The new Gallup report was released earlier today. MuslimMatters had an embargoed copy to prepare this review coinciding with the release. The full report is available in English & Arabic here: Abu Dhabi Gallup Center

In early 2009, Gallup released its report “Muslim Americans:  A National Portrait.” This report, one of the first major attempts to start responding to the pressing need for reliable information about the American Muslim community, emphasized a couple of major points.  The report emphasized the findings that the American Muslim community was the most culturally diverse faith community in the United States.  It also emphasized that American Muslims in general were highly educated compared to other religious groups.  On the other hand, the report also noted that young Muslims in the United States were less likely than young people of other faith groups to report that they were “thriving” and were more likely to report emotions such as anger.

Now, in August of 2011, as we approach the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center have released a new report – Muslim Americans: Faith, Freedom and the Future.  (As one can see, Gallup consistently uses the term 'Muslim Americans.'  Others more commonly use the term 'American Muslims.'  Although I prefer the term American Muslims, I will probably switch back and forth in this summary.)  Not only does this new report allow us to take a fresh look at attitudes among American Muslims but it also gives a chance to begin to assess some changes in attitudes between 2008 and 2011.  While 2008, with the election of Barack Obama, was widely seen as an optimistic time for American Muslims, the three years since have seen continuing economic problems in the United States, continuing and even expanding U.S. wars in Muslim majority countries, and the increasingly vocal and visible Islamophobia campaigns in the United States.  These have included the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy and the “Anti-Shari'ah” campaigns.

In light of these issues, it is perhaps surprising that this report finds that the percentage of American Muslims considered “thriving” has increased more than that of any other group.  The report's authors speculate that possible reasons for this positive change may have to do with American Muslims having a more positive view of the economy than they did three years ago, and with what the report found was continued widespread support among American Muslims for the performance of President Obama, with nearly eight in ten approving of Obama's job performance - by far the highest of any major religious group.

The report examines the political engagement, social engagement, and spiritual engagement of Muslim Americans.  It does not attempt to examine the sticky question of how many Muslims there are in America, which I think is an important one for us to get a handle on as we seriously attempt to plan for the future of Muslims in this country.  It finds that American Muslims, as compared to other faith groups are more likely to have confidence in the honesty of the country's elections, although Muslims still lag far behind other religious communities in terms of voter registration.  It is not clear how much of this has to do with the percentage of Muslims in America who are not citizens of the country.  Muslims also, perhaps unsurprisingly in light of tensions arising out of the “war on terror” report lower levels of confidence in institutions such as the FBI or the U.S. military  than do other faith groups.  In many, though certainly not all, communities in the U.S.,  the military and law enforcement are often highly trusted institutions.  Along those lines, Muslims in America continue to believe at much higher numbers than other faith groups, that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were mistakes, and that the negative perceptions of the United States in many Muslim majority countries is due to the actions of the U.S. rather than false information spread by those countries' leaders.

One of the charges that is sometimes made against national Muslim groups such as CAIR or ISNA is that they are extremist groups which do not represent the mainstream of the community.  While most of us who are active in the Muslim community would find the characterization of such groups as extremist to be unfounded, this report does interestingly ask Muslim Americans which national group do they find to represent their interests.  While CAIR followed by ISNA and then MPAC come out as the most representative based on the answers to this question, the reports authors conclude that “no national organization represents a large percentage of American Muslims.”  CAIR was named as most representative of their interests by a little more than 10 percent of American Muslims.  ISNA was named by around 5 percent and MPAC by 6 percent of males but only 1 percent of females.  When asked which of a list of national Muslim organizations represented their interests, 55 percent of American Muslim males and 42 percent of females responded that none did.

As further evidence to fight against the idea that Islam itself teaches its followers to embrace violence against innocents, American Muslims, more than any other faith group of Americans, responded that violent attacks by individuals or small groups were never justified (89 percent of American Muslims).  American Muslims were also more likely than any other religious group to say that violent attacks by militaries on civilians were never justified (78 percent).  A majority of American Catholics, Jews, Protestants, and Mormons all said that violent attacks by the military on civilians were “sometimes” justified.

As mentioned above, one of the most alarming findings of the 2009 report was that only 40 percent of American Muslim youth age 18 to 29 could be classified as thriving.  This was significantly lower than the youth of other religious groups and went against the general trend where young people are more likely to be thriving than older members of the same community.  This report finds those phenomenon to have disappeared.  65 percent of American Muslim youth age 18 to 29 are now considered thriving, which is on par with other religious groups, and obviously the enormous positive change from 40 to 65 is much more than any other group experienced during this time period.  To be honest, I find this remarkable change to be a little puzzling, especially in light of widely perceived increases in the visibility of Islamophobia in the media, and this deserves further examination.  The positive numbers are somewhat consistent with other results found in the report which find that in addition to having a generally positive view of President Obama's performance, American Muslims have an optimistic outlook on the economy in general and on their own communities, although they still may report significant economic or community problems.  I also think, as I mentioned when discussing the results of the 2009 report, that we have to consider the diversity of the community and that the Muslim community in America contains large segments which are economically well off and large segments which are economically struggling.  Still, there does seem to be a general optimism among the community which is reflected in these survey results.

Another interesting phenomenon in some of the survey questions is that Jewish Americans in general are less suspicious of American Muslims than are other faith groups.  They are less likely to question the loyalty of American Muslims to this country or to believe that American Muslims are sympathetic to Al-Qaeda.  This should serve to remind the community that despite the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict and the noisy role that certain Jewish voices play in Islamophobia campaigns, the majority of American Jews are more likely to relate to American Muslims as a fellow religious minority here in the United States, which is deserving of protection from discrimination and bigotry and support when persecuted or attacked.  These numbers back up what has been the experience of so many of us, that while there may be a few Jewish individuals or organizations that seem to be part of the anti-Muslim noise machine, whenever one looks to see who are our greatest allies in resisting these same voices, invariably one will find that they are disproportionately Jewish.

