Recently in Islamerica Category

There's a great ongoing series at Open Left which makes a data-driven analysis of voting patterns for all sorts of demographic groups to argue that overall, the GOP is in serious trouble over the long term. The ethnic demographic trends are pretty devastating by themselves, though a demographic trend is like the climate, not the weather - it's a long term global aggregate, but short-term local fluctuations can (and will) appear. As the authors note, "If Obama loses the White House in 2012 with 49% of the vote, this would still be consistent with the trends of the last 30 years."

What intrigues me howver is the religious demographic data. One of the pieces in the series noted that White Evangeliical Christians (WECs) have influence far beyond their numbers, which should be of concern to muslims since there's a strong correlation with WEC political resurgence and American wars upon muslim soil. Still, the influence of the WECs is diminishing, not only because of the resurgence of moderate liberalism in the wake of conservatisms' governing failures, but again due to simple demographic inevitability - as a proportion of the electorate, Christians are declining, whites are declining, and both groups are trending towards Democrats anyway. The WEC vote is a subset at the intersection of the White and the Christian vote and remains solidly opposed to Obama, liberalism, et al but is is essentially under siege. The WEC core is also the center of mass for knee-jerk Islamophobia (ex. the muslim smear), so this is on the whole a positive trend for muslim-Americans, something to keep in mind as we navigate these dark times of suspicion and distrust against us.

The analysis of the muslim vote however is the key - demonstrating just how volatile it can be over successive Presidential cycles, and how responsive it is to foreign policy as a whole:

The Muslim community showed very strong support for Democrats this year, and among Arab Muslims at least, a dramatic increasingly Democratic trend. The poll of Muslim voters was completed by randomly selecting names from a list of Muslim voters, so there could be a bias to it depending on how the list was generated. However, the results are in agreement with the Muslim subsample in the poll of Arab Americans, and the Bangladeshi and Pakistani subsamples in the Asian American poll. Another demographic slice of the Muslim American community, African Americans, is also strongly Democratic. The recent development of Muslim American political behavior has been described as occurring in three stages: first, debating whether to participate in elections at all prior to 2000; second, whether to increase political power by voting as a block prior to 2004; and third, a less organized but perhaps more involved participation prior to the 2008 elections. It has been a dramatic ten years, from the seeming betrayal by George Bush, who had strong Muslim support in 2000, to the 2008 campaigns where the Muslim label was used as a rhetorical bludgeon (a ploy which may have backfired), to the election of a man who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia and has family ties to Islam.

This is a good position to be in. The "three stages" should suggest to Obama and any Democratic successors that the muslim vote is not a reliably liberal bloc like the African American vote or the Jewish vote, but one that is responsive to policy decisions. Really, REALLY responsive! A good analogy would be the Cuban-American vote, which wields great influence because of its location in Uber Swing State Florida.

The question of whether there should even be a muslim bloc is an ongoing debate; I've been arguing for years that muslims need to maintain their political independence. My friend Ali Eteraz argued in the Guardian back in 2007 for a "muslim Left" which would serve as a counter to the so-called "Falwell muslims" (who are more a problem in Europe than in the US, but as the shootings at Fort Hood demonstrate, are something US muslims will increasingly have to face repercussions of). Ali lays out the general guidelines for such a political philosophy:

This Muslim left should [espouse] the following basic ideas, without being limited to them:

• separation of mosque and state;
• opposition to tyranny (even if the tyrant has liberal values);
• affirmance of republicanism or democracy;
• an ability to coherently demonstrate that the Muslim right represents merely one interpretation of Islam;
• a commitment to free speech and eagerness to defeat the Muslim right in the marketplace of ideas;
• commitment to religious individualism and opposition to left-collectivism, specifically Marxism;
• opposition to economic protectionism;
• opposing any and all calls for a "council of religious experts" that can oversee legislation (even if those experts are liberals); and
• affirming international law.

