FLORIDA TIMES UNION, June 29, 2009
UNF teacher will study Bangladesh culture for "common problems."
By Josh Salman
Parvez Ahmed understands the importance of culture.
The assistant (associate) finance professor at University of North Florida has worked hard to bridge the gap between the general population and Muslim community in Northeast Florida. He practices equality and preaches the same to his students.
So when Ahmed was awarded the coveted Fulbright Grant, he fulfilled a lifelong dream. He could take the same principles he strives to teach at UNF and apply them to students in South Asia.
Ahmed will be leaving in August to spend the fall semester teaching finance and doing research at the Independent University of Bangladesh in Dhaka, the nation's capital.
"[Teaching] is our way of affecting the hearts and minds of people we are visiting," Ahmed said. "I'm hoping to apply what I learn there to the classroom here and create exchanges."
While in Bangladesh, Ahmed will study the region's economy and financial sector. He will explore the nation's villages and the study the people.
He will venture into the bordering country of India, and see the effects an economic powerhouse can have on a smaller nation.
And he will break down market development in the third-largest Muslim country in the world.
"Most people associate Bangladesh with natural disasters," Ahmed said. "But there's a lot more to it than that."
Ahmed grew up in an Indian town near the university he will be visiting. He hopes this advantage will allow him to develop a deeper social relationship with the native residents.
"This allows us to better understand what's going on in these countries," Ahmed said. "The common problems requiring common solutions."
Ahmed is one of 1,100 faculty nationally awarded the Fulbright grant. He has been at UNF since 2002 and has received the Outstanding Researcher Award three times from Coggin College as well as the Outstanding Teacher Award.
Ahmed has also served on the OneJax board of directors for more than three years, where he's worked to suppress the public's post-Sept. 11 anxiety toward Muslims.
"Being selfish, I can't believe he's going to be gone," said Bobbie O'Connor, executive director of OneJax. "But he's really deserving of the award and has such a strong commitment to the community."
Ahmed plans to use his experience as a motivational tool and generate interest from his students in foreign culture and economics.
He is also planning a study-abroad trip to Egypt for finance students this March. And whether in America or across seas, Ahmed's students said there's no professor they would rather learn balance sheets and market indexes from.
"His lectures are so thought-provoking," UNF graduate student James Fugard said after one of Ahmed's classes. "His courses are definitely a challenge, but you come out learning a lot."
Amanda Mullins said she takes Ahmed's courses every opportunity she has. "He makes sure you know your stuff and can apply it in the real world," Mullins said. "His style definitely make concepts easy to understand."
Blog Archive
-
►
2008
(16)
- ► December 2008 (2)
- ► September 2008 (3)
-
►
2006
(17)
- ► December 2006 (2)
- ► October 2006 (10)
- ► April 2006 (4)
-
►
2005
(5)
- ► December 2005 (5)
Can Iran be Precursor to Major Changes in the Muslim World?
Published in Huffington Post.
In Cairo, a U.S. President owned up to a well known fact that in 1953 the United States played a role in overthrowing Mohammad Mosaddeq, the then democratically elected leader of Iran. Over half a century later, following the botched 2009 Presidential elections in Iran, it is no longer America denying Iranians the right to be represented by popular choice. It is no longer America playing puppeteer. Ironically, the ones pulling the strings are those who have most vociferously decried America’s ungodly interference in their region.
It is hard to prognosticate how events will unfold in Iran. Will there be any spillover effects in the rest of the Muslim world? Although, change has not yet fully blossomed, the atmosphere is pregnant with expectations. The battle for the future of Iran is emblematic of the broader struggle across many Muslim majority societies. At the core lies two questions, will democracy finally gain a firm foothold and what role will religion play in their political future?
In Iran, both sides have claimed religious justification for their actions. Ayatollah Khameni invoked his religious authority to issue a Nixonian edict that, if the Ayatollah says that the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is legitimate, then it must be so and it is Islamic. The opposition candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi also invoked Islam’s call for justice echoing the Quranic sentiment, “Stand firmly for justice as witnesses to God, even if it is against yourself.” (4:135).
However, literal reading of religious texts alone cannot provide all the necessary answers in this struggle for legitimacy and fairness. The issue of state-governance is not discussed in great details in Islam’s revealed text - The Quran. In verses 42:38 and 3:159, the Quran provides only basic principles, in that governance should be based on "mutual consultation," or “shura.” How this “shura” is to be conducted is left wide open for interpretation. Scholars of Islam contend that “shura” contains three essential elements - equal rights for all citizens, majority rule for public policy and the promotion of justice and human dignity. The degree to which a government is “Islamic” and “democratic” will depend on how well they rank on these three elements of “shura.”
The unfolding saga in Iran has not drawn much criticism from other countries in the region, for understandable reasons. In the struggle of ordinary Iranians, the other authoritarian regimes in the region, foresee an existential challenge to their own authority. If Iran “falls” to democracy, then can others be far behind? Too much support for Mousavi, and his success, is likely to give rise to similar popular movements across the region, which not only threatens the ruling elites but also makes America uncomfortable with the prospect of dealing with unknown actors who may emerge out of this quest for democratization. Too little support will result in the unsustainable continuation of the status quo. This is the dilemma facing President Obama.
Today’s Iran highlights the combustible mix of religion and politics. Muslims do not doubt the veracity of the Quran being the word of God. However, the interpretation of the divine words is entirely human and thus, its translation into practical law is open to multitudes of understandings. Using the power of the state to resolve such differences only creates discord, undermining both the state of faith and faith in the state. Historically, many Muslim jurists opted to stay out of government in order to retain their independence and credibility, thus making an argument favoring the separation of mosque and state.
Although majority of Muslims in countries like Egypt, Pakistan or Jordan today favor the introduction of Shariah, they do so because the current secular laws have failed to deliver justice to the people. Their hope is that Shariah will require, in the words of Noah Fledman (author of The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State), “all human beings — and all human governments — are subject to justice under the law.” Muslims are yearning for justice that they have been denied for so long, often due to outside interference but increasingly due to internal failures of Muslim majority states.
The onus for change is not only on those most affected, but also on Muslims living under democracies. In particular, Muslims in America and Europe can play a more assertive role in prodding Muslim majority nations to build civil societies whose governments are truly representative, whose judiciaries are respectful of the rights of all people and whose legislature fosters positive development of the material and the spirit. A success story in Iran can very well augur a sea change across the Muslim world. An unanswered question is how to support the struggle of the ordinary Iranians without appearing to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation? It is a delicate balancing act requiring patient diplomacy by governments and peaceful civic engagement by ordinary citizens.
In Cairo, a U.S. President owned up to a well known fact that in 1953 the United States played a role in overthrowing Mohammad Mosaddeq, the then democratically elected leader of Iran. Over half a century later, following the botched 2009 Presidential elections in Iran, it is no longer America denying Iranians the right to be represented by popular choice. It is no longer America playing puppeteer. Ironically, the ones pulling the strings are those who have most vociferously decried America’s ungodly interference in their region.
It is hard to prognosticate how events will unfold in Iran. Will there be any spillover effects in the rest of the Muslim world? Although, change has not yet fully blossomed, the atmosphere is pregnant with expectations. The battle for the future of Iran is emblematic of the broader struggle across many Muslim majority societies. At the core lies two questions, will democracy finally gain a firm foothold and what role will religion play in their political future?
In Iran, both sides have claimed religious justification for their actions. Ayatollah Khameni invoked his religious authority to issue a Nixonian edict that, if the Ayatollah says that the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is legitimate, then it must be so and it is Islamic. The opposition candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi also invoked Islam’s call for justice echoing the Quranic sentiment, “Stand firmly for justice as witnesses to God, even if it is against yourself.” (4:135).
However, literal reading of religious texts alone cannot provide all the necessary answers in this struggle for legitimacy and fairness. The issue of state-governance is not discussed in great details in Islam’s revealed text - The Quran. In verses 42:38 and 3:159, the Quran provides only basic principles, in that governance should be based on "mutual consultation," or “shura.” How this “shura” is to be conducted is left wide open for interpretation. Scholars of Islam contend that “shura” contains three essential elements - equal rights for all citizens, majority rule for public policy and the promotion of justice and human dignity. The degree to which a government is “Islamic” and “democratic” will depend on how well they rank on these three elements of “shura.”
The unfolding saga in Iran has not drawn much criticism from other countries in the region, for understandable reasons. In the struggle of ordinary Iranians, the other authoritarian regimes in the region, foresee an existential challenge to their own authority. If Iran “falls” to democracy, then can others be far behind? Too much support for Mousavi, and his success, is likely to give rise to similar popular movements across the region, which not only threatens the ruling elites but also makes America uncomfortable with the prospect of dealing with unknown actors who may emerge out of this quest for democratization. Too little support will result in the unsustainable continuation of the status quo. This is the dilemma facing President Obama.
