Connect with us

#Current Affairs

Stop Using The Word “Terrorism”| Culture As An Antidote To Bigotry And Fear




Do Muslims perpetrate the vast majority of terrorist attacks around the globe?

Pull most people aside on the side of the road and they’ll either explicitly respond with a ‘yes’ to that question, or if they’re politically correct, will give some wishy-washy response to cover up the answer they consider to be true.

Whether you like it or not, that is the answer now ingrained as an indisputable fact in the collective Western psyche. How so? This is because in current colloquial use, the word terrorism has effectively been defined to be acts of violence committed by Muslims against non-Muslims. More generally, in Noam Chomsky’s words, it describes ‘their’ violence against ‘us’, not ‘ours’ against ‘them’. Ergo, by definition all terrorist acts are committed by Muslims.

I don’t mean to say this as a cynical remark; I am trying to point out a linguistic reality that we haven’t quite come to terms with yet. It’s time we stop constantly complaining about the hypocritical use of the term by media outlets; it’s a lost battle and we’re better off employing other strategies. For starters, that means to avoid using the term and replacing it more descriptive words such as ‘political violence’ or ‘indiscriminate killing’. ‘Terrorism’ is a propaganda term used with the intent of spreading fear and advancing political agendas; by simply using the term we are unintentionally helping advance those goals.

Is it conceivable in the current climate that a US drone strike or a shooting by a Christian radical will ever be described as a terror attack? Of course not.  The general public has been propagandized into believing that Muslims alone commit terrorism, and thus Muslims will continually be expected to condemn, apologize and assume responsibility for anything described in the media as a ‘terrorist attack’. The recent CNN interview of a French activist is just another ugly manifestation of this reality.

In the wake of any attack on Western soil, our default reaction has been one that is defensive. After going through the obligatory condemnation exercises, we wonder in awe why none of it works and we’re put in the spotlight again when another attack happens.

It doesn’t work.  You can keep saying terrorism has nothing to do with Islam for another 15 years and it won’t matter. It’s a lost battle because terrorism is a word now reserved for violence committed by Muslim criminals; its only used to perpetrate hysteria and a myopic understanding of a complex global problem. Just by using the term we are implicitly admitting we had something to do with the attack. The more we condemn, the more we’ll be asked to condemn.  It’s the media’s game, and we play right into its hands.

And here’s the kicker. Muslims too have internalized this de facto definition of terrorism.

That impulse and urge Muslims feel to be extra vocal about condemning any ‘terrorist attack’ stems from internalizing the popular narrative which has created a subconscious collective guilt; we feel we had something to do with it despite being completely innocent. Why aren’t we ever concerned about defending our faith when these extremist groups attack Muslims? Why does the media never bother asking for condemnations  when a suicide bomber blows up a mosque? Because attacks on Muslims, despite being perpetrated by the same militant groups, don’t qualify as terrorist attacks and by extension don’t have anything to do with Islam. Hence, Muslims never feel the need to need to apologize for it.

Us Vs. Them

Our failed public relations strategy over the past decade is predicated on not really understanding the root of the problem. No one’s actually interested in what Islam has to say about terrorism, no one cares about well written condemnations or conferences about peace; no one actually reads those boilerplate fatwa’s.

The root of the problem is the ‘Us Vs Them’ psyche. The public demands condemnations from Muslims not because they actually want a condemnation; they demand it because they fear us, they don’t know us and they want reassurance that we won’t harm them. We are presumed to be guilty until we declare ourselves to be innocent; the condemnation is the avenue through which that declaration takes place. The condemnation request is a litmus test – are they with ‘us’ or with ‘them’?

No matter how many times Muslims offer elaborate defenses of their faith, the expectation and persistence from the media, and public at large, to condemn will remain so as long as Muslims are viewed as ‘the other’. Muslims alone will be associated with ‘terrorism’ as long as there remains an active interest in dehumanizing this minority by selective use of the term. The suspicion we are under now is very much akin to that experienced by Japanese Americans during World War II. Much like their situation, there’s little that a declaration of innocence will accomplish unless the culture perpetrating the hysteria changes in the first place.

Most faith groups and minorities are not expected to apologize for the crimes of individuals from their community because they aren’t viewed as outsiders. When a bigot attacks another minority openly, the public calls them out and they are socially punished for their prejudices. There is a social policing that takes place which ensures abominable views are kept in the private sphere due to the repercussions of airing them publicly. However, bigots can openly air racist views about Islam with impunity because the general populace, a big chunk of it anyway, still sees Muslims as subjects that are alien to America and ought to be feared.

