the numbers are very difficult to get and confirm, experts report a sharp increase in trafficking activity in the 90s, due in part to globalization. The article notes that much of the money appropriated to combat modern slavery has been squandered on PR-firms and ineffective faith-based awareness raising -- that said, the problem persists and provides a platform for diverse activists to make common cause. For example,

"feminist groups and other organizations also seized on trafficking, and a 1999 meeting at the Capitol, organized by former Nixon White House aide Charles W. Colson, helped seal a coalition. The session in the office of then-House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) brought together the Southern Baptist Convention, conservative William Bennett and Rabbi David Saperstein, a prominent Reform Jewish activist."

For more on modern slavery, check out last night's Daily Show interview with John Bowe on his new book, Nobodies, about what lies behind those everyday low prices.

September 24, 2007

Monks lead Burmese change through peace

The UK's Independent reports: In a remarkable show of defiance Burmese monks and nuns yesterday led 20,000 demonstrators through Rangoon in the largest protest against the country's military regime for almost two decades.

A day after hundreds of monks had walked to the house of the imprisoned democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, thousands more returned to the streets in a show of numbers not seen since the pro-democracy marches of 1988. Back then the regime responded with a brutal crackdown, killing thousands of civilians and monks. While yesterday's march ended peacefully, it was clear that the authorities had increased security in the city and the monks and the other marchers were refused access to Ms Suu Kyi's house when they tried to repeat Saturday's extraordinary meeting.

July 29, 2007

The theft of the future -- the relationship between the market, religion and social change

This video is about an hour long, which will take a commitment to watch, but it will be well-worth your time if you're interested in the long view of what's going on with market economies, faith and social movements in the world these days.

Paul Hawken on The Great Transformation

Video from the Long Now Foundation - San Francisco, CA

The title of Paul Hawken's talk, "The New Great Transformation," has two referents. Economist Karl Polanyi’s 1944 book, THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION, said that the "market society" and modern nation state emerged together in Europe after 1700 and divided society in ways that have yet to be healed.

Karen Armstrong's 2006 book, THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION, explores "the Axial Age" between 800 and 200 BC when the world's great religions and philosophies first took shape. They were all initially social movements, she says, acting on revulsion against the violence and injustice of their times.

Both books describe conditions in which "the future is stolen and sold to the present," said Hawken - a situation we are having to deal with yet again


July 11, 2007

Get to know Avaaz

Avaaz is a community of global citizens who take action on the major issues facing the world today. If you use You Tube you may see their highly watched videos featured often. Avaaz has members in every country on earth, and operates in twelve languages working to ensure that the views and values of the world's people -- and not just political elites and unaccountable corporations -- shape global decisions. Check out all the great videos at Avaaz's YouTube site.

Their name means "Voice" or "Song" in several languages including Hindi, Urdu, Farsi, Nepalese, Dari, Turkish, and Bosnian

One of the Avaaz campaigns I really like is their work with Global Call to Action Against Poverty to call the G8 leaders to keep their promise to the world's poor. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has signed on to their letter which was featured in big ads in the Financial Times and German press in the build up to the June 6th G8 Summit. The goal was to remind the G8 finance ministers of their promises. Their response was to pledge a further $60 billion to combat poverty. As they write, "we cannot allow this pledge to become another broken promise."

Right now their blog has a ton of footage of Al Gore, so if you have a jones for the green man, check it out.

April 24, 2007

Get to know: Global Days for Darfur

Over at God's Politics, Adam Taylor titles his Friday Darfur post: For God’s Sake, Save Darfur! End the Politics of Delay. And he lists some growing numbers of folks of faith who are acting out, "273 events in 175 cities and 42 states (and D.C.) across the country, as well as events in 20 countries, and the number is growing daily."

The blog: Darfur: An Unforgivable Hell on Earth heralds a die in and divestment rally in Boston Common.

