Dear Dean of Comedy,

Asalaam Alaikum,

I am a fan, so please take my comments as constructive criticism, insha'Allah, a conversation starter for American Muslim activists to examine our messages, strategies and tactics.

In response to your piece on CNN, I would like to make the following points:

Point #1 – Please do not add fuel to a fire: “Not only is Cain's policy regarding American Muslims morally wrong and illegal, how would it work from a practical standpoint? How could he tell if a person is Muslim? Job applicants could lie about their religion in order to have a chance at a job, especially in this tough economy.” – A major smear against our community is the “taqqiya” (lying to or deceiving of non-Muslims to get the upper hand over them) concept. It has been used so effectively with some segments of the population that they will not accept anything a Muslims says or does. The above quote actually will read to those folks as “see, I told you them Muzlims will lie to get what they want!”

Point #2 – Muslims should consider ourselves equal to anyone and everyone else: With regards to your analysis of Romney and McCain in 2007, McCain also said that cabinet level appointments should be based on merit and qualifications alone. This is a very American standard and one that Muslims should adopt so that we are not putting ourselves on the path to entitlement thinking. In 2007, Romney said that the American Muslim population was not significant enough to warrant a cabinet level appointment. So while Romney's position has moved in a more just direction, Muslims should continue to focus on producing some of the best educated and most successful members of society. That is what we have done and what we must continue to do to determine our long-term success. The path Romney described in 2007 is one of a special interest group.

Point #3 – Islam & Muslim are not terms that equal to a race. Muslim diversity must be promoted: While I love the Reagan quote you used to close the article, the way you structured your piece conflates the very different forms of bigotry that Reagan saw fit to list as separate threats. Yes, the fact of the matter is that Herman Cain is against Muslims as a group. Yes, the majority of the American Civil Rights movement is one of racial tension. While anti-Semitism provides a middle ground, Muslims do not have a single racial, ethnic  or cultural background which makes the defamation we face much closer to the founding fathers concerns over religious persecution.

American Muslims are as diverse as America itself so what better way to respond to the so-called “constitutionalists” than to show them how they are going against the Framers of the Constitution desires for our nation?

We are not a race and should be very careful of using racial analogies to frame our modern issues. Want proof? Look to the same Gingrich statements you paraphrase in your piece. Gingrich makes ridiculous analogies between Islam, Communism and Nazism. Silly arguments like this can only be made if Muslims are allowing ourselves to be seen as a monolith. Racializing Islam sets the stage for the artificial analogy between Muslims and Nazis and Communists because the rich diversity of our Ummah is ignored and we are then seen as a tribe rather than a religion. The argument has become that by virtue of simply being Muslim (if seen as a monolith) we have joined a totalitarian doctrine. Our diversity of thought, diversity of religious interpretation along with the greater Muslim community's richness of spanning vast ethnic divides can all be seen with suspicion rather than the admiration it rightfully merits.

Point #4 – Good work on not using tired, problematic terminology: I applaud you for not using the term Islamophobia, which re-enforces the problems I list in point 3. The use of the term ultimately leads to the logical conclusion of Huntington's the clash of civilizations theory. When we say that fear of Muslims is Islamophobia, non-Muslims can be made to believe that Islam itself is the problem. This is because we did not address the fear. It does not matter if the fear is misplaced, it only matters that it exists. By simply telling someone who is terrified of small spaces that they are claustrophobic, I have not given them any therapy, I gave their fear a label. As someone not suffering from claustrophobia, it may give me a sense of satisfaction to know a term that describes the condition, but did it help me deal with the claustrophobe?

This open letter is nothing more than an opportunity to discuss some key strategic and tactical issues. I did in fact really appreciate your piece and applaud your effort. Thank you for a great opportunity to examine how we see ourselves and how we challenge anti-Muslim defamation. Thanks for making us laugh and by all means keep destroying stereotypes with humor!

JazakAllahu Khairan,

Iesa Galloway

“Is there something wrong with being Muslim in this country?  The answer is no, that’s not America.”

-   General Colin Powell -

MY FELLOW AMERICAN

National Campaign to Share the Untold Stories of Muslims in America

62% of Americans have never met a Muslim.

Do you know a Muslim? Share your story through Youtube.

• A Muslim that you know personally.

  • A wedding, road trip, studying for an exam, attending a concert, overcoming a difficulty together, or other event that stands out for you.

• A Muslim that you don’t know personally.

  • A kind deed, generous gesture, or friendly exchange with a stranger who happened to be Muslim, which made an impression on you.

• A Muslim that you never met.

  • An athlete, entertainer, politician, soldier, health care professional, academic, who inspired you.

1. Visit www.myfellowamerican.tv and sign up for alerts.
2. Encourage your friends and family to join our fan page: http://www.facebook.com/MyFellowAmericanProject

ABOUT UPF
This campaign is being spearheaded by Unity Productions Foundation (http://www.upf.tv/), a nonprofit foundation that works to create peace through the media.

CONTACT US
Khuram Zaman
Khuram.zaman1@gmail.com
443-223-0308

Daniel Tutt
Daniel@upf.tv
202-298-8088

For Muslims this is rooted in two false and foundational depictions: that all Muslims are monolithic (ethnically, culturally, politically and/or racially) and that Islam itself is anti-American or incompatible with western civilization.

