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

THE WORLD IN BLACK AND WHITE

“Why are South Asians so fascinated with a fair complexion?” asked my American friend, Ruth.

The monthly meeting of our book club was in session. Having read Bapsi Sidhwa’s An American Brat, the members were ready to discuss the book’s contents.

“Doesn’t it look lovely?” I asked.

“Not if you are Rihaana!” Quipped Charlotte and everyone laughed.

“And not if it shows all your wrinkles more!” added Jane.

“You can’t have it both ways, can you?” I chuckled. “Actually, it’s probably a post-colonial association issue. White-skin has become synonymous with power and status for us.”

Everyone nodded, understandingly but the conversation started me thinking if our fascination with white skin was just a colonial hangover or a symptom of something deeper.

Skin-tone prejudice may be defined as giving darker-skinned people discriminatory social treatment. Anthropologists and historians believe the symbolism of white and black colours is universal and originates from the basic distinction of light and darkness. They also acknowledge its gender connection. In Fair Women, Dark Men: The forgotten Roots of Colour Prejudice, anthropologist Peter Frost says, “lighter women were preferred in medieval Japan, Aztec Mexico and Moorish Spain, even before there was significant contact with Western ideology.” Sociologist Pierre L. van den Berghe, also writes in his foreword, “Although virtually all cultures express a marked preference for fair female skin, even those with little or no exposure to European imperialism…many are indifferent to male pigmentation or even prefer men to be darker.”

This adds another dimension to the system of gender prejudice prevalent in South Asian societies of India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Pakistan is ethnically very diverse, and women of the North Western areas that host fair-skinned populations are relatively free of this prejudice while other ethnic groups are more vulnerable. We all remember Junaid Jamshed’s hit song, ‘Goray-rung-ka-zamana’ that prompted an outcry from the not-so-fair maidens and resulted in, ‘Saanwli-saloni-si-mehbooba’. Though JJ obviously did not mean to be discriminatory, his choice of topics shows how deeply our society has unconsciously adopted this bias and become complicit in a gender crime that flourishes at home, at the workplace and in public spheres.

Workplace discrimination is hard to tackle since the methods are usually subtle, and many women are discouraged by fear of reprisal and lack of trust in legal recourse. This discrimination comes in the form of racial slurs in the US, but the legal system is more effective there, for example, in 2008 a black woman, Tomeika Broussard, was granted $44,000 in damages in a lawsuit because her boss repeatedly called her ‘reggin’, a racial slur spelt backwards.

Sadly, many wonderful women’s personal lives suffer because of widespread skin-tone bias when even dark-skinned Romeos pass them by for fairer maidens. However, more disturbing is when women themselves become equal participants of this cruel practice against their own kind — a case of the abused turning into abusers. When looking for bahus, mothers-in-law often act as hard-to-please prejudiced gatekeepers, thereby ruining the happiness of many girls and destroying any chance of finding compatible partners for their sons.

A friend once described her humiliating experience with the rishta aunties. As they enjoyed tea and samosas, she overheard them calling attention to her feet in case she had applied whitening creams on her face to hide her true complexion. Her intellectual accomplishments and pleasant mannerism meant nothing to them. What an unfortunate experience for any self-respecting female. On a similar note, African-American author Marita Golden writes in her memoir, “Don’t Play in the Sun”, about the colour-based bias of her mother when she tells her to stay out of the sun because, “You’re going to have to get a light-skinned husband for the sake of your children as it is”. This admonishment is familiar to many South Asian girls and points to the universal nature of this prejudice.
In such a discriminatory atmosphere, commercial gains are not lost to the shrewd businessman. Skin lightening products are a huge and lucrative industry in India and Pakistan. A 2007 New York Times report revealed that half of India’s skincare market comprised skin whitening products because, as Ashok Venkatramani of Hindustan Lever explained, “The definition of beauty in the Western world is linked to anti-aging…In Asia, it’s all about being two shades lighter.” The advertisements of popular fairness creams show dark, lonely women transforming into fair, happy beauties with fulfilling lives, thereby belittling their achievements and connecting their happiness to meaningless superficial concerns.

Colour discrimination in the United States largely affects people of South Asian descent, African Americans and Hispanics.Some anthropologists believe that the African diaspora is as much traumatised by ‘colourism’ as by racism and colonialism.
Studies show darker-skinned people to be at a socio-economic disadvantage even in today’s politically-correct West. South Asian and African-American communities themselves prefer lighter skin, proving that the discrimination is not just brought on from outside but embraced by victim communities themselves — an African-American retailer was sued by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2008 for calling his darker-skinned employee ‘too dark’ and ‘black as charcoal’.