Researcher Dalia Moghed’s recent interview is a rare instance of a thought provoking response to the standard condemnation request. Instead of responding affirmatively and giving the audience what they want to hear, she makes them ponder by effectively asking ‘why do you think that Muslims, or any people, would condone the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians’. In other words, think of Muslims as people like you and I – is it conceivable that millions of people living in the US consider mass killing to be acceptable? This strategy highlights the critical response needed when our leadership is bombarded with demands for those boilerplate condemnations. We need responses that challenges the status quo; not ones that further propagate simplistic and false narratives.

The Cultural Imperative

Racist stereotyping and xenophobic rhetoric will remain in the political and media sphere as long as there is an audience for it. As long as there is a significant enough population which holds Muslims to a different standard, so will the media. Television hosts can get away with repeatedly demanding ridiculous apologies and condemnations from us because that is what the public wants to hear. The only way to prevent future explosions of anti-Muslim bigotry is engagement at a grass roots level which focuses on normalizing Muslim presence in the US and other Western countries. We need to dismantle the ‘Us Vs Them’ mindset; we need to make it clear that we are ‘them’ and they are ‘us’ – we are in this together.

As a recent study published in the NY Times indicated, the primary way minimize anti-Muslim bigotry is to humanize Muslims in the public sphere. This is primary accomplished by making cultural contributions to the societies we live in. We need Muslims athletes, film makers, artists and novelists now more than ever. The positive image of Muslims in the 60’s and 70’s can be attributed to iconic individuals like Mohammad Ali who was looked up to as a hero by a generation of Americans.

Our public relations organizations need a new strategy; a strategy that actively invests in cultural institutions which are currently non-existent. We need fundraising not just for scholarships for Islamic studies, but also for those aspiring to attend film school or those wanting to study the dramatic arts. Dr. Umar Farooq Abdullah has masterfully outlined the need for this cultural revolution in his paper, Islam and the Cultural Imperative. The recent eruption of widespread bigotry, despite the decade of PR exercises, clearly indicates the vitality of Muslims establishing a cultural presence in Western societies. Unless that presence is established, Muslims will continue to be vulnerable to these cycles of bigotry and hysteria.

The recent viral video of a Canadian school children singing Tala al-Badru Alayna is a prime example of power of culture. The video unintentionally accomplishes far more than the standard approaches we take of trying to educate people of what Islam says – it gives them a rare glimpse of what Islam is.  Muslims have a rich cultural heritage that extends back a millennium. Sharing this beautiful gift in the societies we live is a moral imperative; and withholding it is cultural injustice.

Waleed Ahmed writes on current affairs and politics for MuslimMatters. He focuses on Muslim minorities, human rights and the Middle-Eastern conflict. Based out of Montreal, he's currently pursuing a Ph.D. at McGill University in fundamental physics. Waleed also has a keen interest in studying Arabic and French. He spends his spare time reading, playing basketball and praying for Jon Stewart to run in the next presidential election.



  1. Avatar

    Kent Bayley

    December 15, 2015 at 11:42 PM

    The problem is the book you follow. It preaches hate and violence so that’s what happens so why are you surprised. Your so called scholars try and explain away the violence but really they can. NO.

    • Avatar


      December 17, 2015 at 1:50 AM

      Have you read the bible?!

      • Avatar

        Nicholas Bodley

        December 17, 2015 at 6:55 PM

        Fine article.

        You can find some shameful, primitive, and very prejudiced text in the Christian Bible, notably in Leviticus. (See another message about this!)

        Point is that both Holy Books contain advocacy of barbaric violence, but neither Christians nor Muslims generally follow such advice.

        Remember Oklahoma City, and the Murrah building? Timothy McVeigh was, afaik, nominally a Christian. Many kids were killed suddenly…

        Deaths from such violent events are more rare than those from lightning.

        I’m fanatically “unpatriotic” — I refuse to be afraid of this certain category of public violence.

        The local masjid is concealed — that’s a real disgrace.

        I’ve known several Muslims personally, and have found them to be gentle, very decent, and civilized people.

        Go back about a century or more, and Catholic immigrants were despised.

        Bigotry is chronically part of our culture, and that’s a great shame. We seem not to learn.

        The downside of free speech is that it permits hate and bigotry to flourish.

        Why do we ignore what Geo. W. Bush said, much to his credit, quite soon after 9/11?

        (There’s an automatic spam filter here, which rejected my first text. It misinterprets irony…)

      • Avatar

        Nicholas Bodley

        December 17, 2015 at 6:57 PM

        Fine article.

        You can find some shameful, primitive, and very prejudiced text in the Christian Bible, notably in Leviticus. (See another message about this!)

        Point is that both Holy Books contain advocacy of barbaric violence, but neither Christians nor Muslims generally follow such advice.

        Remember Oklahoma City, and the Murrah building? Timothy McVeigh was surely no Muslim.

