A Salute to America

There, in the small curvy streets of the hill town Kathmandu, the Capital of Nepal, a few girls are being introduced to other residents of that small house. They all have one thing in common. Until they met, they were all living like slaves bought by their owners in India, Bangladesh or Pakistan. An elderly woman was instrumental in buying them back from the owners and bringing them to the house, she had prepared from her own money. Many of these girls came from Islamic and Hindu backgrounds.
No, that woman is not a Nepalese. Nor she is a Muslim or a Hindu. She is a white American woman who moved to Nepal to help these enslaved women buy their freedom. Once the girls are freed, she teaches them skills that would help them stand on their own feet financially. She teaches them dignity and living in harmony with others. She encourages them to continue to follow their faith.
Why?
Then there is this young man who was deployed in Pakistan in 2005 to assist the earthquake victims. Subsequently, he formed the Community Disaster and Relief Services and decided to settle in Pakistan to provide relief to deserving communities in Pakistan. With over 100 employees and hundreds of volunteers, this young man has devoted his life to educating the poor, the neglected and disadvantaged children so that they face the future challenges of life effectively. He left his well settled life in the US to live in conditions that many upper class rich Pakistanis would not identify with.
Why?
Then in Las Vegas, there are these 10 or 12 young men and women who take time from their busy professional life and go to Chennai, India, to live among young lepers who they clean with their own hands and who they teach music so that they can take pride in their own abilities despite the stigma that society attaches them.
Why
There are hundreds of Americans who have volunteered their life and resources to help the poor and the neglected mostly in the Muslim world. They are unknown to Muslims with the exception to their beneficiaries.
Then there is this group of immigrants who moved from Pakistan or India or Bangladesh to this country in the late 60s and made a life for them on the basis of their hard work and integrity. Now they are spending their resources in building schools in various smaller towns of Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh to help educate the poor and the needy.
Why?
They do this because they believe in the goodness and they believe in serving humanity. Perhaps the verse of the Quran, “you are the people whose task is to serve and secure the good of the people,” applies to them most appropriately. Perhaps they are the ones who deserve at least silent thanks for each one of us as they do not want to be recognized for what they do.
They are there serving people regardless of 9/11 or 7/7 or violence that often permeates in Pakistan and Iraq or other parts of the world. They are there as a sign from God that good and evil are not equal and if someone is doing wrong, good should always be given the priority.
Many Muslims blame America for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and Muslims criticize America for drone attacks. But Muslims are not the only ones who feel this way. Millions of Americans have made their rejection of the military adventures in the past and continue to do so. But these Americans do not punish fellow Americans for the mistakes in foreign policies. They never abandon their commitment to good.
Can’t we Muslims be more rational, realistic and fair in our assessment of what the citizens of this country have been doing in different parts of the word? Can’t we Muslims be appreciative of them and remember them in our prayers for the good they are contributing and can’t we Muslims join their hands to strengthen their work rather than being critical of America always?
But this is the America we Muslims rarely talk in our institutions and homes. This is not how Muslim groups and parties in the Muslim world introduce America to their followers. They pick on everything that is negative in America while ignoring their own ills.
Don’t you think that these Americans deserve a salute from all of us, and don’t you think that we are blessed to be among people who have goodness in their action and no amount of negative talk about Islam prevents them from continuing to do what they have been doing.

Boston Bombing and Muslims: The inability to handle the dissent effectively is the main cause of violence

Every time an act of terror is attributed to a Muslim, the debate about Islam, Muslim history, culture and relationship with the West or the non-Muslim world becomes dominant in our academic circles, homes and the media. Muslims argue that the action of a few cannot be used to judge their community, while many non-Muslims view all Muslims as potential terrorists.

Both are right to a certain degree. If someone commits an act of terror in the name of a faith or an ideology, however, twisted their logic may be, what is the guarantee that others belonging to that ideology or faith would not follow the same behavior? Similarly, why is it that an entire community is punished and defined in the image of a few criminals, unknown to the community.

