THE MOBILIZER

TSA Policies: Threat to Our Liberty and Security

2010-12-27T15:32:00.000-08:00

“Don’t touch my junk” is the whimsical response exclaimed by a man who refused the invasive pat-down of his genitals by a Transportation Security Administration officer. Humor aside, the new TSA policy regarding airport security is meant to “ensure the safety of you the traveling public….efficiently, courteously and professionally.” The method of achieving this rather serious goal of security is through x-ray imaging or pat-downs. There have been numerous blogs about the health risks involved with frequent body-scans, the notion that a pat-down is molestation, and the inefficiency of these procedures. These are superficial concerns that are “debated” about repeatedly in popular media outlets. The deeper issue is subverting the liberty and dignity of people who once claimed that they had been endowed by the Creator with, “…certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The new policies do not meet the stated goal of ensuring safety, but encroach upon one of our fundamental liberties, privacy. The Fourth Amendment in the Constitution makes it explicit that the right of privacy is necessary in a democratic society. It reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is evident that there are procedures to be followed whenever the government needs to intrude our “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” In the case of TSA policies, advocates will argue that there is probable cause since the previous security procedures were ineffective because of Abdulmutallab’s alleged Christmas attack. This is a point that TSA policy advocates and critics will agree on. However, the disagreement remains over the methods, which are “unreasonable.”

The British courts follow the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” test to decide whether a governmental policy is reasonable. It gives government expansive authority in implementing policies by asking if that policy is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would decide on that policy. In regards to the TSA policies, it is impossible to meet this criterion of unreasonableness. By concluding that the procedures are “unreasonable”, we would inevitably be calling TSA an “unreasonable” or irrational authority. Before we tread to this extreme, we have to remember that we live in America, so the conclusion that the TSA policies are “unreasonable” is based on more generally accepted values.

The values of freedom and liberty that are often spoken of in this nation are precisely what the TSA policies are subverting in a climate of fear. Rather than basing a policy on the principles of freedom, TSA is basing it on extreme fear. For example, when we analyze the number of alleged cases of terrorism to the population, we see a great disparity. TSA, obviously, ignored the issue of proportionality when it comes to such stringent policies, so it is definitely “unreasonable.” Now, the other blatant fact is that we do not have a choice for a civilized method of search. We either have to be seen nude or molested. This is not much of a choice, unless of course, you believe a civilized society can be protected through uncivil procedures.

Above all, as citizens we have to be concerned about such violations of our freedoms by our government, because they are reminiscent of regimes such as the Taliban. Actually, even the Taliban, in their attempts at security were not nearly as violating as the TSA security measures. The TSA measures are dehumanizing not only because of the physical search, but because of the psychological damage that it leaves upon every traveler’s mind, including children. By allowing such policies to be normalized, we are normalizing fear since the basis of such policies is fear. Fear is effective for the short-run, but to ensure long-term security and stability within this nation, we need love. The renowned poet Rumi has said, “Today, like every other day, we wake up empty and frightened. Why do you stay in prison when the door is so wide open? Move outside the tangle of fear-thinking.”

Reflections of a Novice

2010-11-24T11:43:00.000-08:00

Being a young Muslim-American, the 2010 elections was the first time I voted. The Muslim community in America consists of a mosaic of people with ideological, ethnic, and cultural differences. According to the 2009 Gallup Poll on the Muslim American experience, 35 percent of Muslims are African-American, 28 percent White, 18 percent Asians, 18 percent other, and 1 percent Hispanic. These statistics stand in contrast to the stereotypical views of Muslim-Americans being of Arab descent with “antidemocratic” political views. In fact, during my experience with the local Muslim Get Out The Vote (GOTV) Campaign, Muslims were civically engaged and encouraged to volunteer by organizations like CAIR-Chicago. Nevertheless, there were a few instances when we were confronted with voter apathy, but that is a problem not particular to Muslim-Americans. The general mood of frustration is common among Americans due to the intricacies of the political process and the lethargic pace of a promised change.

The first step when it comes to voting is the registration process. It’s quite simple, but immigrant Muslims and young Muslims find it to be a rather arduous task. Immigrant Muslims have not been socialized into participating in politics and there are language barriers to become active in the process. We were able to overcome this barrier with voter registration at mosques and one-on-one attention to their concerns. The unfortunate situation is the passiveness of young Muslims who expect change without any effort on their part. Fifty-one percent of eligible Muslims between ages 18-29 are registered to vote and they overwhelmingly identify themselves as Democrats and Independents. The rampant culture of entitlement that our generation has grown in is an overarching explanation for the lack of participation. This is a critical issue that must be addressed, especially since the bulk of the Muslim-American population falls within this age group.

The next step is for the registered voters to educate themselves. This process of informing ourselves is a daunting task because it requires time and effort, both of which fall under self-discipline. Voters typically use party affiliation to cast their vote, but there were certain issues that American-Muslims were particular about, such as racial profiling, immigration and Islamophobia. For me, as a new voter, it was quite disappointing to see that front-runners took a lenient position in regards to those issues that affect Muslims. It became even more frustrating when some candidates either ignored to address the issues or blatantly supported distasteful agendas.

The final step, and the most crucial is to vote. Like many other first time voters, I was quite excited to go through the process. Fortunately, it was quick and straightforward, but it requires some degree of commitment on the part of the voter. We all have demanding lives juggling school, work, family and an endless number of other activities we have to manage. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon us as Muslim-Americans to prioritize voting on Election Day, because through this process we can gradually prepare for the auspicious future, that of cooperation, between Muslim and non-Muslim Americans.

In order to understand the importance of voting, we have to remember that what we take as a “right” is actually a privilege in most places around the world. We have come a long way from the days where only White elite men could vote or when poll taxes kept minorities away from political participation. Now, all adult citizens 18 years and older are eligible to vote, so it has become a matter of choice. Those Muslim-Americans who vote and those who do not are making a decision that has ramifications for Muslim-Americans at large. The choice to be active or passive is yours.

For statistical information, please see the 2009 GallupWorld Poll:

http://www.muslimwestfacts.com/mwf/116074/Muslim-Americans-National-Portrait.aspx

The U.S. Commitment to Human Rights, Apparently Only a Domestic Policy

2010-09-02T14:04:00.000-07:00

We, as Americans, are incredibly fortunate. We live in a country where our civil liberties, political rights, and arguably the most important—our inherent human rights—are diligently and meticulously protected. The irony of this is that in the past few years, the American government has become loose with their morals on the matter. The paradox that the Clinton, Bush, and now the Obama regimes have created (and perpetuated) is that while our—by that, I mean us Americans—rights are defended and safeguarded, unlawful and inhumane interrogation techniques are used discreetly by government agencies and employees in violation of several human rights that are entitled to Americans and non-Americans alike. The

United States of America

is highly civilized, ranks fairly high in literacy rates, and for the most part is extremely just. Then how is it that a country such as ours justifies its use of torture with little to no shame and an inflated sense of what is necessary to protect national security?

Aside from the provisions against torture included in 1948’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights also outlined the definitions of torture in 1975 in their Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment. Comprised of 12 articles, the declaration was adopted by the General Assembly and not only classifies what constitutes acts of torture but pronounces that each state within the UN should take “effective measures” to prevent the use of torture, in addition to ensuring that public officials who are responsible for people “deprived of their liberty” are properly trained in interrogation and general dealings with such people to prevent the use of torture or cruel punishment.

In 1984 the prevention of torture was taken even a step further with the passing of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which unlike the 1975 document, not only defines torture but initiates the Committee Against Torture—a body of human rights experts that monitors the actual implementation of prevention against torture of the Convention signatories.

As evident in the comprehensive history of the prevention against torture, the world has been aware of the need to stop cruel punishment and inhumane treatment for quite some time. As of 2010, for example, 146 nations are parties to the treaty. In fact, “[o]n February 4, 1985, the Convention was opened for signature at United Nations Headquarters in New York…representatives of the following countries signed it: Afghanistan, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Uruguay. Subsequently, signatures were received from Venezuela on February 15, from Luxembourg and Panama on February 22, from Austria on March 14, and from the United Kingdom on March 15, 1985” What’s missing from this list is, quite plainly, The United States of America—who first signed in 1988 but didn’t ratify the treaty until 1994. Perhaps this hesitance in signing and then subsequently ratifying was a sign for things to come.

A simple historical recollection of the various treaties and declarations that make efforts to define torture is not enough to understand the relationship the United States has with the protection of human rights and its provisions on torture. Although the U.S. has taken part in all of the declarations of the prevention of torture that the United Nations has passed—however reluctantly—the United States appears to act in complete violation of the provisions outlined by such declarations. Although this trend is visible in the actions of presidents as early as Clinton—with his administration’s initiation of extraordinary rendition policy—the escalation of such behavior is especially noticeable in the post-9/11 days of the Bush administration. In 2002, the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department issued a memo saying that aggressive interrogations amount to torture only if they cause pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Although this memo was rescinded by the Bush administration in 2004, since then it is still unclear what interrogation techniques were permissible and which were actually put in use. According to the New York Times article on the topic of torture, the New York Times printed an article in 2007 that revealed that in February 2005 the Justice Department issued a secret memorandum that reportedly provides authorization to “barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics.” It is believed by many officials in the Bush administration that these types of interrogations prevented further terrorist attacks.

This opinion—that these types of interrogations prevent future terrorist attacks—is expressed effortlessly but in fact it has many appalling implications. It is frightening to hear that officials who work for the government favor a means that is immoral in nature in order to protect the U.S. It is plain to understand that the horrific acts of September 11^th were indeed inhumane and immoral. However, instead of combating these acts with justice and handling the terrorists with methods deemed constitutional by our standards and permissible by the standards of the international community, the administration’s use of torture exemplifies that we too chose a method that is depraved. The number of detainees that have been affected by harsh interrogation techniques may not be equitable to those affected by the 9/11 attacks but both are immoral and cowardly nonetheless. As a beacon for democracy, freedom, and advanced rights, the United States should combat situations that compromise their security with methods that at least uphold these values that the U.S. stands for. Also overlooked it seems, is that with the use of techniques that are illegal and inhumane, it makes it impossible for the United States to actually try these detainees in a court of law. So although interrogators may obtain incriminating evidence from such interrogations, a punishment may not be legally ordained.

The case of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen charged for the murder of Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer and attempted murder for helping to make and plant improvised explosive devices, acts as an example of the uncertain treatment of trial procedures of Guantanamo detainees. Khadr was 15 at the time of his arrest and although understanding the complexities of his case and where it stands today is difficult, it is possible to understand certain incongruities with his treatment while in Guantanamo.

Although there is no doubt about Khadr’s involvement with al Qaeda—it is even reported that Khadr played alongside Osama bin Laden’s children as a child—how the United States chose to deal with him is questionable. The problem with Khadr’s case is centered on the issue of his youth. As 60 Minutes reported: “Omar Khadr is the only person in modern history to be tried for war crimes that he allegedly committed as a minor.” Khadr was incarcerated as a minor among adult detainees, and was also interrogated for two years before having access to lawyers. Currently, eight years after being first incarcerated, Khadr has spent a third of his life detained in Guantanamo. According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, regarding children in armed conflict, signatory states are obliged to provide separate legal representation—in addition to many other provisions such as having the matter determined without delay and “a variety of dispositions” like counseling and education. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, also states that "the special needs of those children who are particularly vulnerable to recruitment or use in hostilities," and requires its signatories to promote "the physical and psychosocial rehabilitation and social reintegration of children who are victims of armed conflict." The United States, a signatory of the Convention and the Optional Protocol, has seemingly withheld these provisions in dealing with Khadr’s case—once again highlighting the United States’ tendency to violate provisions it is required to uphold as a signatory of a treaty.

In addition to violating the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Child, the United States is also ignoring certain laws of war and war crimes. Trying Khadr for war crimes may not even be lawful. According to Article 4 of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention, an unprivileged belligerent—in that he or she is not wearing a uniform of carrying arms openly—is still a member of an organized militia and therefore must follow the laws of war. If the unprivileged belligerent complies to the laws of war by attacking a lawful military target with a lawful weapon, the he or she is to be tried by the domestic criminal court. In the case of Khadr—he complied with the laws of war and therefore should not have been detained in Guantanamo or tried for war crimes.

Also disturbing about Khadr’s case is that an interrogator, Sergeant Joshua Claus —whose name was initially withheld by journalists at the order of the Department of Defense—had testified to telling the detainee Khadr a fictional story about another Afghan prisoner who was gang-raped in American custody. Sgt. Claus was later sentenced to five months in prison for the mistreatment of prisoners.

As evident with the Omar Khadr case, as well as

U.S.

actions during interrogations and military commissions in general, it is apparent that the

United States

is guilty of many contradictions. In attempts to protect national security and fight a war on terror, the

United States

is willfully ignoring all the provisions it is obliged to as a signatory of various vital treaties and protocols protecting the human rights of individuals and safeguarding people against torture. Although the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution also reflects a commitment to preserving human rights, while heralding fair treatment by the federal government, this paradox continues to vex the nation. And although some steps are being taken towards ending this behavior, there is still not enough transparency in such situations.

"International Burn a Qur'an Day" Highlights Scary Trend

2010-08-17T13:07:00.000-07:00

Reports out of Florida this past week are that the Dove World Outreach Center, a non-denominational Christian house of worship in Gainesville, plans to hold “International Burn a Qur’an Day” on 11 September. The church’s pastor, Dr. Terry Jones, went on a publicity tour to promote the three-hour “remembrance” in the past week.

Last Thursday, Mr. Jones appeared on CNN speaking with anchor Rick Sanchez about the upcoming day. In the interview, the pastor claimed, “We believe that Islam is of the devil. It is causing billions of people to go to hell. It is a deceptive religion; it is a violent religion… There are moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.” As is far too often the case, Terry Jones’ inflammatory rhetoric serves only to exacerbate the tensions between Islam and Christianity. By speaking from a position of Christian religious authority, Jones risks speaking for all Christians, something that other evangelical Christian organizations made sure he did not do.

The same day as the above interview, the National Association of Evangelicals issued a press release urging the Dove World Outreach Center to reconsider hosting the event. The release pointed out that “the plans recently announced by a Florida group to burn copies of the Qur’an on September 11 show disrespect for our Muslim neighbors.” The press release goes on to quote the Bible, saying, “’make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.’” (1 Thessalonians 5:15) The NAE statement attempts to disassociate the actions of Jones’ church from those of the larger American Christian community as a whole.

The man interviewing the pastor, CNN’s Rick Sanchez, himself a practicing Christian, ended the interview by telling Mr. Jones, “You do Christians in this country a disservice by sounding as hateful as you do and saying that you’re going to perform hateful acts as you say you are for people who may not necessarily believe the things you say they do.” Sanchez’ counter here is spot-on. Jones is trying to speak as a spokesman of the Christian American community – a position no one bestowed upon him, but which the media is promoting by constantly hosting his hateful rhetoric on its airwaves.

One of the remarks Jones made during this interview made significantly less sense and was more troubling to me as a viewer than the rest of his talking points. About halfway through the interview, the pastor says, “There are moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.” First of all, this point is mystifying. What exactly is Jones trying to say with this comment? If there is no such thing as a moderate Islam, how can there possibly moderate Muslims, who are followers of Islam? Is he casting these so-called “moderate Muslims” as simply less-believing than their radical, Islam-following brothers and sisters? Do true, non-moderate, supposedly violent Muslims instead espouse the real beliefs of a religion that has been so often called “a religion of peace?” He can’t possibly believe this… can he?

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this quote is that I honestly think that Mr. Jones was trying to come off as understanding and tolerant by allowing that, yes, he thought there were “moderate Muslims.” But the attempt totally backfires when you look deeper at just how inflammatory this statement is. This is but one example of Jones’ confusing, rambling rant against Islam during the interview. He contradicts himself again when saying “We are saying ‘stop’ to Islam,” which is followed up with, “We have nothing against Muslims, they are welcome in our country.” How can we possibly say “stop” to something while simultaneously welcoming it?

Setting aside the ridiculous implicit assumption that all Muslims must be foreign, the worst part about all of this, of course, is that Mr. Jones is only one of many conservative speakers who are becoming part of a broad and evolving offensive against Islam in all of its forms, not just the radicals who pervert the religion. Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and others are speaking up against the “deceptive [and] violent” religion they claim Muslims adhere to. They are spurred on by news stories like the proposed mosques in New York City, Murfreesboro (TN), Temecula (CA), and Sheboygan (WI), and preemptive city council proposals in Oklahoma and Virginia which are aimed to stop the supposed “invasion” of Islamic law into the United States.

These talkers who constantly drone on about the “threat” that Islam poses to America are truly missing the point. Their reasons for spewing such hateful rhetoric usually flows from one of two possible places: either they are up for election in the coming months and feel that such rhetoric will appeal to some segment of the masses, or they gain a loyal following from being sensationalistic and causing public controversy.

The latter seems to be the source of Pastor Jones’ vile words and actions. His Dove World Outreach Center’s main sources of notoriety are their infamous protests mocking the sexual orientation of the mayor of Gainesville, Florida and their distribution of “Islam is of the Devil” shirts in local schools. Whatever his illogical reasoning behind “Burn a Qur’an Day,” I can’t possibly see what good Mr. Jones could possibly think will come out of such a demonstration. I read recently that he is welcoming local Muslims to join him in the “remembrance” on 11 September (which, by the way, may fall on Eid-al-Fitr, the second largest holiday on the Islamic calendar and which marks the end of the holy month of Ramadan). If Terry Jones has any true desire to promote interfaith respect – or even if he just has any common sense – he would listen to the complaints by numerous religious authorities from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hindu backgrounds and cancel the inflammatory event.

But, then again, when was the last time someone like Pastor Terry Jones showed any common sense? I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Leaving Iraq

2010-08-17T11:26:00.000-07:00

The Iraq War began on a Wednesday in March of 2003. I was a high school student at the time, and although the media was as excited about the story as a kid with a new toy, all I remember feeling that day was absolute dread. I had listened to all the arguments as to why we were going to war, but the fact that so much of the international community was against the war, made me wonder what was really going on behind the scenes.

Now a college graduate and many, many news reports, interview, memoirs, and documentaries later, I still feel that same sense of dread when talking about the war. Over the years, I have seen almost the entire argument for war fall to pieces. The WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) were never found. Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, who surrendered after the fall of Baghdad, continues to claim, as Saddam Hussein did before his execution, that they only said they had weapons in order to deter their Iranian neighbors to the east. Hussein was not posturing to the West, but to Iran, whom Iraq had been at war with from 1980-1988. But despite this fact, America went to war without any real evidence that Iraq was working to build WMDs.

Once the war began, much of the information and news coming out of the country was from journalists who were imbedded with American armed forces. They lived, ate, and slept next to each other. While it made sense that these journalists were imbedded for their own safety, it also created an atmosphere of stories that were constantly pro-American and pro-war. No journalist in their right mind would write a story that painted those soldiers responsible for his/her life in a negative light. This led to a compromised environment where the truth was not always told. Pure, unadulterated journalism became contaminated by the hand that fed it.