Muslim leftists will - it is a must - have to be able to articulate all of these in Islamic terms, in order to persuade the people who need to be convinced, ie Muslims. This means that a Muslim leftist will, naturally, also have facility in the Muslim traditions. The real-world paucity of individuals with such dual facility is indicative of how far behind Muslim leftism is currently.

The pragmatic problem here however is that there's no such concensus on any of these issues within the muslim community. Part of this is because of the lingering obsession with the "Ummah" which as I keep arguing is a concept with no genuine utility apart from symbolic resonance. For muslim americans to act as a political bloc, we would need to identify issues of relevance to ourselves as Americans, not according to policies which have really very little impact upon our daily lives (such as Israel and Palestine). We still have not, as a community, had that conversation about what we really want or care about (though the attack at Fort Hood have clarified some of our concerns). Most of our concrete political interests (like civil rights, health care reform, etc) are general ones that aren't specific to our muslim identity, which is why it is tempting to throw our lot in with the left, but I caution heavily against making such an alliance too rigidly. The GOP may be the most intense locus of Islamophobia now, but it's worth remembering that the Democrats have their xenophobes too, as the Dubai Ports World incident clearly showed. Further, the Left is overtly hostile to spiritual faith - the "Falwell Leftists" among them are implacably opposed to hijab, for example. Ironically the term "muslim Left" obfuscates these differences, leading outsiders to assume it is "centered on Western political liberalism" only clad in muslim garb.

This complexity of muslim issues and diversity is what led my friend Shahed, editor of altmuslim.com, to argue that there should not be any muslim bloc at all. While I agreed with his assertion that muslim voters are simply not going to embrace any political platform in lockstep, I had to take issue with his solution that we abandon the idea of a political identity altogether. The data from the Open Leftf analysis is clear, that there are core issues upon whihch the muslim community does on the whole respond to. Rather than try and create a framework as Ali proposes for social engineering that vote, or as Shahed proposes to simply throw that vote's potential power away, I think we need to start thinking about what broad principles and general issues we can agree on, and seek to harness that influence as so many other ethnic and religious groups before us have done. In doing so we better not just ourselves but our country as a whole.

In the wake of the Fort Hood shootings by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an uncomfortable and unjust spotlight has been trained on muslim-American soldiers serving in the armed forces. To be blunt, their loyalties are being questioned, with some conservatives arguing that muslims should be barred outright from serving in the military, invoking the analogy to world war II that we did not commission "japanese nationalists or Nazis". The implicit premise is of course that an ordinary muslim soldier is akin to a Nazi in terms of ideological loyalty. In truth, however, ordinary Germans and Japanese Americans did indeed serve in World War II with honor and distinction - just as muslim Americans serve today.

However, as Islam is a creed rather than an ethnic background, one can reasonably ask whether there is any conflict with the demands of identity between faith and service. The concept of "Ummah", or community of believers, is one nearly every muslim believes in a symbolic sense, though I question its pragmatic meaning. Much like the term, "The West", the Ummah is amorphous and has no formal authority. Muslims in Xianjing province and in Hawai'i (and all muslims in between) have default membership in the Ummah by virtue of shared faith, but to what extent do muslims so far separated actually communicate or interact in any meaningful sense? How can such a vast entity have any cohesion? The sole occassion where the concept of Ummah has any genuine meaning is during the Hajj, where muslims from every corner of the globe unite in pursuit of piety and prayer. But this too, is fleeting. Muslims who sat side-by-side in front of the Kaaba during Hajj share a bond of experience, but after Hajj ends they go back to being cardiologists in Los Angeles or street sweepers in Bangladesh and that bond is, for all intents and purposes, severed.

The Qur'an, however, is clear - muslims should not kill other muslims. There are three verses in particular, [4.92-93] and [17.33],

[4:92] Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to Allah: for Allah hath all knowledge and all wisdom.

[4:93] If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him.

[17:33] Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).