"The Save Darfur Coalition is a non-profit organization and advocacy group dedicated to ending the genocide in the western Sudanese region of Darfur. It is a coalition of over 160 faith-based, humanitarian, and human rights organizations designed to raise public awareness and to mobilize an effective united response to the atrocities that threaten the lives of some two million people in Darfur."

According to their wikipedia entry:

The Save Darfur Coalition began on July 14, 2004 when the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and American Jewish World Service organized a Darfur Emergency Summit at the CUNY Graduate Center in Manhattan featuring Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Elie Wiesel. Mr. Wiesel inspired the group with his impassioned remarks about the suffering being inflicted on Darfurians: "How can I hope to move people from indifference if I remain indifferent to the plight of others? I cannot stand idly by or all my endeavors will be unworthy."

You've got to check out Johnny Ramirez's flash graphic for Global Days for Darfur.

And Amnesty International has a great new site up devoted to Darfur, called Instant Karma.

As you know time is running out for the people of Darfur. Four years of genocidal violence has left over 400,000 dead, 2.5 million innocent civilians displaced, and 4 million men, women, and children completely reliant on international aid for survival. Not since the Rwandan genocide of 1994 has the world seen such a calculated campaign of displacement, starvation, rape, and mass slaughter.

Here's Sojourners' Global Days for Darfur toolkit as well as other resources.

April 23, 2007

VIDEO: Building a social movement on the responsibility to protect

This week many organizations and congregations are participating in Global Days for Darfur. The video below is an excellent collection of leaders sharing really smart policy and mobilization strategies for building broad, effective coalitions among the student and faith-based community.

Stopping Mass Atrocities: An International Conference on the Responsibility to Protect

Building a Social Movement: An Examination of Current and Past Campaigns

Conference partners include: Progressive Students of Faith, Amnesty International, Center for American Progress, Consulate General of Canada, International Crisis Group, San Francisco Bay Area Darfur Coalition, STAND-UC Berkeley, World Affairs Council of Northern California, World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy.

How can lessons learned from successful campaigns be applied to the anti-genocide and R2P campaign? Models include the anti-slavery campaign, the campaign to ban landmines, and the campaign for the creation of the ICC. - Anita Sharma, ENOUGH, moderator - Mark Hanis, Genocide Intervention Network - William Pace, World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, Coalition for the International Criminal Court - Ken Rutherford, Landmine Survivors Network - Rev. Gloria White-Hammond, M.D., My Sister's Keeper

March 26, 2007

PBS' NOW: NCC talking to Iran (link to VIDEO)

Aired this weekend, PBS' NOW focused on the 13-member team from the NCC which met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, top officials in the government, and several of the ayatollahs who have a powerful influence on government policy. "When political leaders mess up, religious leaders ought to be here to go and build up the people, build up relationships, and bring the conversation up the high moral ground," said one of the U.S. delegates, Rev. Dr. Shanta Premawardhana, who represented Episcopalians, Methodists, Evangelicals and dozens of other denominations.

The Associate General Secretary for Interfaith Relations, National Council of Churches USA, Rev. Dr. Premawardhana has received criticism from Rabbi James Rudin of the American Jewish Committee, who called the visit "An Exercise in Spineless Christian Diplomacy."

On his blog, Premawardhana recently responded:

"Ahamdinejad told us he is not building nuclear weapons because Iran is an Islamic country and Islamic Scripture forbids them. Ayatollah Ali Khamanei has issued a fatwa against such weapons. On the other hand, as a signatory to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), he said, Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy.

Rudin, rather than seize the slight ray of light that is in that statement, would disregard that comment and continue as if Iran is building nuclear weapons. And to what end? Would he encourage President Bush to attack Iran? Would he encourage Israel, which unlike Iran is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to use its nuclear weapons against Iran?"

If you have a few minutes, the video, available here from PBS, is worth watching just to see the kids trying out their English on a Mennonite delegate, and then half-heartedly chanting "Down with USA" while smiling.

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

March 02, 2007

Who's got faith in Iran and US relations?