In strategic communication, semantics matter and the language we use to define ourselves can serve to clear misconceptions or aid those seeking to make us an “other.” The construction “Muslim-Americans” serves those who wish to paint us as monolithic. It helps create an otherness about Muslims both inside our own self-image as well as in how our neighbors view us.

As basic as this may seem, the starting point toward better messaging is to decide if we are Muslims (as a noun) or if we are Muslims (as an adjective). As you know a noun is the name of a person, place, thing, or idea and an adjective is a word that describes or modifies nouns.

The word Muslim is a noun; it can only function as an adjective and not become one.

Linguistically, using “Muslim-American” means your American identity is modified by your Muslim identity. This feeds the notion that the “good” Muslims are those that compromise their religion and are Americans first. The problem begins when we realize that what it means to be culturally an “American” (or one of us) is a hot topic that is debated and has never been clearly defined.  Who defines what being an American means? The conversations about Muslims in the US all seem to eventually suggest the need for a discovery process, a litmus test of who is a “good” Muslim. This places all of us under collective suspicion, all the time.

The “who is the ‘good’ Muslim” conundrum comes from the very same reasoning of those Muslims who would advocate for the use of Muslim-American. It is rooted in the idea that, “I am a Muslim first.” However, when someone says “I am a Muslim-American” their primary identity is American, but in a flimsy way, in that their Americaness is altered by their Muslim identity.

This is because in English, nouns when working as an adjective always come first or before the noun it is describing. [i]

Furthermore, because “American” identity is constantly in flux and it refers to one's culture and nationalism it does not have to conflict with religious practice. In other words accepting that there is a conflict or that your Muslim identity is “first” is a charade that falls into the traps set by anti-Muslims and Muslim radicals.

However, if you use the construction American Muslim, what differentiates you from other Muslims is your nationality, not your practice of Islam. This is factual and it places creed and culture in their proper roles. What actually differentiates us from other Americans is our creed, the blessing of Islamic monotheism, and we should be proud of that.

Then we have the next question, is our status as a Muslim modified by our status as an American?

A better way to understand this is to divide the question into two:

1)      What kind of Muslim are we?  Meaning, where are you from?

The problem here is that it is assumed that you must be from somewhere else, foreign, i.e. an “other.”

2)      What kind of American are we? Meaning, how do you self-identify as an American (racially, culturally, etc.)?

Answer to 1: For me, as a convert, I am an American kind of Muslim, I am from here just like everyone else whose ancestors immigrated.

Answer to 2: I am also an American (citizen) kind of American in that I will not accept a second class citizenship status relative to anyone else. It also means that I will not try to impose a second class citizenship status on any other American.

So, how do we see ourselves? How will we communicate who we are to others?

As Muslims we are grappling with defamation. We naturally look to history and other communities to learn from their experience. However, one area that makes Muslims truly unique is our diversity. We have intersecting identities. We are racially, culturally, politically and devotionally diverse. This point is crucial to combating anti-Muslim hate, because few if any other faith communities are as diverse, at such significant levels as Muslims in the U.S. are.

The key here is that “Muslim” does not indicate a racial background. If we racialize[ii] our identity we buy into the hyphenated status as an American and therefore in many ways accept the “otherness” that is pushed on us. More importantly, we will be turning our backs on the legacy our faith. Islam came to break tribalism; the Prophet’s last sermon, as well as so many hadith clearly show that the status of a Muslim is related to that person’s relationship with Allah and their individual character and not their lineage.

We should gravitate toward American Muslim. That is, “American Muslim” with no hyphen, because the hyphen model of identity is primarily used with regards to one’s ethnic or racial lineage.

Generally racial groups go with the formula: X + hyphen + American = “X- American” where X can be anything like African, Hispanic, Latino, Italian and etc.

History shows that to be a citizen of the United States one used to have to be legally defined as “white,” a created racial status.[iii] Using a hyphenated racial identity, should then be seen as flowing from a legacy of being by default, un-equal before the law. However, that is not the charge against American Muslims, it is instead that we are a threat. Fear mongers even claim that American Muslims are using the law for a nefarious agenda (Google ”shariah creep”). Therefore the language of X-American is not only the wrong tool for our challenges, it may also feed into the fifth column defamation used against us.

It says a lot about how we see ourselves if we use construction X- American, (the racial/cultural model) like Lebanese-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and etc. use. If we use this label then we are making a claim to something about our racial and/or ethnic lineage. If we try to impose that type of identity on what it means to accept Islam, then we are empowering the message that being Muslim is exclusive by a measure that is foreign to our theology.

Being a Muslim is exclusive because of who you worship, who you don’t worship, how you worship and where you seek guidance - there is no ethnic or racial measure.

Another demonstration of this idea is found in the common saying, “Not all Muslims are terrorists.” This is today’s equivalent to saying, “I have black friends.” In both of these claims (often used as precursors to stereotyping) the core element is that there is a distinction that separates the identity of the group being spoken about from the rest of that society. This is a step backward into neotribalism.

It should also be noted that an established standard for religious groupings is the “American + X” pattern. Test it with a quick Google search. Try: “African + American,” then “American + African.”  Now do another search changing a racial grouping for a faith grouping: try for example: “American + Catholic,” “American + Jewish” or America + X (X = faith/religion).

