Homegrown Radicals: Complacency is not an Option

Forthcoming in The Message International.
Also in AltMuslim.com and The American Muslim.

Homegrown Radicals: Complacency is not an Option
by Parvez Ahmed*

An army major at Fort Hood guns down fellow soldiers, five young men arrested after traveling to Pakistan to join radical elements, a coffee vendor charged in a New York terror plot and a terrorism suspect in North Carolina is arrested. Such headlines involving American Muslims ought to be a source of concern for the community. A recent scholarly report by researchers at Duke University and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill asserts that the number of American Muslims vulnerable to radicalization is small but not negligible. Since 9-11, 139 American Muslims have committed terrorist acts or have been convicted or charged with terrorism. Less than one-third successfully executed their violent plots, with a majority of these violent acts being committed overseas.

The American Muslim community should not brush aside these facts by either taking a defensive posture or by being apologetic. Saying that only a handful of American Muslims are involved in terrorism while the vast majority of the community are productive citizens or asserting that America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the source of such radicalization, while true does not solve the problem at hand. The better path for the community will be to conduct honest soul searching and enact proactive measures that can avoid such attention grabbing headlines in the first place.

In an ideal world, the misguided action of a few individuals will not invite scrutiny on the broader community. But we live in a world where the fear and misunderstandings about the Muslim community is pervasive. A recent survey by the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies found 53 percent of Americans view Islam unfavorably with 6 in 10 Americans reporting that they know little about Islam. While other religious extremists are portrayed as being outside the mainstream, terrorists who happen to be Muslims are characterized as representatives of their religion. Dalia Mogahed , executive director of the Gallup Center said to Bloomberg News, "Where a deranged person of a certain faith commits a crime in the name of their faith, we look at these incidents as someone misinterpreting faith. When a terrorist commits an act of violence in the name of Islam, it is often times framed as being devoted to the faith rather than being deviant."

The Duke-UNC report while raising concern, commends the American Muslim community for the steps it has taken thus far to limit radicalization of its youth. These steps such as public and private denunciation of terrorism, nipping extremist ideas at their bud, social networking, and political engagement have been helpful but need of further enhancement for better sustainability. Among the ideas (not necessarily new or radical) that the community can use to prevent future radicalization are:

1. Political Mobilization - Increased political mobilization will stunt domestic radicalization by providing, “an example to Muslims around the world that grievances can be resolved through peaceful democratic means.” American Muslims should use their social gatherings to mobilize politically. Merely demanding inclusion in the political process is not enough. No politician or political party will take the community seriously unless the community can demonstrate that they have the ability to deliver votes, money or both. Instead of presenting issues as “Muslim-centric” the community will be better served by making their advocacy “issue-centric.” This will allow the community to gather allies across faith-groups who also have similar concerns. A broader coalition will increase the chances of success and success will draw out more members of the community to rally behind common causes. Success will also remove the cynicism that often permeates the community.
2. Relationship with Law Enforcement - The community has made efforts to improve relationship with law enforcement. Such efforts need to be sustained and enhanced. The American Muslim community has legitimate concerns about law enforcement’s use of informants and agent provocateurs. However, these concerns cannot be addressed by cutting-off relations. In fact, the opposite needs to be done. Besides seeking regular dialogue with law enforcement, the American-Muslim community needs to encourage its youth to seek careers in law enforcement. Asking the FBI to include more members of the community in its Citizen’s Academy will also be a step in the right direction.
3. Access - Sections of the American Muslim community consist of people who are immigrants, who may struggle to provide their families with basic necessities due to poor English language skills or lack of higher education. Parents often work double or triple shifts to make ends meet with little time to spend with their children, particularly the youth. This makes them vulnerable to unsavory social networks. The American Muslim community, in partnership with public agencies, need to provide, “community-building resources such as youth centers, childcare facilities, public health clinics, and English as a Second Language courses (Duke-UNC report).” This can mitigate any propensity towards radicalization.
4. Religious Discourse - The Duke-UNC report asserts, “Muslim-Americans with a strong, traditional religious training are far less likely to radicalize than those without such training.” The community must invest in developing institutions that can teach Islam in a holistic way. In addition, there is an urgent need to review the types of lectures and khutbas being delivered at the local mosques. This is not to say that contemporary Islamic discourse in American Islamic centers is radicalizing Muslim youth. However, it is safe to say that the contemporary Islamic discourse in American Islamic centers is often too esoteric for the youth to find relevance to their day-to-day life. Religious consciousness is not possible without a social ethic. Thus religious discourse instead of being consumed with the trivial issues of halal (permissible) or hilal (moon crescent) should tackle issues that are contemporary to living in America. This will allow young people to appreciate that the solutions to their many problems can be found within their faith, creating a more positive attitude towards their faith and their country.

A recent publication titled, “Building Bridges to Strengthen America,” (produced by Muslim Public Affairs Council), cites a study by Quintan Wiktorowicz outlining a path to radicalization. Knowing these steps can help the community and families spot trouble before they become a nightmare.

The first step towards radicalization is usually socio-economic-political discontent often precipitating a personal crisis that Wiktorowicz describes as, “…shakes certainty in previously accepted beliefs and renders an individual more receptive to the possibility of alternative views and perspectives.” The identity crisis leads to seeking answers. People may find comfort in religion using a variety of methods such as personal social networks or the internet. If the seeker consciously or inadvertently were to engage with members of any extremist movement then the chances of radicalization increases as the, “[extremist] movement members attempt to convince seekers that the movement ideology provides logical solutions to pressing concerns.” Successful recruitment occurs because individuals are ignorant of or lack access to mainstream religious knowledge. Empirical studies show that most terrorists lack religious knowledge and were secular individuals until just before joining an extremist group (see Marc Sageman’s, Leaderless Jihad).

In the final phase, the recruit internalizes the ideology of the extremist group. Sustaining this state of mind requires isolating the individual from mainstream society. Radicals are often aloof, angry and excessively critical of society. Instead of seeking solutions to problem, they engage in the blame game, often making simplistic and stereotyping accusations that they themselves loathe when directed at their faith or community. An important caveat - not all people who are aloof, angry or excessively critical are necessarily radicals.

In a study by the Dutch Clingendael Centre for Strategic Studies, the author provides a way to measure social integration (arguing that better social integration can reduce chances of being radicalized). The study asserts that there are ten social factors, which are necessary for social integration. The factors are –

1. Acceptance - an individual’s perception for being accepted in society.
2. Welcome - an individual’s feeling of being welcomed or warmly greeted by society.
3. Integration - an individual’s involvement in activities outside of their own ethnic or religious groups.
4. Entitlement - an individual’s feelings about their citizenship rights.
5. Equal Opportunity - an individual’s perception of fairness in their professional life.
6. Social Access - an individual’s feeling about being accepted in or have easy access to local clubs, sporting groups etc.
7. Loyalty - an individual’s loyalty or allegiance towards their country of residence.
8. Citizenship Pride - an individual’s satisfaction in being a member of the national community.
9. Social Values - an individual’s attitude towards social values, such as freedom, human rights, etc., of the broader society.
10. Language - an individual’s fluency in the local language of the country they reside in.