The failure to understand the causes of such behavior on the part of isolated individuals and groups would always lead us to behave in a manner that would further complicate the issue. Both, the Muslims and their critics need to evaluate their responses to incidents of terror when they occur.
Non-Muslims need to understand that Muslims are not a monolith group. Their diversity is self-evident in their divisions on social, ethnic, cultural, political and economic lines. They do not have a single leader. They are not represented by a single organization and no single group can claim to speak on their behalf. Often the differences among them are the manifestation of the power play of the opposing groups. They even have differences in their understanding of their scriptures on key issues. However, the general consensus among Muslims is that human life is sacred and it must be respected. If one acts contrary to the general belief, then, it should be considered an isolated action and the entire community cannot be held accountable for that.

The Boston bombing explains this clearly. Two brothers acting in isolation acted arbitrarily on the basis of their understanding of their faith and history and committed what Muslims rightly describes crime against humanity. Their action should be considered a deviation from the norm.
However, Muslims have to look at their own community critically and understand why do individuals commit these acts. The one issue that Muslims have often failed to handle effectively is the issue of dissent. How should they resolve the differences within them and with others? Despite the fact that the scriptures of Islam and the lifestyle and teaching of Prophet provide ample guidance to deal it effectively, Muslims have often responded to their differences in a tribal, feudal or conflicting manner. Dissent frowned within the community. Critical questioning is discouraged by many. Those who take an opposing viewpoint are either ostracized or isolated or even declared non-Muslims. It is not uncommon to see Muslims refusing to pray behind fellow whom they differ in details. Rarely one finds a Shia Imam leading the prayer of Sunnis and vice versa.

In our books of jurisprudence, the dissent is often punishable by death. Our history is a witness of the sectarian violence that has been led by religious leaders on the basis of their differences in the details of the faith. The war between Iraq and Iran is a testimony of that juristic style where both parties first declared each other non-Muslim and then engaged in mass killing on the basis of their readings of the Quran. In our history of the earliest Muslims, we read about wars among the companions of the Prophet on the basis of their political differences. The violence against the grandson of the Prophet is evidence of that methodology of dealing with differences arbitrarily on the basis of power play.

The use of this methodology where violence is justified against the opponent is malice, we have been living for centuries and it must be handled tactfully and directly by our generation of Muslims. The Quran is against violence. It describes war a reprehensible act. It invites people to peace and reminds the believers that the best way to resolve the difference is not to act on the basis of the feelings of revenge or anger, but on the basis of understanding others viewpoint or forgiveness or responding wrong with right. It even quotes the prophet when he was asked to tell those who were opposed to his ideals:
"O messenger tell your people “You may do whatever you choose; I will not interfere. On the other hand, do not interfere with my program. The results will soon show to whom success will eventually belong. Allah’s law is those wrong doers can never prosper.” (6:135) or 

"Remember! Deeds which create balance and harmony in society and in one's own self, cannot be like the actions which create chaos.  If disorder and chaos has affected society, the best way to get rid of these would be to do more constructive work.  (This would offset the ill effects of their misdeeds and stop further deterioration.  It would have one more advantage that) The severe enmity or hatred that has developed between yourself and the one who was responsible for creating disorder, would turn into a close friendship." (41:34)

The Quran suggests that dissent must be acknowledged and accepted.  It is thus imperative that we address this issue effectively. Unfortunately, the community, by and large, ignore the scriptures when it comes to seeking guidance. It accepts the interpretation of individuals in defining God and his message. It is a common practice among Muslims to quote this scholar or that scholar in defining verse of the Quran while ignoring the text. A great majority of Muslims lack a meaningful, direct connect with their scripture and the messenger, Prophet Muhammad. They rely on the understanding of the scholars of the divine guidance and the life of the messenger without attempting to directly relate to the Quran. The Quran for them has become a book to seek the blessings and not guidance. Thus, in crucial issues such as respecting human life, freedoms of expression, they tend to rely more on the opinions of those scholars who were influenced by their history, culture, and politics. It seems that they have left the task of following the Quran to the Prophet, while they are satisfied with their loyalty to their scholars and parties.