I’m not sure that we will ever know if the Bush Administration knew what they were doing in the lead up to the Iraq War. Did they actually believe Saddam Hussein was the threat they made him out to be, or did they want this war so badly that they took whatever questionable intelligence they could get their hands on and ran with it regardless of the gaps in information? Before the war began, the American intelligence community was feverishly searching for connections between Saddam Hussein and terrorism, but with little to no information to make this connection, the Bush Administration decided to move ahead anyway.

No one will argue against the fact that Hussein was a terrible dictator responsible for many atrocities and crimes against humanity, but if that is to be America’s reason for entering war, then why are we currently not fighting in North Korea or Sudan? War should always be the last resort after all other options have been exhausted. First deciding to go to war and then looking for evidence is a terrible precedent to set for the future of the international community.

With the exception of 50,000 troops who will remain “with a mission limited to stability operations and advising and assisting Iraqi security forces,” all U.S. combat forces will have left Iraq by the end of this August. This has left many Iraqis with a great sense of trepidation. With the economy in shambles, violence rising, and a government that is still in flux months after elections, many are worried that their government is not ready to run the country without American assistance. Even the chief of staff for the Iraqi army, Gen. Babakir Zebari has publically said that the Iraqi military will not be ready to operate on its own for another ten years.

Only future generations will be able to decide whether or not the Iraq War was ultimately worth it, but as it stands today, far too many Iraqis long for the days of the past where electricity and jobs were abundant and the future didn’t look so uncertain. In the years ahead, the world will be watching the development of Iraq. Iraqis must work together to secure a peaceful and prosperous future free from the ills and problems of the past, while also making sure to learn from their experiences.

Many mistakes were made in this war. Although, the consequences of making preemptive strikes, discarding the intelligence community, and oppressing journalism have become very clear for the United States, we do have a history of repeating our wrongs. It is difficult to truly understand how many lives have been affected and destroyed by this war, but we all owe it to those who have suffered to make the future of Iraq the best it can be. It is one thing to identify where the U.S. went wrong in Iraq, but the true measure of growth and success will come from not making the same mistakes again.

Birthright-Citizenship: An Endangered Right?

2010-08-12T13:05:00.000-07:00

As the battle over immigration legislation wages on, a group of United States Senators have decided to combat the issue with constitutional reform, rather than implementing policies of immigration reform. The group of senators, comprised of Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Sessions and Jon Kyl, has proposed to re-examine and revise the 14^th amendment as means to decrease the amount of illegal immigrants entering the United States. The 14^th amendment, ratified in 1868, took the 13^th amendment—which abolished slavery—even further to ensure blacks with more rights by granting all blacks citizenship. It established birthright-citizenship and Sen. Graham—who spear-headed the movement to subject the 14^th amendment to hearings—believes that scores of illegal immigrants come to the United States illegally and try to obtain citizenship by giving birth to a child in the U.S.: “They come here to drop a child. It’s called drop and leave.”

Sen. Graham looked into the subject after being unable to answer a question posed at a city hall meeting, the person was inquiring about why children of illegal immigrants are allowed to be American citizens. Graham believes that the amendment, as it currently stands, acts as an incentive for people to come to America illegally for the sole purpose of using an “anchor baby” to gain citizenship. Graham and other critics of the 14^th amendment consider that this “drop and leave” technique is a gross abuse and perversion of the U.S. Constitution as intended by the Founding Fathers.

As troubling as the terms “anchor baby” or “drop and leave” sound, the unfortunate imagery of these phrases is the least of our worries. The proposed call to hearing for repealing the 14^th amendment is troublesome on many levels.

Many commentators on immigration reform are part of groups dedicated to lowering the amount of immigrants in America—such as NumbersUSA—but ironically overlook the fact that by repealing the 14^th amendment and denying citizenship to children born of illegal immigrant parents, they would be increasing the actual numbers of undocumented people in the United States, according to many immigration lawyers. Also ignored is the fact that children must wait until they are 21 years of age before they can even apply for legal residency for their parents—which makes the “drop and leave” technique impractical. In fact, the repealing of the amendment and the creation of new rules would be met with a need for each parent to prove their own and their child’s statuses, inflating the government’s role in the everyday lives of even more people—something conservatives may have trouble facing.

Moreover, repealing the 14^th amendment does not combat the specific issue but attempts to instill a blanket solution rather than a nuanced strategy that targets the problem directly. The effects of retracting the 14^th amendments can go beyond the scope of immigration issues. As Roland S. Martin puts it: “It's clear that overall Congress is choosing to apply a Band-Aid to the illegal immigration problem instead of dealing with it head-on.”

Politically, this initiative is also particularly problematic. Sen. Lindsey Graham has been known to stray from his party alliance to not only find a bipartisan solution but sometimes siding with the opposite party; Graham has supported “the bailout for financial institutions, and comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country.” Graham’s new proposal to amend the constitution to restrict birthright-citizenship has troubled immigration groups who thought of Graham as a vital ally beforehand. Although Graham is gaining support from some conservatives over this matter, he is also creating a party split—especially from those Republicans who are staunch constitutionalists and believe that the 14^th amendment is one of the Constitution’s most important legacies.

Rather than trying to amend the Constitution—it has been proposed by many lawmakers that they create a statute instead. Fortunately, the Constitution is pretty hard to change; the last amendment was made 40 years ago to change the voting age to 18 and the last ratification of an amendment was made in 1992 to set the rules for congressional salaries. Hopefully, the movement to repeal the 14^th amendment will be replaced with a solution that will prove to be less indirect and more refined.

The most problematic implication of changing the 14th amendment is what it means about this nation's departure from its initial intentions and the distinctions that set it apart from all other countries. The United States has always been a nation of immigrants, people seeking freedom and opportunity, and a place where citizenship has long been granted indiscriminately. However, with this move to appeal the 14th amendment, the United States is abandoning all of these values. Unlike many other countries that can, and actively do, grant and deny citizenship based on very specific ethnicities and religions, America has had one very important criterion: birthright. Everyone who comes to this country has been able to enjoy the rights instilled by the Founding Fathers; and although people who enter the country unlawfully should be dealt with, changing the rights outlined by the Constitution is not the most effective or admirable method of repairing the situation.

The Silver Lining

2010-08-11T20:29:00.000-07:00

“The social cancer of Islamophobia must be recognized as unacceptable as anti-Semitism. It is a threat to the very fabric of our democratic pluralistic way of life…Political and religious leaders, commentators and experts must do more to counter hate speech; they must lead in safeguarding and strengthening religious pluralism and mutual respect.”

-John Esposito, Founding director, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University

When it comes to the political uproar surrounding the construction of the “Ground Zero Mosque,” responses such as this are regrettably overpowered by the bigoted responses of the likes of Newt Gingrich, Michael Savage, or Rush Limbaugh. The egregious opposition to the Cordoba House—the name of the proposed Muslim center—underscores a framework of an anti-Islamic, Islamophobic movement that fuels the blocking of this building. Even organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, a non-governmental organization whose main focus is fighting not only defamation of the Jewish people, but of members of any sect, are betraying their objective by opposing the construction of the Muslim center.

Many blog responses—including that of the Mobilizer blog—and news reports focus on the negative reactions (although, rightfully so) and act as a reprimanding force. However, it may be, not only important, but necessary to take a moment to understand those who have done good things for the cause. Not all is lost in this debate, and there are important figures that are helping to further the progress of the Cordoba House, which will hopefully stand as a center for religious and ethnic tolerance.

An example of these political and religious figures that support the Cordoba House is Arthur Waskow, a rabbi and founder/director of The Shalom Center. Waskow, and more generally The Shalom Center, have started a movement in response to the Anti-Defamation League’s opposition to the building of the “Ground Zero Mosque.” An initiative of over 30 rabbis from various Jewish backgrounds have signed a statement, and request more signatures, for the ADL to reverse their decision. Waskow and The Shalom Center also organized a vigil for August 5, 2010 at the site of the planned mosque to voice their opinions on the matter, in addition to encouraging supporters to actually call the ADL to request a reverse of their conclusion.

Arthur Waskow, and his supporters in and beyond The Shalom Center, act as an exemplar of inter-religious tolerance and support that is needed during situations of bigotry, such as that which surrounds the creation of the Cordoba House. Waskow at the rally stated that, "I want to catch us, us Jews, us Muslims, us Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, meditating, praying, not in the same identical ways with each other, but with each other toward the One who is beyond us all."

In addition to the support of religious leaders, perhaps the most absolute and forthright support can be found in New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in his speech delivered on Governor’s Island, in regards to the Landmarks Preservation Commission vote.

Mayor Bloomberg gave an inspiring speech, one that portrayed New York City as the foremost open and inviting city, a city that was built and sustained by immigrants, and a city that continues to be the freest city in the world. He explained that “[o]f all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a City that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years.” Mayor Bloomberg explained that although the mosque was not granted ‘landmark’ status by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, there are no legal reasons for denying the mosque, and doing so would be untrue to American ideals. Bloomberg also states that this mosque acts as the biggest test America will face in regards to the complete separation of church and state, and how we—as Americans—respond to this test is vital.

Bloomberg eloquently reminds the public of what is actually in question when it comes to this deliberation: “Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.” As such an important political figurehead in this particular debate, it is refreshing to know that not everyone is on the side of short-sighted intolerance and that as the politically symbolic personage for New York City, Mayor Bloomberg has not forgotten the ideals on which this nation and its constitution has been built.

The criticism of the “Ground Zero Mosque” is not simply a manifestation of religious intolerance but also a strategy or talking point employed by certain politicians to bolster their political stances, and thereby their support. John Esposito (quoted above) believes that Republican candidates are appealing to racist sentiments towards Islam as a way to polarize politics to gain electoral votes in upcoming elections. Many Democrats, on the other hand, are choosing their words carefully or, like Congressman Anthony Weiners, are refusing to answer completely—perhaps for fear of losing support as well.

Although few and far removed, the examples of vocal, active support for the construction of the Cordoba House acts as the silver lining for this dark and dismal political debate and it is important that they are recognized.

Things May Not Always Be What They Seem

2010-08-06T07:29:00.001-07:00

Walking out of a downtown Chicago restaurant recently, I couldn’t help but notice the advertisement atop a parked taxi. After reading the text of the ad (pictured above), I was torn. On the one hand, I was happy to see that the ad was taking a stand against gender-based violence, but on the other hand, I was disappointed that the overall message of the ad was that a Muslim woman facing danger should leave her religion in order to find safety. This overt connection between the Islamic faith and violence is not only incorrect and offensive, but short-sighted in that it fails to acknowledge the wider problem of violence against women in America.

The Honor Killing Awareness Campaign responsible for the taxi advertisement is powered by the anti-Muslim group Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), which was created by Islamophobe bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. SIOA’s declared mission is to educate Americans about the threat that the Islamic doctrine and those who support it present to America. While Geller refers to the honor killing campaign as an “awareness and aid campaign,” a visit to the site listed on the advertisement, LeaveIslamSafely.com, is likely to leave visitors disappointed. The site offers little to no information on honor killings and the only real resources provided are links to other anti-Muslim sites. SIOA offers no options or alternatives for Muslim women who need help, but do not want to leave their religion. It seems that SIOA is more concerned with defaming the religion of Islam and getting people to leave Islam than actually creating a real resource for women in potential danger.

An issue also not addressed is what exactly constitutes an honor killing. The media often uses the term anytime a Muslim or other non-Western male kills a member of his family. Only using the term in this manner parallels the Orientalist perspective of vilifying and degrading non-Western people, making them out to be barbaric. While murder is murder regardless of who commits it, the media often labels cases of domestic crimes differently based on the ethnicity or religion of the murderer. Take, for example, the story of a father who kills his daughter over a text-message with a boy versus a father who kills his daughter over her lifestyle choice of living with a boyfriend outside of marriage. The media only labeled the latter as an “honor killing” given that the family was Iraqi.

To solely focus on Muslims in an honor killing awareness campaign is not only misleading and wrong, but completely devoid of facts and reality. This is particularly so given that Islamic leaders continuously condemn the practice and prove that it has no religious basis in Islam. SIOA’s ad seeks to further marginalize Islam and Muslims and create an inaccurate picture of what it means to be a Muslim woman growing up in America. In another expression of these sentiments, Geller goes so far as to call Muslim households “homemade concentration camps” in her blog.

Violence against women, regardless of race, age, class, or religion, pervades our world and comes in many forms. The UN estimates that up to 70% of women will experience some form of physical or sexual violence from men at some point in their life. In the United States alone, a woman is beaten every nine seconds and an average of three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends each day.

Violence is not, nor has it ever been, exclusive to Muslims, and the idea of tearing a woman away from her religion and her entire support system is not the solution. If Geller and Spencer really want to make a dent in tackling issues surrounding violence against women, they need to reevaluate their campaign. This one isn’t working.

Demonizing Journalists

2010-08-05T08:41:00.000-07:00

CNN’s recent decision to fire their Senior Middle Eastern Affairs Editor Octavia Nasr showcases the mainstream, corporate media’s bias against the Arab world. Last weekend, Nasr took to Twitter to react to the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, a Lebanese Muslim leader. Nasr wrote: Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah. One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot.. #Lebanon

Twitter, with its 140 character limit, is already not the best place to discuss complex political issues. But add a group like Hezbollah a Lebanese political party designated by the US as a terrorist organization which many people know little about, and you have a potentially volatile combination. Nasr herself acknowledged this misstep in a long blog post. She writes: Sayyed Fadlallah. Revered across borders yet designated a terrorist. Not the kind of life to be commenting about in a brief tweet. It's something I deeply regret.

As she explains in her post, the respect and sadness she felt with Sayyed Fadallah’s passing was in regards to his support of women’s rights in the Muslim world. Fadallah had decried violence against women as a practice against the fundamentals of Islam.

So what did CNN do? Allow Nasr to explain herself, recognize her mistake and then move on? No. Instead they fired a 20 year network veteran for 119 characters. How ironic that “journalists” like Diana West, Charles Krauthammer, and Steve Huntley can all make wildly offensive, hyperbolic statements against Muslims and receive no recourse. They can praise Israel’s military offensives without regard to innocent Palestinian deaths. The talking heads of FOX and ABC can produce paranoid stories on American Mosques and feature inflammatory commentary from documented Islamaphobes (See: Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Pamela Gellar). But, acknowledge the accomplishments of someone who was an influential figure in the Muslim community and you are out the door.

The outrage directed at Nasr is comparable in some sense to what veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas experienced a few weeks ago when she had to resign from her post of 50 years after criticizing Israel. The rational behind both of their firings is the same. Journalists can editorialize all they want but as soon as they vocalize support for people our government doesn’t like, they are booted.

What is so infuriating about this recent trend of demonizing anyone who dares to support Arab or Muslim leaders is that it removes any creditability those writers may have. Conversely, mainstream corporate media invite people with no credible journalistic background (See above) and give them free reign. Why are we so ready to accept the ramblings of pseudo-journalists and hate-bloggers but adverse to any informed opinion from established news veterans? Instead of being able to inform people of the accomplishments and goals of a notable Muslim leader, Nasr was immediately criticized and deemed a terrorist sympathizer. Interestingly, both Nasr and Thomas are Christian Arabs, a demographic often disregarded in the West. Their opinions and criticisms could possibly inform Western Christians who feel alienated from Middle Eastern affairs.

If veteran journalists do not have the support of their publication to honestly editorialize, then critical issues become buried. This essentially assures that only one narrative of the Middle East is told in Western media, the narrative our government and corporate institutions want told. If we want a truly free press, allow writers to delve deep into issues without fear of being fired or labeled a terrorist sympathizer or anti-Semite.

Did that oil spill stop?

2010-08-03T07:19:00.000-07:00

Tragedies in America affect everyone in America. The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, more commonly known as the BP Oil Spill, is the greatest off shore oil spill that the U.S. has ever experienced. The U.S. media coverage has been overwhelming, and yet at the same time there were limitations on how much they can cover. Many journalists found themselves “turned away from public areas affected by the spill, and not only by BP and its contractors, but by local law enforcement, the Coast Guard and government officials.”

The media coverage that Americans did get was not critical. Many journalists pushed for the sentimentality of the event by discussing how the event will disrupt the ecology and environment of the Gulf, and of course, only BP responded to that and only to a certain extent. Imagine if the journalists pushed to discuss the core of the problem and held someone accountable? If journalists told the American public that BP knew there were cracks in the pipes awhile back when the coverage was heavy, maybe BP would have acted differently and more responsibly.

Due to the kindness Americans across the country, thousands of people are volunteering to help clean this mess. Louisiana had 3,000 volunteers sign up for a beach cleanup. Many states are having the same turnout. But despite Louisiana’s past tragedies, the people still have faith that should inspire every American. To be fair, BP has created the Vessels of Opportunity program which hires local boatmen to assist in this fiasco. According to the Official Site of the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command, the tasks that these local boatmen take on include “response activities, including transporting supplies, assisting wildlife rescue and deploying containment and sorbent boom.”

Like many times in today’s media, one avoids necessary analysis about the event. Have we forgotten that someone is responsible for this event? This oil spill is not only going to haunt our past, but our present and future. This spill is not only affecting the sea food business, fishing and offshore energy production, but is “fouling other drivers of the economy like lodging, casinos, real estate and governments.”

Will BP ever be able to adequately compensate the victims of the spill? BP created a $20 billion compensation fund administrated by Kenneth Feinberg, of the Feinberg Rozen law firm. This is a similar fund to the fund that was set up for the victims of the 9-11 attacks. The $20 billion will not go unnoticed, but it is hard to even compensate for what has happened. According to the U.S. government, between 90.4 and 178.6 million gallons of oil have gushed into the Gulf. How can one compensate for all that Oil that has been lost, lives that have been lost and the environment that is suffering? Oil is a resource that has been fought over through international wars, and yet there seems to be negligence of BP’s behalf.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 was also a tragic event, where about 11 to 32 million gallons of oil was spilled. Twenty years later, there are still many areas in which you can find oil on the ground. Consider the number of gallons that the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill released and there can be no comparison between these two spills. Imagine the years it is going to take to clean. The Exxon Valdez spill happened over 20 years ago and it is still an issue today.

The Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide: Another Notch on the Belt of FBI's Suspect Activity?

2010-07-29T12:49:00.000-07:00

The FBI is currently under investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General for reported cheating on tests administered for agents regarding the guidelines for limits on surveillance.

The agents underwent 16 hours of training to understand the guidelines—named, the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide—which the FBI says is a “guide [that] equips agents with lawful and appropriate tools so the agency can transform itself into an intelligence-driven organization that investigates genuine criminal and national security threats.” The alleged cheating is in the form of some agents finishing the test suspiciously early, while others worked together as a group to take the test. FBI Director Robert Mueller claimed that these incidents are to be blamed on miscommunication and misunderstanding among FBI offices as to the procedure of how the test was to be administered. While the need for investigation is concerning on its own, the actual guidelines are also considered an invasive manual for investigation.