Scoring low on these factors increases the risk of radicalization. As is seen from these factors, the propensity to radicalize is a multifaceted and complex process. Community members need to proactively institute programs that allow young American Muslims to develop positive attitude towards their society. Some of these factors are outside the control of the community. And yet, if and when a problem surfaces, members of the community should engage with relevant agencies that can provide relief. For example, if a person feels that they are being discriminated in their jobs or badly treated when they go to the local gym, the community should seek immediate redress, understanding that the law is on their side. Brushing aside these grievances only makes the problem worse. Redressing grievances can engender positive feelings towards citizenship and foster loyalty.

Throughout his life, before and after the Prophetic mission, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) participated in many just causes without regard to who initiated that good action. To Prophet Muhammad, the principles were more important than who initiated a good action. He did want to establish a tribal order. He wanted to establish a system of governance based on justice and a social order based on compassion. Here are three examples of Prophet Muhammad’s inclusive and egalitarian vision:

1. The Fujjar War (this was before Muhammad was a prophet): This war was waged against some Arab tribes who violated the sacredness of Makkah in the sacred months. The sanctity of Kaabah was a tradition the Makkans had inherited from the upright religion of Prophet Abraham. This fight lasted for four years, and the Prophet’s age at that time was around 15-19 years. He participated in this war side by side with his uncles. He defended his community from danger and he did so out of his sense that he should share in defending his homeland and fight off aggression and injustice.
2. Hilf Al-Fudul (The Pact of the Virtuous): A pact was reached in the house of Abdullah bin Jud`an. One of the principles outlined in this pact was that all the tribes who signed on to this pact will come to the defense of any person in Makkah who is oppressed or subjected to injustices. And they will do so regardless of the social status or ethnic origin of the victim. Later in his life, when Muhammad became a prophet he said (i.e. while referring to this alliance): “If I am invited to join a similar (alliance) now (after the spread of Islam), I will, surely, join it.” The Prophet’s participation in Al-Fudul Alliance reveals the positive attitude he took, for he considered himself part and parcel of the Makkan society, the community where he lived, where he earned his living from and expected die. He was eager to participate in good causes that benefited the society regardless of who initiated the action.
3. The Prophet's Response to SOS Calls: It is reported that during the time of Al-Hudaibiyah peace treaty, the Prophet was informed that a famine had afflicted the Makkan people, the same people who had driven him out of his home and killed members of his family. But upon hearing the humanitarian disaster that befell even his enemies, he sent Hatib bin Abi Balta’a with 500 dinars to buy foods for the poor and the needy among the Makkans.
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) remembered God Almighty by engaging in the service of God's creations. He served God, by serving his fellow human beings.

Despite the many setbacks on civil liberties, America remains a land of the free. Muslims must use this freedom to effectively respond to the vigorous challenges to some of their deeply held beliefs. While speaking out against perceived affront to their religion or way of life they must uphold the right of others to offend without backing down from seeking ways to defend their own rights. This, of course, entails an unequivocal commitment to the rule of law. Citizens have the right to protest unfair treatment; and when they believe the law is unjust, they should work to change such laws. Promising integration lies in civic participation and political mobilization. Random violence targeting innocent civilians is immoral and ineffective. It can never be justified no matter how severe the underlying grievance. This message needs to be reinforced from the mosque pulpit to the kitchen table.

* [Parvez Ahmed, Ph.D., is a U.S. Fulbright Scholar. He is Associate Professor of Finance at the University of North Florida. He is also a frequent commentator on Islam and the American Muslim experience. His blog can be read at: http://drparvezahmed.blogspot.com/

Let “God” be “God”!

Published in The American Muslim
Also on Huffington Post
Also on AltMuslim

Let “God” be “God”!

by Parvez Ahmed, Ph.D. and Lucinda Mosher, Th.D.

Last November the Malaysian government refused to release 10,000 Bibles it had seized because they contained the word Allah to refer to God. The Herald, a publication of the Roman Catholic Church in Malaysia, challenged the government’s decision to ban for non-Muslims the use of the word Allah to refer to God. In December, a Malaysian court ruled that such a ban was unconstitutional. The court’s decision provoked anger among some Muslims. The Times reported a speaker in a Kuala Lumpur mosque as saying, “We will not allow the word Allah to be inscribed in your churches. Heresy arises from words wrongly used. Allah is only for us.” A few Muslims unfortunately went further and attacked churches, badly damaging some of them. Such actions are condemnable as they contradict normative Islam.

Attempts by Malaysian officials to explain the logic behind the initial ban and why the government is now opposing the high court’s ruling have been far from convincing. The best analyses point out this unusual move by the ruling UNMO government had less to do with theology and more to do with the ruling political coalition keeping control. The fact that politicians were fanning the flames of passion is hardly news. But it does point to a troubling underlying fact that many Muslims erroneously believe they have monopoly over the use of the word Allah—in essence, asserting that the Christian God is different from the Muslim God. This is oxymoronic because normative Islam insists that there is no God but God, meaning there cannot be a God for Christians and a different God for Muslims.

In A Common Word Between Us and You: An Open Letter and Call from Muslim Religious Leaders, issued in October 2007 to “Leaders of Christian Churches, everywhere,” acknowledges that the theologies of Christianity and Islam differ from each other on key points. Yet, when this Muslim-authored document speaks of “God”, the word denotes the subject and object of Christian worship, too. This pan-Muslim call for dialogue and cooperation is predicated on the notion that the ground shared by Muslims and Christians is located in our respective scriptural mandates to love God and neighbor. Five distinguished Malaysian scholars and government officials were among the original signatories of A Common Word.

While, in the American context, we don’t have legislatures reserving vocabulary for the exclusive use of one religion, we certainly have had occasions of suspicion-casting over matters of God-Talk. It finds its way regularly into political campaigns. Each of us have encountered it in venues where we have been asked to speak about Christian-Muslim relations. Both of us have had to deal with Christians who say of Muslims, “They worship a different god;” or, “there is some question as whether their god is the same as ours.” Much of the internet back-and-forth about this reveals considerable ignorance (about the writer’s own religion, let alone the religion she or he is criticizing).

To our way of thinking, however, discussions as to whether Christians and Muslim “worship the same God” are, even when well-articulated, based on an ill-founded premise. To ask whether another group “worship the same God as we” is to imply that there are indeed at least two gods. The technical term for such a stance is henotheism—i.e., the notion that there may be more than one god, but only one of them works for me (or, for my group). On the other hand, Muslims and Christians (and Jews, Sikhs, Bahá’ís, Zoroastrians) all claim to be monotheists; and, the logical corollary of monotheism, “belief that there is but one God”, is that, no matter who is praying, only one Possibility is listening, whichever way that Ultimate Listener is named or described.

The vast majority of religions do operate from a presumption that there is an Ultimate—a single Source. Most Americans, regardless of their religion, are happy to employ the English word God when referring to this. However, each theistic religion has its own theology—its own way of describing God and God’s relationship to the physical and spiritual realms. God may have many names, and concepts of the spiritual realm may be quite complex. Yet God is God; Allah is God; God is Allah. For the love of neighbor, may we be willing to affirm that—whatever language we use?

[Prof. Parvez Ahmed is a U.S. Fulbright Scholar. He is Associate Professor of Finance at the University of North Florida. Dr. Lucinda Mosher, is a consultant and educator on inter-religious matters. She is the author of the book series Faith in the Neighborhood.]