It is, thus, imperative that we address this issue urgently reminding ourselves of the ultimate purpose of the divine guidance that in the words of the Quran is to create a disciplined, non-anarchic society where the interests and dignity of all are secured and guaranteed, where Muslims' presence in communities the live with is a source of comfort and peace. This would happen when they assure them that they can live with each other peacefully without resorting to even a language of violence accepting the differences. Unless that happens, we should be prepared to suffer the consequences of violence for a long time.

Should We dialogue with Islamophobes?

Islamophobes in the US are well known through their regular columns, speeches, and talk shows. They include people from all races and ethnic groups as well people of non-Islamic religions. Among them are also those who claim to be former Muslims, as well as Jews, Christians, Hindus, atheists, and liberals. Their arguments are well known and the responses of Muslims are also well-publicized or documented. Perhaps an innovative approach is needed to address the issue as we cannot live in a state of perpetual fear and hostility. Muslims through their organizations, local, regional or national, should invite the well-known critics or Islamophobes for dialogue either directly or through interfaith councils moderated by a neutral person. The agenda of such a dialogue should be well defined and a code of ethics as well prepared. The purpose of the dialogue should be to understand and seek clarifications as well as explain and clarify concerns. Regardless of the outcome, the doors for the dialogue must remain open for the future.

Such an approach might help both the groups to at least disagree with respect and dignity. The accusations against Islam and the clarification given by Muslims are documented, but a face to face dialogue might help both to see the human face of the other. In our civilized world, a dialogue is the only way to understand and clarify alternative positions.

As Muslims, we should not expect all to agree with our theology or religious perspectives. We cannot demand that people should view the world from our angle. All we can hope is that our angle or perspective is better understood by others.

We are not naive to believe that the accusations against Muslims and Islam are the outcome of serious and sincere efforts of others to understand Islam and Muslims. There are those who are acting as agents of other groups who have remained in the background, but there are certainly those who are genuinely concerned about certain issues related to Islam. The door of dialogue must not be closed to anyone as this is the only way forward in our world.

Even if the other party refuses to join us in dialogue, we can at least tell those who are watching the two groups with anxiety and fear that we made efforts to clarify our position. Perhaps this path of dialogue would open new avenues for us and we can play a more proactive role in defining ourselves rather than being defined by others.

The Defense Of Marriage Act and a Muslim Response

Should, we, Muslims take a stand on the debate about the rights of gays and lesbian couples?

No, argue a good number of Muslim religious and social opinion-makers. They say that individuals are entitled to have their independent opinions on the issue, but as a community or as a faith we should avoid taking positions because if we take a pro-gay and lesbian approach, we would alienate our own community and lose support among those religious groups that view marriage as defined traditionally and if we oppose gay and lesbian rights, we would lose support among liberals who have stood for our civil rights in the most difficult times of our public life in the country. They even bring in their understanding of the life of the Prophet arguing that he encouraged Muslims to take this neutral path when confronted with difficult choices, especially at a time when the community was its initial stages of its formation: a position that is highly contestable given the nature of the Prophetic message and mission.
The underlying assumption is that people would view our non-decisive attitude positively and would not consider us hostile to them. Naive as it may sound; this approach has several inherent flaws that expose our weaknesses. It gives the impression that as a faith we are not ready to deal with real issues of life. It also creates the feeling that we give priority to political expediency than to a principled stand. It also causes confusion among Muslim youth who find themselves in the midst of debates on these issues daily, it suggests that even though we are part of this society, yet we are not concerned with its issues, it exposes our intellectual insecurities in stating our perspective clearly and above all it pushes us to be dormant when the situation demands that we must be very vocal and active.
We need to understand that the Supreme Court debate is not about the rights of God and humans. It is not about religious morality. It is not about the moral virtues of heterosexuality practiced within the confines of a marriage. Nor it is about the extent of permissibility in matters pertaining to sexuality.  Rather, it is about the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, that defines marriage for federal purposes as between a man and a woman and offers some 1100 benefits to thus defined married couples. This federal law impacts the life of 3.5 percent gays and Lesbian and bi-sexual Americans who have about 700,000 same-sex couple households.
There are 38 states in the USA that have banned same-sex marriage, either through legislation or constitutional amendments, while some six states (Colorado, Delaware, Hawai, New Jersey, and Rhode Island) allow civil unions, nine states (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, and District of Columbia) have legalized same-sex marriage. Obviously, DOMA impacts the life of a substantial number of citizens. 
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion. The DOMA, seemingly, violates this provision by accepting the position on marriage offered by most religions. The federal government should not impose religious beliefs of one over another and it should not give preferential treatment to one at the exclusion of the other. This, in essence, is the debate.