        Deaths from such violent events are more rare than those from lightning.

        I’m fanatically “unpatriotic” — I refuse to be afraid of this certain category of public violence.

        The local masjid is concealed — that’s a real disgrace.

        I’ve known several Muslims personally, and have found them to be gentle, very decent, and civilized people.

        Go back about a century or more, and Catholic immigrants were despised.

        Bigotry is chronically part of our culture, and that’s a great shame. We seem not to learn.

      • Avatar

        Nicholas Bodley

        December 17, 2015 at 7:02 PM

        Sorry about the duplicate post. Had to revise my text several times to avoid rejection as spam. I did not submit twice.

    • Avatar


      December 19, 2015 at 5:05 PM

      There is abolutely no problem with the Book we follow because you are Speaking this out of Ignorance.You have Simply heard about some cherry picked verses of Quran quoted without tafseer(discription) of the context in which the verse was revealed.Quran condemns killing and corruption.Take a look at these Verse:

      • Avatar

        Kent Bayley

        December 19, 2015 at 11:07 PM

        Thank goodness you cleared that up for me as I feel so much safer now.

      • Avatar


        December 20, 2015 at 3:56 PM

        Thank goodness Kent is finally saw the light. We were all shaking in our shoes worried Kent and his buddies will think Islam is violent.

        Sarcasm aside, Islam IS the most peaceful religion in the world because

        1) It is the ONLY way to Paradise and thus, peace forever.

        2) It prescribes war for just ends, to help the wrong and oppressed

        3) It in fact has a stunning level of restrictions in war not found in the Old Testament(which claims God commanded the massacre of women and children. Since Christians believe Jesus Christ is God they believe Jesus Christ commanded those massacres of women and children. We Muslims are skeptical of the corrupted Old Testament in the first place.) Muslims are commanded to refrain from harming noncombatants, even trees should be avoided in war.

        Now compare that to the barbaric and savage Western slaughter in Vietnam where Napalm was spread onto forests and the Mai Lai massacre whose criminals were SUPPORTED by the American public!!!!!!!!!!!! And in Japan where they literally NUKED two cities despite having chance after chance to avoid it. When we compare the Muslim ideal to the Western ideal, those with sense see the Muslim ideal is far, far superior while the Western ideal seems to be inspired by Satan himself. That DAESH and Al Qaeda and other criminal groups exist is not an indictment on the only acceptable religion to God but to the weak faith of those who engage in crimes, following the sunnah of Western disbelievers and abandoning the sunnah of Rasulullah sallahalayhiwasalam and the imitation of the Sahaba RA. Al Qaeda and DAESH are probably not Western inventions but they are certainly closer to the ways of the West then the ways of the earliest Muslims. That is an indisputable fact.

        Polls show, Muslims are LESS LIKELY to justify killing civilians than others!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What group could reach the high standard of civility and nobility of Muslims let alone surpass them? No group at all and this poll is evidence. Muslims, in the worst condition they have ever been, are still an example to humanity.

        • Avatar

          Kent Bayley

          December 21, 2015 at 2:04 PM

          Madness and this type of thinking is exactly what is wrong with Islam. If you people actually believe this type of nonsense then God help you. No proof, no peace and no hope.

    • Avatar


      February 10, 2016 at 9:14 AM

      You dont even know about our book that we are following so why mess around? If you know the actual meaning of our book than you wouldnt be rebelling now… should stop blaming our religion and view the terrorist in the perspective of an ordinary human……..a terrorist can be a christian or any other religion ,so why dont you blame theirs too?

  2. Avatar


    December 17, 2015 at 3:50 AM

    The Qur’an experiment in Netherlands (where the Bible was disguised as the Qur’an):

  3. Avatar


    December 20, 2015 at 4:03 PM

    Allah alternates the days and makes the truthful and the liars known. Our day will come.

  4. Avatar


    December 21, 2015 at 1:35 PM

    The bible is not believed to be the actual word of God, unlike the koran.
    Christians view the bible as some stories put together by obscure persons in history whose reliability is dubious.
    The koran is what you must obey as it is the actual word of God.

    • Avatar

      Kent Bayley

      December 21, 2015 at 2:03 PM

      Madness and this type of thinking is exactly what is wrong with Islam. If you people actually believe this type of nonsense then God help you. No proof, no peace and no hope.

  5. Avatar


    December 21, 2015 at 2:35 PM

    Kent, you misunderstand me.
    As a Christian you can believe or not believe in what the Bible tells.
    As a Muslim you MUST believe the Koran is the word of God, no discussion, no doubts and certainly no questioning what the Korans tells you.
    To question the word of God (the Koran), is Apostasy and we all know what you get for that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

#Current Affairs

Kashmir: Gateway in Turmoil

Abu Ryan Dardir



A dark day looms over Indian-Administered Kashmir, a Muslim majority region at the heart of a dispute between Pakistan and India. The two countries are at odds over its governance, with direct impact to the welfare and security of the Kashmiri people. On Tuesday 8-6-19, the Indian Parliament passed a bill that strips Kashmir of statehood and places them under indefinite lockdown.