Today’s Iran highlights the combustible mix of religion and politics. Muslims do not doubt the veracity of the Quran being the word of God. However, the interpretation of the divine words is entirely human and thus, its translation into practical law is open to multitudes of understandings. Using the power of the state to resolve such differences only creates discord, undermining both the state of faith and faith in the state. Historically, many Muslim jurists opted to stay out of government in order to retain their independence and credibility, thus making an argument favoring the separation of mosque and state.
Although majority of Muslims in countries like Egypt, Pakistan or Jordan today favor the introduction of Shariah, they do so because the current secular laws have failed to deliver justice to the people. Their hope is that Shariah will require, in the words of Noah Fledman (author of The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State), “all human beings — and all human governments — are subject to justice under the law.” Muslims are yearning for justice that they have been denied for so long, often due to outside interference but increasingly due to internal failures of Muslim majority states.
The onus for change is not only on those most affected, but also on Muslims living under democracies. In particular, Muslims in America and Europe can play a more assertive role in prodding Muslim majority nations to build civil societies whose governments are truly representative, whose judiciaries are respectful of the rights of all people and whose legislature fosters positive development of the material and the spirit. A success story in Iran can very well augur a sea change across the Muslim world. An unanswered question is how to support the struggle of the ordinary Iranians without appearing to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation? It is a delicate balancing act requiring patient diplomacy by governments and peaceful civic engagement by ordinary citizens.
Professor Receives Fulbright Award to Lecture in Bangladesh
Media Relations & Events
Press Release For: May 06, 2009
Dr. Parvez Ahmed, associate professor of finance in the Coggin College of Business at the University of North Florida, has been awarded a Fulbright Scholar grant to lecture and conduct research at the Independent University of Bangladesh in Dhaka during the fall 2009 academic year.
Ahmed, who speaks and writes fluent Bangla, is one of approximately 1,100 U.S. faculty and professionals who will travel abroad through the Fulbright U.S. Scholar Program, which is America’s flagship international educational exchange program. Recipients of Fulbright awards are selected on the basis of academic or professional achievement as well as demonstrated leadership potential in their fields.
The Arlington resident will teach and conduct research in finance, with his research being focused in the areas of financial asset pricing and market efficiency in Bangladesh. Additionally, Ahmed wants to perform empirical studies on the stock market in Bangladesh as well as study the state of private investing. He may also study the private-public partnership in economic development that is being conducted by Non-Governmental Organizations.
“The Coggin College is thrilled that Dr. Ahmed has earned the Fulbright Award,” said Dr. John McAllister, dean of the Coggin College of Business at UNF. “His achievement is an explicit acknowledgement of his insights and academic record and an implicit endorsement of the excellence of the Coggin College and UNF.”
Ahmed has been at UNF since 2002 and has received the Outstanding Researcher award three times from Coggin College as well as the Outstanding Teacher award. He is the author of “Mutual Funds—Fifty Years of Research Findings” and has had his research on market efficiency and asset pricing published in numerous top finance journals.
Prior to coming to the University, he was the assistant professor of finance at Pennsylvania State University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He also served as a visiting professor of finance in the Executive MBA Program at Instituto Superior de Economia y Administracion de Empresas in El Salvador.
Ahmed has developed study abroad programs both for UNF and Pennsylvania State and is in the process of developing a study abroad program to Egypt. He earned his doctorate in finance from the University of Texas and his master’s degree in business administration from Temple University. He received his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from Aligarh Muslim University in India.
Since its establishment in 1946 under legislation introduced by the late Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, the Fulbright Program has provided approximately 286,000 people with the opportunity to observe each other’s political, economic, educational and cultural institutions, to exchange ideas and to embark on joint ventures of importance to the general welfare of the world’s inhabitants.
With more than 3,800 students, the Coggin College’s mission is to educate and develop business professionals through rigorous, relevant accredited degree programs offered by faculty devoted to student learning and engaged in scholarly activities.
Since 1976, the Coggin College of Business has been accredited by AACSB—only one in five business schools are awarded the accreditation, which honors the best business schools in the world. The AACSB is the world leader in accreditation for business education.
Contact: Joanna Norris, Assistant Director
Department of Media Relations and Events
(904) 620-2102
-UNF-
Muslims Disproportionate Victims of Flawed Terrorist Watch List
The Huffington Post, May 8, 2009
The Justice Department has now found that the FBI’s terrorist watch list is flawed. Not only does the list consist of a mind-boggling 1.1 million names of 400,000 people, the Justice Department has also found that the FBI was “sometimes dangerously slow to add suspects to the nation's terrorist watch list, and even slower to remove those cleared of suspicion.” As many as 24,000 people have been incorrectly kept on that list.
I have firsthand experience with the inefficacy of this list. Every time I travel overseas, I am subjected to extensive searches and wasteful questioning. This is a waste of scarce government resources. Let me illustrate a typical encounter at the border.
About a year and a half ago, my wife and I (both U.S. citizens) were returning home after my Hajj or pilgrimage to Mecca. Upon landing at New York’s JFK airport, we were met by two DHS officers who stood at the end of the jet way scanning the passport of every passenger who stepped off that airplane. Along with several other returning pilgrims, we were escorted into a special room where I found over two dozen other people awaiting questioning. When my turn came, the officer asked me to explain why I was being stopped for additional questioning. I answered that since I did not stop myself to be questioned, how am I supposed to know why was I singled out? I added that one reason for my special treatment is perhaps the fact that I am a Muslim. Such profiling is supposed to be illegal and the officer dutifully pointed that out. However, overwhelming numbers of people waiting additional questioning were visibly Muslims, most of them American citizens returning from Hajj.
Not only is the fact that I will be stopped entirely predictable (it happened again this Sunday as I was returning from a trip to Egypt) but the questions are exactly the same every time. The officers will ask me questions like where I work, why I traveled abroad, and who I met while abroad. Then they look through my baggage much like a Customs officer will be looking for items like food or seeds (that are illegal to bring in) but unlike a typical Customs stop the DHS/CBP officers seem curious about the books and magazines they find in my hand carry bags. That appears to me an intrusion into my first amendment rights.
An April 2009 report titled, Unreasonable Intrusions: Investigating the Politics, Faith & Finances of Americans Returning Home shows, “that U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Customs & Border Protection (“CBP”) agents have systematically questioned individuals about their political beliefs, religious practices, and charities they support. Questions include “What is your religion?,” “What mosque do you attend?,” “What do you think of the war in Iraq?,” and “What charities do you contribute to?” Agents have also sought to review and copy business cards, credit cards, and data on laptops, digital cameras and cell phones. These interrogations and searches – which appear to be targeting Muslims or those perceived to be Muslim -- are taking place without evidence that the travelers have engaged in wrongdoing.”
Eight years into the so called war on terror, profiling of Muslims remain quite in vogue. Prejudices against Muslims remain real and progressively worsening. A recent ABC News/Post Poll finds that “Americans by 48-41 percent hold an unfavorable opinion of Islam — its highest unfavorable rating in ABC/Post polls since 2001. And 29 percent express the belief that mainstream Islam encourages violence against non-Muslims — down slightly from its peak, but double what it was early in 2002.”
Once again a vulnerable minority in America is being treated with unwarranted suspicion. Such suspicion only provides illusions of security because they yield no suspects plotting to harm Americans. Moreover, they alienate an entire community whose cooperation is critical in keeping our homeland safe and upholding our image as a nation respecting due process. It is time for America to reclaim its true legal tradition of judging a person by their actions, not on the basis of their color or practices of their faith or merely on the basis of their names.
A Muslim advocacy group, Muslim Advocates has asked the Obama administration to make sure that U.S. citizens are not detained and interrogated, or threatened with detention for failure to answer questions that go beyond establishing their legal status to enter the U.S. or whether they are carrying contraband. Also DHS should share data about travelers they are stopping, searching and questioning to demonstrate to the public that they are not engaging in discriminatory profiling of travelers.
The Justice department’s report pointing out the deficiencies in the watch list is a good start but more needs to be done. A congressional hearing on this matter can greatly aid in restoring trust and confidence in a border entry process that appears flawed and discriminatory.
The Justice Department has now found that the FBI’s terrorist watch list is flawed. Not only does the list consist of a mind-boggling 1.1 million names of 400,000 people, the Justice Department has also found that the FBI was “sometimes dangerously slow to add suspects to the nation's terrorist watch list, and even slower to remove those cleared of suspicion.” As many as 24,000 people have been incorrectly kept on that list.