The Muslim position based on the principle of justice and fairness is clear. The constitution that people have given their allegiance to should be the criterion to legally define a position, and if it says that people cannot be discriminated in terms of getting benefits on the basis of their definition of the union then they should not be. The current Supreme Court debate is about the legality of DOMA.  Neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court is authorized to pass its judgment on matters pertaining to religious perspectives. It is the responsibility of religious communities and institutions to defend their belief system. The resources of a pluralistic state cannot be used to defend the position of a religious or many religious groups. If this role is assigned to the federal government then there is no limit to its power as it can do whatever it can on the basis of the rule of majority or in the name of national security.
When it comes to religious understanding of homosexuality, Islam takes a very unwavering position. Sex is within the confines of marriage and marriage is between a man and a woman. If others want to redefine sexuality and marriage within their historical context, they are entitled to it, but they should not accept Islam or Muslims in general to align with their viewpoint.

Discrimination on the basis of one's sexuality and preference over the choice of spouse, however unacceptable to anyone from their religious perspective, cannot be allowed because it violates the religious principle of no compulsion in matters of religion. Islam argues that human beings have been given the faculty of intellect and reason and not forced to adopt a particular set course Hence human beings have been given the discretion to select any one of the courses open to him. However, they should be aware that while their faculties can select a path, they cannot ensure that the selected course is also the right one. The criterion to determine right from wrong is Wahi (revelation) or the divine guidance. Islam believes that God has guided human beings to the right path through His Wahi and then left human beings free to either adopt the right course or deny it (73:3). That is why human beings are held responsible and accountable for their deeds.

Islam does not approve pre-marital or extra-marital sex and sex between the same sexes. It also does not permit sex without marriage. It does not mean that Muslims strictly follow this divine call in their lifestyle. The increasing numbers of prostitutes in the Muslim world, the high number of abortions among unwed girls, the prevalence of homosexuality in Muslim religious, educational institutions are things that no one really wants to talk about it. Despite their prevalence, Islam's position on these moral objectives has been unchanged and would remain unchanged.
But commitment to a particular lifestyle does not give Muslims the right to coerce people believe in what they believe in. It does not give them the license to persecute people because of their sexual orientation. The same rule applies to gays and lesbian and bisexual advocates who must not intimidate Muslims by accusing them of being irrational or anti-progress or conservative.
Muslims should not act on the basis of political expediency. They should always take a principled state. They are not a political group. They are a people that uphold values they claim have divine origin. They are expected to be consistent in their perspectives. They cannot pick and choose on the basis of the opinions of a few individuals or groups, because they are expected to decide things on the basis of their understanding of the divine message and the life experiences of the Prophet.

They are expected to explain their perspectives when it is needed most. Perhaps, we Muslims should have also submitted our disposition to the Supreme Court on this issue explaining our viewpoint on this case. The country does not consist of bigots. The country would understand our perspective provided we speak with sincerity and not on the basis of cost analysis of loss and benefit to any group. After all, the purpose and relevance of Islam is to speak when no one is speaking and to share an Islamic perspective with the full acknowledgement that it can be rejected by people.

Why I must not Question the beheading of Seven men in Saudi Arabia?

On March 13, in Pakistan, the country created in the name of Islam, some unidentified people killed a female social worker in open daylight and in Saudi Arabia, the country that claims to follow the Sharia beheaded seven people found guilty of stealing and armed robbery. The killers in Pakistan did not give any reason for their killing. However, the Saudi Press Agency speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Justice issued a statement that begins with the Quranic verse from Sura Al-Maida: "The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." (5:33)

So, it is obvious that the execution of seven men is based on the Quran and Sunna of the Prophet.
As a conscious human being, I feel saddened by these events taking place in the name of Islam not only in lands with a Muslim majority but also elsewhere.