I encourage readers to dig into the detailed results here and start a discussion regarding the issues I have mentioned above and all the others addressed in the report.  The greatest value of these studies is to provide some actual empirical evidence which can move us beyond the realm of mere anecdote or of talking purely based on our own subjective experience about what American Muslims (and other groups) think and believe.  However, no one or two reports are going to conclusively answer any questions.  Often they can serve as much as anything to open up questions about how they should be interpreted or what else we would like to know.  So let the discussion begin.

For decades, the concept of female protectionism in Islam has garnered much attention from the Western media. As a symbol of the “clash of civilizations” phenomenon – the Muslim woman’s dress code has often led to eruptions of emotion from the West and the East, with each party absolutely convinced that it holds Muslim women’s rights in the highest regard. Within the sacred doctrines of Islam – The Quran and the Prophetic teachings (Sunnah) – there are codes of living that serve to protect the female role in society. These codes range from dress criteria to limitations on movement. In the West, these regulations which are found within the divine sources of Islam have been ridiculed by feminist groups as forms of female oppression. Yet, Muslim states have not done much to assuage these fears; on the contrary these states have the worst track records when it comes to women’s rights. As a result, laws that were intended to protect women became instruments to contain their role in society.

It is first critical to ask several questions. Why have protectionist laws in Islam, such as veiling, which were initially intended to protect women in societies such as Afghanistan, been transformed into a symbol of patriarchy? Concurrently, why have headscarves been banned in public French institutions under the pretext of protecting female liberty? It is critical to explore the extent to which the rationale of protection is used as an excuse to provide rights for Muslim women in Afghanistan and France, and how these claims actually end up crippling those rights.  First, an understanding of the origins of veiling and its significance in Islam will help to demystify this conflict. Followed by an examination of veiling in Afghan society. And finally, I'll conclude with an analysis of the contentious and ongoing debate over the role of the veil in France and its implications for women’s human rights.

Although the veil is commonly ascribed to the Muslim community, the advent of the veil predates the coming of Islam. Originally, the “first reference to veiling is in an Assyrian legal text which dates from the 13 century BC, which restricted the practice to respectable women and forbade prostitutes from veiling” (Hoodfar 1993: 6). Historically, veiling signified status and “was practiced by the elite in the ancient Greco-Roman, pre-Islamic Iranian and Byzantine empires” (6). The hijab (i.e. veil) became a distinct facet of Islamic identity after veiling was revealed as a divine mandate prescribed for Muslim women by God. Several verses in the Quran speak to the command of veiling, one of them (Surah Al-Nur, verses 30-31) stating that women “not display their beauty and adornments “but rather to “draw their head cover over their bosoms and not display their ornament.”  The other verse (Surah Al-Ahzab, 59) states “O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over themselves, that is more convenient that they should be known and not molested.” Defining what constitutes hijab is often subject to cultural norms of dress and varies around the world (Hoodfar 1993: 7). But, through the interpretation of the Quran, there have been differences of opinion concerning this commandment.

Regarding these critical Quranic verses, there has been great dispute among scholars – non-Muslim and Muslim alike – about the interpretation of these verses. One example is Fatima Merssini, a prominent Muslim feminist who vigorously challenges the notion that veiling is explicitly commanded in the Quran. According to Merssini, “the veil represents a tradition of ‘mediocrity and servility’ rather than a sacred standard against which to judge Muslim women's devotion to Allāh” (Read & Bartkowski 2000: 401). Anti-veiling Muslim feminists such as Merssini also cite “the historical fact that veiling is a cultural practice that originated from outside of Islamic circles” (401). Feminists also question the scriptural interpretations used by Muslim scholars to justify the veil, “call[ing] attention to the fact that the Qur'an refers cryptically to a “curtain” and never directly instructs women to wear a veil” (401). Obviously, the arguments on both sides go beyond some of the feminist grievances selected here, but this debate is beyond the scope of this present discourse. As a matter of historical perspective though, it is critical to understand that a contentious debate over the very legitimacy of the hijab has existed and this debate offers a backdrop of how the veil is implemented in different societies.

Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, many Americans became increasingly concerned with the plight of the Afghan women under Taliban rule. One instance of this intrigue was demonstrated by Laura Bush who declared that “because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. They can listen to music and teach their daughters without fear of punishment…the fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women” (Abu-Lughod 2002: 784).   In western eyes, the burqa (the enveloping garment worn by many Afghan women) was often portrayed in the media as a symbol of oppression that “women in Afghanistan have had to bear” (Noelle-Karimi 2002: 3). Yet, in light of the theological underpinnings previously discussed in this discourse that serve to protect Muslim women, how is it that the West has come to deplore Islamic covering in Afghanistan? One undeniable answer to that question lies within the Taliban’s wielding of power in that country. In order to understand why the Taliban came to impose the female covering as a hallmark of their rule, it is first important to understand origins of their ideologies.