Catholics are a faith community that closely resembles American Muslims in terms of ethnic diversity as well as historical and current PR challenges. They have decidedly embraced the phrasing of “American Catholics” in all their messaging.

Baptists are another faith community with some commonality to Suni Muslims in regard to the community structure being built around each individual house of worship. Baptists also follow this model of self definition. This is consistent at both the state and national levels. Baptist use “American Baptist” consistently. Locally, in my neck of the woods they use “Texas Baptists.” (see how the BGCT describes its members.)

Will using American Muslim over Muslim-American solve all our problems? Will it stop anti-Muslim activists from attacking us? No, but it will help. It rejects the foundational attacks that Muslims are not REAL Americans and that Islam is a threat to America.

We must realize that what we say and how we define ourselves are the only parts of the conversation about Islam and Muslims that we can actually control.

In my view it is more natural for our community's psyche to make peace with the fact that our American identity is not necessarily modified by our Muslim identity, nor is the opposite necessarily true either. In other words we have multiple identities. If you are an American, that is a fact, it is one part of your total identity. It is the part that pertains to your nationality and some elements of your culture. If you are a Muslim, that is your religious identity, a choice you make due to Allah's Mercy and Guidance. This means any American can be a Muslim. It places our faith as a set of beliefs and values that gives us a source of: morality, guidance, pride and the confidence to share our beliefs, talents and gifts with all Americans.  The other way is not so attractive.

[i] http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/nouns-adjective.htm & http://www.brighthub.com/education/languages/articles/37060.aspx

[ii] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racialize

Listen part 1

Listen part 2

Listen part 3

Here is a somewhat summarized written version:

It's said that the worst enemy to religion is apathy.  It's when people show no interest or enthusiasm towards religion.  It's when people think that religion is no longer relevant.  It's when people think that religion does not solve their daily problems.  Now, we know that this Eid is about Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham).  But, is the legacy of Ibrahim still relevant today?  Of course, as Muslims we say that Ibrahim is relevant to us.  In fact, the Quran tells us that Ibrahim is most relevant to Muslims:

The worthiest (or the closest) people of Ibrahim are his immediate followers, this Prophet (i.e. Muhammad) and those who believe (3:68).

So, from all the so-called Abrahamic faiths, Muslims are the closest to Abraham.  But the question remains, what can we Muslims learn from Abraham that will help solve our problems today, living in the U.S. in the 21st century?  Here, I will focus on 5 qualities of Abraham that I think are very relevant to us today.

1. Minority Status

Now, there is a lot of talk about minority status.  Some Muslims feel powerless because they are in the minority.  Some Muslims have developed a victim mentality.  They speak like a victim, they act like a victim, and they live like a victim.  But look what Allah said about Ibrahim (AS):

Abraham was a nation (16:120)

No doubt, Ibrahim was a numerical minority.  Yet, he was the moral majority.  Ibrahim never felt like a victim.  Ibrahim had the confidence that a majority usually has.  Ibrahim was equal to a nation of people.  The lesson is that being a minority is not bad.  In fact, if we look at Islamic history, we see that Muslims did best when they were a minority.  The Prophet himself praised the strangers.  That is when Islam or Muslims are such a small minority that they are considered strange or even weird.  In a hadith, the Prophet said that Islam began as a stranger and will come back as a stranger, so glad tiding to strangers.

2. Loving God

The Quran says about Abraham:

God took Abraham as a khalil (4:125)

Khalil is usually translated as friend.  However, a more careful look at the word khalil in Arabic reveals a deeper meaning.  Khalil comes from the word takhallala which is when the love intermingles with the heart.  So, Abraham loved God so much that such love penetrated his heart so they became inseparable.  This is the highest degree of love.  Nowadays, other loves are competing in the Muslim’s heart.  Muslims need to make the love of Allah superior to all other loves.

3. Debate Mastery

One of the important qualities of Abraham is his debate skills and his possession of strong arguments.  Allah said about him:

Such was the argument We gave to Abraham against his people (6:83)

Look, for example, at the following debate between Abraham and Numrood:

Have you not thought about the man who disputed with Abraham about his Lord, because God gave him the power to rule? When Abraham said, ‘It’s my Lord who gives life and death,' he said, ‘I too give life and death.’  So Abraham said, ‘God brings the sun from the East; so bring it from the West.’  The disbeliever was dumbfounded. (2:258)

Muslims can learn a lot from this debate.  If one argument doesn’t work, move on to another clearer argument.  Overall, we should possess strong arguments.  Right now, there are some arguments against Islam and Muslims out there.  Muslims should be able to provide a counter-argument for every argument used against us.

4. Gratitude for Allah’s bounties

The Quran describes Abraham as:

He was thankful for the blessings of God (16:121)

Muslims in the U.S. have a lot to be thankful for.  Just consider this; less than 30% of Americans have a bachelor's degree.  On the other hand, American Muslims on average are well educated and well-to-do.  Muslims should learn from Abraham to be always grateful to Allah.  They also should think of the less fortunate in this country.  It’s part of our religion to have mercy on everyone and not just Muslims.  In an authentic narration, the Prophet tells us to show mercy to all the people on earth so that we may deserve the Mercy of the One above the Heavens.