But why should I question this sentence when it is arguably sanctioned by the Creator and the one who gave His message to humanity?

Why should I look for an alternative meaning of this verse that might lead me to argue that when the Quran talks of cutting off hands or feet, it might be alluding allegorically to physically restrain the criminals?  
Why should I question the judges for not opting for exile in this case?

Why should I argue that the purpose of the state is to create conditions where theft and robbery may become redundant?

Why should I argue that the biggest robbers are those rulers who have taken away the right of people to have a say in matters affecting their lives?

Why should I argue that those who are living in royal palaces are in fact stealing the money from people?
Why should I bother about the Muslim claim that the Prophet is a Prophet of mercy and Allah is a God of compassion?

Why should I even question this sentence when none of those who claim to speak on behalf of Islam are questioning it?

Why should I raise my voice, when the scholars of Islam are silently approving this sentence?

Why should I bother to remind myself that Islam talks of reform, rehabilitation, and repentance?

Why should I even ask if the due process in establishing the guilt of those accused was followed?

Why should I even say that one of the accused was about 14 years of age when he was accused of theft in 2005?

Why should I say that beheading is cruel and God does not like cruelty?
Why should I say that a Saudi preacher found guilty of the murder of his daughter was freed after paying the ransom and the seven thieves were beheaded for stealing jewelry etc.? 

I will do none of the above.

Rather, I would be quiet, not talking anything about this inhumane treatment to the prisoners or anyone else.

I would be quiet because I want to be known as a true believer who sanctions every act done in the name of Islam by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

I would be quiet, hoping I may be invited by Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj or Umra at its expenses.

I would be quiet to ensure that those who support this implementation of Sharia do not condemn me as a non-believer.
I would be quiet to ensure that no harm is done to my family and children by the gatekeepers of Islam.

I would be quiet to ensure that I am recognized as a legitimate Muslim and no one declares me a kafir (rejecter) or murtad (apostate) eligible for yet another beheading.

I would be quiet because everyone else is quiet.

But wait a minute!
Would my silence be accepted by God?

I am not sure.

Muslim Americans can be a model community for Muslims elsewhere  

It is not new to say that Muslims are divided into every conceivable faction. It is not strange to see that Muslims are using physical or verbal violence against each other on the basis of their differences. It is also not uncommon to hear Muslim scholars and leaders, living in a pluralistic society, talk about issues that are totally irrelevant to people other than a segment of the community. For instance, the recent internal community discussions whether the act of wearing trousers below the ankle would be forgiven or punished by the merciful God has no relevance to 97 percent of Americans.

We Muslim Americans have a unique opportunity to focus on issues that are relevant and useful for society in general. If we heed to the divine call of consultations, we can create a positive example for Muslims all over the world.

We know now the organizations that speak for Islam in America. We know now the activists, scholars, and writers who are deeply concerned about Islam and Muslims. We also know now the issues that our community and the country face.

How about developing a consultative methodology to help us develop a unified understanding of any issue?

Take, for instance, the issue of gun violence in our country. What if a group like ISNA takes a lead in inviting Muslim leaders and organizations to discuss this issue and produce a position paper that can be shared with the community and the rest of the country?  What if ISNA or any other Muslim organizations invite various Muslim groups and sects to discuss issues such as Shia-Sunni conflict, Sharia or women’s rights, etc. and develop a position paper?

Even if we fail to develop a unified position we can at least understand the nature of the differences that exist among ourselves and then address them later to seek some sort of reconciliation. This methodology may enable us to appreciate each other’s perspective and points of view as well as develop an affinity among our leaders. It would restore the confidence of people with the ability of our leaders to resolve their differences. Above all, a unified voice on key issues concerning the community and the country would also educate the general public about our stand on matters relevant to them.

This methodology might help us to overcome the differences that we have been living with for centuries. It would provide a peaceful forum for our scholars and leaders to iron out their conflicts.