The Taliban’s harsh interpretation of Islam helps to explain why the group’s imposition of a strict form of Islamic dress has limited the role of Afghan women in society, despite the protectionist intentions of Sharia law. Prior to its consolidation of power in Afghanistan, Ahmed Rashid argues that “since the Taliban were orphans of war, who in their long hard battle against Soviet occupational forces had little or no interaction with women and their company, they retreated into a male brotherhood compared to that of the Crusaders of the Middle Ages” (Misra 2002: 582). A majority of the Taliban followers grew up in refugee camps in Pakistan, where they experienced harsh poverty and as refugees “they were encouraged to espouse the idea of revenge in countless madrassas sponsored by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the CIA” (582). Rashid not only argues that the Taliban’s strict actions against women were “designed to reinforce the tribal patriarchal order” (582) but also that Taliban ideology is rooted in the Quran – “which explicitly presents a male-dominated society where women only play a secondary role” (582). But is this the case? As discussed earlier, the orthodox doctrines in Islam codified a set of rules for women that were intended to protect rather than hinder. Laila al-Hibri discusses this matter in depth in the article “Islam, Law and Custom: Redefining Muslim Women’s Rights.” Al-Hibri argues that the egalitarian mandates of Islam, particularly those concerning women’s rights, were executed fully during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammed and the successive generations. Yet al-Hibri claims, these reforms for women were masked by the interpretations of many male religious scholars, as Muslim female scholars were pushed to the background. As evidence of gender equality in the Quran, al-Hibri states that “[the Quran] articulates a basic general principle about proper gender relations; namely, that they are relations between mates created from the same nafs [soul], which are intended to provide these mates with tranquillity, and are to be characterized by affection and mercy. Such relations leave no room for Satanic hierarchies which result only in strife, subordination and oppression” (al-Hibri 1997: 15). In relation to this present issue, it can be concluded that the Taliban strictly interpreted women’s rights in Islam in order to maintain patriarchal dominance over the Afghan women. And there is evidence that documents how the Taliban executed their extremist ideology with regard to female covering.

According to Jurgen Kleiner in the article “The Taliban and Islam,” with the Taliban’s creation of the Department for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue in 1996, “squads from this department tour[ed] Kabul and ensur[ed] that rules for conduct and dress [were] followed” (Kleiner 2000: 27). As evidence of these strict mandates, in December 1996, “225 women who did not observe the dress code were punished” (27). Kleiner goes on to state that “all this [was] done in the name of Islam – stamping out everything which might detract from the ‘right path’” (27). But not only was the Taliban’s reinterpretation of Islam limited to forcefully enforcing women’s dress code, they also adopted measures that excluded women from education and employment. Ironically, it was the very religion that the Taliban claimed to safeguard which endowed women with equal participation in society, since its advent. Although the Taliban insisted that that their enforcement of the burqa “award[ed] women a position of ‘dignity and honor’” (28), they end up reducing women to no more than just clothing. For instance, the Taliban’s ban on education for women was a far cry from the realities that existed in early Muslim generations. The Quran clearly mandates that education is a duty upon both males and females (al-Hibri 1997: 23). Some of the most well-versed individuals in the Quran and the prophetic tradition were women and al-Hibri mentions that “there were also hundreds of women who were among the Companions of the Prophet” and that “the religious education of women in early Islam proceeded hand in hand with that of the men” (22). Even beyond the Taliban, looking broadly to the entire Muslim world, al-Hibri questions the decline in the representation of Muslim women’s scholarship. She attributes this absence to the patriarchal systems which have dominated Muslim lands, and by extension Muslim scholarship in the generations after the Prophet. In the twenty-first century, the most compelling factor that can explain the Taliban’s harsh dealings with women is their strict misinterpretations of the protectionist laws for Afghan women, meant to preserve their male-dominated society. Besides the Taliban, Western democracies are also capable of infringing upon women’s rights to dress freely, and France is a country that has been at the center of this debate in recent years.

Part II will continue with a look at France's historical struggle with Muslim women’s dress code…

References:

Abu-Lughod, Lila (2002) “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?: Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and its Others,” 104 American Anthropologist 783-790.

Al-Hibri, Aziza (1997) “Islam, Law and Custom: Redefining Muslim Women’s Rights,” 12 The American University Journal of International Law and Policy 1-33.

Hoodfar, Homa (1993) “The Veil in their Minds and on our Heads: The Persistence of ColonialImages of Muslim Women,” 22 Resources for Feminist Research 5-18.

Kleiner, Jurgen (2000) “The Taliban and Islam,” 11 Diplomacy and Statecraft 19-32.

Misra, Amalendu (2002) “The Taliban, Radical Islam and Afghanistan,” 23 Third World Quarterly 577-589.

Noelle-Karimi, Christine (2002) “History Lessons: In Afghanistan's Decades of Confrontation with Modernity, Women Have Always Been the Focus of Conflict,” 19 The Women’s Review of Books 1-3.

Read, Jen’nan G., & John P. Bartkowski (2000) “To Veil or Not to Veil?: A Case Study of Identity Negotiation among Muslim Women in Austin, Texas,” 14 Gender & Society 395-417.

Or, a sack of potatoes.

“We have got a Torah and we have got a tradition and these things were never allowed or demanded,” said Shlomo Pappenheim, a senior member of the management committees of the Eda Charedit. “Cover the body, fine, but you would think them a sack of potatoes.”

“The Eda Charedit is very against it [burka] and sees in it a real danger that by exaggerating you are doing the opposite of what is intended – severe transgressions in sexual matters.”

It is interesting to note that while France has just banned the niqab and burka for reasons related to “the dignity of the person and equality between sexes,” Israel is attacking the burqa for being too sexual.  The French senate passed the ban less than a week ago (Source: CNN) by a vote of 246 to 1, with about 100 abstentions, calling the burqa “a new form of enslavement that the republic cannot accept on its soil.”

So what is the real issuse?  Sexual fetish or slavery?  These two issues are closely intertwined when it comes to women, particularly because so much mistreatment and trafficking of women revolves around the sex trade.  Young women, and young girls, are stolen, sold, and used by the hundreds of thousands every year, but interestingly enough, I don't think any of them are made to wear burkas.    So perhaps if France wants to put its foot down and take a stand, and issue a ban on an article of clothing that symbolizes the enslavement and sexual degradation of women in its republic, they might want to go after the miniskirt.