Just recently the first U.S. religious group to meet with an Iranian president in Iran since the revolution in 1979 returned with assurances from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran "does not intend to develop nuclear weapons" and that he is willing "to enter into direct, face-to-face talks with the United States government."

Read the FPL press release. And here's the main website for the Iran delegation.

"Even with this tragic history we have visited upon Iran for the past 55 years, there is an amazing depth of appreciation and love for the U.S. people," said Jim Winkler, top executive of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, the denomination's social action agency. "There have been lots of contacts between Muslim religious leaders and Christian leaders from around the world—and with American Christians—over the years, but this was considered to be significant because it was attached to meetings with government leaders," Winkler said.

The Weekly Standard writes: The delegation was organized by the Washington, D.C. lobby offices of the Quakers and the Mennonites and is a follow up of sorts to a meeting that several dozen religious officials, including Winkler, had with Ahmadinejad in New York last October. This time, the group will also meet with former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, who spoke at the Episcopal Church's National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. in September.

Besides Winkler, the Quakers, and the Mennonites, the delegation to Iran includes representatives from the National Council of Churches, Sojourners (Jim Wallis' evangelical-left group), and Pax Christi, a liberal Catholic group.

"We are making this trip hoping it will encourage both governments to step back from a course that will lead to conflict and suffering," explained a Quaker official, Mary Ellen McNish, general secretary of the American Friends Service Committee. But the delegation acknowledges that Ahmadinejad's unsavory positions may have to be confronted.

Over at beliefnet, Sojourners COO Jeff Carr went on the trip and blogged on the journey. Reflecting on the Iranian Hostage Crises, he writes:

"I don't think I have ever realized how traumatizing those events were for me, and how seared into my memory and psyche they are. How they serve as a filter, even today, 28 years later, to the way I (and I surmise many other Americans) see Iran. It is the narrative that informs my thinking about Iran today and the relationship between our nations."

Iranian born Reza Aslan speaks about the future of U.S./Iran Relations. At the World Affairs Council, Reza notes:

The strategy of the United States over the past two and half decades to contain Iran has only strengthened the hand of the country's clerical regime and made full democracy a more distant prospect. It is time for a new approach, one that could curb Iran's nuclear ambitions and force Iran out of its economic isolation, leading to the regime change that the U.S. has been striving for since 1979.


January 29, 2007

Dispatches from Davos: Rules for a Global Neighbourhood in a Multicultural World

In an era of great change, religion and spiritualism can provide strength and guidance. However, it is vital to strengthen the dialogue among different religions and cultures in order to foster common understanding. In the case of the West and Islam, a growing disconnect poses serious challenges to global order. This session builds on the ongoing dialogue created by the World Economic Forum's C100 initiative.

1. Will multiculturalism determine national and global politics for the coming generation?
2. What main issues characterize the current West-Islam dialogue? Can concrete actions be taken to resolve differences?

* Jean-François Copé, Minister of Budget and State Reform of France; Government Spokesman, France
* John J. DeGioia, President, Georgetown University, USA
* Mohammad Khatami, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1997-2005)
* Chief Rabbi David Rosen, President, International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Relations, USA
* Jim Wallis, Editor-in-Chief and Chief Executive Officer, Sojourners, USA
* H.R.H. Princess Lolwah Al Faisal, Vice-Chair of the Board of Trustees and General Supervisor, Effat College, Saudi Arabia
* Opening Remarks by Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Prime Minister of Malaysia

January 04, 2007

ACTION ITEM: Oppose Discrimination in the House

Happy 2007 and best wishes for the new year! Today marks a series of milestones in the American Congress. Among them is the swearing in of Rep. Keith Ellison as America's first Muslim member of the U.S. House of Representatives. As you may know, Ellison's fellow Congressman, Virgil Goode, has been less than hospitable in his welcome. See the note below from the petition organizers for a quick way you can take action and speak out as a person of faith on behalf of tolerance and religious freedom.