The operations manual gives agents the authority to “create maps of ethnic-oriented businesses, behaviors, lifestyle characteristics and cultural traditions in communities with concentrated ethnic populations.” The guidelines essentially allow investigation not based on hard evidence of criminal activity, but instead on what the FBI considers “proper purpose”—a term that masks what is most likely reasons based on suspicion and alarm. It is also believed that the guidelines permit intrusive investigation of mosques, churches, and synagogues—once again without evidence of criminal activity. The system of data collection as outlined by the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide is problematic in that it may lend itself to an unconstitutional system of racial profiling by law enforcement.

Concerns for the conspicuous nature of the FBI’s operations guidelines are voiced by many special interest groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, and Muslim legal groups, such as Muslim Advocates. Farhana Khera, the director of Muslim Advocates, has stated that “Law-abiding American Muslims have experienced increasing levels of discriminatory, invasive and abusive conduct by federal agents.” The guidelines do not target Muslims specifically and the ACLU is filing Freedom of Information Act requests in 29 states and Washington—in order to find out how the FBI is acquiring information and what information about race and ethnicity is used for.

The issues created by this operations manual are not just pertaining to an invasion of privacy in the lives of many ethnic-community members, but problems arise in regards to the relationship between law enforcement and the community at large. Michael German, ACLU lawyer and former FBI agent, believes that the implementation of this sort of information collection simply drives an even larger wedge between law enforcement and the people that they are supposed to serve. He also states that “the FBI should be focusing its efforts on people it has a factual basis for suspecting of wrongdoing, not targeting communities with race-based investigations.” By applying a method of investigation that is invasive in nature, the FBI may be instilling even further distrust in the hearts of community members that feel that they have to constantly be on the defense for obtrusive violations of their privacy. Instead, it would probably be more useful to expand on meaningful, collaborative relationships with not only the Muslim community, but various ethnic and religious groups.

This operations manual seems to be further perpetuating the problem with how the United States, and its varied agencies and organizations, is handling anti/counter-terrorism. Using anti-terrorism techniques, like the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, to invade the privacy of many is not the proper way to go about preventing further national security risks. This guide joins the ranks of the No-Fly List and the protesting of the “Ground Zero Mosque” as methods that are proved—or will be proved—as ineffective for the prevention of any further terrorism. While these tactics appear to be America’s only choice for moving closer to complete security, they are doing the opposite of what is intended.

These methods simply demonize certain ethnicities and religions, rather than working together with the communities to create a bond that would foster open communication and provide incentive for exchanging useful information.

Ground Zero Mosque: A 13-Story Symbol of Tolerance

2010-07-27T11:17:00.000-07:00

Just about everyone who’s anyone in the American political scene has spoken out on the proposed Islamic cultural center called the Córdoba House (or “Park51”), to be constructed about two blocks from the former World Trade Center site in lower Manhattan. Former Wasilla, AK Mayor Sarah Palin, former Speaker of the House Newt Gringrich, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh are just some of the big names offering their two-cents on the issue.

As some have smartly pointed out, however, this is an issue that reveals much about America’s moral, political, and religious response to 9/11, nearly a decade later.

I was in sixth grade when America was attacked nearly nine years ago; it took me quite a while to wrap my head around what had happened and how the world had changed. But one thing I distinctly remember hearing for days, weeks, and months after the tragedy was that America is rarely as united and patriotic as it was in the immediate aftermath. Every citizen of this country seemed to stand united -- united at first in utter disbelief, then united in their sadness and anger, and finally united in a resolute commitment to mourn, rebuild, and move on as strong as ever.

At the time, it was only natural to sing the praises of the country we had grown to love even more in its time of need. Talk of America’s greatness flowed from the mouths of politicians, celebrities, and citizens alike. When President George W. Bush addressed the nation on the night of September 11, he said that “a great people has been moved to defend a great nation.” Now, more than 3,500 days later, this “great nation” has in front of it an issue which will allow it to prove that these praises were warranted.

The name of the proposed Islamic community center and mosque, Córdoba House, is an allusion to the atmosphere in Córdoba, Spain during the tenth century when the city was the center of the Islamic caliphate, where the world’s greatest Christian, Muslim, and Jewish minds collaborated and coexisted in a peaceful Eden. That is the vision for this community center as well. It has been misreported in the media that the center will be exclusively for Muslim use – this is false, all will be welcome to enjoy its benefits. The vision behind this proposed center belongs to Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf, a spiritual leader of great repute in New York who is often praised for his outreach to those of different faiths and cooperation with non-Muslims. Those who brand the proposed Córdoba House as a symbol of Muslim intervention or invasion onto American soil apparently did not bother to do their research on the aims and goals of the center or its visionary.

Sarah Palin’s now-infamous tweet, “Peace-seeking Muslims, pls [sic] understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts,” brings up a new issue: that the proposed mosque is simply in a bad location – it is simply too near to the symbol of an attack on America, the scale of which this country had never seen before. My opinion, however, is exactly the opposite: that this debate is a perfect opportunity for Americans to embrace a spirit of dialogue and understanding and promote an image of this great nation as the cooperative and tolerant place its founders had in mind centuries ago. What better way to show that we are resilient and value all creeds than to erect a Muslim cultural center in lower Manhattan – proving to all that Americans understand that it was not a religion that attacked the United States that September day, but rather nineteen extremely violent men who did not subscribe to the brand of Islam that this mosque will celebrate.

The National Republic Trust Political Action Committee, a well-organized and well-funded lobbyist group, recently attempted to air a commercial (warning: graphic images) speaking out against the proposal for the center on CBS and NBC networks. Interspersed with extremely graphic images of the September 11 attacks are calls to prayer from minarets around the world. The ad attempts to link the faith of Islam with vicious terrorism through its symbolic imagery. Both TV networks refused to air it, citing its ambiguous usage of the term “they,” which viewers could take to mean Islamic extremists or all Muslims collectively. Attempts to slander the Muslim faith like this are a grievous attack on traditional American values, most importantly the First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. This is not what a united America stands for: uninformed, politically-motivated assaults on faith.

Others, including former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich have stated that “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.” Mr. Gingrich's rhetoric here is quite dangerous. He is implying that the staunchly secular nation of the United States should be held to the same standards of religious tolerance and interfaith dialogue as the fervently Islamic state of Saudi Arabia. The former Speaker is promoting that either Saudi Arabia – an independent, foreign nation (and a critically-important US ally) – become more secular and forsake its inherent right to religious uniformity, or that the United States should overturn the Supreme Court’s long-held precedent of separation of church and state and convert this nation into a Judeo-Christian theocracy.

Both of these ideas are highly offensive to those who have spent their lives defending the rights of all to practice their faiths freely in Cleveland, Seattle, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv. While it is understandable that there is a healthy debate about the subject of a “Ground Zero Mosque,” as the media has branded Córdoba House, I believe that if we let our minds direct the discussion, the rational conclusion is that the construction of the Córdoba House in New York City is the perfect symbol of American tolerance, resilience, and freedom.

It's all semantics...

2010-07-22T09:36:00.000-07:00

Political science as a study has always been riddled with very serious arguments and debates of rhetoric and semantics. What differentiates a nation from a state from a regime may seem like trivial delineations to some, but in the world of political science the differences are staggering. In the study of international relations, moreover, the differences are not just astounding but can often times be highly offensive and downright hazardous. The 2010 National Security Strategy released by the Obama administration makes apparent efforts to discuss important security issues without using terms such as “Islamic terrorist” or “jihadist,” and acts as an example of an awareness for the impact of semantics in the discussion on terror.

While this shift in linguistics is supported by the regime, opposition can be found in reports released by organizations such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which stress a concern for separating religious motives from acts of terrorism. Recently, the Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog posed the question: “What to call terrorists?” and 19 bloggers responded to the question with their varying opinions on the issue. This panel of bloggers and their respective points of views on the matter stirred a curiosity in me; how do you discuss the most recent terrorist activity without mentioning any associated religious ties and motives? How do you define acts of political dissent separate from the religious movements that fuel them?

Using terms like “Muslim terrorist” and “jihadist” is problematic, not only for the incorrect usage of the words Muslim and jihad, but because that would require we call Timothy McVeigh a “Catholic terrorist” or Crusaders from the middle ages “Christian terrorists.” This thought lends itself to consideration of whether or not including religious ties is necessary at all. As blog panelist Herb Silverman titled his blog response “A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist,” conceivably it could be the case that religious motives are not important but instead focus should be placed on effective prevention. Silverman makes the case that once a terrorist has acted out; it’s already too late to understand his or her motives. Apart from the argument that using religious adjectives to describe terrorists is unnecessary, another argument is based on the fact that by using “Islamic terrorist” it can create a perception that this sort of violence is normative for the religion.

Perhaps a complete disregard for religious terms when defining terrorist acts is not the best method. Perhaps, instead, it is necessary to understand the difference between Islam as a religion and Islam as a political ideology—commonly referred to as Islamism, a term rejected by some scholars and replaced with labels such as “activist Islam” or “political Islam.” Nonetheless, a clearer understanding of a definition for terrorism can be reached with a more comprehensive understanding of the differences between the faith itself and the political movements based on teachings of the faith. A terrorist that happens to be a Muslim should not be referred to as a “Muslim terrorist” but a terrorist that follows the political ideologies of Islamism to fortify his terrorist acts can justifiably be defined as an “Islamist terrorist.” This usage of the term “Islamist” should not infuriate Muslims worldwide, it is a valid use of the term and although it is unfortunate that a few Muslims have tarnished the name of Islam with their acts, the fact is that many of these same people act on the behalf of political aims rooted in their distorted form of Islam.

However, the fact of the matter is that not everyone—including myself—fully comprehends the difference between Islam as a religion and the use of Islam as a political ideology and using religious language attached with ‘terrorist’ would be precarious, especially in official reports. So although a complete disregard for religious terms may be replaced with a more nuanced and precise set of terms as a prescription for this problem, it is safer to simply impose a blanket eradication of religious terms.

Tea Party "Refudiates" Claims of Racism

2010-07-21T17:45:00.000-07:00

Last week the NAACP publicly condemned the National Tea Party for racist elements within the party. Tea Party supporters repudiated the claim by suggesting that although racist individuals may exist within the party, they do not represent the party's platform in any way. However the NAACP argues that the party does not do enough to ostracize those who are motivated by and publicly display their racism.

We've all seen the signs with pictures of President Obama donning a Hitler-esque mustache alongside Hitler and Stalin. And we've also seen the signs accusing Obama of being a Muslim, and have heard the racial slurs being hurled at immigrant Mexicans and African Americans alike. All of this mixed in with Confederate flags and threats of violence (signs that read "We came unarmed... THIS TIME) makes for a very unsettling scene. These images and video clips don't help the Tea Party's cause, whatever that may be.

So then why haven't Tea Party leaders come out in strong condemnation of the racist trends within their movement? Why haven't the racists in the movement been kicked out, or at least shoved out of the camera's eye?

Well, according to a study conducted by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race, and Sexuality... it's seems that if they did, their party would cease to exist.

The study found that members of the movement are more likely than the general population to feel racial resentment, have negative opinions of immigrants, and believe that President Obama favors black people over white people. When asked sensitive questions such as "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites" Tea Party respondents overwhelmingly agreed with the statement, 73% to be exact, whereas only 33% the general public agreed with the statement. The study also found that Tea Partiers are whiter, older, wealthier, and more educated than most.

Another issue with leadership condemning racist elements within the party is that the Leadership is just as racist as the Tea Party masses, albeit not always quite so overtly. In fact, the leaders are usually the ones fueling the fire of hatred.

Take for example Tom Tancredo’s opening speech at the Tea Party’s national convention earlier this year when he said that President “Barack Hussein Obama” was elected president because “we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country.” Tancredo apparently thinks we should go back to operating things pre-Voting Rights Act of 1965, back to the Jim Crowe south.

But we don’t have to go that far back to find examples of racism in the movement’s leadership. Just a couple of months ago Mark Williams officially outed himself as a certified Islamophobe when he spoke out against the proposed “ground zero mosque” on the grounds that it would become a shrine to the worship of the terrorists’ monkey God; where Muslims would “propagandize for the extermination of all things not approved by their cult."

And of course just this week Sarah Palin jumped on the bigoted bandwagon calling upon “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the Cordoba Initiative. As if to imply that Muslims can only be broken down into two groups, peaceful or violent, and that those who support the mosque are antagonistic and probably not the peaceful kind. She also mentioned that the Islamic Center is a stab in the heart to people across the heartland. I have to bring this up again… don’t you think all of this racism and hatred stabs the hearts of the Muslim 9-11 survivors and families of the Muslims killed in the Twin Towers on 9-11?

I guess there was some merit to the NAACP’s claims after all. The Tea Party Federation ousted Mark Williams and the Tea Party Express finally on Monday for his racist blog response to the NAACP condemnation. After getting the boot, Williams argued that there is no such thing as a Tea Party leader, and that all members of the movement are leaders.

The Tea Party more or less admitted their racism with Williams’ forced exit; Williams revealed that the movement really isn’t much more than a gathering of bigots with no organizational structure or platform with his response.

It’s not just liberals who are attacking the movement; conservatives too sense that something isn’t right. Bob Inglis, a six term Republican Congressman who's on his way out in a recent interview with the AP expressed fear that his party may be taken over by extremists, referring to the Tea Party. He said “significant portions of the Republican coalition believe that it is a desirable strategy to talk of armed revolution, embrace libertarian purity and alienate Hispanic voters. With a major Republican victory in November, those who hold these views may well be elevated in profile and influence. And this could create durable, destructive perceptions of the Republican Party that would take decades to change.”

I guess there is still the possibility that the Tea Party just gets bad press. Maybe they’re not racist. But more importantly we should be asking, what does this movement inspire? If it’s not about racism, what is it about? The Democratic Party inspires people to fight for justice, equality, and civil rights. The Republican Party inspires family values, and a hard work ethic. What does the Tea Party truly inspire other than hollow talking points and clever slogans?

Religious Freedom for All?

2010-07-15T09:23:00.000-07:00

In a post-Colonial world it appears that, initially at the very least, America has been far more welcoming to people of various religious backgrounds than its European allies. The ban of the face-covering veils in France and the constitutional ban on the building of minarets in Switzerland both serve as examples that signal a start of possible stigmatization of Muslims in the respective countries specifically, and Europe generally.

The United States, contrastingly, has been a country built upon a belief in tolerance of a racially, religiously, and ethnically diverse population. The freedom of religion, as outlined by the First Amendment, is a right proudly exercised in America and has been protected since its creation. However, this right, as a result of the apparent decrease of tolerance for other peoples, is becoming jeopardized.

The newest manifestation of this endangered right is evident in the case of hostile opposition towards the building or expansion of mosques. According to USA Today, the building of new mosques has been hard since 2001 and “over the past three years, at least 18 mosque projects — from Mississippi to Wisconsin — have run into fierce opposition. Mosque foes cite traffic concerns and fear of terrorism.” This infringement on the freedom to build places of worship coincides with a larger infringement on the right to religious freedom. As expressed by Yasser Salet Arafat, who is involved in the building of new mosque in Antioch, "You are betraying America by standing against our basic values, by saying you cannot have a mosque, you cannot be a Muslim in the United States."

Due to this difficulty and opposition to the creation of new mosques, most Muslims have been dealing with this by using converted office buildings, unable to expand them once again due to this resistance. Because of these barriers, mosques of this kind only operate for the purpose of prayer. Mosque builders, such as Arafat, would like to create spaces that are multipurpose and have room for various activities—religious and non-religious— and are therefore more attractive to the Muslim youth. In this way, these new spaces may also serve as outreach to “cultural Muslims” that do not regularly attend mosque.

Mosque opponents grounded on practical reasons, such as traffic concerns, are more irritating than harmful. However, opposition based on the belief that mosques are breeding grounds for Islamist ideology and terrorism are far more worrisome and appear to be outrightly founded on religious prejudice. Political satirist Jon Stewart cleverly mocks opponents by likening the purpose of mosques and Islam to that of the purpose of Christianity. He counters the arguments that the building of mosques is a demonstration of the Islamic cornerstone of spreading the religion by quoting the Bible to show that Christianity also has this cornerstone. He then quotes various politicians that claim that the Constitution is built upon Christian beliefs. Through this satire, Stewart is able to highlight the hypocrisy of these opponents and the harmlessness of the creation of new mosques. Mosques, and more specifically the purposes of mosques, are no different from the purposes of churches, synagogues, and temples. Therefore by deciding which religions are allowed to build places of worship, practice their beliefs, and spread their word, these opponents are unapologetically impugning religious freedom and making it okay to implement religious discrimination.

This unfortunate manifestation of bigotry is endangering American ideals and acts as a reminder that this country—especially in these post-9/11 times—is no longer the freedom for all, tolerable, progressive country it once claimed to be. Like our European partners, Americans that feel this way are showing concern that the American identity is being threatened and is no longer in their control.

However, these concerns are unnecessary—America is comprised of different people coming from different religious, racial, ethnic, and class backgrounds and has been a melting pot of identities since its foundation. The increase in building new mosques is not a demonstration of a Muslim takeover, but instead it shows that like always, America is growing and with that growth comes an increase in its various populations—in this case the Muslim population—and should not be threatened by this expansion.

Burqa Ban in France: A Sign of Things to Come?

2010-07-15T09:18:00.000-07:00

France’s National Assembly – the lower house of Parliament – voted on Tuesday 336-1 in favor of a ban on burqas worn in public. The vote will now proceed to the Senate, where it is expected to pass easily in September. President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is a major supporter of the bill, said in June of last year that burqas and similar dress are “not welcome” in his country, and that women must not be “prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity.”

The vote comes in the midst of a heated debate in France and across Europe regarding social identity and the competition between secularism and religion. In 2009, France launched a nationwide initiative to define “what it means to be French,” according to the AP. The country has a long history of secular pride, and critics of the burqa contend that public dress that connotes a specific religious affiliation is an attack on French values.

Muslim advocates both within France and abroad have expressed strong disapproval of the movement to ban burqas and other face-covering veils. While such veils are not required by the Qur’an or by traditional Islamic jurisprudence, French Muslim advocacy groups fear that the ban will serve to stigmatize the Islamic community further. France has the largest Muslim population in Europe, and while fewer than half of one percent of Muslim women in France are believed to wear veils that are made illegal by this law, prosecuting Muslims (or any religious group) in secular courts for their religious dress is treading a slippery slope, according to many watchdog groups.

The bill does not make any specific reference to Islam or to burqas, but some French lawmakers worry that passing the bill will serve to revive tensions between native French and the masses immigrating to France from Muslim-majority countries. There have also been fears that terrorist groups will begin targeting France because of the decision on the burqas. Algerian-based terrorist organization al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb issued a statement warning that it will “seek vengeance against France” in response to Sarkozy’s support for the bill.