Verse [4.93] is often quoted without [4.92] as essential context, and taking the two together there does seem to be an exception for a "people at war with you" as long as the soldier does pay penance. It is quite possible for a soldier to invoke [4.92] as permiting them to kill muslims in the line of duty of those muslims were at war with the US. One could argue that [4.93] explicitly threatens you with hell if you kill a muslim, but that reading is only supported if you ignore the immediately preceding verse. My own take - and I am not a scholar - is that [4.93] applies to those cases not covered by [4.92]. And let's also note that "a believer" can also mean Jews and Christians, as explicitly stated in the Constitution of Medina by the Prophet SAW himself.

As far as [17.33] goes it is a general axiom and not limited to muslims killing muslims, but asks the muslim to refrain from taking life whenever possible - but makes a notable exception for "just cause". Note that Islamic scholars articulated an Islamic just-war theory over a thousand years ago, and wars between muslim nations have been ongoing since after the Prophet's SAW death to the modern day. The Iraq-Iran war is a good example of a recent such conflict, as is the civil war in Pakistan leading to the creation of Bangladesh.

Naturally, these verses are completely violated in both letter and spirit by groups such as Al Qaeda, Al Shabab, and the extreme factions of the Taliban. By applying extreme punishments on the people they rule - such as stoning or beheading - they are in effect killing believers without "just cause" (for example, the Qur'an requires adultery to have four witnesses before capital punishment, which is a near-impossible standard to meet - which is why these extremists simply fabricate them in their zeal to make an "example"). And their attacks against Western targets routinelly kill more muslims than non-muslims - for example, the 2005 attack on the luxury hotel in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt or the numerous civilian-targeting bombings in Pakistan, such the 2008 bombing at Mariott Hotel in Islamabad.

Another argument made against muslims serving is the concept of wala' and bara' - a compilation of various verses from the Qur'an that collectively make the case that muslims should seek to minimize their interactions with non-muslims, and that a muslim's primary attachments and loyalties should be to fellow muslims. It should be noted that much of this pertains to Christians and Jews who are in enmity or prosletyzing. The main problem here is that this argument is not limited to the military but can be extended to all of Western (non-muslim) civilization. If you accept wala' and bara' as binding, then how can you justify remaining in the West at all? These verses do not totally forbid muslims from relations with non-muslims, but offer cautionary warnings.

The bottom line is that the Qur'an provides enough rationale to either permit or forbid a muslim from being in the military, depending on the interpreter's bias (and sure enough muslim scholars in the West tend to rule muslims may serve, whereas scholars from muslim nations find the opposite). Ultimately, it falls upon the muslim's own conscience as to whether they can serve their nation.

According to military sources, as of August 2009 there were 3,557 active duty muslims, the majority (1,710) serving in the Army. However, these figures come from voluntary identification, which most muslims may not be inclined to mark. The American Muslim Armed Forces and Veteran's Council estimates that as many as 20,000 muslims are serving in some capacity - and hundreds of thousands of muslims fought for Britain in WWII. And of course there are crescents aplenty among the crosses at Arlington - including one for Cpl. Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan. This photo of Khan's mother at his grave speaks to any American, regardless of faith.

Related: There's an active discussion on whether muslims can and should serve at Talk Islam. Hussein Rashid and Wajahat Ali both have excellent, must-read pieces about how blaming muslims who serve only compounds the tragedy. Both NPR and the New York Times have fantastic stories on the challenges faced by muslims in the military. NPR also interviewed James Yee, a former Army captain who was falsely accused and jailed for conspiracy with detainees at Guantanamo. Finally, Sheila Musaji at TAM has a massive compilation of links for further research.

These photos are being sent to me live by a friend who is attending the event on Capitol Hill. She reports that there were a small number of protestors in a line further behind, but they seem to have bailed out due to the rain.