In these days of high-speed communication, it is not difficult to consult each other on a regular or emergency basis.

How can we implement this proposal? Let us ask ISNA or ICNA leadership to invite Muslim leaders and activists to a forum in their upcoming conventions on gun violence in addition to experts on the issue regardless of their religious background. Let the forum deliberate this issue and then develop a position paper. Such a position paper, then, should be circulated among the ranks and files of each of the participating groups and after their input, a final statement may be prepared.

This is the methodology that our Prophet used in designing the constitution of Medina in consultation with the tribes of Median, Muslims and Non-Muslims together.

When we apply this methodology regularly, it would become part of our organizational culture to use consultation as a necessary tool to develop a unified position. It does not mean that we will have a consensus on every issue. All it means that we can focus on points that we all agree and then acknowledge the differences and leave them for the future leadership to address them afresh. After all, our behavioral scientists tell us that 95 percent of differences and conflicts come from our gestures and tone of voice and inability to communicate with each other. Only five percent happen to be differences on the basis of our opinions.

Bangladesh Crisis: The wounds are still green

What happened in the then East Pakistan in 1971 was shameful and what has been happening in 2013 in Bangladesh is painful.  Forty-two years separate the two eras, but the wounds are still green and the desire to seek vengeance has not died. Some leaders of Jamat -e- Islami, Bangladesh, are facing the death penalty for their alleged role in crimes against the then citizens of Pakistan. The present leadership is protesting the court verdicts and organizing demonstrations all over the country. Some have resulted in violence causing deaths and destruction.

Is there any way to ease the tension and bring to a closure the sad chapter in the history of the people of Bangladesh? Will the hanging of a few individuals who are in their 80s and 90s healing the wounds of those who suffered during the war of independence?  Does being Muslim mean anything to those who are involved in this conflict?

There is a precedent in the history of Islam where a conflict similar to the one Bangladesh is facing today was resolved in a peaceful and humane way. Perhaps a reference to that might help the people and leadership of Bangladesh to overcome their emotions in a rational way.

The Prophet Muhammad and those who accepted his message were persecuted in Makkah. They suffered torture, murder, exile, and aggression for almost 20 years. Their property was confiscated by the leaders of Makkah and their honor and dignity were defiled on a regular basis. The Makkans instigated local communities in Medina to foment trouble for the Muslim community. They even conspired to kill the Prophet and divide the community.

Yet, when Makkah finally opened itself to the Prophet and the people of Makkah accepted the leadership of the Prophet, he offered a general amnesty including those who were known for their crimes against Muslims.

The similarity is not in the nature of the two situations. One was driven by nationalistic motives while the other was more of the universal values. The similarity was more in actions to the ideas. It cannot be denied that the Pakistan army, crossed its own set rules in dealing with a population that was seeking better representation in matters that impact its life.  It indulged in actions that can easily be described as anti-Islam and anti-divine.

Similarly, it is also true that the leadership of Jamat -e- Islam, rather than trying to bring about a truce among the fighting groups, was supportive of Pakistani military action in Bangladesh and many of its prominent members were involved in orchestrating violence against innocent men, women and children.

However, after the liberation of Bangladesh, they accepted the leadership and showed their commitment to the preservation of the newly emerged state with all their resources.

During the past 42 years, they have proven their loyalty to Bangladesh. Perhaps, those who are in power now should act in a more sensible manner by offering a general amnesty to all those who may be implicated in crimes against their fellow citizens. On the other hand, the Jamat-e-Islamic should also admit its wrongdoings in the war of independence and seek an apology from the nation for those unjustifiable acts that haunt the memory of those who suffered them.

The verdict against the Jamat leaders should not be used a license to violence.  The violent demonstrations and unnecessary destruction of the people’s property and the killing of innocent individuals are acts that cannot be justified. The Jamat claims to be an organization built around Islamic values. Rather than resorting to street politics, they should enter into a dialogue with those who still view them as a party associated with the oppressors. The Jamat has a new leadership in Bangladesh that cannot be held responsible for the decisions of their predecessors. But the way its new leadership is reacting to the situation indicates that it has not yet learned the lessons from the mistakes of its past