Unfolding Dubai's Debt Crisis

Interview by IslamOnline.net. Dec 2, 2009

Unfolding Dubai's Debt Crisis
By Amr Taha, Staff Writer-IslamOnline.net

On November 25, 2009, the Dubai Government asked Dubai World, a government-backed conglomerate, to agree to delay its repayments until May 2010.

With the number is so much unconfirmed, Dubai reportedly owes the world more than $60billion of external debts.

Dubai's economy that has been built on real estate and luxury tourism industries has caused the bubble, fueled by oil boom and unregulated markets soaked in speculation, to burst.

Al-Nakheel, a subsidiary of Dubai World, is due to pay its $3.5 billion Shariah-compliant bonds (Sukuk) in December 14, triggering many to ask with suspicion about possible scenarios if the company defaults on its payments.

IslamOnline.net's Politics in Depth interviewed Dr. Parvez Ahmed, associate professor of finance, Coggin College of Business of the University of North Florida, and a US Fulbright scholar to shed light on the consequences of the crisis, the misuse of Islamic finance, and the way out.

IslamOnline.net (IOL): How far the debt crisis will affect Dubai in the short and long terms?

Dr. Ahmed: With $60 billion debts, Dubai could consider defaulting. The debt is a sovereign [one], borrowed by [Dubai].

There have been other countries that defaulted because of debt. In the case of Dubai, $60 billion is a large amount of money, but not that large compared to other nations who defaulted.

A decade ago, Argentina had defaulted on $ 141 billion. Moreover, the external debt of the United States is $15 trillion. Yet, the United States is not at any danger of default.

There is a concern and a silver lining of the debt crisis in Dubai.

The silver lining is that the situation is not as grave as some commentators said.
Economists will look at the ratio of the debt to the GDP when evaluating the debt crisis of any country.

The United Arab Emirates' debt is relatively smaller than those of the United States, the United Kingdom, and many Western nations.

In Dubai, the debt at a special ratio to the GDP is 37 percent. In the United States, it is 75 percent. The ratio of debt to the GDP in the United Kingdom is 375 percent. In Ireland, it is alarmingly at 960 percent.

Therefore, the United Arab Emirates, in the long run has the capacity to service that debt.

However, in the short run, the danger comes from two sources.

Firstly, if Abu Dhabi will pay off Dubai's debts, Dubai will default and Abu Dhabi will rescue it.

Then, this creates economics of moral hazard; it is created when an economic action has been taken to help defaulting entities, causing systemic problems to the economy.
Will this lead other countries to default on their debts, hoping other countries could help?

In the United States, [economics of moral hazard posed the question] whether it encourages other banks to take risky positions, even wrong, hoping that somebody will [bear the brunt of the risk and help them]?

It creates an unfair situation when banks and financial institutions benefit from their successful risks while they do not have the responsibility for unsuccessful ones.

In the short run, bail out may be beneficial, but in the long run it will create moral hazards. In this way, one could expect what would happen if Ireland defaults.

The second source is that many Western powers, like the United States, the United Kingdom, are facing problems at home, like huge public deficits.

The United States is embroiled in two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it suffers a lot of debt; it is $15 trillion.

In terms of external debt per person, every person owes $930 of debts in the United Arab Emirates while in the United States, every citizen owes $2000 in debt. In Egypt, it is $1000.

IOL: How far has Dubai's debt crisis affected Islamic economy, especially with concerns that Sukuk creditors may not be protected?

Dr. Ahmed: The default of sukuk (Islamic financial certificate or bonds) will deal a severe blow to the development of Islamic finance.

In the middle of 2008, when the world economic crisis hit the world, Islamic products were not affected as other conventional ones.

Therefore, many people, experts, and economists look at the Islamic finance as the solution.

Yet, I found that this assumption is too hasty.

The current situation of Islamic finance is not that different from the conventional one. It is different in form, not function.

When one strips away externalities, the core of Islamic finance is not that different from[those of the] conventional finance, thus subjeted to the same kind of problems facing conventional banks.

In the eyes of the laws, Islamic finance is not very different in terms of the process of default.

Sukuk bonds are subjected to the same standards of default. The difference between Islamic banks and conventional ones is a matter of semantics.

What happened in Dubai put the chill on the transaction of sukuk bonds.
It will affect the Islamic finance industry. Although the Islamic finance has many good sides, it is similar to conventional ones.

This encourages researchers, experts, economists, and businesspersons to find out a more holistic approach of Islamic finance.

It is wrong to focus on one aspect of Shari`ah while neglecting its other aspects. [Many tend] to focus only on issues like riba (interest), with less attention on issues of transparency, fighting corruption, social equality, and the like.

In Dubai, there are many questions about how the money flow — and where it was spent. Much of the investments in Dubai while spectacular appear to be very wasteful.

When people live beyond their means and in an extravagant manner, they really do not due justice to Shari'ah.

The goal of Shari`ah and Islam is to promote justice and equity, not to a small group of people, but to the majority of them.

Many are obsessed with riba, but not sustainable development, equitable development, social equality, transparency, and other issues, whichgives a negative image of Shari'ah.

IOL: What are the options for Dubai to repay its debts?

Dr. Ahmed: The available options are not very good. Default will happen, affecting properties prices.

Dubai's economy is [based] on luxury tourism and real estate. The default will hit economic activities.

This is a great time for big financial centers to develop a much more holistic and sustainable financial market globally.

Many notable Noble Prize laureates, like Stiglitz, called for the restructuring of the world economy.

If the basic problems are not properly addressed, we will see more defaults, and we already saw Iceland defaulting.

IOL: So, in your opinion, what is the way out?

Dr. Ahmed: I think we need fundamental changes.

Firstly, we should understand that the basics of the free capital system are not wrong. At the same time, there has to be much more emphasis on transparency — on how companies are investing their wealth.

Governments will have to take a much more educative role. Agencies (governmental or quasi-governmental) have to take on the responsibility of educating investors.

The Securities and Exchange commissions in the United States usually has that mandate. We need to give these agencies more power, not only in terms of law enforcement, but also the role of educating about markets.

More people are investing in markets and cannot afford big losses. At the same time, if not educated, they could face more problems. Therefore, the government should take the role of educating people about economy, its dangers, and the benefits of investments.

We need robust regulations and governmental actions in regulating the markets.
Secondly, we need anti-corruption measures. There is a fair amount of greed and corruption, especially in the developing economies.

Corruption can be in many forms, like concentration of wealth at the expense of the poor, which could potentially lead to social unrest.

Islamic finance can play a role, if it adds to its portfolio the dimension of fighting corruption, transparency, sustainable development, and social equality.

Amr Taha is a staff writer for the Politics in Depth section of IslamOnline.net. A graduate of the American University in Cairo, he holds a BA in political science with a specialization in international law and international relations. Contact him at politics.indepth [at] iolteam [dot] com

Stop the Looting

An abridged version appears in Islamic Horizons, Nov/Dec 2009 Issue.


