Demystifying Shari'ah

The conference held at the Islamic Center of New England in Sharon, on Saturday, March 31, was appropriately named as "Demystifying Shari'ah" - a word not many were familiar with until a few years ago, a concept so charged today that it fiercely divides communities and send chills down spines.

The aim of the conference was to educate the audience in a spirit similar to what President John F. Kennedy had famously said, "…a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

The full-day long program ended with dinner as per tradition of the Islamic Center of New England – some of my friends find the spicy food served at the ICNE reason enough to attend any event there, so I was hoping that combined with the topic's popularity (or notoriety?) would draw a big crowd. I am thankful to those who came, though I did not see many unfamiliar faces and felt an opportunity for sharing concerns and seeking answers seemed lost. I assumed many were either held up by prior commitments or by the inability to overcome their fears – or perhaps, simply, the advertising efforts needed more work!

Read full article at  Sharon Patch

All-American Americans

The home-improvement store, Lowe's, has pulled its advertising from TLC's "All-American Muslim," a reality series based on the lives of five American Muslim families from Dearborn, Mich.

Lowe's decision was prompted by the complaint of an evangelical Christian group known as the Florida Family Association, who threatened to boycott the company's products because they believed the show projected "propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda's clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values."

Lowe's customers are divided in their support for and against the decision, and protests have also started. Senator Ted Lieu has called the action "bigoted, shameful and un-American." 

This is a free country, one may argue. Lowe's is a private company and unless it is in breach of contract with TLC, it is entitled to making its business decisions independent of any outside influence or interference.

That would be a valid argument, except for a minor detail: Lowe's decision to withdraw its advertising from TLC's reality show is a direct response to the negative campaign against Muslim Americans by an interest group. Hence, it brings to surface a deeper debate – a debate about American liberties and consumer driven social order.   

So, what is this reality show called "All-American Muslim" about? Who are the "controversial" characters that are so out of favor with the Florida Family Association that they threaten their sense of civil liberties and traditional values?

A quick viewing of the pilot episode introduces one to the five American Muslim families. One couple deals with family drama while tying the knot, another welcomes their first baby; a third couple teaches their four children to balance religious and cultural identities, the fourth juggles an all too familiar balancing act of parenting and careers, and a fifth family features an independent and ambitious Muslim woman.

Their professions range from special education aide to respiratory therapist, federal agent, football coach and law enforcement – as diverse in their line of work as they are in the expression of their faith where hijab and low necklines make for an interesting contrast. What, one wonders, could be more representative of the American experience and less threatening to American liberties? "All-American Muslims" should really be called "All-American Americans," and the only controversy they may be accused of evoking is challenging the stereotype. 

When the producers at TLC conceived the idea of a show about American Muslims, it was likely to gain some good publicity and steady viewership, and challenging negative perceptions about a community that is openly vilified.

The five families featured in the show also aimed to discourage hate-filled rhetoric they encounter in public by allowing TV cameras into the privacy of their homes. A 2010 Gallup survey reveals that 63 percent of Americans acknowledge that they have "little" or "none at all" knowledge of Islam, and 53 percent have a "not favorable at all" view about Muslims. The FFA's complaint shows that many of us would rather continue to embrace their willful ignorance than welcome the opportunity to become better informed.

No matter how one analyses Lowe's decision, it comes out as irrational. Perhaps FFA and Lowe's should have read the 2011 Pew Research Study titled "Muslim Americans: No Sign of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism" to alleviate their fears. In the absence of solid evidence of the "Islamic agenda" that Muslims have been accused of, there can be no justification for FFA's insinuation.  

Business-wise, the decision seems unwise, and Senator Lieu speaks for many when he says, "As a consumer, I find Lowe's bigotry to be nonsensical."

When experts at Lowe's put their heads together to weigh their options, perhaps they should have done their research thoroughly.

According to the largest advertising agency in the U.S., JWT's 2007 study,  the combined annual disposable income from Muslim households in America is estimated at more than $170 billion, and for 70 percent of the respondents "brands play an important role in their purchasing decisions, compared to 55 percent for the average American." It is sad that Lowe's has chosen to embrace the bigotry purported by the FFA. Unless some steps are taken as redress, it is not hard to imagine where that disposable income will not end up.

Interest groups are at liberty to push for their agendas because this is a free country, but we have a civic responsibility to reject what damages societal harmony. To suspend rational thought and give others the power to exploit us leads to social chaos, and we inadvertently become enablers of hatred. That only makes for a fractured community, not a strong cohesive one. 