“Kashmiri leaders are appealing to the world to stop the imminent genocide of Kashmiris. Genocide Watch in Washington, DC has already issued a Genocide Alert for India, the so-called “largest democracy in the world” because it has cancelled citizenship of four million Indian citizens, mostly Muslims. This reflects the early stages of a genocide in process.” –

Kashmir is home to massive energy resources, such as oil and natural gas, non-ferrous metals, uranium, gold, and is abundant in hydropower resources. These too are factors considered in the political movements of India and China. Kashmir’s geopolitical advantages are no secret, and adding China to the political struggle makes three countries trying to benefit from Kashmir’s geographical position.

Kashmir neighbors the Xinjiang Uyghur borders, and China has played a role in both areas. China’s stronghold on Xinjiang revolves around access to Europe and Central Asia. China needs Kashmir to access the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. Kashmir is landlocked between China, Pakistan, and India. Pakistan hopes to use infrastructure built under the CPEC initiative to connect by land directly to both China and Central Asia. With that said, Pakistan wants to take advantage of its geographic positioning by serving as a gateway to Afghanistan, then Central Asia, using the CPEC corridor (the China-Pakistan-Economic-Corridor), which has parts of that corridor that go through Pakistan-controlled Kashmir.

This is upsetting India. India’s ambassador to China, Gautam Bambawale, made a comment in an interview about CPEC saying it “violates our territorial integrity. India believes the CPEC project undermines Indian sovereignty because it passes through a Pakistan-administered part of Kashmir that is still claimed by India.” India also fears the chances of a People’s Liberation Army presence or even a Chinese naval base in Pakistan’s Gwadar seaport, as part of the CPEC corridor.

India has been working on its own project, International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), it is intended to link trade routes between India and Central Asia, Russia, and Europe. Unlike its competition (Pakistan and China), India is unable to directly trade through the land to those regions using INSTC. To make this corridor successful, India will need to collaborate with Iran and use their ports.

India needs Kashmir, and Modi is using hateful nationalism to get the people to support his actions. The part of Kashmir that is needed is not under India’s control, and must be occupied in order for India to have direct access to Central Asia, Russia, and Europe. 

Birds of a feather flock together.

Israel’s Minister for Construction and Housing Yifat Shasha-Biton, while addressing a conference of Indian realtors’ body Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI), called India an “economic power” with whom Israel shares common values.  India using colonization tactics has made allies with the Israeli government, a master on occupation and oppression. 

“Kashmir is under siege…do not let the enforced silence drown our voices.”:

Please keep the people of Kashmir in your prayers. We cannot sit idly while this occupation continues. SoundVision has shared 5 things anyone in America and Canada can do. 

A message from a Kashmiri

“Around 10 pm, a message flashed across our phones announcing that, as per the request of the central government, all domestic networks were to be shut down indefinitely. All mosques, any place equipped with a loudspeaker, began announcing total curfew from 5 am tomorrow……..

You have stripped us of our rights and incited unrest yet again into a peaceful and beautiful place. This time, I pray, you will not escape the international consequences your actions deserve. Rest assured Kashmiris will not break and Kashmir is not gone. Our stories, our language, our heart and our people are stronger than any country can dream. Even under these circumstances, I am sure inshaAllah one day we will be free. One day, Kashmir will be free.” Sanna Wani via Twitter

Continue Reading


Muslims for Migrants | A Joint Letter By Imam Zaid Shakir & Imam Omar Suleiman

Imam Zaid Shakir




Abu Huraira (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah upon him) said, “He who gives respite to someone who is in straitened circumstances, or grants him remission, Allah will shelter him in the shade of His Throne, on the Day of Resurrection, when there will be no shade except its shade.” (Tirmidhi, 1306)

He also said, “There is no leader who closes the door to someone in need, one suffering in poverty, except that Allah closes the gates of the heavens for him when he is suffering in poverty.” (Tirmidhi, 1332)

The message is clear, the way we treat the most vulnerable of Allah’s creation has consequences to us both individually and collectively, and both in this life and the next.

As the humanitarian crisis at the southern border deepens, there is a deafening silence from most corners of the American Muslim community. One might ask, “Why should that silence be concerning?” Shouldn’t the nation of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah upon him) who was himself an orphan and a migrant sent as a mercy to the worlds be the first to be moved with the images of children in cages? Migration and asylum are God-given rights that individuals and nations would do well to respect. These rights are affirmed in the Qur’an and the Sunnah of our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah upon him).