Also, extreme Islamophobe and conspiracy wingnut Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs claims there are 5,000 muslims in attendance, but my source report that the number was more in the 2000 range. In either case, the number was far smaller than the Tea Parties. We will get better estimates from Capitol Hill police later. FactCheck.org provides a nice rebuttal to the crazies' (like Gellar) claims.

UPDATE: I am hearing that the event has concluded, and overall was quite peaceful and calm. Just muslims, praying quietly on the lawn. The protestors did get some shouting in before they left, and were met with chants of "Allah Akhbar" in return. The crowd was very diverse and well-behaved, roughly about 40% women.

UPDATE 2: Am hearing some details of the khutbah by Imam Abdel Malik - he opened with a theme of unity, as in we are all one American nation, how we are all one human race. He discussed the importance of voting and being active, about Obama, and then emphasized that muslims are part of society too. No transcript or video yet but I will update or make a new post if and when I obtain it.

Incidentally, there has been superb coverage and discussion of the Jummah on the Hill event at Talk Islam. Absolutely the best coverage anywhere, especially about the efforts to coordinate a counter-protest by a whole rabble of small Christian advocacy groups with predictable names like "Operation Save the Capitol" and "Operation Save America" and "Stop Islamization of America" etc. etc.

On of my favorite lines from Shakespeare is Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5:

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

I couldn't help but reminded of those lines when I first heard of the extremely bizarre plan by a group of New jersey-based muslim groups to stage a mass "pray-in" on the lawn of the Capitol in Washington DC, next friday afternoon:

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH....

The objective of this gathering is to invite the Muslim Communities and friends of Islam to express and illustrate the wonderful diversity of Islam. We intend to manifest Islam's majestic spiritual principals as revealed by Allah to our beloved prophet

Muhammad (PEACE BE UPON HIM) of Arabia. Likewise; we intend to inspire a new generation of Muslim to work for the greater good of all people. We shall serve all

people, regardless of race, religion or national origin.

ON THIS DAY....

The Athan will be chanted on Capitol Hill, echoing off of the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and other great edifices that surround Capitol Hill
Thousands of Muslims from all races, creeds, colors and ethnicities will gather for the sole purpose of prayer
Bonds of friendship will be formed between those in attendance, both Muslims and Non-Muslims
Muslim youth will experience tours of the Library of Congress and the Supreme Court.
The peace, beauty and solidarity of Islam will shine through America's capitol.

Now, I certainly understand and appreciate the sentiments and intentions of this, but it just strikes me as the wrong way to go about it. It's unwise to ignore the "optics" of such an event upon the paranoid segment of the American public - who were out in force at the Tea Party last week on the National Mall - who will certainly see the event as a threatening gesture which only validates their racism and Islamophobia.

I generally don't condone appeasing the worst elements of society by self-censoring and restricting my own freedom and rights. But if the goal of such an event is to foster bonds of unity, then an event like this, which is fundamentally narcissistic, does not suffice. A far better approach would not have been prayer but a celebration of Eid, to illustrate what muslims have in common with their non-muslim fellow citizens, rather than engaging in a mass demonstration of what sets us apart. The truth may not be welcome, but remains truth: thousands of muslims lining up for silent prayer in unison, within sight of the center of American government, is going to be misconstrued as an intimidation rather than an outreach, and not just to the rabid Islamophobic fringe (who are reacting predictably). It really doesn't help that the official slogan for the event plastered all over the website is "Our time has come." Or that when you load the official homepage, you are blasted with audio of a thickly-accented Islamic prayer. As the twitterverse might say: messaging FAIL.

The other thing that bothers me about this event is how it was foisted upon the muslim community by a small group of people. My sources reliably inform me that the entire event was planned by a handful of people at a few mosques in New jersey, wthout any input from national muslim organizations or the DC-area congregations. In essence, this group is coming in from the outside and acting as though they have sanction from the entire muslim community, a deceptive marketing ploy at best.