5. Disagree Respectfully

Muslims should not be shy to say that they disagree with others.  Yes, we disagree with the theology of Jews, Christians, and atheists.  We disagree with the conduct of gays and lesbians.  But we disagree respectfully.  Again, look at our example Abraham, and how he disagreed with his own father:

Mention too, in the Quran, the story of Abraham.  He was a man of truth, a prophet.  He said to his father, ‘Father, why do you worship something that can neither hear nor see nor benefit you in any way?  Father, knowledge that has not reached you has come to me, so follow me and I will guide you to a straight path.  Father, do not worship Satan – Satan has rebelled against the Lord of Mercy.  Father, I fear that a punishment from the Lord of Mercy may afflict you and that you may become Satan’s companion.  His father answered, ‘Abraham, do you reject my gods?  I will stone you if you do not stop this.  Keep out of my way’ (19:41-46).

On September 7th, Martin Peretz, the owner of the magazine The New Republic, stated “…Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims…I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse”.

On October 7th, on the popular morning talk show The View, Bill O’Reilly, the conservative Fox News talk show host declared that “Muslims killed us on 9/11.” Defending O’Reilly’s egregious statement, Brian Kilmeade, a co-host of the programme Fox and Friends claimed that “not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists are Muslims.” Fast-forward to October 19th, when Juan Williams divulged the following: “…when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.” When examined collectively, all of these statements demonstrate a ratcheting up of anti-Muslim sentiment in this country. Certainly, Muslims and Islam have become a hot button issue.

Following his statements, Juan Williams was immediately fired by NPR, a move which has unleashed a tidal wave of controversy. From the perspective of a Muslim American, the firing of Williams may have been greeted by some in the community with surprise and maybe even a little satisfaction. It is rare that public figures, such as Williams, suffer the consequences for making Islamophobic remarks. But those of us feeling this way should not get too carried away by NPR’s decision because it looks like Williams’s remarks about Muslims were the straw that broke the camel’s back as NPR had previously expressed discontent with Williams’s affiliation with Fox News. Some Muslims also believe that NPR’s decision to fire Williams was misguided because of their understanding that Williams was simply expressing an opinion held by many Americans when they see Muslims at airports. But what if Williams had expressed the same fear about seeing black people or Jews? Would his statement be as easily brushed aside as a commonly held belief if other racial or minority groups were involved? That’s just food for thought. Regardless of whether you think his firing was justified, at the end of the day, he violated NPR’s code of ethics for journalistic neutrality, and that’s what led to his dismissal.

So, with the discussion that the Williams firing has touched off, the question arises: how can Muslims in America go from being the “feared” minority to the “accepted” minority? I was reading the New York Times' opinion columns and I ran across a post that attempted to answer just that question.

Robert Wright, a columnist at the New York Times, answered the question in his recent article titled “Islamophobia and Homophobia.” Wright explores the reasons why homophobia, relative to Islamophobia, has declined in acceptance among the American public. Wright agrees that “playing the homophobia card is costlier than playing the Islamophobia card.” For any Muslim (and this should be every Muslim living in the America) concerned about how Islam can become integrated into the American social fabric, much like other minority groups i.e. blacks, Catholics, Jews, and gays before us, then this article is worth a read. But just in case you’re pressed for time I will briefly summarize his argument below. Thereafter, I raise several points about what is problematic about his comparison between Islamophobia and homophobia.

Wright argues that homophobia is waning among many quarters across the country primarily because Americans have persistently been exposed to gay individuals over time. To support his claim Wright points to data showing that among frequent churchgoers in the US, attitudes towards homosexuals over the past three decades have warmed (today 70% of this group are okay with homosexuality). The theory that explains why homophobia has faded among conservative Christians is called the “bridging” model theory. This model holds that the closer one is to a member of the “out-group,” the more comfortable he or she will become with all adherents of that “out-group.” Wright illustrates: “If, say, your work brings you in touch with gay people or Muslims — and especially if your relationship with them is collaborative — this can brighten your attitude toward the whole tribe they’re part of. And if this broader tolerance requires ignoring or reinterpreting certain scriptures, so be it; the meaning of scripture is shaped by social relations.”

Because of this “bridging” model, Wright argues that over time Americans have become more comfortable with gays. And as a result, “…by the time gays started coming out of the closet, the bridges had already been built.” Wright frames this phenomenon as a “vicious cycle,” 1) straight Americans accept gayness due to the bridge model 2) more gays feel comfortable uncovering their identity 3) the “more openly gay people there were, the more straight people there were who realized they had gay friends, and so on.” So, does the “bridge” model work for Muslims?

Unfortunately, based on the scientific explanations Wright uses to derive his conclusion, the “bridge” model will be unsuccessful in helping to integrate Muslims. The reason is that “being a small and geographically concentrated group makes it hard for many people to know you, so not much bridging naturally happens.” According to this theory, because Muslims are populated in enclaves throughout the US, there is less of a chance that they can socialize and interact with the broader society – thus making it difficult for them to change nasty public opinion about them. On the other hand, in terms of population, gays have historically been dispersed throughout the US – “the gay population, though not huge, was finely interspersed across the country, with  representatives in virtually every high school, college and sizeable workplace. And straights had gotten to know them without even seeing the border they were crossing in the process.”

So what is the solution that Wright proposes? According to the columnist “it’s a matter of bringing people into contact with the “other” in a benign context. And it’s a matter of doing it fast, before the vicious circle takes hold, spawning appreciable homegrown terrorism and making fear of Muslims less irrational.” Is he correct, or are there more substantive explanations beyond this superficial one?