There is virtually no major organized opposition to legalized gambling, except from Focus on the Family and similar evangelical Christian groups. Given Islam’s prohibition of gambling, Muslims should work with other concerned organizations to educate people about the ills of gambling and advocate more transparency in lotteries (such as better disclosure of the winning odds). For example, if players knew that the odds of winning the Mega Millions jackpot are 1 in 135 million, would they so willingly part with their hard-earned money? To help publicize such facts, Muslims should support the National Problem Gambling Awareness Week (www.npgaw.org), the National Council on Problem Gambling (www.ncpgambling.org), and HelpGuide.org - Gambling Addiction (http://helpguide.org/mental/gambling_addiction.htm).

Other religions oppose gambling as well. Dianne M. Berlin (vice chair, National Coalition against Legalized Gambling [www.ncalg.org]; coordinator, CasinoFreePA [www.casinofreepa.org]; and founder CasinoFree LanCo), told “Islamic Horizons” that “gambling is a form of theft” And that although the words “gamble” or “gambling” are not used, two of the Ten Commandments address gambling: not to covet other people’s possessions (Exodus 20:17) and not to steal (Exodus 20:15).

Rabbi Jill Jacobs (director, outreach and education, Jewish Council on Urban Affairs [JCUA]) and Noah Leavitt (director, advocacy and policy, JCUA) state that Jewish law virtually condemns gambling. One Talmudic opinion, found in a discussion in “Tractate Sanhedrin,” categorizes gamblers as thieves and thus disqualifies them from giving legal testimony. Maimonides, one of Judaism’s most important medieval authorities, defines gambling as stealing even if both parties agree to the rules of the game, for the winner “takes another's money for free” (“Forward Forum,” 21 Jan. 2005). Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, former Sephardic chief rabbi of Israel, extends this prohibition to state-run lotteries.

The essential problem, according to these thinkers, lies in gambling’s violation of the basic principle of rabbinic commercial law -- the terms of sale must be clear to both the buyer and the seller. In addition, locating casinos or advertisements for them in low-income neighborhoods violates the Biblical precept Ilifnei iver lo titen michshol: "(Do not place a stumbling block before the blind), generally interpreted as a prohibition on tempting a person to do something that she or he knows to be wrong.”

The Qur’anic word for gambling is maysir (2:119 and 5:90); the term often used in Islamic law to denote it is qimar. According to Abu Hurayrah, Prophet Muhammad prohibited gambling (“Sahih al-Bukhari,” no. 4579). In his commentary on 2:219, Abdullah ibn Abbas says “Al-maysir is al-qimar,” and that pre-Islamic Arabs would bet their wives wife and wealth (“Tafsir ibn Jarir,” 2:358). Ibn Abidin states: “Gambling is from the word qamar, ‘that which increases at times and decreases at other times.’ It is called al-qimar due to the possibility that each gambler may lose his wealth to his counterpart, and it is also possible that one may gain from the wealth of the other.”

Protestants have issued explicit prohibitions against gambling, and the United Methodist Church’s “Book of Resolutions” states: “Gambling is a menace to society, deadly to the best interests of moral, social, economic, and spiritual life, and destructive of good government. As an act of faith and concern, Christians should abstain from gambling and should strive to minister to those victimized by the practice.” Judaism takes a “dim view of gambling,” even describing the winner as a moral “loser” (Eliezer Danzinger, “What is the Jewish view on gambling?” www.chabad.org ). Hindu scriptures also prohibit gambling (e.g., Rig-Veda 10:34:13 and Manu Smriti 7:50).

In contrast, the “New Catholic Encyclopedia” describes gambling as “though a luxury (it) is not considered sinful except when the indulgence in it is inconsistent with duty.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant” (William N. Thompson, “Gambling in America: An Encyclopedia of History, Issues, and Society,” [ABC-CLIO, Inc.: 2001], 317-24).

Even though lotteries are illegal in many (though not all) Muslim-majority countries, variant forms of gambling are commonly found. Legalized and state sponsored gambling traditions date back to colonialism. For example, in 1567 Queen Elisabeth established the first state lotteries; Egypt’s first casino, Casino Opera, opened in 1926; and the French opened casinos in Lebanon. They remain open today, although in many instances restricted to foreigners. After the 1971 Indo-Pak war, Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto built a plush casino in Karachi because he thought tourism would expose Pakistanis to “more modern Islamic and non-Islamic views,” (Linda K. Richter, “The Politics of Tourism in Asia” [University of Hawaii Press: 1989]). A military coup toppled him, however, before it was opened.

Wagering upon such inhumane games like quail or cock fights remains common in many Muslim societies. The spending of some Muslim royalty in famous casinos is quite legendary. And many Muslims in North America not only purchase but also sell lottery tickets in through their convenience stores.

The mission of Prophet Muhammad was to be a “mercy to humanity (and other creations.” In this context, Muslims should find common cause with others in opposing the scourge of gambling and increasing normalization of gambling like attitudes in finance and investments.

Lootery!

An abridged version appears in Islamic Horizons, Nov/Dec 2009 Issue.

What lies behind the beaming lottery winners and oversized checks is misery, says Ellen Goodstein (Bankrate.com).

Television commercials and media stories depict winning the lottery as an American dream. But having piles of cash does not necessarily bring happiness, as pointed out by Ellen Goodstein, who cites the following examples: Evelyn Adams, a two-time winner of the New Jersey lottery (1985 and 1986) to the tune of $5.4 million, was reduced to living in a trailer. William "Bud" Post, winner of the $16.2 million Pennsylvania lottery (1988) ended up living on Social Security and food stamps. Suzanne Mullins, who won $4.2 million in the Virginia lottery (1993) is now deeply in debt to a company that lent her money using the winnings as collateral. Willie Hurt of Lansing, MI, won $3.1 million (1989) and within two years was broke and charged with murder, wasting his fortune on a divorce and crack cocaine. Charles Riddle of Belleville, MI, won $1 million (1975); afterward he got divorced, faced several lawsuits, and was indicted for selling cocaine. Eight years after winning $18 million in 1993, Missourian Janite Lee filed for bankruptcy.

The list of broken dreams abides. Most lottery winners learn that sudden money can cause as many problems as it solves. For many, it can cause a disaster because part of the problem is that they buy into the hype. Craig Wallace, an executive of a company that buys lottery annuity payments in exchange for lump sums, told Goodstein: "These people [winners] believe they are millionaires. They buy into the hype, but most of these people will go to their graves without ever becoming a millionaire.” Going broke is a common malady, particularly with smaller-amount winners.

Lottery marketers manipulate the situation to sell more tickets. Each winner is photographed with a 3’x5’ standup “check” and the caption “newest millionaire." In fact, a $1 million purse is really a promise to be paid $50,000 a year before taxes. Lottery winners, however, mistakenly believe that they are indeed “millionaires” and are likely to go on spending sprees. Scott Hankins, Mark Hoekstra, and Paige Marta Skiba (“The Ticket to Easy Street? The Financial Consequences of Winning the Lottery,” working paper, 2008) found that large-lottery winners fare no better with their finances than anyone else. The windfall may temporarily reduce their financial hardships; however, it increases their long-run likelihood of bankruptcy, perhaps induced by living beyond their means. Lottery buyers usually have a higher propensity to “gamble” or “speculate” in other areas of their lives, such as making greater investments in risk-laden investments and stocks.

Lotteries are legal -- and popular -- in all states but Alabama, Alaska, Hawai’i, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming, and in nearly one hundred countries (including several Muslim majority countries). According to the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries (NASPL), American lottery sales in 2008 topped $60 billion, an amount larger than the gross domestic product of nearly 120 countries.