(Or maybe t-shirts that read 'I've been forced into slavery and all I got was this lousy t-shirt,' but I don't think they make many of those.)

In the case of the Israeli ban,  I deeply sympathize with those women who are trying to protect their modesty.  As a Muslim and a woman who has been wearing an abaya (the burqa's more stylish cousin) for over ten years, I have had many long conversations with other modest young woman – like the Jehovah’s witness who lamented how difficult it was to find a full-length skirt in the mall or a pair of jeans that didn’t have ‘Juicy’ printed across the backside.  Living in Northside Chicago, I traded shopping tips with ultra-orthodox Jewish friends and when the fashion industry failed to meet my requirements, my Mormon mother taught me how to sew.

While each of our religions are tremendously different in many respects, modesty is a common thread that runs throughout all three of them. Jewish, Muslim, and Christian women are all advised to cover their heads and be modest (1 Cor. 11:4-16), and yet, here we have an ultra-orthodox rabbinical council in Israel accusing the women of sexual fetishism.

Now, last I checked, sexual arousal in human beings was closely tied to a ‘less is more’ approach in clothing – fewer clothes equals more arousal. One could argue that a partially-dressed woman is more alluring than a nearly naked one, but most dirty magazines are not full of women in capris pants and t-shirts. And they’re certainly not full of women in burkas.

(On a side note, if the defining factor for the acceptability of clothing is how closely the wearer resembles a sack of potatoes, then we should expect a ban on judges’ robes, nuns’ habits, Hawaiian mu-mus, and those silly robes that we graduate in.)

Nuns cover, ultra-orthodox Jewish women cover, Amish and Mennonite women cover, but none of them use the burka. And, if French women were to pull a fast one and start wearing kabuki masks instead of niqabs, I doubt a ban on kabuki masks would follow. I believe that the real issue is not modesty, but identity. The burka – a symbol of Muslim modesty and identity –  is under fire the world over, and if Jews can wear it, and if Christians should decide to wear it, then what basis remains for saying that Muslims can’t wear it?

If the women of Beit Shemesh were to create their own modest garment – give the fabric a different cut, give the design a Hebrew name, and make its outward appearance unmistakably Jewish, then they would probably be lauded by the ultra-orthodox community instead of facing such insults as “smelly Arab.” They might even be seen as upholding or reviving important fundamentals of Jewish belief – adherence to scripture and pride in their identity as modest Jewish women. The mistake they’ve made is not one of fashion sense, but political sense. They’re blurring the line between us and them and that makes it harder for us to persecute them.

In order to maintain conflict, it is crucial that your opponent be seen as having differences irreconcilable through any other means. This is why, on a smaller scale, when one village is mortal enemies with another, “they” do things this way, and “we” do things this way, and these differences are made prominent even to the extent that the men from this village will only part their hair this way and the women will never cook fish on Thursdays, because only they cook fish on Thursdays. Both villages part hair and eat fish, but not like they do. If you want people to fight, tell them how different they are, because if they realize they’re both the same, then you’re in danger of losing support for your war.

Fighting to reinforce the differences between Muslims, Christians, and Jews is the strongest way to maintain animosity, and by saying that the women of Beit Shemesh can dress modestly and cover their heads in anything but a burka is perfectly in keeping with this strategy.  In a kinder world, a Jewish woman and a Muslim woman could find a talking point in something as simple as ‘Hey, nice burka!’ but in this world, a Jewish woman in a burka is stopped at checkpoints, insulted by her neighbors, and harassed by Israeli security to prove she is Jewish. Perhaps, Jewish women in burkas present a difficult question – if you all look alike, how do we know who to persecute?

Say: “O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allāh; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allāh.” If then they turn back, say you: “Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allāh's Will).”  Quran 3.64

I salute the women of Beit Shemesh for their courage and their determination to fulfill what they believe are their religious duties as women, and for my French sisters, I ask that Allāh make righteousness easy for them.  It's hard to fight for your modesty in a world that insists you give everything away, may Allāh increase us all in courage and faith, and guide all of us to truth, and eventually, peace.

Recent efforts are underway in various parts of our country to legalize and expand the use of racial profiling with dangerous and far reaching consequences for U.S. residents including Muslims.  Arizona Senate State Bill 1070 was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer a few weeks ago, allowing law enforcement agencies to detain anybody “if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants,” and requires legal immigrants to carry paperwork proving their status at all times. The new Arizona immigration legislation:

• Legalizes questioning and/or detention by local law enforcement of anyone they “suspect” is undocumented.
• Effectively requires all immigrants, even those who are naturalized, to carry identification proving their legal residency in the U.S., and grants police officers authority to enforce federal immigration law and arrest people who cannot produce identification.
• Criminalizes all undocumented immigrants as “trespassers” in the state of Arizona and would subject all undocumented workers and their families to arrest and conviction for misdemeanors, and in some cases felony charges for the new crime of “trespassing.”
• Allows police officers to arrest people without a warrant, thereby undermining constitutional safeguards under the Fourth Amendment.
• Allows residents to sue cities if they believe the law is not being enforced.

This measure transfers federal powers directing into the hands of the local police force to use their personal and individual judgments to decide when to stop a person they perceive to be without legal paperwork.  The reasons given for such extreme measures include lack of federal enforcement at the border, increased drug crime, and the financial effects on the local economy of having a black market of workers who accept substandard wages.  Although the reasons given are valid and require appropriate solutions, Arizona Senate Bill 1070 is not the answer. There is a profound fear in the civil rights community that the new measure will permit the practice of racial profiling by Arizona law enforcement personnel. In fact, what else can the police use to determine proper suspicion except racial profiling?