Perceptions of beauty among African-American women favour lighter-skinned Halle Berry over the darker Whoopi Goldberg or Oprah, and while Michelle Obama may be a celebrated dark-skinned beauty, that perception may be influenced by her position as the American First Lady. Darker Asian men have recently come to focus on their complexion encouraged by fairness creams aimed at men. Darker African-American men, by contrast, have had it tough throughout history and been assigned to fieldwork while their lighter counterparts worked indoors. The Christian Science Monitor recently reported about the former Mississippi governor’s pardon controversy — of all the pardons Barbour had granted, two-thirds were for white prisoners when the prison racial make-up is two-thirds black, thus revealing the possible reach of colour prejudice extending into the US justice system.

Though the era of political correctness discourages open expressions of prejudice in many societies, skin-based discrimination still flourishes unhindered. In order to bring down the colour collateral this bias exacts from our women, we must deny it the mental and physical space it occupies in our social-scape so that no accomplished dark maiden need summon the mirror on her wall to weigh her worth. Let us, indeed, adjust our priorities for the better.

Published in Dawn Review as "The World in Black and White" , March 18, 2012.

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 Legacy of Hate

Op-Ed

It is time to heal ourselves now

A children’s coloring book recently published by Big Coloring Books, Inc., in St. Louis, titled,We shall never Forget - The Kids Book of Freedom has sparked much controversy of late. It claims to be a tribute to the victims of 9/11, but many are questioning its deeper agenda.

Responding to criticism, Wayne Bell, the publisher of the book, has denied it advocates anti-Muslim sentiment. He was quoted on Abc News as saying, “This book under no way… zero, zero… no way… mentions Islam or Muslims…it does not mention Islam in generalities...” He claims the book was “created with honesty, integrity, reverence, respect and does not shy away from the truth.” However, a cursory glance through the book makes one pause to consider the implications of the message it appears to advocate – albeit unintentionally, if we are to honor Wayne Bell’s words.

To begin with, the phrase ‘radical Islamic Muslim extremists’ appears ten times through the course of its 36 pages, and in one section the book claims: “These attacks will change the way America deals with and views the Islamic and Muslim people around the world…”, connecting all Muslims living in countries around the world to 9/11, and making no attempt to distinguish between the small minority engaged in promoting violence and the majority of peaceful Muslims worldwide. It might be true to say that the attacks have influenced the American foreign policy towards Muslim countries since 9/11, but the last decade has also brought to us the sad reality of how America has changed the way it deals with its own Muslim citizens, where despite assurances otherwise embedding of FBI informans pretending to be Muslim converts inside mosques are now old stories. This has been widely criticized as a counter-productive measure since it appears to treat all Muslims as part of the problem.

 On a more personal level, Americans now view their fellow countrymen with suspicion and hatred. This has alienated huge sections of the society and pitted communities against each other which should have been working to buid relationships. Similarly, institutions that should be working in collaboration with each other to defeat violent extremism end up being in collision due to lack of trust. This situation has undermined the strength of the American society and created fissures in the beautiful mosaic of ethnicities, cultures and Faiths that America has always been proud to host.

The book also makes other observations that appear to be unfounded and based on conjecture, for example, “Children, the truth is, these terrorist acts were done by freedom-hating radical Islamic Muslim extremists. These crazy people hate the American way of life because we are FREE and our society is FREE.” The simple fact of the matter is that 9/11 and later acts were not carried out by individuals who hated the American way of life, but by individuals who have used their religion as an excuse to further their personal agenda. Terrorism is all about power and control, and terrorists of all affiliations use excuses to further their agenda, and gather support from the like-minded. A simple question we can all ask ourselves is, if the supremacy of Islam is the main motivation for these self-proclaimed defenders of faith, why do they continue to kill innocent Muslim men, women and children in staggering numbers in Muslim countries?  No one can refute the fact that the 9/11 bombing was carried out by individuals who were Muslim. We know they were Muslims because they believed themselves to be, and we have to accept how a person wants to define himself,  but why are we failing to make a clear distinction between them and the mainstream Muslims?

Perhaps the American nation needs to pause for a moment and try to make sense of the cacophony of messages it receives from multiple sources, each with its own agenda, and reflect not only on the immediate impact of the sad event of 9/11, but also the long term effects of the decisions they make today that will shape the lives of their future generations. The periodic resurfacing of hateful agendas may be the price of living in a free society, as a dear friend pointed out to me, but freedom also comes with responsibility – a responsibility for everyone, but more so for those who may not be on the receiving end of this campaign of hate but who believe in upholding justice and fairness for all. It is only when the silent majority stands up to deny anyone the opportunity to contribute to further disintegration of societal fabric that we will begin to heal.

The publisher’s claim, if we are to acknowledge as credible, that the book has already sold out of its first print run of 10,000 copies should be a cause of alarm for all of us. Can we hope that more parents will begin to make a conscious choice to not let anyone pass on a legacy of hate to their children? Can we, indeed, hope to leave a better world for our children based on tolerance and respectful engagement?