Lotteries are universally regarded as a vice, and most religions view them as sinful. Unlike smoking (which the government actively discourages) and drinking (which the government regulates), neither the state nor the federal government take any meaningful action to reduce gambling. This is perhaps due to an inherent conflict of interest. In 2008, states raked in $18 billion in revenue. For instance, the Iowa Lottery Authority announced on 30 Jul. 2009 that since 1985, when it began operations, it has disbursed more than $2.4 billion in prizes and raised nearly $1.2 billion for state programs. Besides the revenue stream, lotteries are legalized in the name of individual rights. At issue is not the constitutionality of legalized gambling, but the questionable ethics of state governments sponsoring, encouraging, and exploiting its citizens’ vices, to raise revenue.

Although governments also raise revenue from other “sin” activities like the consumption of alcohol, pornography or tobacco, lotteries are perhaps the only vice that governments “manufacture” and encourage, states Richard Whitaker (“State Lotteries and Agency Costs Hidden Costs to Nonparticipants,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 66, no. 3 [2007]: 533-44). Far from discouraging gambling, some states faced with large budget deficits actually seek to make more forms of gambling available, reports Dunstan McNichol (“U.S. States Push More Gambling to Help Replace Declining Taxes Share,” Bloomberg, 20 Jul. 2009). And yet 2007 lottery sales combined amount to a meager 1.1 percent of state budgets, says the Tax Foundation (www.taxfoundation.org). Do states really have to depend upon this revenue source, given the other negative social consequences of gambling?

Conor Dougherty of the “Wall Street Journal” (10 Aug. 2009) remarks that the present economic downturn has caused casino, slot machine, and lottery revenues to fall for the first time in many of the states that have grown to depend upon gambling as a crucial source of income. In 2008, according to the American Gaming Association, an industry trade group, revenue contributed by commercial casinos to state and local governments was only 5.7 billion, down 2.2 percent. In many states, the decline continues. Eight of the twelve states that allow commercial casinos saw their take of gambling revenue fall in the fiscal year ending June 2009 compared with the same period a year ago, according to data from states and the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York at Albany. In a sampling of twenty state lotteries, among them California and Illinois, fourteen had year-over-year drops in revenue for the fiscal year ending in June, according to Rockefeller Institute. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that lawmakers in at least fourteen states have considered expanding gambling as an alternative to raising property or income taxes. Fired up by lobbyists’ contributions and the assumed voting day advantage politicians are eager to enhance gambling operations. For instance, in his 10 Aug. 2009 op-ed in “The Morning Call,” Tom Knox, Pennsylvania Democratic gubernatorial candidate, asserting his state’s needs for jobs, wrote: “Though most solutions will require a long-term strategy, there is one thing that can be done now to create an immediate demand for thousands of new jobs -- the legalization of table games. The simple act of legalizing table games at each licensed casino will create, literally overnight, the demand for thousands of new employees….Estimates presented to the Legislature predict that table games will create 10,100 new direct employment positions statewide.”

Assuming a tax rate of 12 percent, he claimed that legalizing table games would produce $120-$160 million in recurring revenue. In addition, the currently proposed table game licensing fee of $10 million would produce an additional $120 million, which he said was more than half of the state's entire annual budget for all community colleges. He stressed that the “job creation benefit of table gaming is extremely cost-effective when compared to attempts by the state to create jobs,” citing a 2001 program to create 900 jobs that had cost the state $900,000 and, sixteen months later, the company closed and fourteen jobs were actually lost. In 2002, another $12 million state grant awarded with the expectation of 6,000 new jobs resulted in only 2,000 new jobs. By comparison, he declared that “the legalization of table games would provide substantial job creation without the expenditure of a single dollar of taxpayer money.”

Costs and Benefits of Lotteries

The NASPL, which represents fifty-one North American lottery organizations, argues that lottery profits fund education, healthcare, capital construction, and other good causes. With 1-in-2 American adults reportedly sometimes buying a lottery ticket and 1-in-3 being weekly players, lotteries may have replaced baseball as the national pastime (see “The 1989 Gallup Poll: Public Opinion,” SR Books [28 Jun. 1990], 138). Undoubtedly the players perceive some benefit, which may explain their popularity. Like other games of chance, lotteries thrill participants with risk-taking and the anticipation of an unlikely victory. However, the harm outweighs the good (see Qur’an 2:219).

Lotteries prey upon the most vulnerable, for those with smaller amounts of disposable income spend a greater proportion of their earnings on them, say Charles T. Clotfelter, Julie A. Edell, and Marian Moore (“State lotteries at the turn of the century: Report to the national gambling impact study commission,” working paper, Duke University, 1999). Donald I. Price and E. Shawn Novak found that minorities are more likely to purchase lottery tickets (“The tax incidence of three Texas lottery games: Regressivity, race, and education; National Tax Journal 52, 1999, 741-51). During economic downturns, people increase their spending on lotteries and other risky ventures, even when they cannot really afford to do so, says John L. Mikesell (“State lottery sales and economic activity,” National Tax Journal 47, 1994, 165-71).

People living within fifty miles of a casino have a high probability of becoming pathological or problem gamblers; a casino located within ten miles is associated with a 90 percent increase in becoming a problem gambler, states John W. Welte, William F. Wieczorek, Grace M. Barnes, and Joseph H. Hoffman (“The Relationship of Ecological and Geographic Factors to Gambling Behavior and Pathology,” Journal of Gambling Studies 20, 4, winter 2004, 405-23). According to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), compulsive gamblers are also prone to higher rates of divorce. Nearly 1-in-3 respondents had tried to kill themselves. No other addictive population reaches this figure, report R. Keith Schwer, William N. Thompson, and Daryl Nakamuro (“Beyond the Limits of Recreation: Social Costs of Gambling in Southern Nevada,” 2003 working paper). Gamblers also have a hard time kicking the habit: “Of the 80 participants followed for 12 months, 92 percent experienced relapse” (D. Hodgins and N. el-Guebaly, “Retrospective and Prospective Reports of Precipitants to Relapse in Pathological Gambling,” Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology 72, no. 1, 2004, 72-80).

Internet gambling has brought the vice right into homes and within easy reach of young impulsive and vulnerable addicts. Alarmingly, electronic gambling is even more addictive -- the “crack cocaine” of the industry, says the National Coalition against Legalized Gambling’s “Facts about Gambling” (NCALG, www.ncalg.org). According to the GAO’s Dec. 2002 report: “Since the mid-1990s, Internet gambling operators have established approximately 1,800 e-gaming websites in locations outside the United States, and global revenues from Internet gaming in 2003 are projected to be $5.0 billion dollars.” Internet gambling is approximately 4.3 percent of the total $116 billion in business-to-consumer global e-commerce. This growth comes despite the fact that law enforcement officers believe that such gambling can be “a significant vehicle for laundering criminal proceeds.” For instance, on 10 Aug. 2009 the FBI indicted Douglas Rennick, 34, for bank fraud and other offenses stemming from his role in processing more than $350 million for Internet gambling companies [during 2007-09] and operating accounts under false names, relates “The American Chronicle.”