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) Legal Director, Abed Ayoub, pointed out: “To allow the use of racial profiling in law enforcement practices is both dangerous and unconstitutional. The measure signed into law by Gov. Brewer has a profound impact on not only the Latino community of Arizona, but on all individuals living in the state. This law also illustrates the pressing need for Congress, and the Obama Administration to pass comprehensive immigration reform.”

The law implicitly targets people of Hispanic origin although it is by no means limited to such.  One has to ask why Arizona would prefer the local police force, who is already overwhelmed with domestic crime, to add immigration enforcement to their list of duties rather than stop the problem at the border.  The inevitable outcome of such a law is to allow legalized harassment of the Hispanic population which currently makes up 20% of Arizona’s population and is growing.  They are seen as a ghettoized, cheap labor force that has created a subculture not considered to be “assimilated” into America society.

Interestingly, half way across the world in France, laws with similar outcomes have just been implemented.  The difference is that France’s laws are directly targeting Muslims instead of Hispanics, and they are using religious dress as a premise for harassment.  Muslims are similarly estimated to be between 10 – 20% of the French population and are considered a ghettoized, cheap labor force that has created a subculture not considered to be “assimilated” into French society.  France implemented the “Hijab Ban” several years ago, punishing girls who choose to wear the Hijab by preventing them from obtaining an education.  Women are similarly discriminated against in government workplaces if they wear the Hijab.  Recently, France passed a new law outlawing Niqab and assigning fines and jail time to women who choose to don the Niqab.

In both cases, the results are the same: the legalized harassment of a growing minority population, the disenfranchisement of a large voting bloc, and the increase of racism, stereotyping, and discrimination between average citizens.  It seems that in these democracies, as long as the ruling class maintains the majority population, freedom and human rights are guaranteed for all.  Once the ruling class’ majority standing is threatened, protection of individual freedoms is usurped, and discriminatory laws are permitted in an attempt to scare minority populations away.

Unlike in France, the new law in Arizona does not define the guidelines law enforcement should follow to detain individuals.  Therefore, a police officer has an open door of interpretation (and stereotyping) to stop anyone, anywhere based on their individual whim.  This means anything that makes a person stand out as “foreign” is grounds for suspicion and makes Muslims a possible target of this law.  Aside from our Hispanic Muslim brothers and sisters, the Hijab or Niqab, darker skin, a long beard, and “Arab” or “Desi” features all make Muslims vulnerable to questioning their presence in the United States.  It also gives a carte blanche to Islamaphobic police officers to stop and harass a Muslim any time without having constitutional just cause.

After September 11, 2001 and up until this recent Arizona law, racial profiling was used on a large yet limited scale at airports, the borders, and in immigration cases by federal officials to directly target Muslims and citizens of Arab and Indo-Pakistani origin.  The use of such racial profiling was done in secret and officials have been unwilling to confirm the scope of its use.  This new Arizona law directly legalizes and sanctions the use of racial profiling and greatly increases the scope of its use.  Rather than simply falling under federal enforcement, the new law has expanded the use of racial profiling to all levels of government and law enforcement.  Rather than simply being used in airports and at the borders, the new law allows the use of racial profiling on every street and public building in Arizona, with several other states lining up to follow suit.   The prospect of corruption, misuse, and legalized harassment is enormous.  In a statement, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Arizona Chapter Chairman Anas Hlayhel said, “American Muslims have faced the detrimental effects of racial profiling and we stand against the broad and generalized application of this practice. Racial profiling is ineffective policing which will build distrust and fear of law enforcement in the community.”

MAS Freedom Executive Director Mahdi Bray has called for “a full national mobilization of the American Muslim Community in our position to Arizona's legalization of racial profiling. This misguided legislation will certainly unite millions of Americans from diverse backgrounds who recognize that what America needs is not racial profiling but a fair and equitable immigration policy.”

As Muslims, we should not wait until we are adversely affected by such laws to take a stand.  Indeed standing up against injustice and for an oppressed people, be they Muslim or non-Muslim, is a requirement in Islam, is a means of changing the image of Muslims in America, serves as Dawah, and ensures that we will have allies when we once again become the targets.  This could be as simple as educating friends and colleagues about this new law and voicing opposition as a Muslim.  Individuals and Muslim organizations could contact other community groups whose members are affected by this type of legislation and voice support, form coalitions, and co-author statements against the bill.  It is only through this type of local outreach that the tide will slowly change.

I often ask myself if I was alive during the Civil Rights Movement, if I would have cared enough to march with my African American brothers and stand up against the inhuman practices of segregation when I was not yet the target.  I am sure many Muslims did stand up but I wonder if we as Muslims had mobilized and done more then, would we be in such a weak position now?   Would the image of Islam be so negative that large numbers of Americans view us as terrorists and oppressors? Only when we begin to care about the plight of others can we expect them to care about our plight and start to see Islam as the true Mercy to mankind.

—

How much do you really know about the niqab? An insider guide to common misconceptions.

1. The niqab is a symbol of female subjugation.

None of the niqab-wearing women who I know, wear it because they have been forced to. They see it as an act of devotion to their Creator: the culmination of a spiritual journey. In fact most of them are women who were born and brought up in the UK; many are White or Afro-Caribbean Muslim converts to Islam who have chosen to observe it. The hijab, niqab and abaya are outer garments and are worn only when outdoors or in the presence of men who are not close relatives and so, contrary to popular belief, underneath their robes, in family and female-only settings Muslim women are often very fashion conscious and outgoing. They dress in everyday clothing; they get their hair done, go on holiday and even buy lingerie!