Let us say, “Enough!” and move on now. We owe our children a future full of hope, not regret. 

A version of this article was published in Sharon Patch as Divided, We Fall 

Winning Hearts and Minds, the Right Way

Opinion

He might not have much influence on his country’s foreign policy, but he is surely the best ambassador any country could hope for

Pick up any newspaper, and you find Pakistan in the news more often than any other country – and usually not for the best of reasons. Fortunately, however, these days the news of corruption, bombs, beards and burkas is outshined by the hospitality and love ordinary Pakistanis shower upon an American helicopter pilot, John Bockman. His blog in a Pakistani newspaper, The Express Tribune, has been widely shared by his host country’s readers and is still drawing comments four weeks hence. He is part of a US humanitarian mission in Pakistan, delivering aid to the flood-ravaged areas.

Although the US remains the single largest donor of aid to Pakistan’s latest calamity-hit population, it still suffers from a huge public relations nightmare as far as its image among the majority of Pakistan’s population, or even the Muslim world, is concerned. Struggling to contain the negative fallout of some of their aggressive policies in this War on Terror, the US policy-makers and practitioners are hard-pressed to find effective measures to win hearts and minds of ordinary Pakistanis, and thereby curtail recruitment for terrorists. Although there are a variety of reasons quoted for this image deficit, including the oft quoted Bushism, ‘They hate us for our freedoms’, yet few believe that to be true because the bombs that drones drop with relentless frequency in the north-western areas of Pakistan drown out all other explanations and far outweigh aid and care packages.

The drone technology has been extensively used in the Northern areas of Pakistan to target militants in the last decade. It is a cause of serious concern for human rights activists around the world due to its high rate of failure, spilling more innocent blood than getting intended targets. A recent article by Johann Hari in the British newspaper, The Independent reported that the year 2009 alone saw 900 civilian lives in the tribal areas lost to this fearsome technological tool, and that according to David Kilcullen, who is a counter-insurgency expert and an adviser in the State Department, only two percent of those killed in Pakistan by drones are terrorists while 98% are " as innocent as the victims of 9/11".

These aggressive policies do not seem to have helped in curbing terrorism other than inducing some temporary setbacks to terrorists. They have also failed completely in winning hearts and minds in Pakistan for one big reason: ordinary Pakistanis are still struggling to differentiate between their benefactors and enemies. When terrorists blow up government buildings, hospitals, girls’ schools or markets killing innocent men, women and children, they claim victory against forces of evil while dismissing innocent blood as a necessary sacrifice in the path to their glorious goals. When drones unleash their unmanned power, often based on faulty intelligence on houses where families are sitting down to supper and blowing them to a million pieces, the Intelligence Agencies declare victory promptly if their target dies, and not a word of regret is uttered for other lives lost in collateral. Since there is no official acknowledgement of drone strikes by the US Government, no apology or sense of responsibility, nor modification of existing strategies is deemed necessary. Boosting recruitment and winning hearts and minds of terrorists? Absolutely. Ordinary people, not so much.

It was to such a backdrop that John Bockmann landed at Chaklala Base in Pakistan more than a month ago. He received much warmth from Pakistanis, despite being part of a system that represents, for many of them, blatant aggression. Why he draws such a response, one may be forgiven for wondering. Is it because he brings care packages for them, instead of bombs? Smiles and shakes hands; hugs and thanks them when he receives offers of chai? Makes an effort to learn Urdu so he may converse with his gracious hosts? Recounts his experiences without bias, thereby challenging stereotypes about them? Acknowledges that their everyday concerns for peace are similar to his own or those of his people back home? Pledges to do all in his capacity as an individual for the cause of peace? Or, all of the above? The answer is really quite obvious. John Bockmann might not have much influence on his country’s foreign policy, but he is surely the best ambassador any country could hope for.

I want to tell him, and I am sure I speak for many when I say, “ John, you are a beacon of hope, a source of strength and an inspiration for all those who believe in building a fair and just world. Your experiences are unique in that they represent the best of what humanity has to offer in the worst of circumstances. You are also the face of America Pakistanis need to see more of in order to pull through the chaos that is their constant companion. Please don't forget this hospitality when you return home. Cherish this experience as a constant reminder of what you have accomplished that people in higher positions can aspire for but not achieve – making ‘brothers’ among strangers by respecting their culture, acknowledging their kind hospitality and returning their warmth with your own. Thank you, John.”

Wars are built on propaganda and shielding of truth so that neither side gets to see the humane aspect of the other – it makes the taking of innocent lives lighter on the conscience. Pursuing long term goals of peace takes patience, and understanding. Brute force can only result in temporary gains while fuelling the fires we need to quench. There has to be another way to defeat the evil of violence. We must find it. After all, a decade of hate hasn’t done us much favour.