Published in Sharon Patch as  'All American Muslims' are Really All-American Americans Dec 2011

A Time to Reflect

Opinion

Is religious correctness stifling freedom of speech or free expression testing religious boundaries?

Multi-religious and multi-cultural societies have still much to learn by way of harmonious coexistence, not the least of which is finding a balance between freedom of speech and religious correctness.

Starting with the controversy aroused over two decades ago by Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’, a trend was set into motion that continues to threaten social cohesion in many societies even today. The Danish Cartoon Controversy rendered the world even more divided on the issue of freedom of speech and religious sensitivity, and now the 200th episode of South Park has sparked off the latest debate on what is seen as religious correctness vs. freedom to ridicule. This is a debate that keeps coming back to haunt us and hence worth a few moments of our consideration.

South Park, an animated comedy series production of the American television network, Comedy Central, is a social satire depicting life through the eyes of four fourth-grade boys living in a fictional town in Colorado. Intended for adult audiences only, it is known for the use of crude humor and strong profanity while spinning some spitting satire. Some previous episodes have received criticism; including one titled ‘Bloody Mary’ condemned by the Catholics, and another on Scientology caused Tom Cruise to demand further reruns of the episode be cancelled.

The contentious issue of the depiction of the Prophet of Islam in the costume of a teddy bear, though now censored, has aroused reactions in the Muslim world ranging from quiet indignation to fatwas and threats made in the murky cyber world. With political correctness getting in the way of direct communication, one ends up trusting Newspaper websites and blogs to depict the public mindset. Queries range from questioning the sense of humor – or lack thereof – of Muslims, to why Prophet Muhammad remains beyond ridicule if Jesus and Moses have been targeted in earlier episodes with no threat of violence from either religious community. But, more importantly, a heated debate rages over where the concept of freedom of speech rests in view of the decision to censor the offending episode? Valid queries, all.

With the Satanic Verses and the Cartoon issue, the voices of reason within the Muslim community were silenced by those supporting retaliation with force, ‘Are you part of the Muslim community or not?’ – a version of the infamous Bush era theme of ‘with us or against us’. At that point, many peaceful Muslims would have liked to see some understanding for their sensitivities and hear from the non-Muslim or Western community, ‘We're sorry you feel offended and can also see why, given the high respect you accord your Prophet, but we believe in freedom of speech and cannot take away that right even from offending voices.’ Instead the message that came through was, ‘We have the right to abuse anyone we like, that's our concept of freedom of speech – accept it or leave."

This lack of sensitivity for religious concerns of Muslims at that time also alienated the reasonable voices to an extent by changing their indignation against the violent lot in their own community towards those supporting the offensive words and images. Everyone lost perspective. Groups of Muslims went on the rampage in a show of resentment, and a corresponding rise of sympathy and support was seen for the offending material from the proponents of free speech. Material which was probably doomed for the dustbins of time managed to etch an eternal plaque for itself in the annals of history, and continues to color our perceptions even today.

The South Park issue and the response to it are very similar to the Cartoon Controversy. The censorship seems to have taken care of the immediate threat to violence for now, but there is no guarantee future issues will be similarly contained, and whether that is the right solution in the long term. How much censorship a society used to unrestricted freedom of expression will tolerate, is also a question that will keep on urging us to face uncomfortable realities and make some uncomfortable choices. While religious correctness need not stifle freedom of speech, targeting religious sensitivities is also not the only form of humor one needs to learn to appreciate. However, the politics of violence will have to be shunned unequivocally.

Civilized protest is a right guaranteed to all, but no legal framework or religious code of conduct encourages violence. Muslims have every right to feel offended by attempts at humor at their cost and express their displeasure, but they must learn some peaceful and effective forms of protest. That might actually win them some sympathy, since most people of all affiliations still choose civility over the right to ridicule. Overt or covert references to serious consequences only produce hatred.

In this regard, Muslims need only recall the example of their beloved Prophet in terms of his response to ridicule and scorn during his lifetime to decide their own reactions to such provocation. The authenticated records of the Prophet’s life, the books of Hadith, depict the Prophet responding with kindness to people who openly ridiculed and abused him. He neither did himself, nor asked his companions to retaliate with force, but instead chose to teach by example of forgiveness. A Hadith from Sahih Al-Bukhari, establishes the same point: "And you do not do evil to those Who do evil to you, but you deal With them with forgiveness and kindness."