Concerning migration, the Qur’an states unequivocally: 

As for those whose souls the angels take while they are oppressing themselves, the angels will say to them, “What was your former state?” They will respond, “We were oppressed in the land.” The angels will counter, “Was not Allah’s earth spacious enough for you to migrate therein.” (4:97)

 The oppression referred to in this verse specifically focuses on persecution because of faith, but the general meaning of the wording can accommodate any form of oppression which involves the denial of a person’s Divinely conferred rights.

Migration lies at the very heart of the prophetic tradition in the Abrahamic religions. Abraham himself was a migrant. His son Ismail was a migrant. The Children of Israel along with Moses were migrants, as was Jesus. Not only was our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah upon him) a migrant, he twice sent many of his Companions (May Allah be pleased with them) to Ethiopia to seek the protection of the Negus. The fact that the Muslim calendar is dated from the migration of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah upon him) from Makkah to Madinah indicates the lofty place migration has in the life of the Muslim community and in the consciousness of its members. 

Additionally, history records the massive migrations of those Muslims who fled from oppressive, tyrannical, violent rulers or invaders. One of the most famous examples we can relate in this regard is the massive westward migration of those escaping the advancing Mongol hordes. Among those refugees was the great poet, Rumi, who along with thousands of others fled his home in Balkh, located in present-day Afghanistan, eventually settling in Konya, in the heart of Anatolia. Others migrated for economic reasons. The historian, Richard Bulliet, theorizes that the economic collapse of Khurasan, a once-thriving Sunni intellectual hub in eastern Iran, led to the migration of large swaths of its population to Syrian and Egypt. In his view, the many scholars among those refugees led to an intellectual revival in the lands they settled in.

As for asylum, it can be granted by both the state and an individual Muslim to individuals or groups. The foundations of this principle in prophetic practice was established during events which occurred during the conquest of Makkah. The Prophet ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him), as the de facto head of state, issued an oath of protection to the people of Mecca when he declared, “Whosever enters the house of Abu Sufyan is safe. Whosoever casts down his weapons is safe. Whosoever closes his door [and remains inside] is safe.” (Sahih Muslim, 1780) Ibn Ishaq’s version adds, “Whosoever enters the [Sacred] Mosque is safe.” (Narrated in Sirah Ibn Hisham, 4:35)

Those enjoying these protections from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah upon him) had not committed a crime and although they had not traveled to another land seeking refuge, the description of their land had changed from one under the authority of the Quraysh to one under the authority of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah upon him). In this “new” land they were being guaranteed safety and subsequently freedom even though they had not yet embraced Islam.

 A related event is Imam Ali’s sister, Umm Hani, granting asylum to al-Harith bin Hisham and Zuhayr bin Ummayya that same day. When faced with the prospect of their execution by her brother, Imam Ali, she locked them in her house and went to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah upon him) to inform him that she had granted them asylum. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah upon him) responded, “We grant asylum to those Umm Hani has granted asylum to and we protect those Umm Hani has extended protection to.” (Sirah ibn Hisham, 4:42) In other words, the entire Muslim community, globally, is bound to respect the oath of protection or asylum granted by even an individual Muslim.

This idea of the entire Muslim community respecting a grant of asylum extended by even a single Muslim is strengthened by the Hadith:

 The protection of the Muslims is one and the least of them can grant it. Whosoever violates the asylum extended by a Muslim upon him falls the curse of Allah, His angels and all of humanity. Never will an obligatory or voluntary act be accepted from him. (Bukhari, 3172)

Allah subḥānahu wa ta'āla (glorified and exalted be He) praised the Ansar of Madinah for how they loved those that migrated to them and preferred them even over themselves. (Quran: 59:9) They bore no resentment to those that migrated to them and sought reward only from Allah for sustaining them. They knew that supporting those in need was only a means of goodness in their lives rather than a burden. These powerful Islamic teachings have been codified by our scholars into a sophisticated system of amnesty, asylum, and respect for the status of refugees.

Hence, when we view the sickening conditions those migrating to our southern borders are exposed to, we should be touched and moved to action knowing that our religion grants those fleeing persecution, oppression, or ecological devastation, the right to migrate and to be duly considered for asylum. Our actions, however, must be based on principle and knowledge. We should further vigorously defend the dignity our Lord has afforded to all human beings, and our obligation to assist those who are suffering from recognized forms of oppression.

We must also understand that the rights to migration and asylum have been codified in the most widely accepted Muslim statement on human rights: The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, Article 12; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 14; the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (ADRDM), Article 27; and the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), Article 22. The United States is a signatory party to the UDHR, and by way of membership in the Organization of American States (OAS), reluctantly accepts the authority of the ADRDM and the ACHR, although she has never ratified the latter two.