Social Implications

Besides the inherent injustice in any form of gambling, lotteries can have social costs. In his 1995 study, Howard J. Shaffer of the Harvard Medical School’s Division on Addictions wrote: “Gambling is an addictive behavior, make no mistake about it ... Gambling has all the properties of a psychoactive substance, and again, the reason is that it changes the neurochemistry of the brain.” NCALG’s Carl Bechtold noted: “Gambling causes excitement, often leading the participant to forget about outside problems and the stresses of everyday life. Electronic gambling devices in particular offer a seemingly non-competitive diversion from reality. Gambling establishments usually serve and often encourage the use of alcoholic beverages, which further loosens players’ inhibitions. The games themselves are made to satisfy the demands of excitement; and the ensuing ‘loss of control’ is part of the ‘enjoyable’ experience of gambling” (“Tide of gambling yields backwash of addiction,” NCALG White Paper).

Even when not addictive, the ubiquitous promotion of lotteries equate success with luck rather than work, thus undermining a fundamental societal norm, say William A. Glaston and David Wasserman, whose study found that lotteries lead to an increase in crime ("Gambling away Our Moral Capital," Public Interest 123 [1996]: 58-71; see also John Mikesell and Maureen A. Pirog-Good, "State Lotteries and Crime: The Regressive Revenue Producer Is Linked with a Crime Rate Higher by 3%," American Journal of Economics and Sociology 49, [1990]: 7-19), while Ranjana Madhusudhan found that state lotteries contribute to increases in the overall number of gambling addicts ("Betting on Casino Revenues: Lessons from State Experiences," National Tax Journal 49 [1996]: 401-12). In the first eighteen hours of operation on opening day at Pittsburgh’s $780 million Rivers Casino, gamblers wagered an incredible 14 million dollars (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10 Aug. 2009).

Lotteries are also a form of regressive tax, providing states with revenue from non-tax sources. Such revenue is less accountable to public scrutiny, and non-lottery players are willing to view it favorably because it shifts the tax burden to gamblers. Empirical studies, however, suggest that “the [lottery-generated] tax benefit is largely diminished by the above normal spending increases,” writes Richard Whitaker (“State Lotteries and Agency Costs: Hidden Costs to Nonparticipants,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 66, no. 3 [2007]: 542). Moreover, the poor often bear a disproportionate share of this indirect taxation, although it must be noted that lotteries, unlike taxes, are optional. Nonetheless, given that people have known cognitive biases, lotteries can easily become addictive, in part because players fail to properly asses risk and are lured by cheap tickets and mesmerized by large payoffs, relates Alok Kumar (“Who Gambles in the Stock Market?” Journal of Finance 64, no. 4 [2009]: 1889-1933).

Lotteries and other forms of gambling are increasingly popular despite social concerns and religious prohibitions. Such indulgence is profoundly irrational, for the cost of a lottery ticket exceeds its fair value. Lotteries add very little to a state’s overall revenue. But to be fair, there are some exceptions, as in some states (mostly states in the U.S. northeast) lotteries account for 6 to 8 percent of state revenue. This meager benefit is offset, however, by damages to the society’s moral fabric. Lotteries and other forms of gambling encourage a “get-rich-quick” mentality that induces other forms of risky social behavior. Gambling discourages hard work, encourages greed and materialism, and leads to compulsive gamblers who are more prone to divorce and suicide. Muslim Americans should work with other faith groups to draw attention to the problems associated with gambling, particularly compulsive gambling, that have destroyed countless lives and caused untold misery. A March 2003 NCALG survey found that there are about 2 million compulsive and 6 million problem gamblers in America alone.

Las Vegas casino mogul Steve Wynn (formerly Weinberg) told Charlie Rose on CBS’ “60 Minutes” (12 Apr. 2009) that the only way to win in a casino is to own one, "unless you're very lucky," adding that he has never known a gambler who comes to a casino, wins big, and actually walks away. In gambling, there is only one winner, the house (the gambling establishment), and it ain’t yours.

Making Sense of the Senseless

Published in Huffington Post. November 13, 2009

The news that one of US Army's very own has shot to death 13 fellow soldiers and wounded 30 others is just as shocking and puzzling as the many random shootings that preceded this. Do we know why the killers at Columbine gunned down their fellow classmates? Do we understand why a shooter at Virginia Tech perpetrated the deadliest peacetime shooting incident by a single gunman in US history? There is a lot of chatter about Maj Nidal Malik. Hasan's motive but they offer little if any clarity to a murky situation.

Could the fact that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was allegedly harassed because of his Islamic faith be a motive? Could Hasan's desire to avoid deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan be a reason? Could Hasan's view that the war on terror is merely a euphemism for a war on Islam explain this carnage? No reason can justify the unjustifiable. Hasan was not the first minority to face discrimination.

Moreover, how will killing innocent people stop discrimination? If anything, it will lead to more profiling and more discrimination against Arabs and Muslims. Some Muslims serving in the U.S. military may at times feel conflicted about being deployed to a war zone to fight members of their faith. However, how do such conflicted feelings make one angry enough to pull the trigger repeatedly and indiscriminately killing people? Many people find the tactical aspects of the war on terror troubling and are outspoken critics of it. But no critic of the war of on terror advocates killing innocent people as a way to affect it. Of all people, Maj. Hasan, a person trained by the US military ought to have known better. An Associated Press report suggests that the US military had known about Maj. Hasan's anti-American rants and his many angry outbursts. Why did the military not help Maj. Hasan deal with his inner demons? Why was Hasan not booted out of the service he so ungratefully and desperately wanted to leave (despite owing his education to the US military)?

In the absence of concrete answers, the media is left to speculate. The mainstream US media has acted with great responsibility and professionalism by avoiding excessively sensationalizing the news and taking the time to point out that American Muslims, individually and collectively have unequivocally condemned this senseless killing. However, the usual suspects, like right-wing commentators, Michelle Malkin and Debbie Schulssel, have not missed the opportunity to goad Islam and Muslims. On the Fox & Friends, host Brian Kilmeade asked Geraldo Rivera, "Do you think it's time for the military to have special debriefings of Muslim Army civilian officers, anybody enlisted?" Kilmeade further suggested that "it's time for the military to have special debriefings" of U.S. soldiers who are Muslims.

The tragedy at Fort Hood has evoked fear and anger among many in the American Muslim community. History suggests that their fear of a backlash is no figment of their imagination. Some Muslim leaders have urged American Muslims to pray and take protective measures. While prayer is always good and there is no fault in being careful, the action most urgently needed from the American Muslim community is not to withdraw from public life but rather to reach out and explain to their fellow Americans that the actions of Maj. Hasan are not representative of their faith or feelings about America. Muslims in America do face the problems of discrimination and many feel dismayed about America's policy towards hotspots like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran or Palestine. But these issues cannot be solved by acts of terror or random violence. Terrorism in the name of Islam has only brought more misery to Muslims at home and abroad. Terrorism is morally bankrupt and strategically unsuccessful.