France is not the only country which is considering such a ban; both Belgium and Spain have expressed interest in similar votes within their parliaments. The issue at the root of the headscarf controversy seems to stem from an influx of Muslim immigrants into the heart of Europe. Some experts contend that by the year 2100, a full one in four Europeans will be Muslim. The enormous growth rate of Islam in Europe has created cultural and religious tensions which are being manifest by riots and civil unrest in places such as Paris, London, and Dresden, Germany.

Peter Osborne, a leading scholar on Islam-European relations from the University of Exeter in Great Britain, says that the media and certain politicians in Europe have given rise to an “atmosphere where hate crimes, ranging from casual abuse to arson to even murder, are bound to occur and are even in a sense encouraged by mainstream media.” Given the overwhelming public support for the anti-headscarf law just passed in France, it seems likely that this atmosphere of public indifference toward Islamic values will continue, and possibly be made worse by the influx of more Muslim immigrants in the coming years.

The Muslim community in France and across Europe will undoubtedly face many hardships as attempts at reconciliation and cross-cultural acceptance continue in the next few decades. The law passed Tuesday in France’s National Assembly, while not entirely inflammatory or outrageous, is not a good sign of what is to come as far as Euro-Islamic relations are concerned. Combined with the ban on mosque-building recently passed in Switzerland, this law and others which are likely to be passed in Belgium and Spain, there seems to be growing anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe. (Although, to be fair, this sentiment might better be characterized as anti-Muslim symbolism or perhaps pro-secularism movements). However you characterize it, the movements resisting Muslim “encroachment” on traditional Christian, western European values are not likely to cease anytime soon.

NASA Outreach: The New Tool for Diplomatic Relations

2010-07-15T09:16:00.000-07:00

NASA—the National Aeronautics and Space Administration—has seemed to divert their telescopes elsewhere. Rather than focusing on issues pertaining to space and the exploration of it, as one would naturally expect a space administration to do, NASA chief Charles Bolden announced that they would focus on outreach to the Muslim world as NASA’s “foremost” priority—which Bolden explains as a direct request of President Obama’s administration. This shift in focus is odd at best, and how it will affect the Muslim world is hard to determine, but the reaction of the American public and political analysts is already apparent.

Bolden expanded on the program as a way to promote science and math education: “…he [President Obama] charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering.” The initiative seems to have nothing to do with space exploration and Bolden even goes as far as calling it “an Earth improvement agency.”

The use of NASA as a tool for diplomatic relations by the Obama administration does not sit well with some, as evident by various political bloggers and news programs. Concerns include the fact that it seems as though NASA is disregarding space travel and exploration as their primary goal and that NASA is a taxpayer-funded agency—so the use of NASA for earthly goals comes across to the critics as redirecting money away from NASA’s original purpose towards the administration’s policy-related priorities. The other concern may be that this announcement was made via an interview with Al-Jazeera, rather than a source from the American media. But their reactions are almost as irrelevant as the outreach program itself—a point mockingly expressed by political satirist Jon Stewart. Stewart likens the use of NASA to Ronald Reagan’s use of technology for peace-keeping means during the Cold War. Stewart calls the use of NASA “innocuous” and disregards all concerns involving the issue. But the fact of the matter is this program altogether seems unnecessary, the White House does comment that what they mean by this program is the international cooperation towards space exploration and that this involves the collaboration of scientists from all over—including the Muslim world. Charles Bolden’s comments however focus on the Muslim world as the foremost region of concern and are therefore a bit troublesome.

What exactly could this outreaching towards the Muslim world mean for Muslims and politics alike? There is some unease that this may encourage “Muslim-identity politics” and discourage the involvement of countries that don’t consider themselves Muslim-majority. However, the sole purpose of this outreach is to ultimately advance science and the collaboration of the global community. Stewart’s comments, make a point of important pitfalls with the concerns of NASA’s new “mission;” the use of technology for peace has been used before and the involvement of the Muslim world is simply a means to involve all regions of the international community. The acknowledgment of the Muslim world’s historical contribution to science is accurate and is not an issue. Ultimately, it seems as though the outreach program is a way to continue the advancement of science, all the while dealing with the economic problems that may prevent NASA from continuing expensive missions of space exploration.

The Rise of the Drone

2010-07-09T07:45:00.001-07:00

“Predator strikes are the worst kept covert secret in the history of U.S. foreign policy.”
–Micah Zenko, Fellow for Conflict Prevention, Council on Foreign Relations

Although General Stanley McChrystal recently made headlines over his anti-Washington comments in Rolling Stone magazine, he made a similar uproar last Fall when he publically criticized and dismissed Vice President Biden’s suggestion that the U.S. should rely more heavily on electronic surveillance and drone attacks in Afghanistan as opposed to increasing troop numbers. While those comments only led to a mid-air reprimand by President Obama on Air Force One, McChrystal’s comments helped to stir the debate about the best way to move forward in Afghanistan. And while counterinsurgency has been the goal in this almost decade long war, there have been an ever increasing number of drone attacks both in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan.

As of June 10, 2010, there have been 91 drone strikes in Pakistan under Obama’s watch compared to just 45 in Pakistan under the Bush Administration between 2004-2008. Additionally, the number of strikes in Afghanistan increased from 58 in the time period between July and December 2008, to 83 during the same period in 2009. Clearly, President Obama favors the increased use of drones to eliminate his enemies; however, the rules surrounding the use of drones along with the true number of civilian casualties resulting from the strikes remains a mystery.

Those who support the use of drones claim that they have “inflicted severe blows to militant groups” because they allow the U.S. to “get at dangerous terrorists operating in areas otherwise inaccessible to the central government or to conventional military units.” They also argue that drones are “effective, exact and essential" and that precautions are always taken to avoid and lower civilian casualties. Despite this claim, which is difficult to assess, critics argue that it is almost impossible to know the exact number of civilians killed by drone strikes given that Muslim religious doctrine calls Muslims to bury their dead as soon as possible after death. U.S. officials claim that fewer than 50 civilians have died as a result of drone strikes since 2008, but without personnel or contacts on the ground, the U.S. cannot get DNA samples or properly identify the exact number of dead and injured. Without this information, it is difficult to truly understand the full impact of a drone strike. Strikes, depending on their size and location, can affect a great number of people and raze large areas of a village or town.

While there are tighter standards dictating drone usage under President Obama than there were under President Bush, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) still has authority to strike anyone deemed to be a threat to the United States “even when the U.S. does not know their names or has only fragmentary information about their intentions.” In addition, government records show that the “list of approved drone targets has been expanded from terrorists to drug lords.” Critics accuse the U.S. of also targeting terrorist financiers and propagandists, who should have the right to a trial by jury as opposed to an extrajudicial execution by a drone strike. Given this perceived freedom to target almost anyone deemed dangerous anywhere in the world, it is vital that the United States along with the United Nations begin to set clear and transparent guidelines on the use of drone strikes, especially in places, like Pakistan, that are outside of declared warzones, yet receive an average of more than two strikes per week.

Currently, at least 40 countries around the world have drones, and while many of these are surveillance drones, there are quite a few with armed capabilities. In the absence of clear international standards on the use of drones for targeted killings, there is nothing to stop nations from using drones on anyone they declare an enemy. In many places, including China and Russia, state enemies often include journalists, ethnic minorities, or human rights activists among others. Drones, like other previous weapons of war, are once again changing the face of war. It is better to set standards on them now than risk serous problems and abuse in the future.

Recognizing Muslim Holidays in Public Schools

2010-07-01T16:50:00.001-07:00

My experience in High School as a Muslim was overall a pretty positive one, albeit at the time I didn't wear hijab. Most teachers and administrators were as accommodating to my needs as a Muslim as they could be.

During my four years in high school there were at most seven or eight observant Muslims at any one time, and at least a couple dozen Bosnian and Albanian Muslims who chose to blend into the masses. For the group of us 7 or 8, which included two white American converts, we were made to feel quite comfortable. We were given a space to pray at school in a dressing room backstage of the auditorium. We were also given special hall passes so that we could make our prayers at the appropriate time of day. At lunchtime, the lunch ladies always heeded my request for a clean change of gloves and a fresh package of turkey yet to be contaminated by the nearby ham before assembling my sandwich. The no headwear rule was waived for those girls who did choose to cover their hair, and gym uniforms were allowed to be modified so that we could be as modest as we felt comfortable. There was always a healthy curiosity amongst the teachers and many students which reassured us kids that we were right where we belonged. Yes, all of this was after 9-11. I was in the graduating class of 2006.

The only time I ever really perceived a problem was when our holidays, Eid al-Adha and Eid al-Fitr rolled around. It wasn't really a huge problem, but more of an inconvenience. We were allowed to leave school with an excused absence so long as we provided a written note from our Imam with the coming of each holiday. What this meant was we didn't receive any penalty for missing school, but we still had to take the risk of missing out on important lectures, tests, and on at least two unfortunate occasions, final exams. I wasn't exactly the most serious student in high school, and skipped classes with reckless abandon whenever possible. My other Muslim friends weren't like me though. With each Eid they had to weigh their options to decide whether or not they could afford missing classes, excused or not. Often times, skipping Eid celebrations was academically the smart decision, so that's what they did.

I always just thought "well, that's the way it is." Of course my friends and I joked around about how cool it would be if everyone could just take Eid off like Christmas or Easter, but we never considered this in any sort of serious way.

That's why I was shocked to read the headline "NYC Muslims Push For School Holidays" in my newsfeed on Facebook. I had no idea that there was a real, organized movement trying to get Muslim holidays onto school calendars. I thought this stuff only existed in teenage imaginations.

As I read further into the article I was even more shocked when I found that about a year ago the city council voted almost unanimously in favor of including the Eids on the New York City Public School calendar. It's not just a handful of Muslim students and parents, but the real decision-makers; people with some amount of authority are backing this movement to provide Muslim students with the same privileges as their Christian and Jewish counterparts. In NYC, Yom Kippur is a recognized holiday in which students take off school.

I suppose this was all so shocking for me because I'm from a school district with only a handful of Muslims; from a place where it honestly wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to recognize Muslim holidays. At my high school, we didn't have any Jewish holidays off either.

But in a place where 1 in 8 students is Muslim, like in NYC, it does make sense that the Eids be recognized holidays. It seems nonsensical, in fact, for 12% of the students to have to weigh out whether or not to miss class. And if the majority do decide to skip school in order to celebrate Eid, that would certainly be a whole lot of tests that teachers would have to reschedule.

The only thing keeping this dream from becoming a reality for NYC Muslims is Mayor Bloomberg who opposes the idea on the basis of "if you close the schools for every single holiday, there won't be any school." I get the point that he's trying to make. Back in 2006 when similar decisions had to be made in Skokie, Illinois, then school board president James McGowan said "we can't be in the business of deciding which religions are important enough to be acknowledged and which are not."

The point I'm making is, maybe in Machesney Park where I went to school, in a city without any sizable Muslim or Jewish populations, recognizing Muslim or Jewish holidays wouldn't be worth the efforts at this juncture in time. But in places like Skokie where over 10% of the students are Jewish, or in NYC where 12% of the students are Muslim, the decision kind of makes itself. If that many students in NYC are Muslim, it's probably fair to assume that a similar percentage of the teachers are Muslim as well. Recognizing Muslim holidays in NYC public schools, and in other school districts with large populations of Muslims seems like the right thing to do, and the smartest thing to do. For those Muslim kids from smaller towns, they'll have to just keep dreaming, and taunting their friends about having an extra day off that everyone else doesn't get.

Vacationers Beware

2010-06-24T13:34:00.000-07:00

You might want to think again if you were planning on traveling overseas this summer to visit family or enjoy a relaxing getaway.

Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." And in article 13 we are guaranteed "the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state, and the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." Increasingly though, American Muslims have found themselves trapped in foreign countries because, unbeknownst to them, their names appear on the "No Fly List" and are therefore unable to return home to the United States after traveling abroad.

Here are some things you might not know about the No Fly List. First of all, the list is not made public, nor are people on the list notified that their name has been added. There is no way of knowing if you've been put on the list until after your ticket has already been purchased and you're stopped at the airport. The list really is just a list; a list of names not linked with descriptors such as date of birth, ethnicity, height, weight or any other form of identification. So basically, if you have the same name as someone who may have legitimately earned their place on the list, tough luck. There is, however, an appeals process for individuals who believe they've been misidentified. The problem is, you're not notified as to whether or not your name has been removed. How do you find out if your appeal has been successful? You buy another ticket and cross your fingers hoping to make it through security next time around. One can be placed on the list if they "may" be a "risk" to civil aviation. What's the criteria for that? No one knows.

It also makes no difference whether you're an American born citizen or not. Recently, American citizens have found that traveling to foreign countries is easy enough, but when it's time to return, their names appear on the list.

The number of names on the No Fly List has sharply increased since last December when Umar Farouk Abdumutallab attempted to detonate an underwear bomb on a Detroit-bound plane. Though the No Fly List has been around since 2001 following the attacks on September 11, the would-be terrorist's name did not appear on the list. Even after beefing the list up since December, Faisal Shahzad was able to board a plane just 2 days after he attempted to explode a car bomb in Times Square. To me, these two instances would be indications that the list has no effectual use. But in lieu in innovative solutions to better protect our country, Homeland Security continues to add more and more names to a list that doesn't seem to work.

There are several examples of American citizens with no real link to terrorism who have been and who currently are trapped in foreign countries because they have funny sounding names. Raymond Earl Knaeble IV is a convert to Islam who studied Arabic in Yemen. When he tried returning to the U.S. from Bogota, Colombia he was notified about being on the No Fly List and had his passport confiscated. He was then taken to the U.S. embassy where he was questioned about his views on Jihad and whether or not he knew the underwear bomber or the Fort Hood shooter. Living in limbo in a hotel in Colombia with only the $500 given to him by the FBI, Knaeble lost his job which he was intending to start upon his return to the United States. The Muslim American Society (MAS) has noted a 50% increase in similar cases since last December, amounting to about 16 per month.

CAIR has also seen a rise in these types of cases and recently wrote a letter to Attorney General Holder to put an end to the practice of barring U.S. citizens from returning home. The letter also highlighted in particular the case of Yahya Weheli of Fairfax, Virginia. Wehelie is a Muslim of Somali descent who, like Knaeble, studied Arabic in Yemen for a year and half before attempting to board a plane back to the United States from Egypt. It was in Egypt that he learned his name was on the No Fly List and found he wouldn't be returning to Virginia again any time soon. Instead, his passport was promptly confiscated, and though he committed no crime, he was subject to over eight interrogations, polygraph tests, and was asked to spy on the American Muslim community in exchange for his freedom. He was eventually cleared to travel to the U.S., however, not by plane.

These are just two examples of this ugly new reality. Innocent people, innocent Americans none-the-less are being exiled from their country of birth and are in many cases being interrogated and intimdated under the banner of the American flag with the cooperation of officials from countries whom we often publicly condemn for their lack of freedom; this is hypocrisy. It seems that at least in these few instances, the U.S. has forgotten what it means to be a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This may seem harsh, and it kind of is. When I've talked to different people about these issues critically they say things to me like "well, it's a whole lot worse in countries like Egypt or Saudi Arabia." And to that I say, "really?" Do we really want to compare ourselves to Egypt or Saudi Arabia? No, we're better than that... or at least we should be. This is precisely why our mothers and fathers moved here from those countries to begin with.

The Grand Façade: How Islamophobia and Misinformation Thrive on the Right

2010-06-21T10:20:00.000-07:00

Diana West seems to have given up on any sense of journalistic creditability and gone head first into hyperbolic conspiracy theories. In her article, “Islam and the Left share common aims” West interviews and praises author Andrew C. McCarthy. McCarthy’s new book The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America is, according to West, “excellent [and] ground-breaking.” Newsweek had this to say: “McCarthy marries a simplistic and unoriginal argument about Islam to a sloppy talking point that Barack Obama is a communist by way of shoddy history and dangerous misunderstandings of Islam.”
You may have heard of McCarthy and his first book detailing his time spent as a federal prosecutor against the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing. He uses this fact to get his argument rolling and perhaps to establish some creditability. However, it quickly falls flat.
In his interview with West and throughout his book, McCarthy engages in logical leaps even the writers of Lost would find suspect. For McCarthy, violent and non-violent Muslims all have the same goal which is why he criticizes the government’s counterterrorism efforts, rejecting their claims that terrorist acts are not representative of Muslims as a whole. The goal of Muslims, he claims, is to implement Sharia law globally and that “Sharia-driven campaign can be waged, and is being waged, by non-violent means, and that the violent and non-violent methods are inextricably linked.” Essentially what McCarthy is alleging is that any individual Muslim or Muslim organization is trying to destroy American values. Now, I shouldn’t really be surprised by this since he is on record calling CAIR a radical Islamic organization.
McCarthy also supports a common movement seen amongst Islamophobes, ending Muslim immigration to the United States. A pretty baseless argument he tries to support by claiming that Islam is inherently “anti-Constitutional” and therefore any Muslim who enters the country must “demonstrate their acceptance of American constitutional principles.” I would be interested to see how any American, Muslim or not, could somehow prove that they accept constitutional principles. Especially when there are parts of the Constitution I think could use a little re-working.
But what do these convoluted, xenophobic arguments against Muslims have to do with the Left? Well, according to McCarthy, plenty.
He claims that Islam and the Left share similarities in that they are against America and the “culture of freedom” it provides. He writes “today’s left-leaning, Islamophilic Obamedia consciously ignores the convergence, but America’s 44th president and America’s enemies have a common dream.” Wow. “Islamophilic Obamedia?” Who has been giving the Right lessons in neologisms?
It is fitting that McCarthy shares his surname with the poster child for manipulative rhetoric and paranoid witch hunts. He is able to simultaneously attack the Left and Muslims, the scapegoats du-jour for the Right. However, he misses one imperative point: nothing he is writing is true. Are there leftist Muslims? Absolutely. However, there are also leftists of every other creed. To assert that one religion will somehow yield absolute political affiliations is not only baseless, it is downright stupid. Luckily for us, I doubt he will convince anyone with this book. It will merely reinforce the views of those who already are fervent critics of Muslims.
I will say that in my first four weeks at CAIR, I have been exposed to some shocking rhetoric I did not know existed. People like West, McCarthy, Pamela Gellar, and Robert Spencer all engage in fearsome attacks on Islam and Muslims. While I would hate to encourage anyone to seek them out, it is imperative to hear the arguments from these crazies in order to combat them.

Race, Identity, and Public Schools

2010-06-10T14:47:00.000-07:00

Diana West’s recent editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times is a lot of things, surprising isn't one of them. Her other articles espouse the same inane, manipulative, accusatory rhetoric found within her straw man arguments.