I have firsthand experience with the inefficacy of this list. Every time I travel overseas, I am subjected to extensive searches and wasteful questioning. This is a waste of scarce government resources. Let me illustrate a typical encounter at the border.
About a year and a half ago, my wife and I (both U.S. citizens) were returning home after my Hajj or pilgrimage to Mecca. Upon landing at New York’s JFK airport, we were met by two DHS officers who stood at the end of the jet way scanning the passport of every passenger who stepped off that airplane. Along with several other returning pilgrims, we were escorted into a special room where I found over two dozen other people awaiting questioning. When my turn came, the officer asked me to explain why I was being stopped for additional questioning. I answered that since I did not stop myself to be questioned, how am I supposed to know why was I singled out? I added that one reason for my special treatment is perhaps the fact that I am a Muslim. Such profiling is supposed to be illegal and the officer dutifully pointed that out. However, overwhelming numbers of people waiting additional questioning were visibly Muslims, most of them American citizens returning from Hajj.
Not only is the fact that I will be stopped entirely predictable (it happened again this Sunday as I was returning from a trip to Egypt) but the questions are exactly the same every time. The officers will ask me questions like where I work, why I traveled abroad, and who I met while abroad. Then they look through my baggage much like a Customs officer will be looking for items like food or seeds (that are illegal to bring in) but unlike a typical Customs stop the DHS/CBP officers seem curious about the books and magazines they find in my hand carry bags. That appears to me an intrusion into my first amendment rights.
An April 2009 report titled, Unreasonable Intrusions: Investigating the Politics, Faith & Finances of Americans Returning Home shows, “that U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Customs & Border Protection (“CBP”) agents have systematically questioned individuals about their political beliefs, religious practices, and charities they support. Questions include “What is your religion?,” “What mosque do you attend?,” “What do you think of the war in Iraq?,” and “What charities do you contribute to?” Agents have also sought to review and copy business cards, credit cards, and data on laptops, digital cameras and cell phones. These interrogations and searches – which appear to be targeting Muslims or those perceived to be Muslim -- are taking place without evidence that the travelers have engaged in wrongdoing.”
Eight years into the so called war on terror, profiling of Muslims remain quite in vogue. Prejudices against Muslims remain real and progressively worsening. A recent ABC News/Post Poll finds that “Americans by 48-41 percent hold an unfavorable opinion of Islam — its highest unfavorable rating in ABC/Post polls since 2001. And 29 percent express the belief that mainstream Islam encourages violence against non-Muslims — down slightly from its peak, but double what it was early in 2002.”
Once again a vulnerable minority in America is being treated with unwarranted suspicion. Such suspicion only provides illusions of security because they yield no suspects plotting to harm Americans. Moreover, they alienate an entire community whose cooperation is critical in keeping our homeland safe and upholding our image as a nation respecting due process. It is time for America to reclaim its true legal tradition of judging a person by their actions, not on the basis of their color or practices of their faith or merely on the basis of their names.
A Muslim advocacy group, Muslim Advocates has asked the Obama administration to make sure that U.S. citizens are not detained and interrogated, or threatened with detention for failure to answer questions that go beyond establishing their legal status to enter the U.S. or whether they are carrying contraband. Also DHS should share data about travelers they are stopping, searching and questioning to demonstrate to the public that they are not engaging in discriminatory profiling of travelers.
The Justice department’s report pointing out the deficiencies in the watch list is a good start but more needs to be done. A congressional hearing on this matter can greatly aid in restoring trust and confidence in a border entry process that appears flawed and discriminatory.
In Search of a Model Muslim State
Huffington Post, April 14, 2009
During his recent visit to Turkey, President Obama spoke about the promise of a new era in Turkish-U.S. relationship that can serve as a "model partnership" between the West and the Muslim world. America's quest to find a "model" Muslim partner is not new. In January 2008, then U.S. President George W. Bush during his visit to Dubai described the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as a "model Muslim state." UAE's economic progress and moderate political views made it a cause célèbre. But now many are predicting Dubai's demise as the global economic crisis strangles easy credit, which was critical in fueling its growth.
The euphoric crowning of UAE in 2008, and the hasty predictions of its demise a year later, both miss an important point. Beneath the glittering gold lies an underbelly that the rulers in the region are fighting to hide with the government planning to impose a fine for "carrying misleading news that harms the national economy."
Dubai is one of seven emirates that make up UAE, which today stands seventh in GDP per capita in the world. It ranks third highest among Muslim majority nations (only behind neighboring Qatar and Kuwait). A fairy story has been unfolding in the desert. In my visits to the region, I was awestruck by the sheer audacity of their dreams.
Dubai's rise as an economic powerhouse is not unprecedented in the region. Following the rapid rise of oil prices in the seventies, Saudi Arabia too had stunning economic growth. And yet it did not transform the country into a "model Muslim state." Like Saudi Arabia then, Dubai today is unable and unwilling to grant its citizens and residents socio-political freedoms that must go hand-in-hand with economic success to propel a country's rise into a model state.
UAE is home to the largest number of foreign-born residents in the world. A few of these residents enjoy great luxuries but most live a life of hopeless servitude. Unlike legal immigrants in most countries, the foreign-workers in UAE and the neighboring states will never gain equal rights in a country where they work, live and perhaps die.
Johann Hari (Huffington Post contributor), writing for the British newspaper The Independent, presents a heart-tugging expose of the many shattered dreams in the desert as a global recession converts Dubai (and perhaps the region) from being "Under Construction" to now teetering "Under Collapse."
A 2008 ABC News report describes working conditions in Dubai (could be said for the other countries in the region as well) as follows, "You are working in a system where you are not really free to leave your job. You actually need employers' consent to change jobs. You're working in a system where your passport is withheld. And really, if you displease your employer, you are going to find yourself on a plane right back to Sri Lanka or Bangladesh or India. Most of the workers live in labor camps an hour outside the city .... The men putting up the world's finest buildings live six to eight, sometimes 12, to a room."
Johann Hari further reports that, "This is all supposed to be illegal. Employers are meant to pay on time, never take your passport, give you breaks in the heat -- but I met nobody who said it happens. Not one. These men are conned into coming and trapped into staying, with the complicity of the Dubai authorities."
For the moment, setting aside the debate about separation of mosque and state, a "model Muslim state" at the bare minimum must embody Islam's normative ethics. At the foundation of economic justice lies a Quranic verse, "Give just measure and weight, nor withhold from the people the things that are their due." (7:85) In addition, verses 42:38 and 3:159 instruct that governance is best when based on "mutual consultation," or shura, which must be infused with three essential elements -- equal rights for all citizens, majority rule for public policy and the upholding of justice and human dignity.
Prophet Muhammad said, "Your servants are your brethren upon whom God has given you authority. So, if someone has their brethren under control, they should feed them with the like of what they eat and clothe them with the like of what they wear. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them in their hard job."
UAE, like many of its neighbors, has indeed made giant strides in transforming the region's commerce and culture. U.S. exports to UAE are expected to surpass those to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps this economic growth is a precursor to other freedoms, particularly those pertaining to democracy and worker rights. But if history is any guide, the translation of economic success into socio-political freedoms will not be automatic or organic. It will require an effort by all who benefit from the status quo to look beyond their immediate comforts and aspire to doing well while doing good. There is no reason why economic well being should come at the expense of common sense decency and values.
A model Muslim state will uphold those values that the faithful most desire to see reflected in state policies. John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, analyzing a recent worldwide survey by Gallup write, "Muslims across the world want neither secularism nor theocracy. They want freedom, rights and democratization." A model Muslim state will not only dazzle the world with commerce but also exhibit moral leadership in addressing common concerns like environmental stewardship and bridging the growing economic disparity between the haves and the have-nots.
Turkey perhaps stands a chance of achieving leadership that, in the words of President Obama, is "respectful," "secure," and "prosperous." States like UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have achieved economic success but little of anything else. In any case, American President's should not try too hard to sell "a model Muslim state." The world will know one, when they see one.
During his recent visit to Turkey, President Obama spoke about the promise of a new era in Turkish-U.S. relationship that can serve as a "model partnership" between the West and the Muslim world. America's quest to find a "model" Muslim partner is not new. In January 2008, then U.S. President George W. Bush during his visit to Dubai described the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as a "model Muslim state." UAE's economic progress and moderate political views made it a cause célèbre. But now many are predicting Dubai's demise as the global economic crisis strangles easy credit, which was critical in fueling its growth.
The euphoric crowning of UAE in 2008, and the hasty predictions of its demise a year later, both miss an important point. Beneath the glittering gold lies an underbelly that the rulers in the region are fighting to hide with the government planning to impose a fine for "carrying misleading news that harms the national economy."