2. Women who wear the niqab cannot possibly contribute to society

People are surprised to hear that niqab-wearers come from varied vocational backgrounds. They include doctors, teachers, dentists, authors, social workers, university graduates, lecturers and more. They usually prefer to work in a female environment and so would not wear the face-veil all the time. Other women say that wearing the niqab actually makes them feel more comfortable when they are working with men. It is ironic that the very women who are the subject of debate are far from being a burden on society: they don’t get drunk and disorderly, don’t smoke and are likely to be very good citizens. Many of them are full-time mothers who take pride in raising well-educated children who will be an asset to British society.

3. The niqab isn’t in the Qur’an

The Qur’anic worldview presents a complete system of living, which permeates the daily lives of observant Muslims. This includes everything from rituals of personal hygiene, advice on neighbourly behaviour and animal rights to regulations for dress. Some women see the niqab as a religious obligation, others, as an act of worship following in the footsteps of notable Muslim women of the past. Numerous verses in the Qur’an contain directives for Muslim women’s dress, amongst them:

“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the Believers to draw their outer garments all over their bodies. That will be better, so that they may be known and so as not to be annoyed, and God is Ever-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (33:59)

The Qur’an was interpreted by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his disciples and their teachings form the basis of Islamic law. There are two orthodox schools of thought with regards to the interpretation of this verse. One orthodox interpretation is that it means covering the whole body including the face. The other school of thought is that, though not obligatory, covering the face is a virtue.

4. Wearing the niqab implies that all men are predatory

Just as locking our doors at night doesn’t imply that all members of society are burglars, wearing the niqab doesn’t imply that all men are predatory.

The Islamic worldview recognises that attraction between men and women exists and, if left unharnessed, has the potential to break down the moral fabric of society. It also acknowledges the physiological and physical differences between men and women and therefore Islamic legislation for dress and behaviour reflect these differences and aid adherents to avoid situations that could lead to extra-marital sexual relations. Hence both men and women have been commanded to lower their gazes and given directives on dress.

5. The niqab poses a security risk at banks and airports

By simply going to the side and showing their faces and ID to female members of staff, Muslim women who wear the niqab, have been, for decades, passing through airport security in major airports all over the world without cause for security concern. The same sort of arrangement can be made for any situation where ID needs to be checked.

6.Niqab wearers can’t possibly be teachers.

There are many highly qualified and experienced Muslim teachers. A Muslim teacher, who wears the niqab, would not need to do so if men were not present, therefore many female Muslim teachers choose to teach women or children and uncover their faces whilst teaching.

7. Banning the niqab will free those Muslim women who are coerced into wearing it.

Banning the face-veil would be totally counter-productive: it would cause many Muslim women to feel targeted and persecuted and is likely to cause many talented women to withdraw from society. The majority of niqab-wearing women in Europe, wear it out of personal choice, so if, for the sake of a suspected minority, the niqab was to be banned, this would be clear discrimination against the majority. If we want to empower women from any community who are oppressed or abused, effective public services where such abuse can be reported need to be made more available and accessible to the women involved.

—

Article originally published in the Times Online; republished with permission from the author.

Photo Credit

After Campbell brought up this brave question on CNN, a question that all Muslims have been asking in America to themselves, to their friends, but not making a big deal of, because we want to think “yes, we understand the political situation about Muslims being potentially politically caustic, and yet hoping that others would ask for us.

And Campbell did, and now this brave man, probably one of the few respectable and upright individuals who served in the Bush Administration has spoke up for all Muslims. He did Campbell one better, by touching the souls and hearts of all fair-minded Americans.

“Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is?”

And so Powell made the right conscionable decision, the decision to go against his own party, and support the RIGHT candidate, not the politically expedient choice of supporting his party's candidate. But he did not just make an endorsement, he explained his decision, in a way that every American can understand.

And not only did he explain his decision, this honorable man spoke for the millions of Muslims, troubled by the “Muslim smear”– the millions, a majority of whom will be voting for Obama not due to Obama's faith but his policies, the millions who have been wondering, “what if he is [a Muslim]?”

Thus, we cannot let this moment get away, we cannot let these profound statements of Colin Powell get washed away in the rhetoric, and the giddiness or despair surrounding it(depending on which side of the Presidential election one is). Because endorsement will hopefully help a few troubled hearts reconcile with Obama, but the endorsement of millions of Muslims by Powell helps millions of troubled hearts find a little peace, that there are men in this country who are willing to speak the truth. Upright men in this country, who stand up to their own parties or to their own affiliated groups, and stand up and say that “no sir, you cannot get away with this”. Stand up and say “what if he is [a Muslim]?”

I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.” Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

And then Powell doesn't stop at this. He is not running for an election, he doesn't have any ulterior motivations to talk about Muslims, he is free to speak his heart. And he talks about Muslims, who are not only Americans, but like McCain, served their nation. See for yourself:

Transcript: Link here

See Also:

•  Colin Powell condemns the ugliness of the Republican Party @ Salon (H/T to Abu Umar's comment)

In Case You Didn't Believe Us the First Time 'Round

I dunno about you, but I'm getting bored of all these “revelations” that the majority of Muslims condemn terrorism, are not “radical,” believe in democracy (or at least, don't mind it), and all that jazz.

Anyway, in case you don't believe Muslims telling you that most Muslims don't condone terrorism, aren't radical, believe in democracy, etc. maybe you'll believe the Gallup poll telling you that most Muslims don't condone terrorism, aren't radical, believe in democracy, etc.

The Great Gallup informs us that:

• 93% of the Muslim population is “moderate.”
• Only 7% of the Muslim population is “radical.”
• Being a religious Muslim doesn't make you a radical.
• “Radicals” are politically extreme, not necessarily religiously extreme; and give political reasons, not religious reasons, for condoning terrorism.
• “Radicals” are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful about the future than are “moderates”; they also support democracy/ believe in democracy more than the “moderates” do, but are just cynical about getting it themselves.
• Muslims don't want secularism or theocracy, but a democracy based on religious values.
• Muslims don't hate the West, they just don't want Western ways imposed on them.