The potential for this event to be abused by one or two personalities for their own gain is very high. Who will be speaking at the event? The official program only lists reciters of the Qur'an, but it's certain that there will be speakers. Who? What are their backgrounds? Given that this event is going to be in every imaginable spotlight, and every word spoken therein will be ascribed to the entire muslim community as a whole, serious vetting of the speakers is absolutely critical.

In fact, some vetting of the primary organizers themselves is even more critical. The main person in charge seems to be an Imam Abdul Malik from a mosque in Elizabeth, NJ. I don't really know anything about him at all, so I am going to see if I can find out more. I'll be following up on this.

Related: article by Sheila Musaji at The American Muslim about the planned mass prayer. "Not well thought out" indeed:

I believe that this gathering was not a well thought out program. The website offers little information. The Program section only lists the two Imam's who will be leading the prayers. The timing is unfortunate and too close to September 11th. The use of the "our time has come" terminology could be easily misunderstood. The title "day of Islamic unity" as opposed to something like "Muslim prayer for America" might also be misunderstood. The President has a lot on his plate and the right continues to attack him for any sign that he is showing what they consider undue respect for Muslims, as the recent blow ups over the regular White House Iftar, the recent "Islam is of the Devil" incident, and this years re-release of the Eid Stamp would show anyone who is paying attention. This puts the President in an unfortunate position. If he acknowledges the event or doesn't acknowledge the event - either way he can't win. There has been a rise in anti-Muslim incidents and rhetoric recently. It simply isn't the right time or the right place for such an event. That being said, the organizers have every right to hold such an event, and it is very positive that they say that there will be no placards or political speeches. I hope that none of the disruptive elements in our own Muslim community (like those who disrupted the New York Muslim Day Parade) show up, or if they do that the organizers are prepared to isolate them so that their inappropriate behavior does not reflect on all Muslims. I hope that these other non-Muslim disruptive elements show up, or if they do that the organizers are prepared to handle them with kid gloves. I for one hope that they are able to maintain order, follow what they have said they will do, and make it clear that they are praying for the safety, security, and well-being of all Americans.

The Mayor of Clarksville, Tennessee sent out an email recently, urging "all patriotic Americans" to protest that singular threat to Western civilization, the Eid Stamp:

Mayor Johnny Piper did not add any comments of his own to the e-mail, The Clarksville Leaf Chronicle reported. The e-mail calls the stamp "a slap in the face" to U.S. victims of "Muslim terrorist attacks."

The mayor forwarded the e-mail to city council members, department heads and to a city e-mail list that goes to every employee with an e-mail account.

Piper defended his actions. He said the e-mail is not anti-Muslim and he forwarded it to provide "information."

The TN press has more details, in which Mayor Piper explains his thought processes further:

"I was surprised at a stamp being developed, and would have thought others would be, too," he said. He added that he did not know what the stamp was commemorating. Piper also said he was struck by the reminder of several terrorist attacks against Americans.

"I read it and thought about the bombings of our buildings, of our national buildings," Piper said. "In my mind, it presented an image of mass death at the hands of Muslims."

He added later, "I don't believe, just for the record, that all Muslims are linked together with radical Muslims that are out to harm Americans ... I have several good Muslim friends."

The e-mail repeatedly refers only to "Muslims," and does not use any adjectives such as "radical."

Versions of the email, which has been making the rounds for years, have been repeatedly debunked before, but it still persists. I've blogged extensively about the history of the Eid stamp, the controversy that accompanied it when it was introduced (mostly from conservative Republicans), and the defense of the stamp by President Bush and Speaker Hastert. In a nutshell, the stamp was introduced on September 1st 2001, ten days before the 9-11 attacks, during the Bush Administration. Mayor Piper joins a long list of conservative politicians who have no objection to stamps commemorating Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, even teh Chinese New year - but a stamp devoted to the muslim holiday of Eid is singled out as a threat, requiring response from "patriotic" Americans?

Related: Sheila Musaji at The American Muslim has been tracking the controversies related to the Eid Stamp over the years.