First, from taking several courses on race and ethnicity in college I learned that the oppressions faced by two minority groups can not be compared hierarchically. You can’t say “black women are more oppressed than white women because black women are dually oppressed as a result of their gender and race.” I feel like the narrative of oppression for Muslims and gays in America are different – therefore making their comparison troubling from the outset. Beyond that, one missing piece of the puzzle that Wright overlooks is the media. One reason, I believe gay Americans have been able to better integrate into American culture is because of the way the media portrays them relative to how Muslims are portrayed. Even before 9/11, it is well documented that Arabs and Muslims were vilified in Hollywood movies and television – Lawrence of Arabia anyone? Yes, homosexuals haven’t always been treated well in the media, but nowadays, shows such as “Modern Family”  and “Grey’s Anatomy” to name a few depict homosexuality as part of the cultural fabric. I don’t think the same can be said for Muslims.

What about the power of lobbying? Combined, are CAIR and MPAC as strong as prominent gay rights advocacy groups on Capitol Hill? When you answer these questions for yourself, you find that Wright’s comparison of these two groups is filled with blind spots and glaring omissions. Readers should feel free to fill them in also.

Perhaps the firing of Juan Williams was a monumental victory in the fight against hate speech toward Muslims – or was it? Contrast that to what happened when Anderson Cooper condemned the use of the word “gay” in the preview of the new movie “The Dilemma” starring the actor Vince Vaughn, Universal quickly cut out the scene. Hopefully, someday Muslim Americans will gain similar if not more of the political and social clout that many other minorities presently enjoy.

—

“I know very well how everything I do for Aafia keeps backfiring. It is just so frustrating. I am just hurt and overwhelmed, shocked at the situation here.”

- Dr. Fowzia Siddiqui
the sister of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui

From her place in the center of the eye of the hurricane I know how Dr. Fowzia could write those words. She is standing in the midst of a situation that nothing could have prepared her for.

She wonders if anything she has done for Aafia makes any difference at all. After all Aafia is still in an American jail, waiting to be sentenced to life in prison later this month. She is no closer to coming home than she was when she was found dazed and disoriented on the streets of Ghazni. So Dr. Fowzia sees herself as a failure…

…but not so fast. Take a few steps back and catch your breath. In 2003 Dr. Aafia and her three children vanished from the face of the Earth as agents of the military dictator kidnapped and sold them to representatives of the United States. Now step forward seven years. As a direct result of Dr. Fowzia's work, her sister Aafia is no longer being held and tortured in an unacknowledged prison facility and two of her three children have been recovered and are living with their grandmother.

Traditionally the families and friends of those who have disappeared by secret government orders have been lucky if they can find a general location where the bodies might have been dumped. Dr. Fowzia and her supporters have achieved something unprecedented in the field of human rights; they have forced the reappearance of Aafia, her son Ahmad, and her daughter Maryam. Three living human beings.

It is true that Aafia is still being held in an American jail and there is still no sign of her youngest son Suliman. Is this the victory? Not yet. In this line of work few victories come easily. There are no rules. Progress is measured as a few steps here and a couple of inches there.

When Aafia is sentenced later this month it will not mean her case is over and lost. It will instead be the confirmation of a victory that freed her from torture in a secret prison and returned two of her children home.

The sentencing will also mark the beginning of the next steps in the campaign. Suliman, the child who may never have had a chance to live, must be accounted for. If he is still alive, return him to his family, if he is not, an explanation must be provided. Aafia must be cleared of the slanders and libels that have been thrown at her. And of course, return Aafia home.

This may seem to be a lot of effort for one woman and a child who may not even be alive. If it were just the two of them you might be inclined to count your blessings and quit. Aafia and Suliman were just born with bad luck.

But it isn't just about them. Or Ahmad and Maryam. Or Aafia's mother, sister, and brother. Or even her ex-husband or her crazy uncle. Hundreds of Pakistanis disappeared in very much the same fashion  during the rule of the military dictator. Bring Aafia home and account for Suliman and it will be proof that others can also be returned. It just takes the will to shine a little bit of light on evil, and evil gets very frightened.

In the Bible story, Moses brought God's message to the Pharaoh, “Let my people go!” Pharaohs come and go using different names, but the message remains.

Look at how Dr. Fowzia responded to her sister's plight armed with only faith in God, a pure soul, and courage. Despite death threats, she and a small group of supporters stood up to a dictator and within a few days Aafia reappeared. A few weeks later the dictator was gone.

This can be repeated to help others. Human rights groups will be studying this case for years as proof that the evil can be overcome.

As a final note, when Aafia came to America she often spoke to me about Islam. She said that while many people focused on fasting and feasting during Ramadan, there was more to it. Ramadan is also a time of reflection. Reflection on the things you have done for others. Like Dr. Fowzia and the campaign for her sister. This has acomplished something extraordinary and it will acomplish even more. This campaign has rewritten the book on saving people from injustice.

Andrew Purcell

Originally published at www.freeaafia.org

Cordoba House “Ground Zero Mosque”: PR & Path Forward Part  1 |  Part 2 | Part 3

Messaging Failures Lead to Tipping Point for Islam in the U.S.