The basic message imparted by all major religions is of forgiveness and kindness. Some of us either have convenient memories or tend to overlook that important message to promote our own agendas. Isn’t it time to set our perspectives and priorities in order and learn to coexist peacefully to benefit the societies we inhabit?

Published: The Radicla Middle Way on May 17, 2010

The Right Choice

Opinion

Alienation of hearts and minds has the potential to strengthen the monster of violence we all despise.

Disturbing stories of violent acts committed by seemingly intelligent and stable individuals grace the media from time to time. Whether adhering to an all too common nihilistic ideology, holding personal grievances against former employers or disturbed by workplace harassment, these acts constantly challenge our perception of the world around us. A majority of people – whatever their religion, cultural background or affiliation – would probably never fully comprehend the motivation behind violent acts because these are consistently inconsistent with the basic values that form the fabric of civilized societies.

As communities big and small struggle to make sense of it, comments posted in blogs and newspaper websites give one a fair idea of the anger and calls for retaliation that acts of violence provoke, while at the same time there is much to appreciate in the saner voices urging for reason to prevail. Mainstream Muslims in the post 9/11 US are increasingly bewildered why they get so easily grouped together with the 'bad guys', the moment some untoward incident happens, in societies they have inhabited and contributed productively to for decades. In homogenous societies, it is perhaps relatively easy to draw a line between right and wrong and distance oneself form the less favoured position, but heterogeneous societies can come with a unique problem when ‘the good, the bad and the ugly’, so to speak, of any ethnic, religious or cultural group might find themselves labeled as one. Unfortunately, this also forms the basis for another form of what is now popularly known as 'collateral': the alienation of hearts and minds.

This alienation is something to be feared because when resentment against the individual who has committed a brutal act extends to envelop a whole community, not only does it incite hatred and threaten social cohesion, but it also has the potential to isolate the very people who can make a difference, as they grow increasingly tired of explaining themselves for the actions of those they have nothing to do with. While the generally accepted position for peoples of other Faiths inhabiting countries around the world regarding terrorism remains ‘innocent until proven guilty’, for Muslims it has become the opposite. Even though no other religious community is called on to accept responsibility for individual murderers within their fold, Muslims around the world are expected to do just that. That’s a heavy burden to carry; one that is starting to take its toll.

Since the tragedy of 9/11, there has been so much collateral in physical, emotional and psychological terms that the world may never go back to how we knew it. Tragedies have a way of bringing people together through the common experience of learning to piece together a shattered existence. Yet, 9/11 and its subsequent events have divided the world so sharply on religious lines that there seems to be no turning back unless a conscious effort to reverse the trend is undertaken through active engagement at every level.

This spirit of tolerance and engagement is not hard to find. It resides within us, and without. I – a Muslim living in the diverse society I now inhabit – have seen it and felt it, and there is no reason why it can’t be extended to and from others like me. I find it apparent in the welcoming smiles of the lovely women of my book club and the constant support of considerate friends who know and respect me for who I am rather than fit me into a stereotype; it is hiding in the thoughtful quotes selected by the librarian who talks to me about deeper truths of life, promoting a selfless existence; it shines through the little acts of care my colleagues at work show when they step in ever so quickly if they see me headed for a cultural faux pas my newness leaves me vulnerable to; it reaches out to me through the people who make an extra effort to learn to pronounce my name just right and share their thoughts on concepts of compassion and mercy, and it envelops me in its warmth when I stand with dedicated people so focused on seeing the vision of interfaith harmony materialize – this spirit of tolerance is indeed alive and well in the hearts of Americans of all Faiths and affiliations that I come across every day.

Is that an overly simplistic view? Am I missing something? Not really, for I have also experienced the unpleasantness of being seen as an extension of the bad news that comes from my part of the world so consistently these days – I have come across those who retreat as soon as they learn the name of my home country and those who, despite having some meaningful contact with me for over a year, have now chosen to walk away – still, I want to believe that the wonderful people around me are representative of the majority and may the few, who struggle with their fears and take refuge in generalizations, find their peace before it is too late to make amends.

History teaches us that the actions of a few have so often ruined the lives of many. But then, a few others have made all the difference. The cycle of violence and mistrust does not have to go on if we refuse to give in to our fears. It is hard, but ‘doable’ – as my American friends would say. All we have to do is make the right choice. Not tomorrow, but now. Choose to reach out. Choose to resolve. And choose to reunite. All it takes is an open mind, and a belief – yes, we can.

A version of this article was published in the ICNE Newsletter, March 26, 2010.