Published: ASIA! THROUGH ASIAN EYES Nov10, 2010.

Park 51 - to be or not to be?

Opinion

Learning to live together peacefully again

The first time I heard about the plans for building a mosque at Ground Zero, I had immediately questioned the wisdom of such a move. However, since then, I have had a chance to ponder the deeper implications of this proposal as more details come to light, not the least of which is the fact that the mosque is actually a community center with prayer rooms for Muslims, Christians and Jews, and it is not at Ground Zero but two blocks away from it.

September 11, 2001 will be forever etched in our memories as the day when the world changed forever. The morning of 9/11 began for many like any ordinary Tuesday. For others, who left home with hasty goodbyes hoping to make it up later, it turned out to be a nightmare. A horrified world struggled to make sense of it as confusion, debris and death rained from the sky, while a group of bloodthirsty fanatics applauded. Sadly, as the twin towers collapsed, so did the world view as we knew it. Islam was suddenly thrust into the glare of international spotlight and scrutiny, and a new world order dominated by raw emotion took shape within hours that still continues to color our perceptions nine years hence.

The events that have ensued since 9/11 have also caused us to make many difficult choices, unfortunately many of which have resulted in more death, and fueled terrorism around the world. Consider this: if the little girl who had to grow up with a picture in the frame instead of a warm parental embrace in one part of the world questions her right to that protection, a little boy also mourns a family he lost in the middle of the night to the roaring sound of an unseen enemy that calls itself a freind. Who is responsible for their tragic share and the resulting changed perceptions? Meanwhile, a breed of fanatics swells their ranks around the world taking advantage of actions which reaffirm their stand of a world pitted against their religion.

The serious consequences of this linking of isolated radical phenomenon to mainstream Islam have resulted in detrimental effects evident on several societal levels in the US. On one hand, the American society has become increasingly insecure despite investing heavily in internal and external security, while on the other; alienation of huge sections of its own population is causing a systematic breakdown of societal cohesion – neither of which can help the cause of peace. On the global level, this means fuelling of further hatred and increasing acts of violence against innocent people, Muslim and non-Muslim, deemed guilty through perceived association.

What many patriotic non-Muslim Americans have failed to realize is that 9/11 has done more damage to mainstream Muslims across the world, and especially in the US, than any other single event in recent history. Not only have they not been allowed to grieve the deaths of beloved family members, friends and mentors, and fellow citizens whom they lost on 9/11, American Muslims are also urged to choose between their national identity and their religious preference – a choice no one should have to make in a land that prides itself for freedoms many in other countries can only dream about. Muslims and non-Muslims together must do their share to change this dangerous situation.

For their part, non-Muslim Americans need to stand with the majority of peaceful Muslim Americans - who are being isolated by the rhetoric of hate-mongers - in their endeavors aimed at promoting respectful engagement between different religious groups. They have to acknowledge that the true symbols of American power are the patriotic citizens of this country who have upheld the values their forefathers sacrificed their lives for. The constitution itself would be a useless piece of paper but for the willingness of Americans of all faiths, and no faith, to abide by it. If Americans were to lose that one value, there would be a Pandora’s Box of issues waiting in the wings to challenge everything their country stands for.

Muslims are not confused. They know who they are. Yet, they have not been able to help non-Muslims distinguish clearly between themselves and those seeking violence in the name of their religion. Judging from opposition to Park 51, even the second and third generations of Muslim Americans would seem to have failed to assimilate in their society since any perceived provocation from their community calls for their immediate ouster by their own countrymen. Or could it be because the hate-mongers in this society have been more successful in their manipulation of the psyche of post 9/11 non-Muslim Americans? Why does the average American not recognize that the revival of the ‘us vs. them’ politics and mass hysteria is merely a replay of previously applied strategies fulfilling selfish agendas, and can only result in undermining their strength as one people? Would closer contact between Muslims and non-Muslims remove misconceptions and bring some relief? If yes, can we turn this conflict into a teachable opportunity?

Park 51 may turn out to be the litmus test future generations would evaluate the strength of the American nation on. There is every probability the proposed community center would turn out to be everything Imam Rauf proposes it will be – a center fully devoted to promoting moderate Islam to bring interfaith harmony in a society widely fractured by suspicion and hatred. However, the proponents and opponents of this proposal are well within their constitutional rights to express their views. They must respond to each other with patience till they are able to address and acknowledge each other’s legitimate concerns and rights as citizens of this country.

Whatever effort and time is put into resolving this issue peacefully would be well worth it simply because Park 51 is not about revenge; it is about learning to live together peacefully again.

A version of this article was published in the Radical Middle Way Sept 14, 2010.

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