Dubai is one of seven emirates that make up UAE, which today stands seventh in GDP per capita in the world. It ranks third highest among Muslim majority nations (only behind neighboring Qatar and Kuwait). A fairy story has been unfolding in the desert. In my visits to the region, I was awestruck by the sheer audacity of their dreams.
Dubai's rise as an economic powerhouse is not unprecedented in the region. Following the rapid rise of oil prices in the seventies, Saudi Arabia too had stunning economic growth. And yet it did not transform the country into a "model Muslim state." Like Saudi Arabia then, Dubai today is unable and unwilling to grant its citizens and residents socio-political freedoms that must go hand-in-hand with economic success to propel a country's rise into a model state.
UAE is home to the largest number of foreign-born residents in the world. A few of these residents enjoy great luxuries but most live a life of hopeless servitude. Unlike legal immigrants in most countries, the foreign-workers in UAE and the neighboring states will never gain equal rights in a country where they work, live and perhaps die.
Johann Hari (Huffington Post contributor), writing for the British newspaper The Independent, presents a heart-tugging expose of the many shattered dreams in the desert as a global recession converts Dubai (and perhaps the region) from being "Under Construction" to now teetering "Under Collapse."
A 2008 ABC News report describes working conditions in Dubai (could be said for the other countries in the region as well) as follows, "You are working in a system where you are not really free to leave your job. You actually need employers' consent to change jobs. You're working in a system where your passport is withheld. And really, if you displease your employer, you are going to find yourself on a plane right back to Sri Lanka or Bangladesh or India. Most of the workers live in labor camps an hour outside the city .... The men putting up the world's finest buildings live six to eight, sometimes 12, to a room."
Johann Hari further reports that, "This is all supposed to be illegal. Employers are meant to pay on time, never take your passport, give you breaks in the heat -- but I met nobody who said it happens. Not one. These men are conned into coming and trapped into staying, with the complicity of the Dubai authorities."
For the moment, setting aside the debate about separation of mosque and state, a "model Muslim state" at the bare minimum must embody Islam's normative ethics. At the foundation of economic justice lies a Quranic verse, "Give just measure and weight, nor withhold from the people the things that are their due." (7:85) In addition, verses 42:38 and 3:159 instruct that governance is best when based on "mutual consultation," or shura, which must be infused with three essential elements -- equal rights for all citizens, majority rule for public policy and the upholding of justice and human dignity.
Prophet Muhammad said, "Your servants are your brethren upon whom God has given you authority. So, if someone has their brethren under control, they should feed them with the like of what they eat and clothe them with the like of what they wear. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them in their hard job."
UAE, like many of its neighbors, has indeed made giant strides in transforming the region's commerce and culture. U.S. exports to UAE are expected to surpass those to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps this economic growth is a precursor to other freedoms, particularly those pertaining to democracy and worker rights. But if history is any guide, the translation of economic success into socio-political freedoms will not be automatic or organic. It will require an effort by all who benefit from the status quo to look beyond their immediate comforts and aspire to doing well while doing good. There is no reason why economic well being should come at the expense of common sense decency and values.
A model Muslim state will uphold those values that the faithful most desire to see reflected in state policies. John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, analyzing a recent worldwide survey by Gallup write, "Muslims across the world want neither secularism nor theocracy. They want freedom, rights and democratization." A model Muslim state will not only dazzle the world with commerce but also exhibit moral leadership in addressing common concerns like environmental stewardship and bridging the growing economic disparity between the haves and the have-nots.
Turkey perhaps stands a chance of achieving leadership that, in the words of President Obama, is "respectful," "secure," and "prosperous." States like UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have achieved economic success but little of anything else. In any case, American President's should not try too hard to sell "a model Muslim state." The world will know one, when they see one.
Passover Tells a Story Familiar to Both Muslims and Jews
Huffington Post, April 9, 2009
A week before Passover, a local interfaith group called the Table of Abraham organized a Seder event at Congregation Ahavath Chesed, a Reform Jewish congregation in Jacksonville. The goal was to enact all of the rituals that are part of Seder as a way of informing and teaching people who are unfamiliar with this tradition.
Turning the pages of the Haggadah, I was specially struck by the similarity in both Judaism and Islam about this seminal Jewish event of Passover. At a time when so much of the contemporary narrative about Jews and Muslims is written in the context of differences and conflicts, it is useful to mark the solemn occasion of Passover as a mutual reminder about the commonalities between the faiths.
No other story in the Quran is recounted as frequently as the bondage of the Children of Israel in Egypt and their subsequent deliverance from the tyranny of the Pharaoh. God says in the Quran:
The genesis of Muslim-Jewish relationship goes back to the founding of a political state in Madinah by Islam's Prophet Muhammad in 622 of the Common Era. Madinah of that time was a city inhabited by primarily polytheist Arab tribes, a few Jewish tribes and some Christians (although not as organized tribes). The Jewish tribes joined the rest of the city in welcoming Prophet Muhammad and upon entering the city the Prophet signed a treaty with all of the surrounding tribes.
This treaty is called the Charter of Madinah. It is perhaps the earliest known constitution in the world, predating the Magna Carta by 600 years. It is also the first known legal document that confers rights and responsibilities upon distinct religious minorities. It particularly recognizes Jews as a distinct nation (or ummah) entitling them to the same rights and responsibilities as any other signatories to the document. The treaty required each to assist the other another against any violation of the covenant. When placed in the context of the socio-economic-political conditions of the seventh century this document was indeed revolutionary.
Azizah al-Hibri, a legal scholar wrote:
Despite such early documentary evidence of reciprocal respect, relationship between the two communities was clouded by mutual mistrust leading to several bloody conflicts.
And yet there are also many inspiring examples of coexistence and cooperation. It was during the Muslim rule in Spain that Jewish art, philosophy and literature reached one of its golden ages. A recent documentary on PBS characterized that era as, "The fascinating story of a central bureaucracy staffed by elites from all three faiths, with Jews in all but the highest post and Christian scholars outperforming "native" Arabic speakers in their own language and culture, is a fascinating and powerful antidote to our modern stereotypes concerning Christians, Jews, and Muslims."
Which part of our shared history do we want to use as our guide to the future? The part that steers us to presume the worst stereotypes about each other or the part that shows how much we can benefit humanity through our mutual cooperation. How we reminisce the past will dictate how effective we are in building a new future.
By the end of my Seder meal at the synagogue, it was quite apparent that beneath the headlines that scream conflict are Jewish, Muslim and Christian hearts yearning to build a more hopeful future based on mutual understanding. The eternal message of hope was my take-home lesson from the Seder.
A week before Passover, a local interfaith group called the Table of Abraham organized a Seder event at Congregation Ahavath Chesed, a Reform Jewish congregation in Jacksonville. The goal was to enact all of the rituals that are part of Seder as a way of informing and teaching people who are unfamiliar with this tradition.
Turning the pages of the Haggadah, I was specially struck by the similarity in both Judaism and Islam about this seminal Jewish event of Passover. At a time when so much of the contemporary narrative about Jews and Muslims is written in the context of differences and conflicts, it is useful to mark the solemn occasion of Passover as a mutual reminder about the commonalities between the faiths.
No other story in the Quran is recounted as frequently as the bondage of the Children of Israel in Egypt and their subsequent deliverance from the tyranny of the Pharaoh. God says in the Quran:
O children of Israel! Remember those blessings of Mine with which I graced you, and how I favored you above all other people; .... And [remember the time] when We saved you from Pharaoh's people, who afflicted you with cruel suffering, slaughtering your sons and sparing [only] your women - which was an awesome trial from your Sustainer; and when We cleft the sea before you, and thus saved you and caused Pharaoh's people to drown before your very eyes. (2:47-50)
The genesis of Muslim-Jewish relationship goes back to the founding of a political state in Madinah by Islam's Prophet Muhammad in 622 of the Common Era. Madinah of that time was a city inhabited by primarily polytheist Arab tribes, a few Jewish tribes and some Christians (although not as organized tribes). The Jewish tribes joined the rest of the city in welcoming Prophet Muhammad and upon entering the city the Prophet signed a treaty with all of the surrounding tribes.
This treaty is called the Charter of Madinah. It is perhaps the earliest known constitution in the world, predating the Magna Carta by 600 years. It is also the first known legal document that confers rights and responsibilities upon distinct religious minorities. It particularly recognizes Jews as a distinct nation (or ummah) entitling them to the same rights and responsibilities as any other signatories to the document. The treaty required each to assist the other another against any violation of the covenant. When placed in the context of the socio-economic-political conditions of the seventh century this document was indeed revolutionary.
