Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s Case: Hearts on our Sleeves or Heads in the Sand?
With this article, please welcome Iesa Galloway to MM's Staff as Public Relations Coordinator. Iesa is the Principle of Galloway Public Relations, LLC, and has been involved with CAIR-Houston, TDC, and F&J. A short bio has been added on his author's page.
Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s Case: Hearts on our Sleeves or Heads in the Sand?
A guide to charting the waters of community response by Iesa Galloway
Amad’s recent article: The Grey Lady of Bagram: Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and many of the posts it prompted clearly demonstrate how complex an issue Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s case really is.
Complexity often makes for murky waters and with all the factors surrounding this case, be assured that the path forward can be perilous.
This article is not a discussion of the case’s legal merits or its moral implications. Rather, the purpose is to explore constructive ways to respond to such issues, so that the American Muslim community is neither used for an agenda that it does not support nor relegated to an ineffective role that promotes feelings of resentment, disenfranchisement or detachment from society.
The steps are simple to understand, yet can be difficult to employ:
- Separate emotional responses from core and universal principles
- Tolerate different and opposing points of view
- Identify effective ways to promote justice
- Build lasting relationships that promote the greater good
In a case like this the feeling of clarity is often rooted in emotional and preconceived perspectives. This is because as members of the public, we do not have full access to the facts or the perspectives of the opposing parties. With the astounding accusations made by all invested in the case’s outcome, it is vitally important that as individuals we understand the basic ways that this and similar cases can be used.
For example, a xenophobe whose pre-trial commentary on Dr. Siddiqui implies or declares guilt will normally follow such a notion with broad-brush treatment of the Muslim community. They will paint American Muslims as a subversive group that silently supports the allegations. However, we do not have to look to the fringe political and social commentators to find similar propaganda. Those calling for American Muslims to disengage from social and political activism are not only the opposite-equivalent of the xenophobes; they are also helping them marginalize American Muslim voices. Both the automatic assumptions of guilt or government conspiracy reveal more about the world view and biases of the commentator than they do about the case itself.
The myriad of conflicting “facts†will continue to be used and many times, spun to support any number of agendas. For example, Al Qaeda would want the reports of abuse, along with the entire accusation of an “integrated American Muslim mother” turning operative, to be seen as validation and a recruiting tool. The U.S. Government needs to demonstrate that it is capable of safeguarding the population while at least complying with basic human rights standards. Advocacy organizations may see the case as a chance to fulfill their mission’s and thus increase their stature and ability to fund-raise. There are virtually endless combination of reasons that groups and organizations would want to get involved and more often than not they are a mix of both altruistic and opportunistic motivations.
We get motivated by this same mix of reasons as well. The stakes are high, even for us as individuals, as Americans and especially as American Muslims. We see a traveling mother and her family broken up. Her rights as a citizen suppressed. We hear different reports from our government and from the accused. As our reaction begins to formulate we normally choose either a path of complacency or discord. We should ask ourselves, are there other options? How should the American Muslim community respond?
This simple answer is that there will be no American Muslim community response. There will be responses from American Muslims and American Muslim groups. On the surface this fact can appear as disunity or a weakness, but in reality it can be a very sophisticated and appropriate strength. As the case and the surrounding factors are complex, our diversity mandates that our responses will be as well. However, a complex mix of responses and a coherent set of responses are two vastly different things.
Currently we have several categories of responses on record, none of which show a real grassroots position or a sound approach for the greater good:
- Muslim advocacy organizations that championed cases in the past have responded by remaining unengaged. Often the cases they previously supported have become classic examples of winning a battle, while delivering results that clearly lacked real forward progress.Take for example, the designation of being an “unindicted co-conspirator.†Few in the general public will consider the fact that this designation is strategic in a case against an indicted entity. They will likely overlook the fact that the label is nearly impossible to challenge and that the practice of publicly revealing entities named as unindicted co-conspirators is frowned on because an entity is considered innocent until proven guilty. Several well-established Muslim leaders and organizations have found that being publicly labeled an unindicted co-conspirator is difficult, if not impossible to completely recover from.