The most amazing thing is that it took them 6 years of interviewing approximately 95% of the world's Muslim population to discover what we've been saying all along. It's nice to see that people pay attention to us… NOT!

Anyway, these are basically the main points that the poll reveals, “challenging Western stereotypes of Islam and Muslims.” Personally, I consider the poll to be as useful as Captain Obvious, but whatever. If people choose to listen to another survey instead of what we've been saying all along, then fine. Whatever will help people get over their misconceptions about us is worth having around, I guess.

Since I'm supposed to pretend that I'm a political analyst for now, it's time I get all politically analytical… so here goes.

The first three points aren't really worth commenting on, since we've only been saying it since forever; although as I said, since nobody seems to ever believe us, maybe they'll believe the Gallup poll. I am, however, quite interested in the second half of the findings – they may not be new to me, but they probably are for the majority of the non-Muslim audience.

If nothing else, the survey creates a new definition for “radicalism,” distinctly different from the one we've gotten used to hearing from the media. Rather than defining radicalism or extremism as something linked to religiosity (e.g. a practicing/ conservative Muslim is usually eyed askance and suspected of being 'radical'), Gallup points out that it's far more political. Religious reasons are rarely, if ever, given when support for terrorism or terrorist acts are being explained; political views, particularly resentment against America and its disastrous foreign affairs legacy, are what most people use to justify or understand (if not totally approve) the motivations of the terrorists.

The main character in “The Reluctant Fundamentalist” (by Mohsin Hamed) comes to mind as I think about it – Changez is a young Pakistani man, Muslim in name alone, who goes to New York and lives it up… yet about 9/11, he says: “…I smiled. Yes, despicable as it may sound, my initial reaction was to be remarkably pleased… I was caught up in the symbolism of it all, the fact that someone had so visibly brought America to her knees…”

Perhaps not a real-life example of what Gallup is trying to tell the West, but an example nonetheless.

The survey shatters another stereotype: say “radical Muslim” and most people immediately start thinking of a swarthy, bearded, robed guy with his face scarily contorted as he screams out “Death to America!” or (to those less gender-discriminatory) of a niqaabi waving a burning flag. Yet the poll tells us that “radical Muslims” are more likely to be highly educated and have better jobs – basically, professionals!

This different look at what radicalism is and who it affects should lead us to thinking about why it exists in the first place. Instead of settling on simplistic and grossly incorrect explanations such as “they hate democracy” and “they hate our freedom,” those who are truly concerned about the socio-political climate that exists today must realize that there are many shades of grey and there's no black-and-white when it comes to who's right and who's wrong. It's not about some comic-book-like secret organization suddenly deciding to take over the world, as Islamophobes are constantly claiming is the goal of “Islamists”; rather it's a much more complex situation with deep roots in the past and constantly experiencing “plot twists” as the political situation becomes more extreme.

Furthermore, it also goes to show that “radical Muslims” do not hate democracy or freedoms, as Bush has (in)famously claimed: it's quite the opposite! Most Muslims, not just the so-called radicals, agree with the concept of democracy… however, what we do disagree with is the idea that America seems to have, that whatever they do and say is what everybody else should be doing also. In fact, if America truly believed in freedom, then it would give the rest of us the freedom to believe in a society different from America's; in a way of life different from America's; in a political system different from America's.

In recent debates about Shari'ah in the West, many non-Muslims argue that they don't want Shari'ah imposed on them – now, is it so difficult for them to realize that Muslims don't want Western ways imposed on us? We're not telling non-Muslim women to start wearing hijaab, so why do they insist on telling us to stop wearing hijaab (perhaps not in so many words, but that's the basic message)? It's attitudes like this, on a societal level and a political level, which so many Muslims disagree with – yet the West must realize that just because we disagree with you, doesn't mean we hate you and are out to destroy you.

In conclusion, I hope that this poll's findings cause people to think more deeply about the issue of Muslims and “radicalism,” and to explore the many nuances of the socio-political issues related to Muslims and Islam in the West. Hopefully, this will foster tolerance and understanding of different points of view, which are sorely needed in a time when people are quick to label things as black-and-white and refuse to agree to disagree.

It's taken me a couple days to absorb this editorial in last Thursday's Chronicle. I get a fair number of bigoted or hateful comments on this blog, and I usually presume that they're made out of ignorance. Sadly, some people get their understanding of Islam from individuals and organizations who present the religion through a plainly biased filter. I know that. My goal with The Straight Path is to provide a more accurate viewpoint to people who haven't had access to an informed understanding of Islam.

But the editorial board of the Houston Chronicle should not need that education. This is a major newspaper in the fourth largest city in the country, and on Thursday's editorial page I found the same old junk I hear from the haters – the misunderstanding of Islamic law, the inability to separate the cultural from the religious, the overgeneralizations, and the conflation of cultural evil with religious authority.

The editorial primarily puts forth a reasonable argument against Archbishop Williams' suggestion, which is a topic worthy of debate. Their argument against British sharia courts might have been valid had they used realistic examples of rulings that might be made in those courts. Instead, the editorial makes unfounded criticisms of sharia by citing violent acts against women – actions that are crimes under Islamic law. The editorial states:

But the very idea that one group of people in his country would live under one set of laws while a subset of the nation would be governed under another is a foreign and abhorrent concept.

It is also a dangerous idea, especially for Muslim women. Despite the fact that the Quran, according to some interpretations, puts women on equal footing with men, the evidence of Muslim women's unequal status in daily life is abundant, even in Great Britain.