In an article entitled, “Is there Anyone Left with America's Interest at Heart?” West discusses the media and government reactions to Faisal Shahzad’s attempted attack in Times Square. Over the course of two pages, West critiques “the fuzzy, cultural-relativism-based universalism that orders our society.” Essentially, West asserts that terror attacks happen because the United States (specifically democrats and the “liberal media-elite”) is too concerned with not offending anyone. Take for instance this excerpt:

If our leaders faced facts, you see, they might also have to act. They might have to consider such measures as halting Islamic immigration to stop the demographic spread of Sharia. Even a wartime immigration moratorium would help. Come to think of it, a simple ban on return travel from especially fertile jihad regions such as Pakistan -- a ban on return travel from the Northwest frontier alone -- would do wonders to shore up our vulnerabilities.

In Pakistan, after all, 79 percent of the people, according to a 2007 survey by WorldPublicOpinion.org, favor the "strict application of Sharia."

However, West fails to mention that in the same report that 82 percent believe that "people of any religion should be free to worship according to their own beliefs," that a majority of Muslims living in the Middle East support Democracy, greater international communication and trade. She also falls into the league of commentators who believe all Muslims seek to alter the societies within which they live, that “demographic spread” of Muslims is the same as “demographic spread of Sharia.”

It is this sort of one-sided, defensive approach that West wallows in during her recent editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times. She refers to our nation’s school system as “politically correct re-education camps” which I had to re-read a few times in disbelief. I honestly have no idea what she can mean by this. I wonder if Ms. West has been in a school recently. I never thought that I was being taught a “politically correct” version of anything. I did feel that some more sinister moments in this nation’s history were glossed over, but I never felt like I was receiving any sort of Maoist Cultural Revolution she alleges. What is interesting is that later in her article, West supports a new Arizona law that prohibits any public school from offering classes that “promote resentment toward another race or class of people” or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” Now, is this not the kind of political correctness she derides, where people are not allowed to embrace their own culture for fear of upsetting others? That a public school cannot provide a perspective and courses based on the needs of its students? Where the needs of an individual are outweighed by the interests of the collective?

In her article she writes, “It will be almost amusing to watch leftists try to slam a law against teaching racial resentment and hatred as ‘racist.’” Well, I’ll do my best to keep her doubled over. First, I seriously doubt that any African American Studies or La Raza course is teaching “racial resentment and hatred.” On the contrary, I believe that it gives students the opportunity to learn about their own culture as well as the culture of others. As much as she may disagree, there is not one definitive American history. We are a nation of immigrants and therefore our history is that of various interests and perspectives. To remove these classes is in effect removing a necessary perspective for students.

I’m sure West has some cultural or religious traditions based on her background. Did learning about the history of her ancestors create resentment against other races? I am sure she will claim that this argument is part of the “multicultural masquerade- the non-Western grievance industry pretending to be ‘education.’” While I love alliteration, I have to disagree with her. Please explain to me how a Hispanic Studies course or African American literature class is “non-Western?” I think West believes because some of these classes acknowledge some of the nastier moments in our nation’s past, that this will somehow raise resentment against whites or the rich, her bread and butter demographic. Now, please don’t attempt to retort to my argument with the tried and true defense, I am not calling West nor the reform in Arizona schools racist. I do not believe “it’s either ‘We are the world’ or you are racist.” What I am saying is that by removing these courses, students in Arizona public schools are not being provided with a well-rounded education. It is an action that harms many people but doesn’t seem to benefit anyone. Who were those classes hurting?

I think what may be at the crux of my disagreement with West is our perceived intentions of recent legislation in Arizona. She claims, “Arizona wants to protect American identity to ensure that all of its citizens, regardless of race or origin, have one.” Now, I agree, it is important for all citizens to feel as if they have an American identity. What I disagree with is that everyone has to have the same identity. Race, class, gender, religion and sexual orientation are all facets in one’s identity and to assert that we all must identify purely as Americans is unfair.

Will a Change in Britain’s Leadership Lead to a Change in Foreign Policy?

2010-06-04T09:03:00.000-07:00

On May 6th, elections were held throughout the United Kingdom. Historically, leadership in parliament has oscillated between two major political parties with other minority parties occupying only a small number of seats. This election, however, had three front-runners for prime minister from three different parties: incumbent Gordon Brown of the Labor party, Nick Clegg (pictured left) of the Liberal Democrats, and David Cameron (pictured right) of the Conservative party. After no clear majority was reached by a candidate on election night, five days of political maneuvering and negotiations ensued. Both Cameron and Brown desperately tried to get Clegg to form a majority coalition with them. In the hopes that Clegg and the Liberal Democrats would unite with Brown’s Labor party, Gordon Brown conceded defeat and resigned. After his resignation, Cameron and the Conservatives “immediately sweetened their offer to the Liberal Democrats, saying Clegg could have not only cabinet posts but also a referendum on electoral reform that could break Britain's traditional two-party dominance.” In spite of Gordon Brown’s attempt, a coalition was soon announced between Clegg and Cameron, where Cameron will serve as the new Prime Minister and Clegg will serve as the Deputy Prime Minister.

This mold-breaking election is likely to inaugurate an era of genuine three-party politics in the U.K. that will more accurately represent the diversity of the population. In spite of the fact that Cameron and Clegg seem to have a good relationship, the coalition only forms a thin majority in parliament and could prove to be extremely fragile. Additionally, the Liberal Democrats are more philosophically in line with the Labor party, so it is difficult to predict just how productive this polarized coalition will be in fulfilling their promises.

David Cameron, who describes himself as a “moderate compassionate conservative” is Britain’s youngest prime minister in 200 years at the age of 43. In terms of the “War on Terror,” Cameron has stated that he believes in “spreading freedom and democracy, and supporting humanitarian intervention,” but he is “skeptical of grand schemes to remake the world.” As one of the first acts of the coalition, Cameron helped create a new US-style National Security Council to “coordinate the work of the foreign, defense, interior, energy and international development departments” in order to aid the nation in assessing national threats and dangers.When it comes to criticisms that the U.K. has received over its perceived unwavering submission to the plans and policies of Washington, Cameron chooses to take a more careful approach towards the U.S. He advocates that the UK should be “steadfast not slavish,” while also recognizing that the relationship is important. He further notes that it is not anti-American to question the U.S.

In terms of other foreign policy issues, Cameron has chosen to make Afghanistan a top priority. While he believes that Britain is on the right track in the Afghan War, he also says that it will take additional time and effort to succeed in removing the Taliban, build up Afghan forces, and fully transition to Afghan control. Additionally, Cameron has criticized Iran for supporting Hezbollah and encouraging further chaos in Iraq, which is a war he voted in favor of entering. In regards to Israel, Cameron is generally a supporter, but he has criticized them in the past for “disproportionate” use of force in the 2006 missile attack on Lebanon. He also advocates for the two-state solution in Israel.

Nick Clegg, the new Deputy Prime Minister, is the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, which is a relatively new party that has never before held such a high office. Clegg, who calls himself a “proud internationalist,” came into favor after appearing on Britain’s very first televised election debates. Although it is not yet known just how much power Clegg will wield in the coalition, it is clear he will bring a more liberal approach. When it comes to foreign policy, Clegg has been unclear on where he stands on a variety of international issues. Clegg and the Liberal Democrats have criticized Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza, yet on a variety of other issues Clegg has only noted that the European nations should work together to solve international problems. Although it seems impossible under Conservative power, Clegg campaigned on a promise to bring Britain’s 10,000 troops home within 5 years.

This historic election also brought a new political enthusiasm to the Muslim community in the U.K. A record number of British Muslims demonstrated their commitment to political engagement by registering to vote for the very first time in the May 6th election. Although Britain’s 1.6 million Muslims have traditionally favored Gordon Brown’s Labor party, this time around they were looking for a change. A pre-election poll of Muslim constituents found that “74 per cent of respondents thought the Liberal Democrats offered the fairest foreign policy, compared to just 19 per cent for Labor and five per cent for the Conservatives.” The reason for this clear shift in allegiance likely has to do with frustration over 13 years of Labor rule that has brought the U.K. into two unpopular wars and launched an era of counter-terrorism policies that many Muslims believe unfairly discriminates against them. Clegg’s pre-election criticisms of Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza likely won him much favor in the Muslim community given that the above mentioned poll also found that “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was overwhelmingly cited as the most important foreign policy concern amongst the Muslim voters surveyed.” Given the uncertainty over how much leverage Clegg will have in the coalition in the coming years, it is difficult to determine what, if anything, will change in British foreign policy. What matters most here is that Muslim voters throughout the United Kingdom made their voices heard in record numbers.

As part of the coalition agreement, Cameron and Clegg have agreed “never to condone torture,” and to further demonstrate this commitment the coalition government has launched an inquiry into the complicity of U.K. intelligence agencies in torture in past years. While this is a positive first step toward ending human rights abuses in the War on Terror, the process needs to be transparent and honest while also providing real solutions to stop these practices around the world. Only time will tell how successful the Cameron/Clegg coalition will be, but it is hoped that we have at the very least entered into a new era of greater accountability.

American Mosques: NOT Places Where “Terrorists’ Monkey-gods” Are Worshiped

2010-05-21T06:51:00.000-07:00

As I’m sure you’ve heard by now, Tea Party leader Mark Williams recently responded to plans of building a mosque in New York City near Ground Zero by spewing bigoted hate-speech which Muslims have grown accustomed to. Williams mixed up his brown people when he said that the proposed mosque would be a “monument ... for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god and a 'cultural center' to propagandize for the extermination of all things not approved by their cult." Williams did make a half-hearted, snarky apology to Hindus who he says “worship Lord Hanuman, an actual monkey god.” In contrast to the monotheistic God of Adam, Jesus, Noah, and Muhammad who is worshiped by people of Muslim, Christian and Jewish faiths whom he disparagingly likened to a monkey in a puny attempt to belittle Muslims.

Contrary to what Williams thinks, mosques are places where people come together and re-center themselves around God. Mosques are places where worldly problems are checked by humility in front of the divine. They are the very places which teach the true tenants of faith, and openly condemn the violent acts of a few. American Mosques provide a sense of belonging for those who feel alienated and ostracized by people like Williams, and spaces to engage with Muslims as well as people of other faiths. Mosques collect funds that are donated to charity, provide classes, and host soup kitchens. Some mosques are more liberal, while some are quite conservative. Some mosques are rather dogmatic, while some focus on spirituality. Some get political, some don’t. Mosques, like churches, in America are very diverse; however I have never witnessed the propagating “for the extermination of all things not approved by their cult” in any American mosque that I've visited, including the more conservative and dogmatic ones.

The fact of the matter is that people with extremist ideologies or tendencies stay away from mosques because they know they aren’t welcome. But if someone with a slightly more radical outlook does decide to join in on mosque services, that’s a couple of hours a week spent learning from a credible, learned imam and away from his computer where he’s probably on pretty goofy websites and engaging with other like-minded radicals. And if you’re still concerned, rest assured that there are informants-a-plenty in every mosque in this country.

Some say that it’s simply insensitive to build a mosque so near to Ground Zero because it’s a “slap in the face” for victims’ families. I read in an ABC News article that Rabbi Schmulley Boteach said "On the one hand, stopping a mosque from being built undermines the very notion of freedom of worship in the United States. On the other hand, the idea of building a mosque and celebrating Islam at the site where 3,000 innocent Americans were killed by Islamic terrorists is an affront to so many people that I see it dividing New York and the nation."

We have to remember that not all Muslims should be held accountable for the horrific, inhumane, and entirely unjustifiable terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. In fact, dozens of American-Muslims lost their lives that day while working in the Twin Towers.

The American-Muslim victims of 9-11 and the American-Muslim survivors of 9-11 living in New York absolutely have the right to worship God and erect a symbol of their true faith to stand in total opposition to the place where terrorists not only destroyed countless lives and families, but also perverted the message and meaning of Islam. People already pray at the proposed site which is an old Burlington Coat Factory. They simply want to improve upon what they already have and build something they can be proud of; a sanctuary from the residual pain which 9-11 brought to all New Yorkers, regardless of their relgion.

What would be more beautiful and more American than to have a glistening gold dome added to the skyline of New York City amongst the myriad of churches and synagogues? And honestly, what would be more defiant than to boldly state that no matter what, through thick or thin, freedom of religion is a core American value that should not be touched?

I was talking with a friend's father the other day about how difficult it is to secure permits for building mosques in this country. This man happens to work in Saudi Arabia and was quick to remind me that although it's unfortunate that we have to jump through so many hoops to get mosques built, in places like Saudi Arabia building churches is altogether illegal. This simple anecdote should put things into perspective for Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Building places of worship should not cause people like Mark Williams to go off on racist tirades, but should inspire people to promote and defend American ideals.

Muslims Go Green

2010-05-13T06:27:00.000-07:00

Muslims across the world and in the United States have recently been getting into the green spirit. With the impending release of the book “Green Deen” this October, and deadly oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico serving as an environmental wake-up call, I thought it would be a fitting time to shine some light on what the Muslim community has been doing to ensure a sustainable future.

As mentioned briefly above, Ibrahim Abdul-Matin is a Muslim environmentalist set to release his first book this Fall, “Green Deen- What Islam Teaches About Protecting the Planet.” The main inspiration and driving force behind Abdul-Matin’s book is the notion of the whole Earth being a place of prostration, therefore making the Earth a sacred place worth preserving. He relates in an excerpt from “Green Deen” that his love for the environment began as a child when he was on a hiking trip with his father. When it was time for the afternoon prayers, his father explained to him that the whole Earth is a Mosque; praying didn’t just have to confine to the mosque or the home. Throughout his adult life, Abdul-Matin has worked as an environmental policy consultant, has worked with Green for All, Green City Force, Interfaith Leaders for Environmental Justice, the Prospect Park Alliance, and the New York City Mayor's Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability. With his book he hopes to ignite his passion for environmental justice in the hearts of other Muslims.

Other American Muslims have also found their connection with nature and have become proactive in environmental sustainability. A movement called “Green Muslims” based in Washington DC is “a network of Muslims in the District of Columbia (and surrounding areas) working proactively to help our communities understand and implement sustainable and eco-conscious ways of living while relating it to our faith and a holistic world-view,” according to their website. One of Green Muslims’ first green initiatives was organizing sustainable iftars, meals which break fast, during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. Green iftars meant three things: the food served had to be organic, local, and the people commuting to the iftar had to do so in an environmentally sustainable away.

One, however, doesn’t have to look as far as DC for examples of environmental stewardship in the Muslim community; even Chicago Muslims are starting to do their part. The Mosque Foundation in Bridgeview recently decided to go green when it came time to remodel their building. They’ve installed solar panels to heat water, use carpeting made from recycled materials, and maximize natural light to cut down on energy use. Additionally, the mosque has always discouraged waste and encouraged recycling, according to Connie Martin in an ABC7 interview.

The green Islam movement has become a worldwide one. This past April, the first ever Muslim Action on Climate Change conference was held in Jakarta, Indonesia. Over 200 delegates were in attendance echoing the same sentiments that there is no contradiction between being a faithful Muslim and a steward of the Earth. In fact, the two are intrinsically tied together. This conference was aimed at taking the sole focus off of the West and instead looking to reform the practices of oil-producing Muslim countries. In addition to discussing ways to decrease pollution, there was also an exciting discussion on how to make for a greener Hajj, the once in a lifetime Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. An estimated 100 million water bottles are left behind by pilgrims each year, so a potential ban on plastic bottles may be put in place for the Hajj seasons to come. There are also plans to provide workshops educating Muslims on the connection between faith and environmental protection.

And making the connection isn't very hard at all. “We did indeed offer the trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains; but they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof. But man undertook it (the trust);...” ( Qur’an 33:72)

Reevaluating Oppression

2010-05-11T10:21:00.000-07:00

There is an incorrect stereotype held by many in the United States that all Muslim women throughout the world are oppressed. This belief is often further perpetrated by the fact that it is challenging to find any female Muslim characters in American main-stream media that are not portrayed as victims. Without an accurate portrayal of what it means to be a Muslim woman, these stereotypes will continue to occupy the American psyche and be cited as a legitimate validation for going to war against Muslim nations.

Evangelist Franklin Graham was recently un-invited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer service after complaints from Muslim members of the military that his comments on Islam were divisive and inappropriate. Graham is on the record as saying, "I love the people of Islam but their religion, I do not agree with their religion at all. And if you look at what the religion does just to women, women alone, it is just horrid. And so yes, I speak out for women. I speak out for people that live under Islam, that are enslaved by Islam and I want them to know that they can be free." Statements such as these by religious authority figures send the wrong message not only about Islam, but that all Muslim women, regardless of culture or nation, are homogeneous. The Muslim community across the globe is so incredibly diverse, that it is absolutely impossible to make vast generalizations that will hold true for all Muslim women everywhere.

There is a huge difference between what it means to be a Muslim woman in Somalia, for example, under the rule of the Islamic militant organization, al-Shabaab, and a female Muslim living in America or some other stable country. Islam, itself, has deeply rooted beliefs in equality between the genders, but some groups, like al-Shabaab, misrepresent or misinterpret their religion. As noted in a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, “Many local al-Shabaab authorities devote extraordinary energy to policing the personal lives of women and preventing any mingling of the sexes.” Such actions have led to numerous cases of beating, flogging, and/or jailing of women. HRW interviewed women who were beaten for interacting with male non-relatives while simply trying to support their families by selling tea in public. HRW also documented the case of a woman who was beaten for running out of her home after her toddler without properly covering herself. While al-Shabaab may believe that they are acting in the name of religion, they do not represent the majority view of how Muslim women should be treated. There is an important difference between what members of a particular group or culture sanction for women and what the Quran actually says about the fair treatment of women.

Although Sharia law is widely portrayed in Western media to be a negative and archaic system, a 2005 Gallup World Poll conducted on Muslim societies found that the majority of Muslim women associate equal rights for women with Sharia compliance. In fact, throughout the 20^th Century, Muslim women had fewer social restrictions under Sharia law than under Western legal systems. In many former British colonies, women, who had previously had the right to land ownership under Sharia law, lost those rights under British rule.

In a recent interview on Chicago Public Radio, Dalia Mogahed, the Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and author of Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, presented an alternative view on Sharia law and how it can benefit the lives of women. She noted that many negative “practices or laws that were done in the name of Islam are being repealed and questioned, not through secularization, but through a more analytical look at their basis in Sharia by using Sharia to…oppose anti-woman practices.” To prove her point, Mogahed cited a case in Pakistan, where Sharia analysis led to the repealing of a law that punished women for being raped.