Most Americans have never met a Muslim and thus it is not surprising that they share a negative perception of Islam. For many their only knowledge of Islam and Muslims is shaped via the media where the news regarding Islam and Muslims is overwhelmingly negative. When a headline grabbing tragedy like Fort Hood unfolds, it is not surprising that many Americans demonstrate fear of and anger towards Muslims. Such fear and anger are not unprecedented. After September 11, 2001 American Muslims faced a similar situation. They responded not by retreating to the comforts of their prayer sanctuaries but rather by reaching out to fellow Americans. Those actions helped. However, the number of open houses and outreach efforts has dwindled in recent years. While the leadership of the American Muslim community has continued their interactions with leaders of the various faith based communities, but interactions at the grassroots levels, where it matters most, are few and far between. This vacuum has and will continue to get exploited by the Islamophobes. American Muslim organizations have been good at fire-fighting, rushing to douse the flames of hate after they have erupted. But they have not shown a propensity to be proactive and persistent with their efforts of ensuring more meaningful and sustained interactions between ordinary Muslims and people of other faiths (or non-faith).

American Muslims are also angry as to why they have to stand up and explain themselves every time a member of their faith does something bad. Their anger will not solve a problem that is real. Some Muslims are indeed committing acts of senseless violence invoking the name of Islam. Groups like al-Qaeda and its leaders like Osama bin Laden have a history of conflating political rhetoric with religious imagery. Take for example Osama bin Laden's August 23, 1996 statement, where he evokes powerful religious imagery while speaking about a political problem, "The people of Islam suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice. . . . the latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet . . . . in the occupation of the two Holy Places. Clearly after Belief (Iman) there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy from the holy land." Such language does catalyze the popular perception that the faith of Islam motivates some Muslims to attack America and Americans.

However, linking Islam to terrorism because of bin Laden's rhetoric is an oversimplification of a complex problem. Far from the rage and fury of the extremists, Islam actually provides a theology for peace and guidelines for living peacefully in a world with diverse people and nations. Indeed peace and justice are the foundational elements of Islam. The Qur'an preaches pluralism, "O men! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another. Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, all-aware." (49:13)

The Qur'an also emphasizes the sanctity of life saying, "do not take any human being's life (the life) which God has declared to be sacred--otherwise than in (the pursuit of) justice: this has He enjoined upon you so that you might use your reason,"(6:151). In addition, the Qur'an states, "that if anyone slays a human being--unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth--it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind," (5:32). Taken together, Islamic jurisprudence advocates the preservation of life, honor, and the dignity of all human life as a supreme endeavor.

Furthermore, Islam forbids suicide. In the Islamic ethos, the beginning (i.e., the birth) and the end (i.e., the death) of life in this world (Muslims believe in an afterlife) is the will of God. God gives life and death to an individual according to His own absolute knowledge and wisdom. Suicide implies a lack of trust in God and a lack of faith in His benevolence, mercy, love, wisdom, and knowledge. The Prophet Muhammad said, "A man was inflicted with wounds and he committed suicide, and so God said: My servant has caused death on himself hurriedly, so I forbid Paradise for him."

Any group or individual committing an act of terror in the name of Islam, deserve unequivocal condemnation. More Americans expect to hear this repeatedly and directly from American Muslims. Even when repetition is tiresome, Muslims must remain persistent in dissociating their faith from the criminal actions of a few. At the same time those who insist on linking every bad action by a Muslim to their faith must realize that their actions only inflame passions and alienate Muslims, whose support is necessary to defeat those who kill in the name of Islam.

Answers about terrorism cannot be boiled down to sound bites and slogans. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon that requires thoughtful analysis and discussion. Almost eight years after the declaration of a war on terror, terrorism remains a threat and by many indicators a bigger problem today than before September 11, 2001. Only thoughtful discussions can lead to sensible polices. Name calling and finger pointing will leave us grappling to explain tragedies like Fort Hood. Muslims have as much a stake in this issue as any other community. The victims of terrorism are majority Muslims. Rather than treating Islam as the problem, it is more constructive to view it as a solution towards achieving peace and justice.

India’s Invisible Minority

This article is based on a lecture given at the Press Club in Kolkata (Calcutta), India on September 24, 2009. The lecture was sponsored by the American Center in Calcutta, India.

First Published by AltMuslim. October 23, 2009

This year due to a coincidence of the lunar calendar, Eid-ul-Fitr and Durga Puja, two major religious festivals of India, were celebrated within a week of each other in late September. After twenty-two years, I was able to witness both in my birth city of Kolkata (Calcutta, India). One common thread between the Pujas and Eids is the propensity amongst the faithful to shop for new clothes and gifts with the same fervor and joy as Christmas shoppers in my adopted homeland of United States. The area colloquially called New Market is the nexus of this buying spree in Kolkata. I had a few things to shop for my family and quite naturally gravitated towards where all Kolkata roads seemed to meet.

Fighting the heat and humidity of a late September afternoon and amidst the crushing crowds, I could not help but notice that the overwhelming majority of the signs strewn across the myriad of shops were Puja greetings, well-wishing those celebrating Durgautsov. Conspicuous in their absence were well wishes to the Muslim community on the occasion of their Eid. Muslims who make up over twenty percent of the population in Kolkata, have become its invisible minority, increasingly squeezed out of the public square in Kolkata and beyond.

In 1947, after India’s bloody and tragic partition, many Muslims, particularly the elites, migrated to Pakistan leaving behind a political and social vacuum. Those who chose to remain Indian outnumbered those who opted for Pakistan. Yet Indian Muslims have been stigmatized as India’s fifth column. The subsequent rise of the Hindu political identity marked by the Hinduvta movement, the lack of creative ideas in the Muslim community towards self-empowerment, the post-independence educational curriculum depicting Muslims as outsiders, Islamophobia, and violence in the name of Islam; all have contributed to marginalize India’s Muslims.

Writing a book review in The Hindu, A.G. Noorani commented, “It (the Muslim problem) must be treated urgently and seriously as one of the national problems. Discrimination against Muslims has been a blot on India's record as a democracy. That blot must be erased with determination and speed by all Indians who cherish the Great Indian Ideal.” Thus, the idea behind empowering Muslims in India should not be viewed as either appeasement to a voting block or solely an altruistic program to uplift one of India’s most downtrodden socio-religious communities.

Persistent religious discrimination and recurring communal violence have marred India’s ideals and values. It has diminished India’s narrative of a secular state where multi-ethnic and multi-religious communities can safely and freely reside. The erosion of the constitutionally protected fundamental rights has been especially disillusioning for India’s Muslim youth. The repeated failure of governments, both local and national, to take appropriate measures to protect the rights of minority citizens has prompted the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to put India on its 2009 Watch List.

Despite the obvious need to correct the problem, religious fanatics and fundamentalists have espoused the notion that Muslim empowerment is a zero-sum game. In particular the Hinduvta movement has cultivated a mistaken notion that any gain to the Muslim community is a loss for the Hindus. But in today’s globalized society, power resides not so much in unilateralism (shown to be glaringly ineffective by George W. Bush) but rather in effective mutuality and sharing between all who have a stake in a nation’s future. Thus, the issue of Muslim empowerment should be as much a Hindu concern as it is a Muslim aspiration.

Empowering Muslims in India requires a three pronged effort with all of the parts working together in a holistic manner to convert today’s challenge into tomorrow’s opportunities. The first prong undoubtedly lies on the shoulders of India’s Muslim community. Instead of succumbing to the political rhetoric being espoused by self-appointed leaders, Muslims must leave aside their cynicism and engage in the Indian political, social and cultural life with vigor and positivity. The Civil Rights movement in America can serve as an inspirational model. Integration will be more effective if Indian Muslims harmonize their Islamic identity with their Indian one.