Our view on this issue should also be informed by the knowledge of our own country’s history as a nation of immigrants in the Native’s land. It should further be shaped by understanding the way nativist and white supremacist tendencies have fueled xenophobic and exclusivist policies and how in many instances our sometimes misguided policies have created many of our most vexing human rights challenges. It must also be informed by our obligation as American citizens.

For example, we need to understand that the overwhelming majority of families, children and individual adults arriving at our southern border from the “Northern Triangle” of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras are fleeing intolerable levels of violence. That violence is not just that of ruthless street gangs, such as MS-13, it also emanates from government-sponsored death squads, many of which were organized and trained by the CIA or the US military at the former School of the Americas based at Fort Benning, Georgia. The infamous Battalion 316 of Honduras was an American-trained death squad responsible for hundreds of extrajudicial killings in that country during the 1980s and into the 1990s as well as the kidnapping and torture of thousands of Honduran citizens during the same period. These death squads are beginning to reappear in the wake of a wave of right-wing regimes assuming power throughout Latin America.

The combination of American political and economic pressure through the mechanisms of neocolonialism used to control and systematically under-develop former and present “banana republics,” the International Monetary Fund (IMF), plutocratic regimes increasingly beholden to Washington DC, integrating the violence of both death squads and drug cartels into their crushing of both popular dissent as well as any attempts at economic diversification and stratification help to create the conditions producing the waves of migrants moving towards our southern border. Long before they sought to cross our borders, our borders crossed them.

Long before they sought to cross our borders, our borders crossed them.

Despite the history, the way that the Trump administration has chosen to deal with the current crisis, largely for cheap race-baited political gain, has challenged the God-given rights to migration and asylum, exacerbated the humanitarian crisis at the border, and diminished the standing of the United States internationally. It is critical to understand, however, that just as the policies producing the floods of migrants from parts of Latin America are not uniquely a product of the Trump administration, Trump is not the first racist to occupy the White House. We could mention Richard Nixon, who famously embraced Kevin Philip’s “southern strategy,” to wrest the south from the control of the Democrats; we could mention the KKK-loving, segregationist, Woodrow Wilson; we could mention the slave-driving, genocidal ethnic cleanser Andrew Jackson, as well as others.

What makes Trump unique, as Greg Grandin emphasizes in his latest book, The End of the Myth, is that Trump is a racist who has appeared at a time America is no longer, via conquest or economic domination, expanding her frontiers. With the ensuing erasure of the myth of American exceptionalism, the “American people” can no longer point to our global economic or political domination as the difference between “them” and “us.” 

Unable to deflect our nagging national problems, one of the most vexing being the race issue, by looking outward, large numbers of white Americans are turning inward with xenophobic frenzy. That inward turn creates a focus on outsiders who threaten “our” rapidly disappearing “purity.” Hence, the border, symbolized by the wall, becomes not just an indicator of national sovereignty, it becomes a symbol of white identity. A symbol Trump invokes with seldom matched mastery. Vested with the passion emanating from the defense of an embattled race, innocent brown children taken from their mothers and imprisoned in overcrowded, feces-stained gulags become easily dismissed collateral damage.

Generally speaking, the same playbook that has been employed against the Muslim and other immigrant communities, specifically refugees from the Middle East, has been employed against the immigrant community as a whole. In far too many instances, America’s destructive foreign policy leaves helpless populations running to our shores, increasingly to be dehumanized and disregarded again in order to pander to the worst of our domestic propensities., migrants, Muslims

So we call upon the Muslim community to not only assist in efforts to support our migrant brothers and sisters but lead the way. Get involved in advocacy work, support immigrant justice organizations, join the sanctuary efforts and lend yourself and your wealth in whatever way you can to be at their aid. By the Grace of Allah, we have launched a campaign to reunite as many families as we can. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah upon him) said, “Whoever separates a mother from her child, Allah will separate him from his loved ones on the Day of Resurrection.” (Tirmidhi, 1566) We hope that in reuniting families, Allah will reunite us with our beloved ones on the Day of Resurrection, and specifically with the beloved Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah upon him) in the highest gardens of Paradise.

Imam Zaid Shakir, Imam, Lighthouse Mosque

Imam Omar Suleiman, Founder & President, Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research

Continue Reading

#Current Affairs

Were Muslim Groups Duped Into Supporting an LGBTQ Rights Petition at the US Supreme Court?




Muslim organizations, Muslim groups

Recently several Muslim groups sent an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court to support LGBTQ rights in employment.  These groups argued“sex” as used in the Civil Rights Act should be defined broadly to include more types of discrimination than Congress wrote into the statue.