For the first time, I almost believed in the famous “change” that my skepticism has prevented me from embracing. Time and time again, I saw a stark difference between words and action on the part of our nation’s leader. This latest moment was our President backing the Cordoba House Project during his address at the White House Iftar. I thought to myself, principled, bold and decisive leadership in spite of the growing anti-Islam hysteria. Well, as usual, hope was not enough as we now have the sorry display of the amateur hour; “I didn’t mean it and then again well, yes, I meant it,” a flip-flop so quick that John Kerry would be proud.

As disappointed as I am in the President’s leadership, I can’t lay the blame anywhere other than on our own community. Our collective messaging is a cacophony of name calling, alienating stances, special interests and a complete disconnect from the national dialogue that has allowed this issue to morph into a watershed moment for the perception of Islam and Muslims in the U.S. At stake is nothing less then the mass adoption of the clash of civilizations theory by a majority of Americans.

CNN and FOX News polls show a full 68 or 64 percent of Americans (respectively) think it is wrong to build a mosque near ground zero. Then we have the Muslim community’s civil rights and activist organizations resorting to name calling with charges of “bigotry” against a nuanced attack on the project that “this is not about religious freedom, it is about the ‘right’ thing to do” which, effectively places American Muslims against our neighbors with us yet again acting like a entitlement driven special interest rather than a community being victimized by hate and fear-mongering.

Let’s deconstruct some of the core arguments against the Cordoba House. All of which seek to associate the religion of Islam as the cause of the worst terrorist attacks in our nation's history becausee the object being opposed includes a masjid, an Islamic house of worship.

1) It is a “victory” mosque – Is it a victory for Islam that Muslims were among the innocent victims of the attacks? We hear from some pundits attacking the community center about this idea that the Cordoba House will be some kind of trophy. Many of these same pundits utilize the talking point that Muslim terrorists are causing the majority of Muslim deaths overseas when they try to avoid discussions of foreign policy missteps or tragic civilian casualties due to botched military action. Well, why is it okay now to ignore the deaths of Muslim victims of terror? And about this notion of victory mosques, the story of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) refusing to pray in a church after liberating Jerusalem should be sufficient. For readers who are unaware of the history of the third Caliph of Islam, once the holy city became a part of that dynasty's territory, a delegation from the Christians asked Umar to pray in their church and he declined by saying that he was afraid that in the future Muslims would use his action as a reason to take over that particular church in order to build a mosque in its place.

2) It is a slap to the victims of 9/11 – This sentiment is a slap to the Muslim victims and first responders of the 9/11 tragedy.

3) It is too close to hallowed ground – Did not the blood of the Muslim victims of 9/11 also add to sacredness of the site? Do we really want to ignore that jummah (Islamic Friday congregational services) were held in the twin towers?

As American Muslims we can afford to listen to the concerns of our fellow countrymen. If we continue to dig in our heels, we may win a civil rights battle and lose a opportunity to truly dissipate fear, prejudice and ignorance. We can create the type of change that people so desperately sought during the 2008 elections by building bridges and increasing dialogue. If we don’t, we risk empowering a negative platform built on alienating an entire demographic in the upcoming elections.

Logic will not win the day in this controversy. It is a deeply emotional issue. On one side, you have the trauma of surviving a terrorist attack and on the other side, the added insult of being a victim of that attack combined with the suspicion that your community is somehow responsible for it.

There is a messaging solution. A way to show that the two sides are artificial.  Turn the Cordoba House into a memorial for Muslim victims of terror and the resulting cycles of violence. As American Muslims, the dehumanization of the Muslim victims of 9/11 is an all too familiar feeling. The devaluing of Muslim lives in the reporting of tragedies and conflicts is all too common. Muslim victims are often labeled “collateral damage” in drone attacks or generically by their ethnicity, rarely are they humanized with photos or stories of the survivors who have now lost their loved ones. We hear about them in the press as merely statistics. Many of the victims of 9/11 were my fellow countrymen. They were ALL my brothers and sisters in humanity. All of them. And ALL of them, even the Muslim victims were also yours.

For us Muslims — under all the pressures we face today — it is a too often forgotten concept called “principled action.” As a community we advocate for our civil rights and civil liberties at every opportunity in order to openly practice our faith. The laws and protections as well as the social means available to all Americans are the legitimate channels for any community to make their case. Muslims need to be respected, included and afforded the free expression of faith that all members of our nation should enjoy. See: Rev. Franklin Graham talks Pentagon snub for a recent and related story about protests against the demonization of Muslims. This example is exactly why principles are so important. The rights that allow Franklin Graham to spew bigoted and inaccurate views of our way of life are the very same rights that Muslims employ to secure our ability to practice our faith.

Muslims should stand with Franklin on his opposition to the ruling for many reasons. First while some evangelicals like Graham effectively boost their face time on the national media circuit by taking cheap shots at Islam, our response as Muslims will determine if this bully tactic will further marginalize us or not. Second, if Franklin Graham were actually able to manage all of the government’s National Day of Prayer events it might truly be unconstitutional, as more than likely its ecumenical nature would be extremely limited and you can forget about it being an interfaith event. However, if multiple faith communities are welcomed into or at least tolerated during the National Day of Prayer events it becomes very difficult to declare it an establishment of a state religion. Perhaps equally important, standing in support of religious observance as a part of civic life demonstrates that not only are Muslims tolerant of others free speech rights, but also that we understand that the freedom of religion afforded to all Americans allows us to continue practicing our faith in ways that are threatened and/or banned in Europe and elsewhere around the world.