Azizah al-Hibri, a legal scholar wrote:
The Charter .... declared all Muslim and Jewish tribes of Madinah to be one community. At the same time, each tribe retained its identity, customs and internal relations. The "federal" system of Madinah was responsible, however, for such matters as common defense and peacemaking, purposes similar to those in the Preamble to the American Constitution.... The Charter also contained its own partial bill of rights, ... among the rights that it protected were the right to freedom of religion, and the right not to be found guilty because of the deeds of an ally, a form of guilt by association which was widely practiced at the time.....The Charter of Madinah repeatedly emphasized the principles of fairness and equity for Jews and Muslims....It is readily apparent that there are significant parallels between the concepts expressed in the Charter of Madinah, executed in the seventh century, and those of the American Constitution, drafted in the eighteenth century.
Despite such early documentary evidence of reciprocal respect, relationship between the two communities was clouded by mutual mistrust leading to several bloody conflicts.
And yet there are also many inspiring examples of coexistence and cooperation. It was during the Muslim rule in Spain that Jewish art, philosophy and literature reached one of its golden ages. A recent documentary on PBS characterized that era as, "The fascinating story of a central bureaucracy staffed by elites from all three faiths, with Jews in all but the highest post and Christian scholars outperforming "native" Arabic speakers in their own language and culture, is a fascinating and powerful antidote to our modern stereotypes concerning Christians, Jews, and Muslims."
Which part of our shared history do we want to use as our guide to the future? The part that steers us to presume the worst stereotypes about each other or the part that shows how much we can benefit humanity through our mutual cooperation. How we reminisce the past will dictate how effective we are in building a new future.
By the end of my Seder meal at the synagogue, it was quite apparent that beneath the headlines that scream conflict are Jewish, Muslim and Christian hearts yearning to build a more hopeful future based on mutual understanding. The eternal message of hope was my take-home lesson from the Seder.
Waiting to exhale: Obama visits Turkey
Published in Today's Zaman, April 5, 2009
(Turkey's largest circulating English daily)
Long before Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States of America, people in Turkey had expressed a sentiment of hope about his presidency. Reporting for The New York Observer in January 2008, Suzy Hansen quoted Omer Taspınar, director of the Turkey program at the Brookings Institution, as saying: "Turks know that Obama represents something quite different -- they've seen 'Roots.' They know the history. So an African-American with an African name and a name like Hussein -- the fact that people are willing to give him a chance, despite that he attended a madrasa, and had a Muslim father, would represent a huge change in the US, compared to the Bush-Clinton dynasties." As Turkey prepares to welcome Obama this week, what can they expect from him? And what can Obama expect in return?
A recent poll by the BBC World Service shows a majority of Turkish people believing that Obama will improve America's relations with the rest of the world. However, the number of people in Turkey who believe this (51 percent) is far below the average (68 percent) in the 17-nation BBC survey. Thus, amidst the general optimism there lies a nagging concern: Can Obama deliver on his promise?
Despite being saddled by a once-in-a generation economic crisis, the young American president has shown an uncanny ability to, in his own words, "walk and chew gum at the same time." Giving his first interview as president to the Arab TV station Al Arabiya, sending video greetings to the Islamic Republic of Iran on the Persian new year, quoting a saying (hadith) of the Prophet in one of his speeches, ordering the closing down of the abomination that is Guantanamo, retiring the use of ill-defined terms such as the "war on terror" and refraining from even rhetorically linking Islam to terrorism are all trends that evoke hope. Although these moves are mostly symbolic, they are nonetheless important, as part of leadership is setting the right tone.
How President Obama translates this emergent goodwill into tangible actions will ultimately determine his success. A recent survey by Gallup shows that nearly nine in 10 Muslims, spread across many Muslim-majority nations, support freedom of speech, defined as allowing all citizens to express their opinions freely on all major issues of the day. Overwhelming majorities support women having the same legal rights as men. Similar numbers hold beliefs that their faith ought to inform and guide them in their politics. Yet most do not want sacred religious texts to be the exclusive source of law in their societies. The most common aspiration, all across the Muslim world, is to see America help in reducing unemployment, improving economic infrastructure, respecting political rights and promoting freedom.
To get the Muslim world right, President Obama will first have to get Turkey right. During the Bush years, Turkish sentiments saw some of the most dramatic swings from overwhelmingly pro-American to stridently anti-American. Turkey sits at the nexus of several hot spots, such as Iraq, Syria and Iran. Turkey is eager to play a role in mediating an amicable solution. Turkey is not just a Muslim-majority nation; it is also a secular democracy. Turkey is also trying to grapple with its own version of separation of church (mosque) and state. The ban on students donning symbols of their faith while attending university classes strikes many in the West and across the Muslim world as excessive. But the fact that the Turkish people are continuing to debate this issue is a sign of religious, intellectual and social vitality. President Obama could use his enormous appeal across the Muslim world to prod other Muslim societies to borrow a page from Turkey and enhance their own internal dialogues about the appropriate role of religion and faith in state governance.
Back at home, a poll conducted by the non-partisan group Public Agenda shows that a clear majority of American's express support for using diplomatic and economic means to resolve conflicts, even with Iran. Most Americans want America's top foreign policy priority to be humanitarian, such as helping poor countries move out of poverty, providing more access to education and controlling the spread of deadly diseases.
All around the world there is an emerging consensus of aspiration. People are less interested in ideologies and care more about how governments can better their lives. This creates new opportunities for cooperation through sustained intellectual and diplomatic engagement. Instead of looking at Turkey as just an important geostrategic military ally, President Obama needs to prod European allies to welcome Turkey into the European Union, giving Turkey a more effective platform to act as a bridge between America, Europe and the Muslim world.
Obama tells Turkey: U.S. ‘not at war with Islam’ (AP April 6, 2009)
ANKARA, Turkey - Barack Obama, making his first visit to a Muslim nation as president, declared Monday the United States "is not and will never be at war with Islam."
Urging a greater partnership with the Islamic world in an address to the Turkish parliament, Obama called the country an important U.S. ally in many areas, including the fight against terrorism. He devoted much of his speech to urging a greater bond between Americans and Muslims, portraying terrorist groups such as al Qaida as extremists who do not represent the vast majority of Muslims.
"Let me say this as clearly as I can," Obama said. "The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical ... in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject."
(Turkey's largest circulating English daily)
Long before Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States of America, people in Turkey had expressed a sentiment of hope about his presidency. Reporting for The New York Observer in January 2008, Suzy Hansen quoted Omer Taspınar, director of the Turkey program at the Brookings Institution, as saying: "Turks know that Obama represents something quite different -- they've seen 'Roots.' They know the history. So an African-American with an African name and a name like Hussein -- the fact that people are willing to give him a chance, despite that he attended a madrasa, and had a Muslim father, would represent a huge change in the US, compared to the Bush-Clinton dynasties." As Turkey prepares to welcome Obama this week, what can they expect from him? And what can Obama expect in return?
A recent poll by the BBC World Service shows a majority of Turkish people believing that Obama will improve America's relations with the rest of the world. However, the number of people in Turkey who believe this (51 percent) is far below the average (68 percent) in the 17-nation BBC survey. Thus, amidst the general optimism there lies a nagging concern: Can Obama deliver on his promise?
Despite being saddled by a once-in-a generation economic crisis, the young American president has shown an uncanny ability to, in his own words, "walk and chew gum at the same time." Giving his first interview as president to the Arab TV station Al Arabiya, sending video greetings to the Islamic Republic of Iran on the Persian new year, quoting a saying (hadith) of the Prophet in one of his speeches, ordering the closing down of the abomination that is Guantanamo, retiring the use of ill-defined terms such as the "war on terror" and refraining from even rhetorically linking Islam to terrorism are all trends that evoke hope. Although these moves are mostly symbolic, they are nonetheless important, as part of leadership is setting the right tone.
How President Obama translates this emergent goodwill into tangible actions will ultimately determine his success. A recent survey by Gallup shows that nearly nine in 10 Muslims, spread across many Muslim-majority nations, support freedom of speech, defined as allowing all citizens to express their opinions freely on all major issues of the day. Overwhelming majorities support women having the same legal rights as men. Similar numbers hold beliefs that their faith ought to inform and guide them in their politics. Yet most do not want sacred religious texts to be the exclusive source of law in their societies. The most common aspiration, all across the Muslim world, is to see America help in reducing unemployment, improving economic infrastructure, respecting political rights and promoting freedom.
To get the Muslim world right, President Obama will first have to get Turkey right. During the Bush years, Turkish sentiments saw some of the most dramatic swings from overwhelmingly pro-American to stridently anti-American. Turkey sits at the nexus of several hot spots, such as Iraq, Syria and Iran. Turkey is eager to play a role in mediating an amicable solution. Turkey is not just a Muslim-majority nation; it is also a secular democracy. Turkey is also trying to grapple with its own version of separation of church (mosque) and state. The ban on students donning symbols of their faith while attending university classes strikes many in the West and across the Muslim world as excessive. But the fact that the Turkish people are continuing to debate this issue is a sign of religious, intellectual and social vitality. President Obama could use his enormous appeal across the Muslim world to prod other Muslim societies to borrow a page from Turkey and enhance their own internal dialogues about the appropriate role of religion and faith in state governance.