- Some Muslim leaders have commented on the case. There statements fall in one of three categories: a) assuming guilt of Dr. Siddiqui, b) assuming her innocence or c) a wait and see position, which implies trust in the system and should be intended to inspire trust from our fellow countrymen.
To affect positive outcomes for America, its position and role on the world stage, the American Muslim community and the case itself, we need to embrace a few strategies.
One is separating complex and emotional issues into their core components. In this case the major issues are: human rights, justice, legal prosecution of individuals suspected of engaging in or supporting terrorism, and community support for a mother and family going through a horrible ordeal.
As we all know, American Muslims are a small, but growing minority within America, with estimates ranging from 1% to 2.5% of the total population. This fact screams for the need of building alliances. If we, as a community, can mentally separate human rights principles from the legal case, we would then have a host of potential allies. We can identify and work with groups that oppose torture, stand up for due process, and stand against the deterioration of other constitutional rights. This allows us to build broad-based coalitions that are hard to attack. When a cross segment of Americans stand together, it affirms the validity of the cause. When a minority group stands alone it is seen as a special interest.
By isolating the human rights aspect of the case, and by working to improve America’s image on human rights, you are actually opposing terrorist recruitment efforts and therefore part of an effective solution; not part of the problem.
Separating the issue of Justice is only accomplished by acknowledging that this is a case that needs to be played out in court. That means supporting the process of the trial itself; even though the outcome may be different than what is desired. This is perhaps the most difficult issue for many people. However, the simple reality is that the trial will take place. However, a fair trial is the best case scenario for all Americas. To help assure this, groups have traditionally established and supported legal defense funds. This is among the strongest ways that American Muslims can demonstrate that we are both a concerned and engaged member of society. It proves that we can advocate for justice in a just way. These funds can allow for outcomes to be appealed and even for legal teams to sue for damages! This serves as another example to the world of how we are empowered by our government, with real avenues to challenge injustices.
The last and perhaps most emotionally needed strategy is direct support for the human factor. Charities can be set up for individuals and families. Letters of support can boost morale. Public support, like courtroom sit-ins and petitions all demonstrate solidarity and can have a tremendous effect. These actions can rally organizations and move public opinion. However, good intentions are not good enough. Individual and public action, if done in manner inconsistent from the legal defense’s strategy, can actually do harm to a case.
Today as the grassroots responses are forming, it is essential that we remember the need to create lasting relationships with others who share our universal values. As individuals and as a community we have to find opportunities to build relationships, relationships with non-Muslims that are truly win-win. Obviously, these relationships have to be maintained and reciprocated; otherwise what we really end up doing is to burn bridges.
While we each consider Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s case, it should be stated very clearly that conspiratorial and anti-American rhetoric, withdrawal from society and other deconstructive responses, all serve to separate us from our potential allies. Those responses will empower both the anti-Islamic xenophobes along with their counterparts, the terrorists.
Remember that every God-fearing human being can agree on justice and humane treatment; let those ideals be the cornerstone of our responses
Link to Full Coverage of Dr. Aafia's Ordeal
Iesa Galloway
Paul "Iesa" Galloway is a native born Texan. He was recently called "the Yoda of interfaith affairs" by a colleague from his daytime gig. After hours Iesa serves as a consultant, messaging strategist and trainer on media, government and community relations. Iesa is a product of the "Military Brat" experience of the 1990's on US Army bases in Germany he has traveled extensively, for extended periods in Kenya, Hungary and Communist Poland on missionary trips, visited Communist East Germany with the Boy Scouts of America, as well as enjoyed time in France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Holland and Austria. Since embracing Islam, Iesa was asked to be the founding Executive Director of CAIR-Houston, where he served the community from 2002 to 2006, he has completed the Hajj pilgrimage, participated in an interfaith pilgrimage to the Holy Land with the Society for Biblical Studies and completed a study abroad program on the history of Islamic Spain, Morocco and Andalusian Philosophy with the University of Houston. Iesa's education is rooted in History and Public Relations and he has a interfaith and multiracial background.
Pingback: Friday Links — August 29, 2008 « Muslimah Media Watch