Billy, Franklin, like it or not, Muslims are a part of the fabric of America. We are here to stay and we are an evangelical community — in that we invite others to our faith. We understand that you wish to inoculate your flock from the message of Islam. You have the freedom to spread misinformation and to hold any belief you wish, however this country was founded in part to secure religious liberty and your complaining that a federal institution upheld that value will not prevent some Muslims from seeing the bigger picture. Which leads me to yet another compelling reason to stand with one of our community’s detractors, the ruling on the National Day of Prayer is a threat to the free expression of religion for all Americans. While there are many differences between European laws banning the hijab and this ruling on the National Day of Prayer, at their very core you have government limiting the practice of faith in systems that highly value legal precedent.

Moments like these are truly when our community should look to the example of our beloved Prophet who allowed delegations of Christians to eat, sleep and pray in his masjid. We should also turn to the guidance of the Noble Qu'ran: “God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you over religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them (60:8)” and we benefit from the knowledge of our scholars “The Muslim is taught by his book, the Qur’ân, to hate falsehood, distorted beliefs, and deviance, and consequently, to hate the representation of falsehood and deviant beliefs at the hands of the unbelievers. He does not, however, hate the people themselves. In fact, he should wish for them every possible good and hope that they will attain guidance and be saved from the Hellfire.” from Sheikh Salman al-Oadah.  All of these quotes point Muslims towards tolerance and being a source of goodness.

If we are to dissipate the hate and fear that others have for us we cannot do it from a position of fear and/or contempt of others. Whether individual Muslims want to participate in the National Day of Prayer or not, is not the issue. We like any other faith community should be free to do so unmolested by others. In fact some Muslims are doing so in small, local and organically organized groups. For me, I tend to lean toward “… to you be your religion and to me be mine.” (109.6) That ayah in fact drives my opinion that abolishing this American tradition is not protecting the populace from an establishment of religion, it is instead an affront to religious freedom.

Negativity normally creates more of the same. We do not have to believe in their traditions to protect their right to practice them. The Prophet taught us that even a smile is charity. Let’s all go give that sadaqa (a smile) to evangelicals… very often their membership is not diverse, so they need us and perhaps out of it God will guide some of them.

Update: Since the Senate Bill was signed into law, some people may think that there is not much else that can be done.  Living here in Arizona, I know quite few civil rights organizations are mobilizing.  But here are few more things that each and everyone of us can do:

1.       Urge the federal government to work on a comprehensive immigration bill.  Contact the White House and your state senators

2.       Make sure the AZ governor knows that you are unhappy with her enacting of the new immigration law.  The governor’s contact info is found at http://azgovernor.gov/Contact.asp. As always, be courteous and polite.

3.       Make alliances with immigration and civil rights groups of various faiths and races.  We should show that the virus of racial profiling can strike the minorities of any religion or race. 

Senate Bill 1070 was passed by the Arizona state legislature and awaits the signature of Governor Brewer.  If passed, the bill would legalize racial profiling and sow distrust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.  If Arizona’s governor does not veto the bill within two days, it will become a law in the state of Arizona.  This will also set a dangerous precedence for other states in this country.

Here are some immediate actions that you can take even if you don't live in the state of Arizona.  Please be POLITE and RESPECTFUL:

1. Visit the Presente website and add your name to the petition

2. Call Governor Brewer TODAY and ask her to veto the bill. Call: (602) 542-4331 or (800) 253-0883; On the net: http://azgovernor.gov/contact.asp

3. Forward this request to your friends and family.

For more information about this bill and how it affects Muslims and other minorities, please check this link

Report: British Soldiers Using Models of Mosques for Target Practice

While a military spokesman denied the structures were meant to be mosques, he defended the use of props 'that replicate the environment [soldiers] will be deployed to.'

By Liliana Segura

April 8, 2010
Photo Credit: North News & Pictures Ltd

Seven replica mosques were erected on a range at Bellerby, Catterick Garrison, North Yorkshire to prepare soldiers for combat in Afghanistan.

The British military has been using models of mosques as targets in shooting practice, a UK newspaper reported on Thursday.

According to a report in the Daily Mail, “seven replica mosques were erected” at Catterick Garrison, a major British Army base in North Yorkshire, “to prepare soldiers for combat in Afghanistan.”

The chairman of the local Bradford Council for Mosques (BCM) accused the British military of using the mosques as a “symbol of danger.”

The cutouts were first spotted from a nearby road.

“We came to know about the structures because a passerby saw them from the road and felt that they resembled mosques,” Ishtiaq Ahmed of the BMC told the Daily Mail.

Upon visiting the site on Wednesday, Ahmed said they discovered the structures were, indeed, cutouts of mosques.

“We saw soldiers on the firing range yesterday and we were very shocked and angered and also confused as to why the British Army would do something like this — it seems like a very silly thing to do,” he said.

Anyone looking at it will think about mosques and Muslims and think about them in a negative way. The shape of the structures, the green color of the dome — symbolizes an Islamic place of worship. What angers me very much is that we are conditioning the young British to say that mosques are a place where you are going to find danger and a place to target and that is really disturbing.