In presenting the results of the 2005 Gallup World Poll that inspired her book, Mogahed noted that both Muslim men and women believe that women deserve equal rights in society including equal voting rights, the right to any career that the women qualifies for, and the right for women to be leaders in government. Although this may confuse and challenge those who believe that Muslim women are oppressed, it is important to see the advances that Muslim women are making throughout the world. In Saudi Arabia, for example, women now account for 60% of university students and growing part of the work force. Additionally, debate is beginning to stir regarding the ban on women drivers. In Iran, women took to the streets last summer to protest disputed elections in ways and numbers that Iran has not seen in years. Throughout the world women are making themselves heard and accounted for in new and different ways that both challenge the status quo and help women to reassert the rights provided to them in the Quran.

To this day, women in the United States are still struggling for equality. Women only make 80 cents for every dollar that a man earns. Even in the female majority profession of nursing, a male nurse makes more money that a female nurse. American women have come a long way in the past 100 years, especially since the 1970’s, and, as a result, Americans should understand that achieving equality in the social sphere is sometimes a difficult and challenging process that takes time, but is worth the struggle.

The Dilemma of Plurality in Light of Huckabee's "Ideal"

2010-04-14T11:38:00.000-07:00

When skimming through the news today, I came across an article titled “Huckabee likens gay marriage to incest, polygamy” which outlines Mike Huckabee’s stance on gay marriage. Muslims need to be careful when they come across articles like this. Mike Huckabee’s over-simplified logic is very convincing to some, I’m sure. Some Muslims might say to themselves “I think homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle, and so does Mike Huckabee. We must be on the same page.” Some may even go as far as supporting him politically because of it. But this is dangerous, and here’s why.

Homosexuality as an equally viable, meaningful way of life is a debate (or perhaps not a debate as some see it) in the realm of morality and religion. This is where Mike Huckabee is coming from. His morality and the way he leads his life is defined by his Christian values, and respectfully so. My morality and the way I lead my life is defined by my values as a Muslim, which has been and hopefully will continue to be generally respected by the state and society as a whole. This is where I’m coming from, and the last point made is key.

Muslims are unbelievably fortunate to live in The United States from where I’m standing. Unlike in many European nations, we are not only allowed to be Muslim, but to express our spirituality outwardly, openly, and with little fear of persecution. In the U.S. wearing hijab, for example, isn’t a debate. It’s generally accepted that it’s a Muslim’s right dress as they choose, just as nuns have rights to cover, Jewish men have the right to wear yamakas, and Christians have the right to wear cross jewelry or rosaries. We live in a secular, pluralist nation which means religion cannot penetrate politics BECAUSE of our great diversity. It does not mean that religion is eliminated or suppressed to create a new “secularist” religion for everyone to follow.

What I’m trying to say is that accommodating lifestyles different from your own should not be seen as compromising one’s own religious ideals, but instead a way of enhancing and ensuring your right to have them. It might seem appealing to jump on board with people like Huckabee because at the surface his values are similar to your own. I wouldn’t dispute that Muslims and Christians have similar values. However, they are not identical. Even within different faith traditions there are varying opinions and interpretations on virtually everything. So for the sake of argument, let’s say that as a Muslim I agree with a politician on an issue like gay rights, and gave him or her power to legislate or vote on the issue based on his or her faith tradition. In this instance, everything is aligned. But what if in the future things don’t match up as neatly? What if now that said politician is empowered to legislate or vote based on his religious convictions, he decides to endorse something which flies in the face of your own values? What if banning hijab is next on his agenda (and I’m not saying that’s on Huckabee or anyone else’s agenda)?

To that you might say, “That doesn’t make sense, my right to dress a certain way is of no interest to Huckabee as a Christian or anyone else.” My response to that would be to read between the lines of Huckabee’s recent statements. If you do this, then you will certainly see that prejudice and fear of the “other” weigh in just as heavily as anything else.

Huckabee remarked, “There are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?" Who are these people that he’s talking about? I can’t be certain, but these “people who believe in polygamy just might be a cryptic way of saying “Muslims.” Should we accommodate them?

I’m not saying that Muslims now need to jump on board to support gay rights. I am saying that the rhetorical tricks played by Huckabee and like-minded people could very easily be turned around to target Muslims, so be wary of what you read and of who or what you support and why.

Urban Bioterrorism

2010-04-02T09:37:00.000-07:00

On March 16, 2010, the Union League Club hosted a forum entitled: Biological Terrorism: Is America Prepared? as part of their Breakfast @ 65 West series. The discussion was lead by Professor Barry Kellman and Major General (Retired) Charles E. Tucker. Kellman is currently the director of the International Weapons Control Center at the DePaul University College of Law, while Tucker is the executive director of the International Human Rights Law Institute.

Kellman opened the discussion by exclaiming “I’m a terrorist!” and held up a pill bottle full of white powder. He then claimed that the bottle was full of anthrax and that he would be able to kill thousands of people simply by releasing the small amount of powder in a public arena. After full disclosure that the powder was really just that, powered sugar, he told the crowd that he has carried that bottle of sugar, which looks identical to anthrax under an airport security scanner, through numerous airports including O’Hare and has never once been stopped.

Kellman then went on to talk about many of the issues surrounding bioterrorism from terrorist acquisition of biological weapons to medical response systems. Although noting that “Chicago is one of the best prepared cities in the world,” Kellman also explained that first responders are still unprepared for multi-attack situations and on how to stop the perpetrators once a biological attack has begun.

When asked by an audience member how best to identify potential terrorists. Kellman and Tucker both acknowledged the importance of an intelligence gathering community that works together and shares vital information- such as when potential biological weapons go missing from labs. Kellman also went on to say that it’s not a good idea to start “witch-hunts” and that it would be the “wrong strategy to bar non-Americans from [U.S.] labs.”

The goal of the program was not only to educate, but to also recruit people to get involved in research and in creating recommendations for bioterrorism preparedness that can be given to cities throughout the world. It can take from 48 hours up to a week after a bioterrorism attack to really understand what it going on depending on the agent used and the symptoms people are presenting to medical authorities. The better prepared cities are, the quicker they can care for the sick, contain the situation, and prevent any further spread. Although Kellman argues that a biological attack is “not the most likely,” he does believe that “this is the greatest security threat we face.”

"Ideological Exclusion" Still A Problem

2010-03-31T11:14:00.000-07:00

CAIR-Chicago is honored to have Tariq Ramadan as the keynote speaker at our 6th Annual Banquet on April, 10th. Having him speak will be a monumental occasion not only because of his decades of scholarly work, but also because this will be Tariq Ramadan's first time in the United States since being unjustly banned from in 2004 under the Bush Administration.

Despite Mr. Ramadan's outspoken, consistent, and firm condemnation of all forms of terrorism and extremism, his extensive work on the compatibility of Islam and democracy, and his critiques of less-than-democratic systems such as in Egypt, his visa was suddenly and inexplicably revoked in August of 2004. He was just days away from beginning his tenured teaching position at Notre Dame's Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. Since the revocation of his visa, Mr. Ramadan was appointed to work on the U.K.'s government task force to examine the roots of extremism in Great Britain, was named one of Time Magazine's "Top 100 Innovators," and was in 2009 ranked one of Foreign Policy Magazine's "Top Global Thinkers" all of which demonstrate his broad-reaching respectability.

Although Mr. Ramadan was initially offered no explanation as to why his visa was revoked, it was later revealed that he was banned under the "ideological exclusions" provision (section 411) of the U.S. Patriot Act which states that any alien who "used their position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization, in a way that the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities."

What this means in that the Secretary of State can decide who is allowed over the border and who isn't based on his or her threat perception, which the actions of individuals have no real bearing, but instead their rhetoric does. Apparently Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice perceived Mr. Ramadan's critical views on the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to somehow threaten American national security. This was allowed to happen, the ACLU asserts, because "the [U.S.] government is using the [ideological exclusions] provision more broadly to deny entry to people whose political views it disfavors" and that "the government's use of the statute to exclude Professor Ramadan is illustrative of the statute's malleability and reach."

With this broad interpretation being used, not only Tariq Ramadan, but dozens of other foreign scholars have been denied access into the U.S. In light of this border censorship, in 2006 the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging this particular section of the Patriot Act charging the provision was "being used to prevent United States citizens and residents from hearing speech that is protected by the First Amendment." Also, in March of 2009 a coalition of 75 civil rights and professional organizations including the ACLU, the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, the Muslim Bar Association of New York, and Feminists for Free Expression wrote to then newly-appointed Secretary of State Clinton stressing their concerns and urging action in regards to "ideological exclusion." Ms. Clinton was asked to re-examine the cases of several prominent scholars whose visas were revoked, and to end the practice of censorship by banning scholars who are critical of U.S. policy.

This January, Secretary of State Clinton signed orders lifting the ban on Tariq Ramadan, as well as University of Johannesburg professor, Adam Habib, allowing them to reapply for visas. Since January, both have successfully obtained 10-year visas and can once again freely travel to the U.S.

Yes, this should be seen as a major success and the Obama administration must be commended for their efforts in commencing the beginning of the end of a dark era of censorship. But we must also remember that this is just the beginning of a process. Though Mr. Ramadan, and Mr. Habib were fortunate enough to be allowed back into the country, many still have not. And even if the bans are lifted on every single scholar, there is no true victory until this section of the Patriot Act is reformed or repealed altogether.

In Tariq Ramadan's own words "although the exclusions are carried out in the name of security and stability, they actually threaten both by closing off the open, critical, and constructive dialogue that once defined this country." Indeed, freedom of expression, religious tolerance, and vivacious debate are all what set this country apart and make it so great. Just as we got through the embarrassing era McCarthyism during the cold war when scholars and artists with dissenting viewpoints had their visas revoked, Secretary of State Clinton has signaled that perhaps the end is near for this new wave of "ideological exclusion" and will thereby make the past several years a mere blemish on the nation's greater history.

Body Scanners Coming to an Airport Near You

2010-03-19T13:42:00.001-07:00

O’Hare International Airport recently added full-body scanners to its security system in the hopes of preventing any future attacks on airlines. It is believed that the scanners will improve security because of their ability to show hidden objects on the body like plastic or chemical explosives and non-metallic weapons. Paid for with money from President Obama’s 2009 stimulus plan, each scanner costs between $130,000 and $190,000. So far, over 20 U.S. airports have received these scanners and many, many more are on their way to airports across the nation. While these body scanners have been available for years, deployment has been slowed because of privacy objections which center on the fact that the scanners use low dose X-rays that can see through passenger’s clothing and reveal the size and shape of the entirety of one’s body with clarity. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has denounced the machines as a “virtual strip search.”

Usage of the scanners varies at different airports. Some airports are using the scanners as their primary form of security, while others are using them as a secondary search mechanism, e.g. if someone fails a metal detector test or is randomly selected for the scan. Most airports with scanners, however, are moving toward using them as their primary form of security.

According to the TSA (Transportation Security Administration), once scanned, images are sent to a remote location where a technician, who cannot see the passenger, examines the image and communicates, via wireless headset, with the officer assisting the passenger. To protect passenger privacy, millimeter wave technology blurs all facial features and deletes images from the system after the passenger has been cleared. Additionally, officers evaluating the scanner images are not allowed to have cameras, cell phones, or other photo-enabled devices in the resolution room that could be used to create a copy of the scan. If a passenger chooses not to go through the body scanner for whatever reason, they will “receive an equal level of screening, including a physical pat-down”. If this is the case, the TSA is equating a physical pat-down with a piece of equipment costing the equivalent of a house. This phrase alone exposes the TSA's blatantly irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars for the sake of a little more efficiency in airport security lines.

Despite these precautions, many are still weary that the scanners violate their rights. Numerous Muslim groups along with members of other Jewish and Christian faiths have expressed concern over whether or not the scanners violate their beliefs on modesty. In a Fox News interview, CAIR-Chicago Executive Director Ahmad Rehab reiterated this idea by noting that the scanners “violate religious and privacy rights of Americans.”

One such incident of a privacy violation took place at London’s Heathrow Airport. There, a male security employee made lewd comments to a female colleague after she passed through a body scanner. This incident highlights some of the moral and ethical concerns over the scanners expressed by opponents. Although a harassment warning has been issued to the perpetrator, he retains his job despite a clear abuse of his position and overt disregard for the privacy of another human being.

Additionally, concerns over the safety of these machines have been stifled by scanner manufacturers, who insist that the machines are safe. However, a study conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory found that the energy particles used to generate the nude image of the body can have a negative effect on intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication in the body. Without any clinical trials performed by a third party or FDA approval on these machines, there is currently no way to demonstrate that the scanners are safe for multiple use over time.

At a time when Muslims are already under so much scrutiny, they don’t want to have to make a choice between their religion and national security. Especially since there is doubt among experts, including the British Government, as to whether or not the Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, or others like him carrying low-density items would have been stopped by one of these scanners, it is important to really understand their effectiveness in preventing another attack before using it as a primary means of security. Already, a Muslim woman was banned from a flight to Pakistan after refusing to undergo a full-body scan at Manchester Airport in the U.K.

If history tells us anything, it is that terrorists have no problem adapting to new security measures, especially when they know what security officials are looking for. What if the next bomber with concealed explosives opts for a pat-down and is let through security? What will the next step be? Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office says it best when she notes that “There is no one measure or magic solution to keeping us safe, and while our government should strive for the best security possible, it must adhere to respect Americans’ civil liberties." That being said, should we as Americans in a time of heightened economic and national security tension, rely so heavily on such a financially extravagant and easily avoidable means of keeping our skies safe?

For a full list of airports that are currently using full-body scanners and for more information on the scanners, please visit the TSA website.

100,000 Voices for Change

2010-03-12T13:56:00.000-08:00

When the topic of illegal immigration comes up in mainstream media, it too often includes images of Mexicans crossing over the border into U.S. territory. Reality, however, presents a very different story of individual struggles from all around the world. In many cases, immigration, especially illegal immigration without proper paperwork, is not a matter of choice but of survival. Asylum and refugee cases, in particular, involve people who have been forced out of their homes and their country. Those who get through our borders often live in fear of deportation back to a country without hope.

On March 21, 2010, thousands of people from all across the nation will come together on the National Mall in Washington, DC to march for immigration reform. Organizers hope to have at least 100,000 marchers from diverse backgrounds so that their message of change will be heard loud and clear throughout the halls of Congress and the White House. Marchers are demanding comprehensive immigration reform, which includes a path to citizenship, worker’s rights, due process, family unification, and equal education and opportunities for immigrants.

The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR), a partner of CAIR-Chicago, has been instrumental in putting together the March 21^st event. Beginning with a training session last January that brought together advocates of immigration reform from all over the Chicagoland area, ICIRR has helped various communities coordinate buses that will help marchers get to Washington on the 21^st.

Thousands of individuals have already pledged their support for the immigration march along with members of a variety of faith-based and secular organizations including World Relief, the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, AFL-CIO, and the Interfaith Immigration Coalition. Members of Bridgeview’s Mosque Foundation are also organizing a bus to travel to Washington to have their voices counted among those looking for reform.

As the March 21^st event gets closer, the immigration debate is steadily returning to the headlines. New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham have been working together to create a blueprint for bipartisan immigration reform. The blueprint includes tougher border security, a program to admit temporary immigrant workers, and a biometric Social Security card that would prevent illegal immigrants from getting jobs. Sadly, the bipartisan stalemate on healthcare legislation threatens to affect the Schumer/Graham proposal. Graham is quick to point out that Republicans will halt immigration reform for the year if President Obama passes health care legislation by a method known as reconciliation, which would only require a majority of 51 senators instead of the usual 60- effectively nullifying the Republican vote.

While the Schumer/Graham blueprint is a start toward real immigration reform, it leaves much to be desired and creates many more questions than it answers. Other existing pieces of legislation like the Dream Act, which would allow immigrant children access to higher education, and CIR ASAP, which addresses a variety of issues from visa backlogs to border enforcement, are vital to consider when proposing comprehensive immigration reform.

In a recent meeting with the President, leaders from national and grassroots immigrant advocacy organizations asked the President to present a framework for comprehensive immigration reform prior to March 21^st. Although he agreed to “work actively” on getting bipartisan support and announcing an outline for an immigration bill before the march, he expressed serious concern that there would not be enough Republican support.

While some may argue that immigrants abuse “the system” and don’t deserve basic services such as healthcare, they fail to consider what they might do if faced with a similar situation. Given the perplexities and diversity within the immigrant population, it is important not to make assumptions or generalizations. America must treat all immigrants, illegal or not, with respect and compassion. It is only through reform that problems with the system can be eliminated so families are not caught between morality and legality. America was founded by immigrants and it will continue to grow because of them. It will be a shame if immigration reform fails this time around and millions of people remain in limbo because of political posturing.

U.S. Census Reaches Out to Muslims

2010-03-05T13:55:00.000-08:00

While attending Friday prayers at the Downtown Islamic Center this past week, I was greeted by an over-sized Census poster and 2010 Census volunteers handing out bags of goodies to the throngs of faithful entering the mosque. When I received my bag, I prompted one of the volunteers, Kacia Rivera, about the work she was doing. She explained that she was a part of the “2010 Islamic and Arab Voices Complete Count Committee” of the U.S. Census Bureau. Ms. Rivera as part of this specific team helps educate Muslims by traveling to different mosques every Friday distributing Census information and by responding to the specific concerns that Muslims and Arabs might have regarding the Census.

Confidentiality, language barriers, and confusion surrounding the racial identity of Arabs are among the Muslim community’s greatest concerns with participating in the Census. Most of these concerns were addressed in the over-packed folder. The folder contained basic information about the Census in both Arabic and English, reassurance of confidentiality also in Arabic and English, as well as sample questionnaires in Arabic, English, and Urdu. Rivera said that there is still confusion as to whether Arabs should mark “white” or “other” on the questionnaire but said that this confusion should not be reason to neglect the Census altogether.

Perhaps the most compelling part of the Census care package so to speak was the Census poster which read “Paint a New Portrait of America,” underneath which was a collage of Americans forming the shape of the United States including a Muslim woman donning the hijab or headscarf. The Muslim community is being actively sought out to participate in the American political process and as Muslim-Americans we should recognize the importance in participating in this tradition that reaches almost as far back as the birth of the nation itself.

The US Census was conducted for the first time in our country's history in 1790, and has been conducted every ten years since then as prescribed in Article 1, Section 2 of our constitution. The Census basically takes account of the number of people residing within the borders of the U.S. and its territories, regardless of legal status (the legal status of residents, or any other information acquired by the Census for that matter cannot be shared with any other agency), in order for the national government to respond to the needs of the governed.

What that means is, the number of people residing within a state determine how many Members of Congress will be representing them in the House of Representatives. If the population in a certain area has increased, then they may be due for another seat in the House, however if the population has decreased since 2000, a seat may be lost. This is not the only way the Census helps our government respond to our needs. There is also about $400 billion in federal funding that is up for grabs that the Census data helps allocate. This money is used to build hospitals, highways, schools, and other public services.