A Local Oasis in a World of Religious Strife

Opinion

Religious differences are generally acknowledged to be a major cause of social conflict in many societies and a serious contemporary issue plaguing relations among nations.

The concepts of religious toleration and liberty, despite being much talked about entities, are also found sadly lacking when many proponents of freedom and equality are invited to walk the talk. Yet, every now and then one is rendered pleasantly surprised.

A diverse mix of faiths resides in the small picturesque town of Sharon. One evening, while taking a stroll down the street, I passed by a synagogue. A banner displayed outside announced the celebration of 70 years since its founding. There was light music coming from inside, pleasant and non-intrusive, while a large number of cars parked outside bore witness to plentiful attendance. Having recently moved to the country, I began to wonder about the religious freedom extended to other faiths represented there. In a land criticized for persecution of its Muslim inhabitants since Sept. 11, the thought seemed to provoke a skeptical response.

However, a week later while attending a social gathering just a mile away, I stood corrected on more scores than one. A large number of Muslims, mostly of Pakistani origin, had gathered for a celebration. It was a pleasant affair. Men sat comfortably on one side, engrossed in discussions about gas prices and aspirations of their newly graduated offspring, while women and young girls dressed in bright traditional wear sat in the main hall around tables, chatting away or fretting over the rows of food which, as I was to appreciate later, had been cooked by the host and his friends – a huge step away from their traditional role! – in the kitchen next to the main hall. The hall overlooked a swimming pool, a basket ball court, and a school. I was also informed that a private organization called Interfaith Action Inc. coordinates with Muslims and peoples of other faiths in town to facilitate better understanding.

As I watched the scene of perfect social harmony, I became aware of a glaring inconsistency – the presence of non-Muslims. Inside the mosque. That’s right. The venue for the interfaith gathering was the central place of prayer for the followers of the Islamic faith, in the heart of the town. It was a place of not just religious assembly, but of social gathering for the whole family too – something entirely unheard-of back home. As I stood there marveling at the scene before me, the muezzin announced the call for prayer. Men and women formed neat rows to bow before their God while non-Muslim guests looked on curiously, sharing a quiet moment.

A quick flash of memory; another time, another place. Inside the Islamic Republic. A mosque – a place where the entry of a non-Muslim could invite serious consequences in some parts of the country; a place where a regular mosque-goer, for his dedication to his faith, might end up a statistic on the floor of a mosque in yet another suicide attack by a fellow Muslim. Perplexing thoughts. Why are non-Muslims discouraged from interacting with Muslims when blessings of interfaith harmony need to be propagated to improve the delicate global balance? Why is so much blood spilled in the name of a God believed to be ‘the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful’?

It is perhaps only reasonable to conclude that religious differences do not necessarily form the basis for social conflict. It is the culture of intolerance and injustice that breeds hatred and violence. In societies that uphold social justice and religious freedom as a basic human right, religious differences can actually become a source of stability and provide successful multicultural and multi-religious social models for others to follow.

For many, it is clearly time for some serious introspection – but this small town certainly seems to have its priorities in order.

Published Sept 30, 2009 in The Patriot Ledger

Crossing Over or Joining Hands?

Interfaith unions, though now increasingly common, bring a unique set of issues that couples and their children have to deal with all their lives.

Though now subject to varied definitions, marriage is a complex relationship traditionally acknowledged to be a happy union between a man and a woman. Ideally, also, marriages take place between people considered compatible in beliefs and values that would make the union fulfilling and long-lasting.

Interfaith marriages are described as marriages in which the spouses follow different faith traditions. There can be many forms of such union, i.e. between members of religions of ‘the Book called the Abrahamic religions - which include Islam, Christianity and Judaism - sharing the same monotheistic belief system; religions which are completely different owing to Eastern or Western roots, like Christianity and Buddhism or Taoism; religions based on ethical systems like Humanism and polytheistic philosophies like Hinduism, etc.

In general, an increase in interfaith marriages over the years is due to increased globalization. The world has turned into a global village and close contact between peoples of varied faiths and traditions is unavoidable. This contact leads to closer ties and couples may decide to form stronger bonds through marriage. In the past few decades, people from South Asia have migrated in large numbers to developed countries in search of financial security. A vast majority of these men and women from countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka moved to Europe, the UK and the English-speaking countries of North America. First generation immigrants largely remained concentrated in groups they identified with. As the second generations of the South Asian Diaspora slowly became more integrated, interfaith marriages were a natural outcome. However, these have not been easy due to the cultural or religious baggage each person brings to such a union.