Back at home, a poll conducted by the non-partisan group Public Agenda shows that a clear majority of American's express support for using diplomatic and economic means to resolve conflicts, even with Iran. Most Americans want America's top foreign policy priority to be humanitarian, such as helping poor countries move out of poverty, providing more access to education and controlling the spread of deadly diseases.
All around the world there is an emerging consensus of aspiration. People are less interested in ideologies and care more about how governments can better their lives. This creates new opportunities for cooperation through sustained intellectual and diplomatic engagement. Instead of looking at Turkey as just an important geostrategic military ally, President Obama needs to prod European allies to welcome Turkey into the European Union, giving Turkey a more effective platform to act as a bridge between America, Europe and the Muslim world.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Obama tells Turkey: U.S. ‘not at war with Islam’ (AP April 6, 2009)
ANKARA, Turkey - Barack Obama, making his first visit to a Muslim nation as president, declared Monday the United States "is not and will never be at war with Islam."
Urging a greater partnership with the Islamic world in an address to the Turkish parliament, Obama called the country an important U.S. ally in many areas, including the fight against terrorism. He devoted much of his speech to urging a greater bond between Americans and Muslims, portraying terrorist groups such as al Qaida as extremists who do not represent the vast majority of Muslims.
"Let me say this as clearly as I can," Obama said. "The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical ... in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject."
Eric Holder Must End FBI's Abuses Against American Muslims
Huffington Post, March 26, 2009
A recent headline on CNN read, "FBI planting spies in U.S. mosques," Muslim groups allege. This outrage was sparked by revelations that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had sent an agent provocateur into a mosque in southern California who was coercing worshippers in becoming informants and inciting them to make violent statements. The planting of spies in mosques is just the latest in the FBI's long list of actions that have angered both civil libertarians and members of the American Muslim community.
In March 2003, FBI launched the mosque counting project whereby agents were asked to document the number of mosques in their areas, "to help measure the number of terrorism investigations that the various field offices should be expected to open and pursue." By their actions, the FBI needlessly linked terrorism to mosques despite the paucity of any evidence tying the 9-11 hijackers to the mainstream American-Muslim community and the mainstream Muslim community's absolute and unequivocal rejection of terror. Ahead of the 2004 Presidential election, the FBI had launched a so-called October Plan indiscriminately "interviewing" Muslims. In 2005 FBI agents secretly monitored radiation levels at mosques to determine whether nuclear bombs were being assembled there. Nothing was found. In 2008, an American Muslim was arrested and tortured in UAE at the apparent direction of the FBI.
My concerns also relate to a January 2009 Fox News story that reported the FBI's severing of its ties with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a leading American Muslim organization. It was more disconcerting, when a month later a FBI agent stopped by my office purporting to ask questions about my resignation from the Chairmanship of CAIR, an action I had taken eight months ago.
My reasons for leaving CAIR were no secret. In an interview with my local newspaper, I had noted that in order to make the organization a more effective voice in the American socio-political discourse, CAIR must empower a new and younger generation of leaders. My departure was clearly related to disagreements over governing philosophy and yet the FBI perplexingly found something nefarious in a matter that is not entirely out of the ordinary.
The FBI wants to avoid "formally constructed partnerships" with CAIR stemming from concerns over "distinct narrow issues" specific to CAIR's "national leadership." Such vague pronouncements have provided a pretext for some members of Congress to turn the ambiguity into a "government-wide policy." In order to remain consistent with the constitutional hallmarks of due process, it is essential that our lawmakers and law enforcement agencies do not make hasty pronouncements that can needlessly hurt innocent people. If CAIR has "terrorist ties" as some members of Congress claim then the FBI should shut CAIR down. However, if there is no evidence linking CAIR to any terrorist activity, then the FBI should re-engage with CAIR.
From 2005 to 2008 as the Chairman of CAIR, I participated in numerous meetings and press conferences with the FBI. I conducted sensitivity and diversity training for the FBI and at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. During this time, no one from the FBI ever alerted me about "distinct narrow issues." In all of my association with the organization, I was not aware of any unlawful activity.
The FBI Director Robert Muller recently said, "The communities from which we need the most help are those who trust us the least. But it is in these communities that we must re-double our efforts." It is unclear as to how the steps taken by the FBI will lead to a building of trust.
Perhaps tired of the growing list of provocative actions against the community or perhaps indignation over being side-stepped, CAIR led several American Muslim groups in asking members of the community to "consider suspending all outreach activities with FBI offices." Not all major Muslim groups joined this call perhaps realizing that such a call is counter-productive. Suspending dialogue can only make matters worse. Moreover, it is unclear as to what the groups meant by suspending "all outreach?" If the FBI comes knocking on the door of an American Muslim organization seeking diversity training should they be turned away? The groups seeking boycott went on to say, "The credibility of all Muslim organizations who maintain ties to the FBI that do not react decisively is undermined in the eyes of the community." Does this mean that the American Muslims who just won the 2008 Community Leadership Awards from the FBI are turncoats, if they accept the award?
Whatever legitimate concerns FBI has about CAIR, they need to give the organization's 11-member national governing board a chance to weigh the facts. During my tenure at CAIR, no such overture was made by the FBI.
Even if CAIR feels that it is unfairly taking one on the chin, it should not issue self-serving calls asking members of the American Muslim community to break off relationship with the FBI, especially when such relationships in small measures do help in promoting mutual understanding. While the results of such interactions are not always spectacular, nonetheless these interactions are helpful for building civic harmony.
Speaking from my personal experience, having conducted dozens of hours of training for members of law enforcement, such interactions allow outsiders like me to understand the myriad of challenges facing law enforcement. It helps to ensure that our demands are tempered by the recognition of the enormous challenges law enforcement officials face in an effort to ensure the public safety of all. On the other hand, even the few hours that law enforcement officers spend in diversity training classes allow them better perspective on the concerns of minority communities, helping them to more effectively engage.
The FBI's hasty pronouncements and ensuing misguided responses by some American Muslim organizations have placed undue burdens on the American Muslim community. It is incumbent that both the FBI and American Muslim groups meet to work out their differences before their respective intransigence undermines security and civic harmony. The new Attorney General Eric Holder, who has called for, "adherence to the rule of law," and a cessation of "the needlessly abusive and unlawful practices" must step forward to assure the American Muslim community that the Obama administration will break away from the bad policies that plagued the Ashcroft-Gonzalez Justice department.
A recent headline on CNN read, "FBI planting spies in U.S. mosques," Muslim groups allege. This outrage was sparked by revelations that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had sent an agent provocateur into a mosque in southern California who was coercing worshippers in becoming informants and inciting them to make violent statements. The planting of spies in mosques is just the latest in the FBI's long list of actions that have angered both civil libertarians and members of the American Muslim community.
In March 2003, FBI launched the mosque counting project whereby agents were asked to document the number of mosques in their areas, "to help measure the number of terrorism investigations that the various field offices should be expected to open and pursue." By their actions, the FBI needlessly linked terrorism to mosques despite the paucity of any evidence tying the 9-11 hijackers to the mainstream American-Muslim community and the mainstream Muslim community's absolute and unequivocal rejection of terror. Ahead of the 2004 Presidential election, the FBI had launched a so-called October Plan indiscriminately "interviewing" Muslims. In 2005 FBI agents secretly monitored radiation levels at mosques to determine whether nuclear bombs were being assembled there. Nothing was found. In 2008, an American Muslim was arrested and tortured in UAE at the apparent direction of the FBI.
My concerns also relate to a January 2009 Fox News story that reported the FBI's severing of its ties with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a leading American Muslim organization. It was more disconcerting, when a month later a FBI agent stopped by my office purporting to ask questions about my resignation from the Chairmanship of CAIR, an action I had taken eight months ago.
My reasons for leaving CAIR were no secret. In an interview with my local newspaper, I had noted that in order to make the organization a more effective voice in the American socio-political discourse, CAIR must empower a new and younger generation of leaders. My departure was clearly related to disagreements over governing philosophy and yet the FBI perplexingly found something nefarious in a matter that is not entirely out of the ordinary.