Participating in the U.S. Census is important for Muslims not only for all of the reasons mentioned above, but also because faith-based organizations, such as CAIR-Chicago who advocate for Muslims' rights, rely on Census data to communicate needs to elected officials and apply for federal grants. And for the record, Muslim organizations have been responding to the call of the U.S. Census Bureau including CAIR-Chicago and Islamic Relief USA by disseminating educational information throughout the Muslim Community. Additionally, CAIR-Chicago will host a Census worker in the coming weeks as part of a Questionnaire Assistance Center that will be stationed within the CAIR-Chicago office.

Individual Muslims must also take heed and fill out their Census questionnaires by the appointed time, April 1, to showcase the willingness of the Muslim community to participate in the American political process, and to show a strong, active, and proud presence in this country.

The First Lady’s New Health Care Initiative

2010-02-19T09:26:00.000-08:00

In her first year as First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama has taken on a variety of issues. From the very beginning, she has emphasized public service by personally volunteering in a variety of projects that have helped the homeless, school children, and members of the military. She has been an advocate for military families, while also supporting the organic movement through the White House garden. Despite criticism that she has overstepped her role as First Lady, Mrs. Obama has also served as an advocate for some of her husband’s policies. In early February, however, Mrs. Obama launched “Let’s Move," a nationwide campaign to fight childhood obesity.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that 32% of kids between the ages of 2 and 19 are overweight or obese. This means that 1 in 3 American children are at a higher risk for a variety of weight-related diseases including diabetes, heart disease, atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome, some types of cancer, etc. Rates of obesity in the U.S. have tripled in the last 30 years, and for the first time in history, American children may face a shorter lifespan than their parents.

As a result of these troubling statistics, the Let’s Move campaign seeks to solve the epidemic of childhood obesity within a generation. The first goal of the movement is to help empower parents and give them the support they need. Mrs. Obama plans to do this by working with the Food and Drug Administration to create more user-friendly front-of-package labeling, by working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to update the food pyramid, and by working with doctors and nurses to ensure that they monitor at-risk children from an early age and council parents on healthy habits. The campaign hopes that these measures will allow parents to have all the information they need to make healthy choices for their children.

In addition to parental assistance, the second and third goals of the campaign are to provide healthier food to school children and to help kids be more physically active. These targets will surely be a challenge in a nation where “8-18 year-olds spend an average of 7.5 hours per day consuming entertainment media, like TV, movies, Internet, video games, and cell phones”; however, Mrs. Obama is determined to counter sedentary entertainment by creating safe playgrounds and community centers where children can play. She also wants to increase sports, dance, and fitness programs that will help keep kids interested.

The final goal of the campaign is to eliminate what are known as “food deserts” by making healthy and affordable food available in all parts of the country within seven years. Food deserts are defined as communities where access to healthy foods is often limited because supermarkets containing fresh fruits and vegetables are over a mile away. In these neighborhoods, residents are forced to rely on convenience stores full of pre-packaged, high calorie foods. Currently, over 23 million Americans, including 6.5 million children, reside in food deserts. In accordance with the Let’s Move campaign, President Obama has proposed a $400 million per year investment in the budget to help bring grocery stores and farmer’s markets into food deserts while also providing convenience stores with healthier options. Additionally, President Obama has called for an extra $1 billion to help fund child nutrition programs.

On the local level, the Inner City Muslim Action Network (IMAN) is working to reduce food deserts on Chicago’s south-side through the “Muslim Run” campaign. By addressing the lack of access to healthy foods in low-income neighborhoods, IMAN hopes to reduce poverty while developing an alternative, holistic, and empowering business model that highlights interethnic cooperation between Muslim business owners and their communities. IMAN is currently working with State Senator Jacqueline Collins to help get money from a fresh food bill spread out to assist a wider pool of grocers that will include convenience stores as opposed to only mainline supermarkets.

While the goals of the Let’s Move campaign seem to truly have the best interests of children in mind, one has to wonder if there is more to this program given that it was launched at a time when President Obama’s health care reform package is on life-support. Could Michelle Obama’s new health care initiative be a vehicle to implement some of the necessary health care reforms that have stalled in Congress? Given the concern that our current heath care system has the potential to bankrupt the U.S. Government in the near future, isn’t it a good idea to start encouraging people to be healthier so that they don’t need to utilize the system as heavily? Also of interest is the fact that childhood obesity has been one of the main causes for Bill Clinton and the William J. Jefferson Foundation for some time. Could this be a quid-pro-quo for some political favor, or does Mrs. Obama just want to insert a breath of fresh air into the cause?

“A recent study put the health care cost of obesity-related diseases at $147 billion a year”, and as the population grows, so will these figures. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius commented that “Helping kids eat healthier diets and increasing their opportunities for exercise will greatly improve both their physical and mental health, make for healthier adults, and help reduce medical costs.” Even Raymond Baxter, Senior Vice President of Community Outreach for Kaiser Permanente is on board. Kaiser Permanente, an insurance company made notorious for not always having the best interests of its clients in mind - along with other health insurance companies, seeks to profit from having fewer claims to pay out on chronically ill patients. Likewise, the United States military also seeks to benefit from a healthier generation as “obesity is now one of the most common disqualifiers for military service.”

Although some may write this anti-obesity campaign off as “big” government trying to control our behavior and tell us what to do, the truth is that we can all benefit from eating better and exercising. In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama questions the power of the state to control individual actions. He writes that “we all agree that there must be limits to the state’s power to control our behavior, even if it’s for our own good” (pg. 36). Michelle Obama is not trying to control or monitor every child. She is, however, looking toward the future and helping to make a healthier America. In a Chicago Sun-Times article, Lynn Sweet writes that Michelle Obama is “no food purist—Mrs. Obama enjoys her burgers and fries”. Sweet goes on to quote Mrs. Obama as saying that she is not looking to have the “government tell people what to do.” Instead, Mrs. Obama says, “I’m looking at what we all can do.”

Taking the future implications of “Let’s Move” a step further, an interesting article by Marco Visscher appeared in Ode Magazine discussing the connection between diet and behavior in children- especially in children that are developmentally challenged or have behavior problems. Visscher poses the idea that there is a direct connection between the food we consume and our resulting behavior. He sites a study done at a Wisconsin school for developmentally challenged children where vending machines were swapped with water coolers and hamburgers and fries were replaced with fresh fruits, vegetables, whole-grain bread, and a salad bar. Over time, there were drastic decreases in fights, behavior problems, vandalism, and litter. Additionally, the need for a high-security police officer to patrol the halls was no longer needed. In a similar study, by Stephen Schoenthaler, performed in a low-income neighborhood in New York City, “the number of students passing final exams rose from 11 percent below the national average to five percent above.” Schoenthaler, a criminal-justice professor, has proven through his studies that “reducing the sugar and fat intake in our daily diets leads to higher IQs and better grades in school.”

Simple changes in nutrition may, in fact, be one of the easiest, cheapest, and most humane ways to increase grades and decrease behavior problems in America’s schools. If “Let’s Move” does all that it seeks to do and accomplishes its stated goals, then America is likely to become a much healthier and productive society.

Questioning the Muslim Response to Haiti’s Tragic Earthquake

2010-02-12T09:32:00.000-08:00

On January 12, 2010, Haiti was propelled back onto the international stage after being shaken by a 7.0 magnitude earthquake. Within hours, members of the international community raced to the aid of trapped and injured Haitians. Despite the fact that relief has come from all corners of the world, some individuals have sought to minimize the efforts of others.

In a January 27th, 2010, op-ed, the president of the Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, Steven B. Nasatir, rightfully notes the generous contributions from his organization, the Jewish-American community, and from Israel; however, he also tosses in a sharp jab toward Saudi Arabia by claiming that they have sent nothing to Haiti but a “letter of condolence.” Had Mr. Nasatir done a bit of research, he would have found that prior to his op-ed, Saudi Arabia announced a $50 million donation to the UN fund for Haiti. In addition to this error, the Israel National News site published an article entitled “Haiti Relief: Israel Sends 220- Muslims Send 0”.

Even Jamie Allman, an award winning radio talk show host in St. Louis, MO, claims that the Muslim world is missing from those contributing to Haitian relief. As if this assumption were not enough, Mr. Allman goes on to make other offensive comments, which include a joke that he has “another creative idea for that Danish cartoonist: Draw a desperate Haitian desperately scribbling a cartoon of Mohammed. The cutline: ‘Maybe now they will pay attention. I might even get kidnapped.’”.

Although these authors seek to blatantly divide Haitian relief efforts along religious and ethnic lines, reality tells a very different story. Wikipedia offers a thorough list of the humanitarian responses by national governments, while the Arab American Institute also offers a detailed list of those who have donated to the Haitian relief effort. Despite this plethora of information, ignorance and lies continue to be propagated.

The above lists, along with others like them, include substantial contributions from Arab nations, Muslim communities, and Islamic organizations. Contributions like $1 million from Kuwait, 30 tons of aid from Syria, and $1 million worth of medical supplies from Morocco cannot be denied. In addition, the efforts of the Islamic Medical Association of North America (IMANA), the Zakat Foundation, and Islamic Relief-USA have all made significant contributions to the relief effort. The Zakat Foundation, for example, has been purchasing and trucking in supplies from the Dominican Republic. They help to ensure that Haitians have access to food and water, while also providing food to some 700 orphans. Islamic Relief-USA has pledged $1 million and is working in coordination with the Mormon Church to send supplies. IMANA has been sending rotating teams of doctors to work in the health care facility that they set up in an old amusement park. Even CAIR-Chicago's own Executive Director, Ahmed Rehab, and Board Member, Yaser Tabbara, just returned earlier this month from Haiti after providing hands-on aid to the devastated country on behalf of the Chicago Muslim community.

While the exact death toll from this earthquake may never be known, officials estimate that upwards of 230,000 people have lost their lives. The number of injured, however, is many times this number. Haiti is likely to become a nation of amputees that does not inherently have the health care system to support the needs of its people. Even before the earthquake, Haiti, which is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, was home to many challenges. Recent years have been plagued by food riots, government coups, and devastating hurricanes.

Despite these hardships, the Haitians have always persevered with strength and determination. With the rainy season near and the hurricane season only a few months away, it is time for all of us to end bickering and finger pointing. Just as the world came together in the aftermath of the 2004 Tsunami, each and every one of us, as part of the global community, should do all that we can to help the Haitians in their time of need.

State of Obama

2010-01-28T15:08:00.000-08:00

“It begins with our economy.” The current recession and looming financial crisis took precedence during President Obama’s first State of the Union Address. On Wednesday, January 27, 2010, President Obama assured the nation that the worst of our economic woes are over, but emphasized that a lot of work still needs to be done before Americans can shed their existing fears of unemployment, mortgage payments, inflation, taxes, and truly realize the ‘CHANGE’ that the Obama promised during his presidential campaign. President Obama reminded Americans, “I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy.”

The President insisted that Congress and the Senate reject their respective party’s ambitions for the good of the American people. President Obama apologized to the nation for not explaining the complexities of the current health care debate more clearly, referring to the fact that health care reform stall in the House and Senate has left many Americans wondering “What’s in it for me?” Half-jokingly, he added that, “If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.”

On Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama maintained that U.S. national security and the safety of the American people is top priority. The President declared that, “We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August,” and continued, “In Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home.” Building upon his landmark speech to the Muslim world last year at Cairo University in Egypt, President Obama stated, “We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation.”

In his closing statements, President Obama urged the American people to stay resilient by looking to the unifying spirit that has sustained the prosperity of the United States for centuries, proclaiming “We don't quit. I don't quit.”

Prison is Prison No Matter Where You Are

2010-01-05T08:55:00.000-08:00

Acclaimed Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote, “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” The manner in which Guantanamo detainees are treated represents the failing degree of civilization in American society. The Guantanamo Bay prison is in blatant violation of the U.S. constitution and bill of rights. The use of torture, absence of habeas corpus, not being read Miranda rights, and indefinite detainment without charge or conviction, all have a negative impact on the U.S. global image as the symbol of liberal democracy, freedom, and justice for all.

The Obama administration’s promise to close Guantanamo Bay by its Jan. 22, 2010 deadline is a façade since it is merely relocating the illegitimacies to Thomson Correctional Center, located about 150 miles west of Chicago, IL. Shockingly, the man elected to ‘CHANGE’ the Guantanamo policies enacted by the previous Bush administration, President Obama has sustained the same civil and human rights abuses save for a few minor modifications. During the last presidential election campaign, Obama appeared to oppose Bush’s doctrine applied in Guantanamo, yet he said “nothing about maintaining the constitutional protections that prevailed in the American legal system before Bush took office”.

As Paul Craig Roberts writes, “Closing Guantanamo meant ceasing to hold people in violation of our legal principles of habeas corpus and due process and ceasing to torture them in violation of US and international laws.” Thomson will merely be adding to the long list of U.S. abuses revealed in Guantanamo Bay, and Abu Ghraib. Several concerns have been raised over the proposed transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to Thomson, but nothing has been mentioned by the Obama administration nor elected representatives of Illinois regarding the need abolish the illegalities applied in Guantanamo that will be carried over to Thomson.

Indifference is a luxury that most Americans afford by having no direct association with what goes on at Guantanamo Bay. As Margaret Kimberly states, “While Guantanamo is unseen, Illinois is right in the middle of the United States. None of us can now claim absolution from our government sin.” Illinoisans will no longer enjoy the pleasure of national apathy towards Guantanamo as the realities of torture and blatant civil rights abuses will be present in their very own state.

In order for the Obama administration to successfully transfer the detainees from Guantanamo, Congress must approve the funding to purchase Thomson, as well as, amend the law passed earlier this year that prohibits terror suspects from entering the U.S. except for the purposes of trial. According to Governor Pat Quinn, selling the Thomson prison to the federal government will jump start the depressed Illinois economy and reduce unemployment by creating an estimated 3,000 jobs. On Tuesday, December 22, the Illinois State Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability held a public hearing in Sterling, IL on the possible sale of Thomson prison.

Regardless of the findings from the hearing, based on the Illinois’ State Property Control Act and State Facilities Closure Act, Governor Quinn does not need to seek approval from the General Assembly to sell the Thomson prison. Senator Richard Durbin, also, supports the sale of Thomson, but in 2005 “compared interrogation tactics at Guantanamo to those used by the Nazi regime and the Soviets in the gulags.” An opinion article from the Pittsburgh Tribune titled “Federal Solution” cleverly explains Quinn and Durbin’s strong support for Thomson:

We've now witnessed the federal government's solution to the current economic recession. It's incarceration.

If the transfer of 100 detainees (formerly known as terrorists) from Guantanamo, Cuba, to "Guantanamo II" in Illinois can create 3,000 well-paying jobs with great benefits, then that's the solution to our current economic malaise.

All we have to do is round up all the estimated 12 million illegal (law-breaking) aliens who currently reside in our country, reclassify them as detainees and incarcerate them, pending adjudication of their immigration status.

If my math is right -- according to U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Democrat Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, it takes 30 people for each incarcerated detainee -- this roundup would create 360 million well-paying jobs with great benefits.

There would be so many jobs that we would probably have to import people from Mexico to fill all the vacancies.

Ron Opatka

Naysayers of the transfer of detainees are calling Thomson, “Gitmo North.” Senate hopeful Mark Kirk argues that the move to Thomson will create a radical Islamic breeding ground on U.S. soil and force Illinois into becoming a future terrorist target. Kirk’s viewpoint on Thomson coincides with the belief held by many Midwesterners that the U.S. “Heartland” is relatively safe from terrorist attacks. Such naivety dismisses the past terrorist attempts in Springfield and Chicago before Thomson was ever brought into discussion.

Tensions Rise as Primary Elections Near

2009-12-23T12:10:00.001-08:00

Audience members got a two-for-one special, breakfast and a show, last Wednesday, December 16 during the Democratic U.S. senatorial candidate forum held at the Chicago Union League Club. “He’s had only two jobs, and the one before [State Treasurer] was president of what is now one of the worst performing banks in the nation” argued David Hoffman, commenting on opponent Alexi Giannoulias’ poor management of the family owned Broadway bank. “Since the beginning of his campaign, he has been falsely attacking me and my family,” Giannoulias shot back. Giannoulias continued to criticize Hoffman for funding his campaign through investments in the Wall Street banks that received federal bailout money whilst calling for more oversight of such banks. The other two candidates, Cheryle Jackson, President of the Chicago Urban League and the only woman participant, and Jacob Meister, a Chicago attorney and the only openly gay candidate running in the election, stood idly by as Giannoulias and Hoffman seemed in a world of their own.

Following their opening statements, the candidates fielded a wide range of questions posed by the audience including the inherent corruption in Illinois and proposed transfer of Guantanamo detainees to Thomson maximum security prison, as well as, Health Care, Afghanistan, and peace in the Middle East.

Every candidate seemed in consensus on the issue of corruption in Illinois, arguing the need to deal with the issue from a state perspective rather than look to Congress or Senate for solutions. The four Democratic candidates agreed that transferring Guantanamo detainees to the mostly vacant federal prison in Thompson, IL would be profitable and create new jobs. However, favored Republican candidate Congressman Mark Kirk rejects the transfer of prisoners claiming that such a move would establish a radical Islamic breeding ground in Illinois and mark Chicago as a magnet for future terrorist attacks. No one, however, elaborated to discuss the controversial U.S. policies in Guantanamo Bay such as, suspension of habeas corpus, the absence of due process, holding inmates indefinitely without conviction, and the semantics of torture used for interrogation purposes.

As the Senate continues to deliberate over the Affordable Health Care for America Act recently passed by Congress, all of the candidates voiced their support for a public option to be included in the bill. President Obama’s recent speech strategizing U.S. military endeavors in Afghanistan and necessary troop escalation shed some light on how the candidates would react in tough foreign policy situations. While candidate’s Giannoulias and Meister supported Obama’s decision and noted Pakistan’s essential cooperation, the others disagreed. Hoffman commended the President for his speech, but disapproved with the troop surge emphasizing Ambassador Karl Eikenberry’s claim that a troop increase in Afghanistan is an expansion of U.S. focus beyond Al-Qaeda and terrorism. Jackson went as far as to demand a rapid troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Keeping the debate on the Middle East the candidates’ next dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. All of the candidates were in favor of a two state solution to the problem and advocated for increased U.S. leadership in the peace process. Jackson encouraged open communication between Israel and Palestine, whereas, Giannoulias called for isolation of Hamas, removal of the democratically elected authority from power, and instituting a more moderate regime in its stead. Giannoulias and Meister both made it a point to mention that Israel’s safety and security is U.S. priority for peace in the Middle East.

Polls show Giannoulias as the favored candidate in the Democratic Party, and Congressman Mark Kirk as the primary nominee in the Republican Party. With the primary elections fast approaching, scheduled for February 2, 2010, candidates will be fighting intensely to dominate public attention and garner support from the large group of undecided voters.