Honor killings, for example, in which women are murdered because of infidelity or premarital sex — actual or imagined — are a concern in England, as they are in many Muslim communities throughout Europe. Domestic violence, genital mutilation and forced marriage are huge concerns, particularly in those Muslim communities where women are sheltered and have no natural affinity to the larger society.

How often we Muslims try to break the mindset that equates crime with religion. How often we explain that honor killings and other forms of domestic violence are not permitted in Islam. It is a seemingly endless battle to correct these misunderstandings, and not a battle I would have expected to wage in the pages of the Chronicle. Perhaps I underestimate its open-mindedness.

So I challenge the Chronicle's editors to correct me. Please support your statements by identifying the source in Islamic law that permits honor killings, domestic violence, genital mutilation and forced marriage. And if the point you are attempting to make is that the suffering of maltreated Muslim women is in and of itself evidence that sharia supports it, explain how it can be that the millions of Muslim women who lead happy, healthy, productive lives are breaking the mandates of their own religion.

Denmark stirs Mideast anger over Muhammad cartoons

This time, however, I'd like our – Muslims' – reactions to not be so predictable. I've personally seen enough of riots and rallies, and even of petitions, TV appearances, boycotts, and featured op-eds in newspapers condemning this abuse of freedom of speech.

So what do we do now? It's simple: Nothing!

Seriously, what has any of the above done for us? No matter what we say and do, the enemies of Islam will continue to try and provoke our anger and – more importantly – try to push us to do something that will harm us far more than it will harm them. It's also imperative to note that their pathetic attempts at mocking and insulting the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) are absolutely useless: like throwing dust in the direction of the moon. The dust will be swept away, and the moon's beauty and guiding light will not be affected in the least.

Before anyone jumps me, I'd like to say that YES, loving and protecting the honour and reputation of the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) is something we should do even before loving and protecting our ownselves… but there's a limit to everything.

When we know that they're going to repeat the same lies over and over again, then once we've answered back once or twice, there's no need for us to waste our time and breath repeating ourselves constantly. After all, don't people today say the same things that the Quraish accused our beloved Messenger of? Don't they say that he was a madman, a magician, a manipulator? Allāh responded to and refuted them in the Qur'an, and that was sufficient. Despite the fact that they brought out these lies and claims several times, a single response was enough. So too is it now… we need to move on.

In a way, it was our reaction in the beginning – the riots, death threats, and the rest of it – that propelled the images into infamy. Any publicity is good publicity for them, but it doesn't work for us. We need to use reverse psychology on them: they expect us to behave violently, so we shouldn't behave violently! Having exposed their nefarious plot, we should be clever enough to beat them at their own game.

To that end, as I said above, the best response is no response. Drop the petitions. Halt the rallies. Extinguish those burning flags.

And remember, we always have something even better to answer them with… not fiery speeches or eloquent analyses, but DU'A. That is the best weapon of the believer! Pray to Allāh that He grant this Ummah the knowledge, wisdom, and understanding to handle difficult situations in the correct manner; that He open the hearts of the ignorant to the truth of Islam; that He weakens them in their plots against Islam and the Ummah and makes us successful against them.

P.S. The only boycott I support is a boycott on boycotting Danish goods… I'm suffering Danish butter cookie withdrawal!

Updates:

• You can also join a facebook dedicated to spreading awareness of the “Ignore” Campaign:
  Campaign to IGNORE Danish Cartoon Campaign to IGNORE Danish Cartoon Reprints
• See Suhaib Webb's advice on this
• There is a good article on this topic at AbdulSattar's blog as well: Notes on the Cartoon Controversy.

I’ve been going back and forth the past two months trying to decide how to approach my first blog posting on MuslimMatters.org, but in the end a voicemail (Lovely Voicemail left at F&J about Islam and Honor Killings) I heard yesterday made that decision for me. While at the first Muslim Cemetery in the Dallas area attending the burial ceremony for the two slain teenage daughters of an obviously psychologically troubled member of the community, I received an email on my Blackberry notifying me of a new voicemail on the F&J line. When I got into my car, I dialed in and listened to the voicemail delivered from an “Average White Guy” that I think qualifies to be called a “Bubba” from here on in.

Now in my line of work, I’ve received everything over the years up to death threats and never really take this kind of stuff seriously because from my perspective there are talkers and there are doers. If someone’s going to do something retarded, they don’t really talk about it – simple as that. Plus most of the grassroots anger with Muslim community activism is culturally or politically driven from the bottom up anyhow. What I really found interesting in this voicemail was the guy’s professionalism in calling us as Muslims out for not speaking publicly to condemn “honor killing” and calling for the “reform of Islam” as he put it. In closing he nicely asked us to leave his country if we didn’t agree with him.

Ooh poor “Average White Guy” and ooh poor “Texas”. Where’s the reactionary action-oriented bigotry that we grew up watching in old black and white films like “To Kill a Mockingbird” or something? Even when he wants to be ugly and nasty, “Bubba” is docile. Bubba’s lost his “independent” streak and is just simply overwhelmed. He can’t seem to handle all the “threats to his way of life” being fed to him day in and day out. As Rush Limbaugh said last Friday in a debate with his callers, he learned a long-time ago that you can’t separate people from their emotions with logical argument. You can only replace a feeling with another feeling. What that means for Muslims is to recognize that many Evangelical leaders have replaced the deep fear that 9/11 unleashed amongst millions of their followers with vitriolic hate for Islam. We aren’t going to change these folk’s Islamophobia with arguments, but must figure how to replace their Islamophobia with a different “feeling”. Watching the current Presidential campaigns tells me that “patriotism” is the trump card, but then the question arises are American Muslims capable of sounding “nationalistic”???