The FBI wants to avoid "formally constructed partnerships" with CAIR stemming from concerns over "distinct narrow issues" specific to CAIR's "national leadership." Such vague pronouncements have provided a pretext for some members of Congress to turn the ambiguity into a "government-wide policy." In order to remain consistent with the constitutional hallmarks of due process, it is essential that our lawmakers and law enforcement agencies do not make hasty pronouncements that can needlessly hurt innocent people. If CAIR has "terrorist ties" as some members of Congress claim then the FBI should shut CAIR down. However, if there is no evidence linking CAIR to any terrorist activity, then the FBI should re-engage with CAIR.
From 2005 to 2008 as the Chairman of CAIR, I participated in numerous meetings and press conferences with the FBI. I conducted sensitivity and diversity training for the FBI and at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. During this time, no one from the FBI ever alerted me about "distinct narrow issues." In all of my association with the organization, I was not aware of any unlawful activity.
The FBI Director Robert Muller recently said, "The communities from which we need the most help are those who trust us the least. But it is in these communities that we must re-double our efforts." It is unclear as to how the steps taken by the FBI will lead to a building of trust.
Perhaps tired of the growing list of provocative actions against the community or perhaps indignation over being side-stepped, CAIR led several American Muslim groups in asking members of the community to "consider suspending all outreach activities with FBI offices." Not all major Muslim groups joined this call perhaps realizing that such a call is counter-productive. Suspending dialogue can only make matters worse. Moreover, it is unclear as to what the groups meant by suspending "all outreach?" If the FBI comes knocking on the door of an American Muslim organization seeking diversity training should they be turned away? The groups seeking boycott went on to say, "The credibility of all Muslim organizations who maintain ties to the FBI that do not react decisively is undermined in the eyes of the community." Does this mean that the American Muslims who just won the 2008 Community Leadership Awards from the FBI are turncoats, if they accept the award?
Whatever legitimate concerns FBI has about CAIR, they need to give the organization's 11-member national governing board a chance to weigh the facts. During my tenure at CAIR, no such overture was made by the FBI.
Even if CAIR feels that it is unfairly taking one on the chin, it should not issue self-serving calls asking members of the American Muslim community to break off relationship with the FBI, especially when such relationships in small measures do help in promoting mutual understanding. While the results of such interactions are not always spectacular, nonetheless these interactions are helpful for building civic harmony.
Speaking from my personal experience, having conducted dozens of hours of training for members of law enforcement, such interactions allow outsiders like me to understand the myriad of challenges facing law enforcement. It helps to ensure that our demands are tempered by the recognition of the enormous challenges law enforcement officials face in an effort to ensure the public safety of all. On the other hand, even the few hours that law enforcement officers spend in diversity training classes allow them better perspective on the concerns of minority communities, helping them to more effectively engage.
The FBI's hasty pronouncements and ensuing misguided responses by some American Muslim organizations have placed undue burdens on the American Muslim community. It is incumbent that both the FBI and American Muslim groups meet to work out their differences before their respective intransigence undermines security and civic harmony. The new Attorney General Eric Holder, who has called for, "adherence to the rule of law," and a cessation of "the needlessly abusive and unlawful practices" must step forward to assure the American Muslim community that the Obama administration will break away from the bad policies that plagued the Ashcroft-Gonzalez Justice department.
FBI Should Not Involve Themselves in Political Theatre
An edited version was first published in Fayetteville Observor on March 19, 2009
In January 2009, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) told Fox News that it severing its ties with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a leading American Muslim organization. A month later, I was surprised to see a FBI agent stop by my office in Jacksonville seeking reasons for my resignation from being the Chairman of CAIR.
My reasons for departure were no secret. In a June 2008 interview to my local newspaper, I had said that to better serve the interests of its constituents, CAIR must empower a new generation of leaders who will foster greater accountability, transparency and professionalism. I had hoped that my departure will capacitate young talents into positions of leadership. The election of North Carolina State Senator Larry Shaw to succeed me took eight long months and yet there are no visible signs of revitalization to make the organization a more effective voice in the American socio-political discourse.
Despite my substantive disagreements with the organization, I find the FBI's decision to cutoff relations with CAIR as unfortunate and unnecessary. I can only hope that this move does not represent a going back to the future of COINTELPRO, a FBI covert operation of the 1960s that was aimed at subverting civic organizations struggling for racial equality.
In the Fox News story, FBI spokesman John Miller reportedly said, "The FBI has had to limit its formal contact with CAIR field offices until certain issues are addressed by CAIR's national headquarters." The lack of clarity in FBI's pronouncement has provided a pretext for some members of Congress to turn the ambiguity into a "government-wide policy."
If CAIR has "terrorist ties," as Reps. Myrick and McHenry of North Carolina and Broun of Georgia claim they do, then the FBI should not be "limiting" contact with CAIR, but rather should shut the organization down. The American Muslim community, which has repeatedly condemned terrorism, have no interest in seeing any of its organizations tainted with "terrorist ties." However, if there is no evidence linking CAIR to any terrorist activity (in all of my association with the organization, I was not aware of any unlawful activity) then the FBI should re-engage with CAIR on issues of common concern, such as protecting civil liberties, even if they disagree with some views of the organization.
According to published reports, the crux of FBI's angst revolves around the Department of Justice (DOJ) naming of CAIR along with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) as "unindicted co-conspirators" in a case against the Muslim charity Holy Land Foundation (HLF). In late 2008, HLF was convicted of conspiring to funnel money to Hamas, a Palestinian group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. Many members of the American Muslim community viewed the case against HLF as more of a political witch-hunt than anything concerning the security of the United States. In a Dallas Morning News report, Tom Melsheimer, a former federal prosecutor, concurred, "To spend millions of dollars in time and expenses to prosecute people who were of no real threat to anyone, under the banner of a terrorism case, is a waste of precious federal resources."
The FBI does not offer any explanation as to why issues with some antecedents going back over fifteen years is reason to cut off ties with CAIR now, particularly all its independently governed local offices? The fact that this decision comes eighteen months after the Justice department named CAIR along with 300 others as "unindicted co-conspirators" makes the move even more perplexing. The DOJ's actions violated its own guidelines, prompting court challenges. Till date the courts have not ruled on the pending motions and it is not clear that they ever will. This is why in Ira Robbins of the American University wrote in the Federal Courts Law Review, "The grand jury practice of naming individuals as unindicted co-conspirators …appears to be an anomaly in United States law, in that it violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The FBI's rather abrupt move to cut off relationship with CAIR is just as misguided as a statement by a coalition of Muslim groups calling on American Muslims to "consider suspending all outreach activities with FBI offices." Limiting "formal contacts" or "suspending outreach" sends the wrong message at a time when the way forward, locally, nationally and globally, is sustained dialogue and diplomacy, even among those at political loggerheads.
In January 2009, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) told Fox News that it severing its ties with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a leading American Muslim organization. A month later, I was surprised to see a FBI agent stop by my office in Jacksonville seeking reasons for my resignation from being the Chairman of CAIR.
My reasons for departure were no secret. In a June 2008 interview to my local newspaper, I had said that to better serve the interests of its constituents, CAIR must empower a new generation of leaders who will foster greater accountability, transparency and professionalism. I had hoped that my departure will capacitate young talents into positions of leadership. The election of North Carolina State Senator Larry Shaw to succeed me took eight long months and yet there are no visible signs of revitalization to make the organization a more effective voice in the American socio-political discourse.
Despite my substantive disagreements with the organization, I find the FBI's decision to cutoff relations with CAIR as unfortunate and unnecessary. I can only hope that this move does not represent a going back to the future of COINTELPRO, a FBI covert operation of the 1960s that was aimed at subverting civic organizations struggling for racial equality.
In the Fox News story, FBI spokesman John Miller reportedly said, "The FBI has had to limit its formal contact with CAIR field offices until certain issues are addressed by CAIR's national headquarters." The lack of clarity in FBI's pronouncement has provided a pretext for some members of Congress to turn the ambiguity into a "government-wide policy."
If CAIR has "terrorist ties," as Reps. Myrick and McHenry of North Carolina and Broun of Georgia claim they do, then the FBI should not be "limiting" contact with CAIR, but rather should shut the organization down. The American Muslim community, which has repeatedly condemned terrorism, have no interest in seeing any of its organizations tainted with "terrorist ties." However, if there is no evidence linking CAIR to any terrorist activity (in all of my association with the organization, I was not aware of any unlawful activity) then the FBI should re-engage with CAIR on issues of common concern, such as protecting civil liberties, even if they disagree with some views of the organization.
According to published reports, the crux of FBI's angst revolves around the Department of Justice (DOJ) naming of CAIR along with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) as "unindicted co-conspirators" in a case against the Muslim charity Holy Land Foundation (HLF). In late 2008, HLF was convicted of conspiring to funnel money to Hamas, a Palestinian group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. Many members of the American Muslim community viewed the case against HLF as more of a political witch-hunt than anything concerning the security of the United States. In a Dallas Morning News report, Tom Melsheimer, a former federal prosecutor, concurred, "To spend millions of dollars in time and expenses to prosecute people who were of no real threat to anyone, under the banner of a terrorism case, is a waste of precious federal resources."