The challenges in interfaith marriages are usually directly proportional to the difference in the background of couples. Hence, some studies suggest that interfaith marriages have a higher rate of failure. However, difference in religion may not be the only difficulty for couples since beliefs within the same religion tend to vary too, and a moderate Muslim and one believing in a radical interpretation may find not much to relate with, just as in the case of a liberal Christian and a conservative Christian. Conversely, a liberal Jew and a liberal Christian may find much to agree on in many of their beliefs.

One reason for failure of these marriages is the fact that despite everything, societies by and large still remain skeptical and less supportive - some more than others - of intercultural and interfaith unions. Eastern societies with their close-knit joint family systems generally tend to be more demanding than Western models of family life. The basic values that define relationships are very different in the East and West, and couples who discuss their aspirations and expectations before the wedding generally fare better. As a general rule, Eastern cultures - and South Asians specifically - are male-dominated, and the Eastern man is used to taking on the main burden of financial responsibility and being more assertive in decision-making. Eastern wives, conversely, are expected to be supportive, stay-at-home moms, managing the affairs of the family and not expected to pursue careers outside the home unless economic circumstances compel such a decision. Western men, on the other hand expect their wives to be equal earning partners and might find them to be lacking in perspective and ambition if they don't. Hence, a Western woman marrying an Eastern man might find herself hard pressed to fulfill her duties, while an Eastern wife might be equally bewildered by the expectations of her man.

In an interfaith marriage, not only the couple has to deal with the usual pressures of marriage, but also the added responsibility of maintaining better than usual religious decorum for fear of being labeled ‘traitors' of their respective Faiths. What they see as ‘joining hands' may be considered more like ‘crossing over' by families and societies at large. Then comes the question of whether one of them would convert or whether each would follow their own beliefs - one estimate puts the number of conversions at 40%. Conversions are largely seen as an effective solution to issues that might rise after the birth of children, but they also come with many problems for the spouse who has converted under some sort of pressure. Feelings of betrayal for the previous faith, trouble relating with newly adopted concepts and doctrines, and difficulty in connecting with God in a new context may create psychological problems and unnecessary tension in the relationship.

The question of whose religion would the children follow creates much friction and sometimes couples debate whether they should have children at all in order to prevent such dilemmas. If the parents are unable to reconcile their religious differences, over time these can cause friction in the home and affect the emotional and psychological wellbeing of the children too. In some homes a compromise is reached by teaching the children both religions and allowing them to decide for themselves once they are old enough to make that decision. Mostly, however, one religion dominates over the other, e.g. the Islamic Faith requires the children be raised in Islamic tradition, while the Catholic Church requires that the Catholic parent ensure the children are raised as Catholics. These frictions sometimes continue to plague relations and result in separation.

Interfaith marriages in India have been more common between members of the Dharmic religions (Hinduism, Sikhism and Jainism) than between Hindus and Christians or Muslims because of their basic religious differences. In the Indian society Dharmic intermarriages tend to have fewer problems than Muslim-Hindu or Christian-Hindu couple. Although India has a state policy of freedom of worship, a U.S. State Department report in 2000 observed that the tensions in the society between Hindus and both Muslims and Christians had increased alarmingly, discouraging such unions. In Pakistan, an overwhelmingly Muslim majority country, a Hindu or Christian spouse is expected to convert before the vows are taken.

To review a global trend, in the Muslim majority country of Malaysia the law requires the non-Muslim spouse to convert before the marriage ceremony can take place. It is estimated that in 1999 there were 150,000 intercultural couples in Malaysia. The National Jewish Population Survey conducted in 2000-2001 and updated in 2004 in the U.S., showed that 47% of Jewish marriages were interfaith, while more than 40% of couples married in the Catholic Church in Canada were of mixed religions according to The Catholic Registry. However, the percentage of Muslims seeking interfaith marriage remains low in Canada. One study in the U.S. also estimates that 91% of Muslims marry within their Faith. Even though a 2007 Pew Research Poll concluded that about 62% of American Muslims consider it acceptable to marry a non-Muslim, yet the tragedy of 9/11 and its subsequent events have divided the world so sharply on religious lines that perceptions have changed drastically and the option may not seem very attractive to other faiths in the West, anymore.

As cultures and traditions continue to hold sway over actions of individuals, choice of a life partner remains one of the most important decisions one makes. For any commitment to sustain in the long term, communication of expectations before the vows are taken and determination in the face of hardships, might offer the best hope.

Published Feb, 10 Southasia Magazine as Faith and Marriage