DECODING OBAMA’S AFGHANISTAN SPEECH

2009-12-09T07:55:00.000-08:00

When he was serving as Senator, Obama opposed the war in Iraq and the troop surge proposed by the Bush administration. Now, as President, how can Obama, having recently received the Nobel Prize, appear as a symbol of international peace by supporting the deployment of 30,000 additional troops, along with the infinite number of mercenary and private military forces not mentioned, to war in Afghanistan? We have spent almost a decade fighting in Afghanistan with the intention to seek and destroy Osama Bin Laden, a 6’5” Saudi on dialysis, and related perpetrators of 9/11. Seemingly, after 8 years our strategy or purpose for spending an estimated $3.6 billion per month on the war in Afghanistan (still worried about health care costs) has changed drastically, and without accurate inquiries by the media. Since military conscription is no longer applicable, most Americans today remain dissociated from the fact that this is the longest war in U.S. history.

Last Tuesday at the West Point Military Academy in New York, President Obama gave a speech detailing his administration’s military strategy for war in Afghanistan. The reasons for continuing to wage war in a country that has defeated more super-powers than any other nation in modern history seemed vague and unconvincing to the hundreds of cadets in attendance, many of whom may certainly be included in the 30,000 troops to be deployed, or re-deployed to Afghanistan. After remarking on the large disparity between the numbers of soldiers in Iraq versus Afghanistan, Obama declared that our national interest, security of the U.S. and safety of the American people are dependent on additional forces being sent to aid our currently deployed military personnel in stabilizing Afghanistan.

The proposed 18 month deadline for U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan coincides with the winding down of the war in Iraq. During his speech, President Obama stated that the war in Iraq is being brought to a responsible end. Troops will begin to be withdrawn starting next summer and completely out of the country by end of 2011. Contrary to President Obama’s vision is that of Afghan President Karzai, according to a press conference he spoke at today with Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Karzai claimed that assembling a substantial security force from among the Afghan people that can provide order and stability to the country without U.S. military support would take much longer than just 18 months, much longer indeed. He argued that more international support and U.S. military presence is needed for another 20 years until the Afghan people can fend for themselves. How President Obama and President Karzai, the elected leader of Afghanistan and go-to moderate backed by the U.S., can formulate two radically different strategies is beyond me.

Not publicized by the media nor mentioned by President Obama during his speech last week was a clear description of U.S. interests in Afghanistan. Simply looking on a map would reveal the geo-strategic importance of Afghanistan to U.S. interests in the region, specifically, forming an alliance of regional states to oppose Iran and securing access to energy resources in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. Widely unknown to the general public is the existence of two crucial natural gas pipelines, namely IPI (Iran-Pakistan-India) and TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-India pipeline). Through continued military efforts in Afghanistan, the U.S. can control TAPI and run it through Kandahar province, coincidentally the most notoriously violent and terrorist filled area of the country, or use an alternate pipeline leading directly to the Arabian Sea. Consequently, the establishment of TAPI would reduce the energy reliance of Central Asian states on Russia, and more significantly, easily bypass a troublesome Iran.

While securing energy resources in the region may not have been the initial reasons behind the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, they are certainly part of the underlying motivations and paramount to the comprehensive strategy only partially discussed last week. I find it very deceiving for the Obama administration to withhold this issue from the American people. Also, the fact that none of the major media outlets have publicized even a shred of information relating Afghanistan to energy resources or U.S. geo-strategic interests in the region is alarming.

2009-12-09T07:54:00.000-08:00

SWITZERLAND NOT SO NEUTRAL WHEN IT COMES TO RELIGION: SWISS MINARET BAN

2009-12-03T09:15:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week Switzerland, the world’s foremost neutral country, sidestepped impartiality by approving a constitutional ban on the construction of minarets. The referendum put forth by the powerful Swiss People’s Party (SVP), a traditionally conservative right wing party, was approved by a 57% majority. The SVP sponsored the ban claiming the construction of minarets represents the “creeping Islamization of Switzerland.” The ban was advertised through suggestively racist posters that juxtaposed a fully veiled woman in the foreground of what appear to be missile shaped minarets. Such xenophobic posters are nothing new from the SVP’s earlier campaigns to institute harsher immigration laws in the country.

The head of the SVP, Ulrich Schluer, argues that minarets are a symbol of the political aims of Islam. In an interview with Russia Today, Schluer contends that the “minaret is seen as a symbol for political attitudes, for political demands. For instance, to introduce step by step elements of the Shariah right, also in Switzerland.” He defends the ban by referring to various Imams and leaders of mosques, in Switzerland, that have openly stated their goal is for implementation of Shariah law. Rather than symbolize the spirituality of Islam, the minaret, historically used to initiate a call to prayer, is now perceived as a political icon. As a result, the future construction of minarets can be construed as a politically motivated objective to introduce other laws into Switzerland, specifically Shariah law.

There are an estimated 200 mosques in Switzerland. According to the Swiss government, most Muslims are former refugees from the Yugoslav wars waged during the 1990s and comprise approximately 6% or 400,000 of Switzerland’s 7.5 million citizens. The implications of such a ban are not only heartfelt by Swiss Muslims, but for Muslims all across Europe.

Fellow Europeans fear an extremist reaction within their own countries. Concerns have been raised over whether or not Sunday’s vote in Switzerland may provoke more anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe. Will the ban in Switzerland promote passage of similar policies in neighboring countries? The European Union is already hard pressed in trying to preserve each countries distinct cultural allure amidst a large influx in foreigners. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan condemned the act, remarking on the widespread Islamaphobia afflicting Europe since France’s widely publicized dispute over the burqa, a full length covering worn by Muslim women. Supporters of the ban mentioned that Prime Minister Erdogan has in the past equated mosques to Islam's military barracks, referring to minarets as Islam’s bayonets.

Worldwide criticism over the ban has emerged from Pakistan and Indonesia, to the Vatican. Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey openly rebuked approval of the ban claiming it restricts religious freedom, while other financial officials in Zurich fear losing wealthy Arab and Muslim investors. The UN, along with other international rights organizations, has denounced the Swiss populist vote citing the government’s violation of international conventions on religious freedoms and individual human rights.

President Obama, notorious for having an open dialogue with the Muslim world, demonstrated by his land mark speech in Cairo not long ago, has yet to give any official response on the U.S. position towards Sunday’s vote in Switzerland.

Health Care Reform

2009-11-12T13:35:00.000-08:00

Why is that the United States spends more money on health care than every country in the world, yet ranks 37th in overall health coverage? How much money will it cost to provide health insurance for approximately 320 million Americans? The Democrats’ proposed health bill, Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), costs $1.2 trillion and pales in comparison to the already $12 trillion amassed in national debt.

Even though it has been over a year since Obama was elected President, partisan beliefs still keep the White House divided. The GOP and several Democrats recently battled over passage of the Democratic sponsored health bill in the House which passed by a narrow margin of only two votes. The proposed bill proved to be extremely partisan, with only one Republican, Congressman Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana, voting for passage of the bill.

While supporters are eager to move along into the Senate, opposition forces will attempt to filibuster the proposed health bill. It is difficult to discern the real reason why most Republicans are so vehemently opposed to the bill. One can only assume that the GOP is deliberately obstructing passage of the bill to prevent a Democratic 'victory'. Nonetheless, those in favor of the bill are pushing for action and seek to have the Act signed into law before the year’s end.

One reason that the bill was met with opposition in the House was due to the overwhelming cost that will be forced upon American taxpayers. According to Congressman Burton (R-IN), a naysayer for the proposed health bill, the outcome of passing this bill will increase taxes by about $730 billion over the next ten years. Understandably, many Americans were alarmed by the immediate impact of tax increases amidst a deteriorating economy.

In addition, the Stupak/Pitts amendment, named after Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joseph R. Pitts (R-PN), raised controversy over the issue of abortion. The amendment prevents government funding from covering abortion under the proposed health coverage. In addition, President Obama maintained that federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions. But before the President can sign anything into law the planned health care overhaul must overcome many obstacles.

Overall, the fate of health insurance in the U.S. is yet to be determined as opponents of the proposed bill seek to halt its progress through delayed legislative proceedings and extended speech making, subsequently drawing out the process of passing the bill along to the Senate. Having barely eked out of the House with the minimum required number of votes, the proposed bill faces an even more hostile crowd in the Senate where the approach to health care reform differs from that of Congress. Many analysts predict the bill to fail once it reaches the Senate because the Democrats do not hold as much swaying power there as they do in the House. The bill may succeed in the Senate, but not before undergoing amendments. As a result, the House and Senate will need to convene thereafter in order to compromise over a unified bill for President Obama to sign into a law.

PARTISAN BICKERING

2009-11-12T13:31:00.000-08:00

I absolutely despise partisan politics, albeit an ubiquitous component of U.S. legislation. The political culture in the United States is a war of attrition conducted by two rival parties bent on dominating the political landscape. The Democrats and Republicans vie for power in not only the House and Senate, but at the state level, too.

Sensationalist dialogue erupted in every news forum following the gubernatorial election results on Tuesday, November 3. The same story was regurgitated over and over, merely spewed out in a different manner more akin to the appropriate medium be it radio, television, or newspaper. Victory for the GOP in New Jersey and Virginia! A Democratic miracle happens in New York’s 23rd Congressional district! All the rage over how long Obama’s coat tails are. Meaningless babble to determine if the Democratic administration in the White House can extend its reach to the state legislature, or if the Republicans can regain power from the ground up.

The main point to take away from these reports is that the majority of Americans are more concerned with job security, unemployment, and economic stability than party affiliation. No matter if a state previously dominated by Republicans is now Democratically controlled, or vice versa. The issue universally represented in every state election still to come is that Americans expect their representatives to comply with their demands. As Charles Babington of the Associate Press writes in his Voters' memo to politicians, "We're angry and fearful, mostly about jobs and the economy. We want tangible solutions, not partisan bickering or intraparty spats. And we'll vote either party out of office if we don't think you're listening."

Are Halloween costumes more than just a holiday fad?

2009-10-30T14:38:00.000-07:00

Ah, the infamous orange jumpsuit… Simultaneously, a prison garb, Halloween costume, and a protester’s fashion statement. Following the Abu Ghraib scandals and controversy surrounding Guantanamo Bay, the orange jumpsuit underwent a fashion makeover and transformed from a mere Halloween gag to a stylish political mockery. Can a Halloween costume actually have a detrimental effect on society worthy of taking offense? How far will a person push the limits of his/her costume before they become offensive to someone else? The orange jumpsuit continues to evolve and proves to be exceptionally versatile since developing into the latest Halloween craze, a gross depiction of an “illegal alien.”

The “illegal alien” costume idea stems from a similar line of Halloween attire that mock anything and everything from over-size sombreros and ponchos to fake beards and a turban. During Halloween time people always find it as an excuse to play dress-up and mock another’s religion, ethnicity, or culture.

Naturally, many spoke out against the costume claiming it is racist and simply perpetuates a false stereotype of immigrants. Chicago’s own Jorge Mujica, affiliated with the March 10th Committee, condemns the costume because it presents a mockery. The Coalition for Humane Immigrants has taken the offense a step further by petitioning major retailers like Target to stop marketing the costume.

Apparently, the pressure from outraged customers and immigration reform organizations has successfully halted sales of the costume at Target. However, other prominent corporations including Walgreen’s, Wal-Mart, and Amazon.com have yet to publically declare their position towards selling the costume.

After 9/11 people began parading around wearing Osama Bin Laden costumes and fake terrorist uniforms during Halloween. Imagine a Muslim person answering the door to a bunch of youths dressed up as terrorists. How would this person respond to such a shock? HA! The Muslim would laugh off the insulting masquerade, and hand them some candy. Or, do the adolescents and their parents, or better yet the major Halloween retailers need to be taught a lesson about insensitivity and offensive costumes?

Whether or not a person can take a joke is arguably irrelevant within the context of Halloween. Will allowing controversial costumes like the “illegal alien” to stay on the market perpetuate the existence of degrading stereotypes? Or, can we just ignore the insult and enjoy some candy?

Abandon all hope ye who sit here; Governor's seat plagued by corruption

2009-10-27T10:15:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Union League Club of Chicago
BREAKFAST @65 WEST
Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Forum
Moderator: Chris Robling

Reema Ahmad, the Government Affairs Coordinator, and I recently attended an Illinois Gubernatorial candidate forum at the Union League Club of Chicago, just down the street from CAIR-Chicago’s Jackson Boulevard office. The event provided an introspective observation of several leading contenders on the campaign trail for Governor, one of the most powerful and absolutely crooked positions on the Illinois legislature. This particular presentation exclusively featured the prominent Republican candidates, namely Adam Andrzejewki, Bill Brady, Kirk Dillard, Dan Proft, and Bob Schillerstrom. The Democratic Party’s candidates will participate in a similar forum at the same location in a couple of weeks.

Illinois regrettably has an infamous reputation for being one of the most corrupt cities in the United States. It is no coincidence that Chicago is depicted as Batman’s Gotham city. The rampant fraudulence runs from the heart of Chicago all the way down to the capital in Springfield, infecting the entire Land of Lincoln. The current path to Governor is inundated with corruption scandals, lying, bribery, and every other foul mannerism that accompanies a high-ranking seat in the Illinois government.

Former Governor Rod Blagojevich, succeeded by interim Governor Pat Quinn, was recently removed from office amidst corruption allegations. He may soon undergo impeachment for a number of crimes, namely for attempting to auction off the vacant Senator seat left by current President Obama. As the candidates took to the podium promising a revolutionary change in Illinois politics the audience struggled to maintain a sense of objectivity due to the large elephant in the room, not the GOP mascot, but an obvious embodiment of a still fresh wound inflicted by Blagojevich and the incurable disease of corruption. The candidates faced off against one another during one of the most tumultuous eras in Illinois’ history. It was clear no one wanted to suffer another political scandal that has plagued the state of Illinois.

One of the main topics addressed in the forum and repeatedly discussed by candidates was the idea of “transparency of government” which stipulates openly displaying local and state finances for public scrutiny. This policy reform would allow Illinois taxpayers to view how their money is spent, specifically revealing how much and where the bulk of the state’s resources are being allocated. While a few of the candidates touted to having already exhibited their own finances on their campaign websites, others disagreed with the notion that their personal assets need to be publically disclosed in order to validate their candidacy.

Clearly, the most significant issue of the debate was the enormous budget deficit of Illinois, which according to provisional Governor Pat Quinn’s website currently stands at $11.6 billion for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. One of the questions during the Q/A session asked how could any of the candidates even attempt to balance the budget without raising taxes? The subsequent answers given by each candidate encompassed the several important policies in relation to balancing the state’s budget including education funding, changes in taxation, job creation and security, Medicaid and pensions.

I mistakenly may have heard that every candidate said they would never think of raising taxes, rather they would erase the debt through spending more intelligently. Also, some candidates even proposed cutting taxes which would grant businesses more incentives for coming to Illinois, and more importantly staying here to provide jobs. This topic penetrated deep into the hearts of those in attendance who have struggled to pay their bills and remain fearful of losing their jobs, if they already have not lost them. This debate would ultimately make or break an audience member’s support for a particular candidate.

The candidates ranged in terms of age and experience, and all were fairly wealthy middle-aged Caucasian males, not too unlike the audience. Also, the fact that these were Republican candidates vying for power over the Governor position in a majority Democratic administration was not left unmentioned. Every candidate proffered an obvious Republican style reformation to corruption, almost implicitly stating that those currently in power, or more importantly Democrats, were to blame for the current political humiliation and economic hardships afflicting Illinoisans.

Overall, the event provided first hand experience in political campaigning at the state level as opposed to the national arena which is more familiar to the average American. Prospective constituents obtained the insight to discern who among those candidates participating in the forum will lead the charge in most effectively alleviating their political and financial woes. More importantly, the audience aimed to be vigilant in preventing the past from repeating itself and clouding their present judgment. Republican or democrat, Illinoisans do not want to be duped and inveigled into electing another typical crony Governor like Blagojevich.

2009-10-27T10:00:00.000-07:00

CHAUVINISM OR PATRIOTISM?

2009-10-15T13:33:00.000-07:00

The USA PATRIOT Act, or Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, is up for revision yet again. On December 31, 2009, three of the Act’s controversial provisions will sunset or potentially become reauthorized for a prolonged period.

Will the Obama administration recognize the PATRIOT Act’s immediate significance to the American public or circumvent the issue as the health care debate and foreign policy are deemed higher priority?

Capitol Hill has been holding its breath over the issue and at the forefront of the approaching sunset stands Section 215.

Previously, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) required federal law enforcement agencies to provide a substantiated formal request for any wiretapping devices used in counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations. Those restrictions were eliminated immediately following passage of the PATRIOT Act.

Section 215 of the Act permits federal law enforcement agencies limitless access to personal property (e.g., computers and laptops, telephones including mobile devices, private banking and financial statements, as well as library records).

Nowadays, wiretapping methods are legally implemented without disclosure meaning the alleged enemy will never be informed of the investigation. Consequently, Section 215 of the Act is arguably in violation of the 1^st and 4^th Amendments, specifically freedom of speech and association, and rights to privacy and personal property.

The extent to which one will or already has been affected by the PATRIOT Act remains unspecified. As technology and daily life continue to become fused together, the capacity of Section 215 to infiltrate one’s livelihood becomes painfully obvious.

Here we go again...

2009-10-08T15:21:00.000-07:00

Surely Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) did not intend on peeling the scab off of a healing wound when he spoke last Thursday at a conference in Washington D.C., but his comment drawing a contrast between being Muslim and being "good" has done just that.

When questioned by The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg about groups within the Republican party that play on conspiracies surrounding President Obama, Graham expressed his disdain for some fringe elements of his party and conservative media. He denounced Fox News host Glenn Beck as a "cynic" and called the birther community, who question the president's U.S. citizenship, "crazy."

After discounting the claims that Obama was born outside of the United States, Graham went on to insist President Obama "is not a Muslim. He's a good man."
SEE: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid30183074001?bctid=42981023001

While it is outrageous - to say the least - that such broad ranging contrasts may be drawn between one’s moral composition and their religious affiliation, comments such as Senator Graham's are not new among our elected officials.

Americans were just beginning to heal from the alienation they endured last year when Islamophobia flared-up during the Presidential election and Americans across the nation accused Obama of being a Muslim, implying that this is something antithetical to being American.

Such views were also expressed by presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, nearly a year ago today at a campaign rally at which one of his supporters stated, “I don’t trust Obama… he’s an Arab!” McCain responded, “No, ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with. He’s not [an Arab].”
Read: http://www.ahmedrehab.com/2008/10/identity-insults-and-democracy/

In a country composed of individuals from numerous ethnic backgrounds, faiths, and lifestyle decisions, it is deeply saddening to observe such blatantly discriminatory and ignorant comments made without a second thought by those representing us in government.

We have not yet arrived at the post-racial society many claim President Obama's election embodies in the U.S. today - though this ideal is not beyond the scope of reality one day.U.S. Senators and others entrusted with shaping public opinion, must challenge bigoted and un-American sentiments and serve as the enlightened vanguard that guides our nations toward peace and prosperity for all.