The FBI does not offer any explanation as to why issues with some antecedents going back over fifteen years is reason to cut off ties with CAIR now, particularly all its independently governed local offices? The fact that this decision comes eighteen months after the Justice department named CAIR along with 300 others as "unindicted co-conspirators" makes the move even more perplexing. The DOJ's actions violated its own guidelines, prompting court challenges. Till date the courts have not ruled on the pending motions and it is not clear that they ever will. This is why in Ira Robbins of the American University wrote in the Federal Courts Law Review, "The grand jury practice of naming individuals as unindicted co-conspirators …appears to be an anomaly in United States law, in that it violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The FBI's rather abrupt move to cut off relationship with CAIR is just as misguided as a statement by a coalition of Muslim groups calling on American Muslims to "consider suspending all outreach activities with FBI offices." Limiting "formal contacts" or "suspending outreach" sends the wrong message at a time when the way forward, locally, nationally and globally, is sustained dialogue and diplomacy, even among those at political loggerheads.
Music, a bridge over troubled waters
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 17 March 2009
Jacksonville, Florida - The noted Indian poet and Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore said, "Music fills the infinite between two souls". I experienced this while attending a recital by Choir Al Farah, a musical group that aims to highlight the reality and the possibility of Christians, Muslims and Jews living in brotherhood and peace. Through a fusion of Assyrian, Byzantine, Muslim and Latin musical traditions, Choir Al Farah, in the words of its founder, Elias Zehlawi, seeks to "glorify the one God that we all believe in and that makes all of us brothers and sisters."
Choir Al Farah, a Syrian Christian group, was touring America to take part in the "Arabesque: Arts of the Arab World" festival organised by the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC, presented in cooperation with the League of Arab States.
Washington Post staff writer Ellen McCarthy wrote in an article a few weeks ago, "It will be a momentous occasion…. Unshackling ourselves from blurry stereotypes and half-formed conceits, we will step into their world without leaving the borders of our city. We'll give ourselves over to the rare and precious opportunity to see, hear and taste the flavours of Arab culture through the intimate dialogue exchanged between artist and audience. The veil is about to be lifted."
The veil was not only lifted in Washington, DC, but also in Detroit, Michigan, and here in my home city of Jacksonville, Florida, where – thanks to the generosity of my friend Yazan Khatib – Choir Al Farah delighted a diverse crowd of over 400 at the Ritz Theatre.
But why was Khatib, a Muslim, sponsoring a Christian choir group?
He was simply fulfilling a Qur'anic command: "Help ye one another unto righteousness and pious duty. Help not one another unto sin and transgression" (Qur'an 5:2).
At their Jacksonville recital, Choir Al Farah sang not only traditional Christian hymns but also gave voice to the most popular Muslim nasheed, "Tala al Badru Alayna" (Oh, the White Moon Rose Over Us). This Islam-inspired vocal music was originally sung by the children and residents of Medina as they welcomed Prophet Muhammad to their city over 1400 years ago.
The choir also sang "Amen", a word that Jews, Christians and Muslims all use in prayer.
Their music celebrates the nostalgia of Arab culture, which – like other traditional cultures – is trying to retain its relevance in an increasingly globalised world.
Perhaps the most inspiring part of this group's effort lies in its vision and composition. The singers, 120 children between 12 and 17, are all Christian, while most of the musicians are Muslim adults.
How did this cooperation come about? I asked the founder, Father Elias Zehlawi. He said that Choir Al Farah is the result of a dream he had about using his church to bridge the gap between ethnic and faith groups. His goal was to build a common platform to communicate the universal message of love and peace. He believes that all religions share the same spirit of mutual love and mutual respect. Unfortunately, politics and economics have driven a wedge between these groups that extremists on all sides are exploiting.
Zehlawi's aspiration was reciprocated by the Grand Mosque of Damascus, known more commonly as the Umayyad Mosque. The mosque contains a shrine said to hold the head of John the Baptist, who is honoured as a prophet by both Christians and Muslims, to whom he is known as Yahya. Choir Al Farah and a group of singers from the Umayyad Mosque have jointly appeared before sold out audiences in Damascus and aspire to go on joint tours across the world.
I asked Zehlawi why he thought it was important to include Islamic nasheeds in the choir's repertoire. His answer was that God should be a reason to unite us and not to divide us. He articulated a simple but profound idea that resonates in the Qur'an, "O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another" (Qur'an 49:13).
Father Zehlawi believes that barriers to mutual understanding can be shattered by the voices of children, which can penetrate even the hardest of hearts. We are part of one human family and we must respect, not just tolerate, each other if we are to ever establish peace and justice.
As the world is buffeted by the sinews of economic and political strife, the voices of the 120 children from Damascus are filling the infinite between souls like a bridge over troubled waters.
###
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 17 March 2009, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Jacksonville, Florida - The noted Indian poet and Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore said, "Music fills the infinite between two souls". I experienced this while attending a recital by Choir Al Farah, a musical group that aims to highlight the reality and the possibility of Christians, Muslims and Jews living in brotherhood and peace. Through a fusion of Assyrian, Byzantine, Muslim and Latin musical traditions, Choir Al Farah, in the words of its founder, Elias Zehlawi, seeks to "glorify the one God that we all believe in and that makes all of us brothers and sisters."
Choir Al Farah, a Syrian Christian group, was touring America to take part in the "Arabesque: Arts of the Arab World" festival organised by the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC, presented in cooperation with the League of Arab States.
Washington Post staff writer Ellen McCarthy wrote in an article a few weeks ago, "It will be a momentous occasion…. Unshackling ourselves from blurry stereotypes and half-formed conceits, we will step into their world without leaving the borders of our city. We'll give ourselves over to the rare and precious opportunity to see, hear and taste the flavours of Arab culture through the intimate dialogue exchanged between artist and audience. The veil is about to be lifted."
The veil was not only lifted in Washington, DC, but also in Detroit, Michigan, and here in my home city of Jacksonville, Florida, where – thanks to the generosity of my friend Yazan Khatib – Choir Al Farah delighted a diverse crowd of over 400 at the Ritz Theatre.
But why was Khatib, a Muslim, sponsoring a Christian choir group?
He was simply fulfilling a Qur'anic command: "Help ye one another unto righteousness and pious duty. Help not one another unto sin and transgression" (Qur'an 5:2).
At their Jacksonville recital, Choir Al Farah sang not only traditional Christian hymns but also gave voice to the most popular Muslim nasheed, "Tala al Badru Alayna" (Oh, the White Moon Rose Over Us). This Islam-inspired vocal music was originally sung by the children and residents of Medina as they welcomed Prophet Muhammad to their city over 1400 years ago.
The choir also sang "Amen", a word that Jews, Christians and Muslims all use in prayer.
Their music celebrates the nostalgia of Arab culture, which – like other traditional cultures – is trying to retain its relevance in an increasingly globalised world.
Perhaps the most inspiring part of this group's effort lies in its vision and composition. The singers, 120 children between 12 and 17, are all Christian, while most of the musicians are Muslim adults.
How did this cooperation come about? I asked the founder, Father Elias Zehlawi. He said that Choir Al Farah is the result of a dream he had about using his church to bridge the gap between ethnic and faith groups. His goal was to build a common platform to communicate the universal message of love and peace. He believes that all religions share the same spirit of mutual love and mutual respect. Unfortunately, politics and economics have driven a wedge between these groups that extremists on all sides are exploiting.
Zehlawi's aspiration was reciprocated by the Grand Mosque of Damascus, known more commonly as the Umayyad Mosque. The mosque contains a shrine said to hold the head of John the Baptist, who is honoured as a prophet by both Christians and Muslims, to whom he is known as Yahya. Choir Al Farah and a group of singers from the Umayyad Mosque have jointly appeared before sold out audiences in Damascus and aspire to go on joint tours across the world.
I asked Zehlawi why he thought it was important to include Islamic nasheeds in the choir's repertoire. His answer was that God should be a reason to unite us and not to divide us. He articulated a simple but profound idea that resonates in the Qur'an, "O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another" (Qur'an 49:13).
Father Zehlawi believes that barriers to mutual understanding can be shattered by the voices of children, which can penetrate even the hardest of hearts. We are part of one human family and we must respect, not just tolerate, each other if we are to ever establish peace and justice.
As the world is buffeted by the sinews of economic and political strife, the voices of the 120 children from Damascus are filling the infinite between souls like a bridge over troubled waters.
###
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 17 March 2009, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