Ironically, Ahmed said the BCM has been trying to work with the British Military “to help them recruit more soldiers from the Muslim community.”

The Ministry of Defense, for its part, denies the structures were meant to resemble mosques, describing them as “generic Eastern buildings” and denying that they were used for target practice.

'We Hunt People For Jesus'

Defenders of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the broader fight against “Islamic extremism,” often characterize the enemy as a group of religious fanatics bent on destroying Judeo-Christian civilization. Yet Muslims around the world have watched as soldiers deployed in Western-led wars have not only bombed real mosques and desecrated holy symbols with callous consistency, but have gone so far as to suggest they are on a mission to convert Muslims to Christianity — inevitably casting the wars as a clash of religions.

There are many examples:

– In May 2008, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, was forced to apologize to Iraqis on behalf of a U.S. soldier who used a copy of the Qur'an as target practice. In a letter of apology, the unidentified soldier, who was redeployed to the U.S., called shooting the holy book “shortsighted, very reckless and irresponsible,” but said, “in my heart [the actions] were not malicious.”

– Earlier that year, hundreds of Afghan villagers protested in Helmand province after British soldiers reportedly threw copies of the Qu'ran on the floor during a raid in search of Taliban fighters. “The villagers told them that there were no Taliban hiding in the villages and swore by copies of the Qu'ran they had in their hands,” a protester named Ghulam Mohammad told the Daily Mail. “The British soldiers threw away the Qu'ran and began searching the houses.”

– In January of this year, ABC News reported that the U.S. military was using military weaponry inscribed with passages from the New Testament, despite the fact that “U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan” — a rule meant “to prevent criticism that the U.S. [is] embarked on a religious 'Crusade' in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.”

The Bible-inscribed weaponry “allows the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, al Qaeda and the insurrectionists and jihadists to claim they're being shot by Jesus rifles,” Michael Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation told ABC.

– In 2004, during the first battle of Fallujah — known as the City of Mosques — the U.S. bombed a mosque using hellfire missiles, killing some 40 people. “Worshippers had gathered for afternoon prayers,” according to the Associated Press, which reported that makeshift “hospitals were set up in private homes to treat the wounded and prepare the dead for burial.”

– During the second battle of Fallujah, in November 2004, after U.S. Marines stormed a different mosque, one soldier was caught on video shooting an unarmed injured prisoner at point blank range, leading to an investigation.

– In May 2009, Al Jazeera captured damning footage of the chief of U.S. military chaplains in Afghanistan exhorting U.S. soldiers “to be witnesses” for Jesus. “The special forces guys — they hunt men basically. We do the same things as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus,” Lieutenant-Colonel Gary Hensley told soldiers at Bagram Air Base. “Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom. That's what we do, that's our business.”

The report also revealed Bibles translated into Pashto, apparently for distribution to locals. “I … want to praise God because my church collected some money to get Bibles for Afghanistan,” one soldier, Sergeant Jon Watt, said on tape.

– In another notorious series of incidents, Army Maj. Gen. William Boykin, an evangelical Christian, declared the supremacy of Christianity over Islam. “In October 2003, Boykin was revealed to have gone on several anti-Muslim rants, in public speeches, many of which he delivered in military uniform,” Jeremy Scahill wrote last May. “Since January 2002, Boykin had spoken at 23 religious-oriented events, wearing his uniform at all but two.”

Among Boykin's statements, he said he knew the U.S. would prevail over a Muslim adversary in Somalia because “I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.” Boykin also charged that Islamic radicals want to destroy America “because we're a Christian nation” that “will never abandon Israel.” Our “spiritual enemy,” Boykin declared, “will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus.”
– Last spring, an article in GQ reported that cover sheets adorning top-secret intelligence briefings at the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld featured Bible verses atop military imagery, “and were delivered by Rumsfeld himself to the White House” to President Bush, “who referred to America's war on terror as a 'crusade.'” (An example of the Bible verses: “Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed,” printed over an image of a soldier in Iraq.)

– Then there are the numerous reports out of Guantanamo Bay that military guards shredded copies of the Qu'ran and flushed them down the toilet, an allegation that sparked violent, global outrage after being published in Newsweek in 2005. The Pentagon pressured the magazine to retract the allegation, but acknowledged what reporter Michael Isikoff described as “five confirmed instances of [Qu'ranic] misconduct,” among them, a copy that was urinated on, a copy that was defaced with an obscenity, as well as “Qu'rans being kicked” and “stepped on.”

'We Have No Intention of Offending Religious Sensibilities'

Given this history — not to mention the photographs published in the Daily Mail — it is hard to take at face value the Ministry of Defense's claim that the mosque-like models were never intended as shooting targets. The Bradford Council for Mosques has called on the British military to “remove the structures without delay and apologize to the Muslim community.”

“Mosques are our places of worship, they are places of peace, and for anyone to suggest that they are potential zones of danger and should be shot at is really not acceptable,” the BCM's Ishtiaq Ahmed said Thursday.
Although a military spokesperson apologized for any offense the hardwood structures may have caused, he defended the use of props “that replicate the environment [soldiers] will be deployed to.”

“Providing the best training facilities for our armed forces ahead of deployment to operational theaters is a priority for us,” he said.

“We have no intention of offending religious sensibilities.”

For more images of the shooting range, go here.

Source: AlterNet