A little background. Clayton County, Georgia fired Gerald Lynn Bostock. The County alleged Bostock embezzled money, so he was fired. Bostock argues the real reason is that he is gay. Clayton County denied they would fire someone for that reason. Clayton County successfully had the case dismissed saying that even if Bostock is right about everything, the law Bostock filed the lawsuit under does not vindicate his claim. The case is now at the Supreme Court with other similar cases.

The “Muslim” brief argued the word “sex” should mean lots of things, and under the law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act), LGBTQ discrimination is already illegal.  American law has developed to provide some support for this argument, but there have been divisions in the appellate courts. So this is the exact sort of thing the US Supreme Court exists to decide.

The Involvement Of Muslim Groups

In Supreme Court litigation, parties on both sides marshal amicus briefs (written arguments) and coordinate their efforts to improve the effectiveness of their advocacy, there are over 40 such briefs in the Bostock case. Groups represent constituencies with no direct stake in the immediate dispute but care about the precedent the case would set.

The Muslim groups came in purportedly because they know what it’s like to be victims of discrimination (more on that below). The brief answered an objection to the consequences that could come with an expansive definition of the term “sex” to include gay, lesbian, and transgender persons (in lieu of its conventional use as synonymous with gender, i.e., male/female). In particular, the brief responded to the concern that “sex” being defined as any subjective experience may open up more litigation than was intended by making the argument that religion is a personal experience that courts have no trouble sorting out and that, like faith, courts can define “sex” the same way.

While this may be interesting to some, boring to others, it begs the question:  why are Muslim groups involved with this stuff? Muslims are a faith community. If we speak *as Muslims* is it not pertinent to consult with the traditions of the faith tradition known as Islam, like Quran, Hadith and the deep well of scholarly tradition?  Is our mere presence in a pluralistic society enough reason to ignore all this and focus on building allies in our mutual desire to create a world free of discrimination?

Spreading Ignorance

In July of 2017, the main party to the “Muslim” brief, Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV), was expelled from the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) Convention bazaar.  I was on the Executive Council of the organization at the time but had no role in the decision. The reason: MPV was dedicated to promoting ignorance of Islam among Muslims at the event. The booth had literature claiming haram was good and virtuous. Propaganda distributed at the table either implied haram was not haram or alternately celebrated haram.

For any Muslim organization dedicated to Islam, it is not a difficult decision to expel an organization explicitly dedicated to spreading haram. No Muslim organization, composed of Muslims who fear Allah and dedicate their time to Islam can give space to organizations opposed the faith community’s values and advocates against them in their conferences and events.  Allah, in the Quran, tells us:


Indeed, those who like that immorality should be spread [or publicized] among those who have believed will have a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And Allah knows, and you do not know.

It would be charitable to the point of fraud to characterize MPV as a Muslim organization. That MPV has dedicated itself to promoting ignorance of the religion within the Muslim community is not in serious dispute.  The organization’s leader has been all over the anti-Sharia movement.

Discrimination against Muslims is bad, except when it’s good 

The brief framed the various organizations’ participation by claiming as Muslims, we know what it is like to be on the receiving end of discrimination. This implies the parties that signed on to the Amicus petition believe discrimination against Muslims is a bad thing. For at least two of the organizations, this is not entirely true.

MPV is an ally of another co-signer of the Amicus petition, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).  Both have records that show an eagerness to discriminate against Muslims in the national security space. They both applied for CVE grants. Both have supported the claim that Muslims are a national security threat they are somehow equipped to deal with. I have written more extensively about MPAC in the past; mainly, it’s work in Countering Violent Extremism and questionable Zakat practices.

MPAC’s CVE  program, called “Safe Spaces,” singled out Muslims as terrorist threats. It purported to address this Muslim threat. In June of 2019, MPAC’s academic partner released an evaluation Safe Spaces and judged it as “not successful” citing the singling out of Muslims, as well as a lack of trust within the Muslim community because of a lack of transparency as reasons why the program was a failure. Despite its legacy of embarrassment and failure, MPAC continues to promote Safe Spaces on its website.

MPV was a vigorous defender of MPAC’s CVE program, Safe Spaces.  MPV’s leader has claimed the problem of “radicalism” is because of CAIR, ISNA, and ICNA’s “brand of Islam.”

Law Enforcement Approved Islam

In 2011, former LAPD head of Counter-Terrorism, Michael P. Downing testified during a congressional hearing on “Islamist Radicalization” Downing testified in favor of MPV, stating:

I would just offer that, on the other side of the coin, we should create opportunities for the pure, good part of this, to be in the religion, such as the NGOs. There is an NGO by the name of Ani Zonneveld who does the Muslims for Progressive Values. This is what they say, “Values are guided by 10 principles of Islam, rooted in Islam, including social equality, separation of religion and state, freedom of speech, women’s rights, gay rights, and critical analysis and interpretation.” She and her organization have been trying to get into the prison system to give this literature as written by Islamic academic scholars. So I think there can be more efforts on this front as well.