As religious people from diverse traditions, we call upon Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode to re-examine his opposition to newly-elected Representative Keith Ellison, a Muslim, taking his unofficial oath of office using the Qur'an, and to apologize for his statement that, without punitive immigration reform, "there will be many more Muslims elected to office demanding the use of the Quran." Please read the statement and add your signature.

November 27, 2006

Daily Show: "Left Behind" Video Game

November 01, 2006

Who cares about Darfur?

Although a few months old, this very informative short doc provides exclusive interviews with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), Rabbi David Saperstein and Rev. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals.

July 27, 2006

Faith Blogs Weigh In: Violence in the Middle East

As violence in Lebanon escalates and the goals of an immediate or sustainable ceasefire are debated by international players, religion and politics bloggers are offering their own opinions of the crisis:

An ongoing debate on Street Prophets has surfaced between Pastor Dan and JCHFleetguy regarding the timing of a ceasefire. Pastor Dan contends that the U.S. intervention in the situation thus far has been indicative of the Bush administration’s limited ideological worldview and inability to understand a conflict only from the “I? perspective rather than the “Thou?. This limitation has led the U.S. to stall an immediate ceasefire, which he contends is essential to ultimate peace.

JCHFleetguy agrees with the identification of America’s ideological blinders but agrees with the course taken by Secretary Rice. Certain events, including Lebaneese reform to take control of its territory, must occur before a real ceasefire is even possible. The U.S. must help to secure an ultimately secure and nonviolent future, not one that returns to turmoil in a year.

Other bloggers have chimed in the discussion, such as Asbury Park who asserts that continuing violence cannot end violence but only beget itself. Quarkstomper claims that U.S. involvement in this situation is consistent with the “All or Nothing? attitude that it has shown previously.

Progressive Christian contrasts two articles written about US options with regard to Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah. One is written by Jim Lobe at Anti-War.com and the other by Steven Erlanger of the NY Times. He believes the former astutely places America’s green-light support of Israel as detrimental to wider international diplomacy and the latter article resorts to an unconstructive labeling of “radical Islam? in assigning blame for the situation.

Progressive Christian also posts an entry that criticism of Israel’s actions should not be taken as Anti-Semitic and that progressivism requires analysis among allies. A thread regarding a similar subject is raised by Mik Moore at JSpot regarding suspected Anti-Semitic sentiments surrounding the Connecticut Democratic Senate Primary and Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Progressive Christians Uniting and FaithfulAmerica.org have both used their blogs to solicit signatories for a letter calling upon President Bush, Secretary Rice, and Congressional Leaders to press for an immediate ceasefire. Progressive Christians Uniting cites the unjust provocation by Hezbollah as well as a disproportionately violent response from Israel; they also express a concern that American Neo-Cons will use this situation to renew their campaign for forced control of the Middle East.

On Huffington Post, Peter Laarman questions the duplicitous support given to Israel by many Christians enthused by the escalating violence which they believe to be an indicator of Jesus’ second coming. He writes:

We should never forget the huge numbers of Christian Zionists in this country (and doubtless in the Bush Administration) who are enthralled by this latest drama and are feverishly consulting the books of Daniel and Revelation to see whether this might be "it" or at least a prelude to the Big One on the plains of Megiddo. Although anti-Semitic at their core, these Christians are reflexively, even vehemently, pro-Israel because unless that Third Temple gets built where the Dome of the Rock is now, there's no Second Coming.

Apocalypse-Bob echoes this concern on I Am a Christian Too. He says that this “Left Behind? mentality infiltrates our foreign policy and translates into a hidden aversion to lasting peace in the area. Bob quotes an article from the Toledo Blade that demonstrates the seriousness of the Rapture Christians.

Jeremy Burton at Jspot.org takes a step back from the situation, and says Jews must be careful not to let this situation distract attention from the other numerous threats to the common good. He intends:

“to keep reminding the Jewish community about all the rest of our agenda. Its our mission, even in a moment of crisis in Israel, to never lose sight of our role as a powerful force and voice and as a reliable ally and partner to a progressive agenda in this country?
Faith In Public Life