Downing was central to the LAPD’s “Muslim Mapping” program, defending the “undertaking as a way to help Muslim communities avoid the influence of those who would radicalize Islamic residents and advocate ‘violent, ideologically-based extremism.” MPAC was a supporter of the mapping program, which was later rejected by the city because it was an explicit ethnic profiling program mainstream Muslim and secular civil rights groups opposed.  MPAC later claimed it did not support the program, though somehow saw fit to give Downing an award. Downing, since retired, currently serves on MPAC’s Advisory Council.

Ani Zonnevold, the President and Founder of MPV, currently sits on the International Board of Directors for the Raif Badawi Foundation alongside Maajid Nawaz and Zuhdi Jasser.

MPV has also been open about both working for CVE and funding from a non-Muslim source, the Human Rights Campaign, and other groups with agendas to reform the religion of Islam. It’s hard not to see it as an astroturf organization.

Muslim Groups Were Taken for a Ride

Unfortunately, Muslim nonprofit organizations are often unsophisticated when it comes to signing documents other groups write. Some are not even capable of piecing together the fact that an astroturf organization opposed to Islam, the religious tradition, was recruiting them to sign something.

There are many Muslims sympathetic to the LGBTQ community while understanding the limits of halal and haram. Not everyone who signed the brief came to this with the same bad faith as an MPV, which is hostile to the religion of Islam itself. Muslims generally don’t organize out of hostility to Islam. This only appears to be happening because of astroturfing in the Muslim community. Unfortunately, it was way too easy to bamboozle well-meaning Muslim groups.

Muslims are a faith community. MPV told the groups Islam did not matter in their argument when the precise reason they were recruited to weigh in on the case was that they are Muslim. Sadly, it was a successful con. Issues like the definition of sex are not divorced from Islamic concerns. We have Islamic inheritance and rules for family relations where definitions of words are relevant. Indeed, our religious freedoms in ample part rest on our ability to define the meaning of words, like Muslim, fahisha, zakat, daughter, and Sharia. Separate, open-ended definitions with the force of law may have implications for religious freedom for Muslims and others because it goes to defining a word across different statutes, bey0nd the civil rights act. There would be fewer concerns if LGBT rights were simply added as a distinct category under the Civil Rights Act while respecting religious freedom under the constitution.

Do Your Homework

Muslim organizations should do an analysis of religious freedom implications for Muslims and people of other faiths before signing on to statements and briefs. A board member of MPV drafted the “Muslim” Brief, and his law firm recruited Muslim nonprofit organizations to sign on. CAIR Oklahoma, which signed up for this brief, made a mistake (hey, it happens). CAIR Oklahoma’s inclusion is notable. This chapter successfully challenged the anti-Sharia “Save our State” law that would have banned Muslims from drafting Islamic Wills. Ironically, CAIR Oklahoma’s unwitting advocacy at the Supreme Court could work against that critical result. For an anti-Sharia group like MPV, this is fine. It is not fine for a group like CAIR.

CAIR Oklahoma is beefing up their process for signing on to Amicus Briefs in the future. No other CAIR chapter signed on to the brief, which was prudent. CAIR chapters are mostly independent organizations seemingly free to do whatever they want. CAIR, as a national organization needs to make sure all its affiliates are sailing in the same direction. They have been unsuccessful with this in the past several years. CAIR should make sure their local chapters know about astroturf outfits and charlatans trying to get them to sign things. They should protect their “America’s largest Islamic Civil Liberties Group” brand.

Muslim Leaders Should Stand Strong 

American Muslims all have friends, business associates and coworkers, and family members who do things that violate Islamic norms all the time. We live in an inclusive society where we respect each other’s differences. Everyone is entitled to dignity and fair treatment. No national Muslim groups are calling for employment discrimination against anyone, nor should they.

However, part of being Muslim is understanding limits that Allah placed on us. That means we cannot promote haram or help anyone do something haram. Muslim groups do not need to support causes that may be detrimental to our interests.  Our spaces do not need to be areas where we have our religion mocked and derided. Other people have the freedom to do this in their own spaces in their own time.

Some Muslim leaders are afraid of being called names unless they recite certain words or invite particular speakers.  You will never please people who hate Islam unless you believe as they do.  Muslims only matter if Islam matters.

If you are a leader of Muslims, you must know the limits Allah has placed on you. Understand the trust people have placed in you. Don’t allow anyone to bully or con you into violating those limits.

Note: Special thanks to Mobeen Vaid.

Continue Reading