Such integrative steps can happen only if India’s state, local and central governments come forward with bold new proposals to correct the glaring deficiencies pointed out by the Sachar Committee Report. Although much of the grievances in the report were well known to Muslims, the Sachar Report is an eye opener to those who assumed away the Muslim problem or blamed it on some foreign conspiracy. The Sachar Report is poignant in its pathos that the disempowerment of India’s Muslims is an Indian problem created by decades of neglect and abuse, which hangs as an albatross on India’s otherwise vibrant democracy. Quite ironically, states like West Bengal and Kerala that boasted the most liberal governments were just as culpable in their lack of attention to Muslim empowerment as regions that hosted more religiocentric governments, like Gujarat. I was shocked to learn that in my birth state of West Bengal, Muslim representation in state public sector undertakings is exactly zero percent!

Other statistics are equally grim - less than 4 percent Muslims graduate from school; 1 in 25 undergraduate students and 1 in 50 post graduate students in premier university and colleges are Muslims; although Muslims are nearly 14 percent of India’s population their share in government employment is 4.9 percent; in India’s security agencies, Muslim representation is 3.2 percent; only 2.1 percent of Muslim farmers own tractors; just 1 percent own hand pumps for irrigation; if Muslims do outnumber majority Hindus in anywhere, it is predictably as a proportion of the prison population (much like Blacks in America).

It will be a mistake to leave the task of Muslim empowerment to the goodwill of governments alone. As India transforms itself into a market economy, it is the private sector that will play a bigger role in both the economic and social transformation of India. India’s big-business community can, if they choose to, play a positive role in empowering India’s Muslim minority. One mechanism for creating an Indian corporate workforce that is reflective of India’s socio-religious communities is through the voluntary adoption of the UN Global Compact. Launched in the year 2000 the Global Compact is an effort by the United Nations to usher-in a more sustainable, just and inclusive global economy.

To achieve this goal, the Global Compact outlined ten principles broadly classified in the areas of human rights, labor, the environment and anti-corruption. If the business community takes the necessary steps to apply these principles, it will inevitably lead to not only preserving the profit margins for the businesses but to a general well being of the society. By ending all overt and covert discriminations in labor practices, businesses can assist in empowering India’s minorities. By adhering to higher environmental standards businesses can also help the poor (including but not limited to Muslims) who are usually the disproportionate victims of environmental degradation.

The issue of Muslim empowerment is not so much about the Muslim community as it is about India’s future. A more educated Muslim community will constitute a more enlightened Indian work force leading to better business opportunity and a more sustainable growth for India’s economy. The next step in India’s economic evolution will likely not come on the backs of call centers and outsourcing. Rather it will come as result of higher paying service oriented jobs that require a large educated work force. An empowered Muslim community will also mean fewer security headaches and lesser social tension.

The Sachar commission recommends that 15 percent of all government funds be allocated to Muslim welfare and development. While this may work in the short run, in the long run Muslims need equal opportunities not quotas or handouts. This can come about via the establishment of “Equal Opportunities Commission” much like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the United States. Such a commission, armed with judicial powers, can greatly aid in empowering India’s Muslim much like the EEOC continues to do for America’s minority communities. These suggestions, among the many made by the Sachar report, are not difficult to implement provided governments and citizens alike make a commitment to change their mindset that for too long has regarded the issue of Muslim empowerment as a zero-sum game relegating them to become India’s invisible minority.

Bangladesh's future rests on development of ethical financial markets

The Financial Express, October 7, 2009

A recent Bangladesh Bank (BB) policy paper asserts that moving into the future, Bangladesh will have to rely heavily on capital markets to raise the necessary money to fund capital expansion projects. Capital expansion projects need a lot of money and relying solely on banks to raise that money is inefficient. In Bangladesh, financing via debt market is generally small and stock markets are in their infancy, albeit growing rapidly. Stock market capitalisation has grown at an average annual rate of 77 per cent from 2003 to 2008.

Despite such positive signs, Bangladesh has an Achilles' heel as it has been consistently cited by Transparency International (TI) as one of the countries with the highest levels of corruption. Transparency International, a civil society organisation, cites the economic cost of corruption as, "Corruption leads to the depletion of national wealth. It is often responsible for the funneling of scarce public resources to uneconomic high-profile projects, such as dams, power plants, pipelines and refineries, at the expense of less spectacular but fundamental infrastructure projects such as schools, hospitals and roads, or the supply of power and water to rural areas. Furthermore, it hinders the development of fair market structures and distorts competition, thereby deterring investment." The benefits from the development of the financial markets can easily be undone by the general pervasiveness and permissiveness of corruption.

The centrality of ethics in economic development is easily discerned from the fact that the three largest economies of the world US, Japan and Germany all rank among the top 20 (least corrupt) in the Corruption Perception Index. In developed countries like the US, business school curriculums and professional organisations are accelerating the integration of ethics. The hope is that effectively integrating ethics and social responsibility into pedagogy will allow the grooming of professionals who will avoid the ethical pitfalls that have become the hallmark of the many financial scandals in the recent past. Bangladesh should not wait to address the issue of ethics after some scandal rocks its markets. Rather a proactive strategy can avoid major scandals allowing Bangladesh to sustain its economic development.

The solution lies in a pursuing a two-pronged strategy. First, ethics has to be integrated in the business curriculum so that tomorrow's business leaders graduate armed with the motivation and knowledge about why ethics matter. The second strategy requires major businesses to voluntarily adopt the principles of the UN Global Compact.

Popular text books in finance and business state that the goal of the financial manger is, "to maximise the current value per share of the existing stock," fostering a notion that shareholder wealth maximisation is devoid of any moral concern. Such ambiguity leaves students unsure about the role of ethics in business. At worst, practitioners may treat ethics and shareholder wealth maximisation as a zero-sum game, more of one leading to less of the other. Effective integration of ethics will come about if students are convinced that shareholder wealth maximisation is indeed consistent with the pursuit of ethics and social responsibility.

Ethics need not be exclusively policed using paternalistic mechanisms. Rather, the marketplace can moderate the urge to be self-centered. This is possible so long as media and civic society accept their responsibility of naming and shaming ethical violators. Take for example the well publicised controversy regarding American talk show host Don Imus. On the April 4, 2007, he said referred to the players in the women's basketball team at Rutgers University as "nappy-headed hoes," a description deemed offensive to the teams' Black players. This was not the first time Imus had used derogatory language to insult minorities. A few days later, facing a surge of protests, Imus' show was cancelled and later he was fired from his position by CBS, although Imus had not violated any law.

Was CBS' action consistent with shareholder wealth maximisation? NGOs made appeals to advertisers withdraw their support of Imus' show. Customers threatened advertisers with economic sanctions. By firing Imus, CBS acted as a conduit for the ethical beliefs of the stakeholders. CBS did not need to become expert on the US. Constitution nor did it need to conduct a shareholder referendum to determine their moral beliefs. CBS made an ethical decision but within the framework of what is called the marketplace of morality.

In Bangladesh, purveyors of Islamic finance are assuming prominence. Islamic universities are competing side-by-side with established secular institutions. Scholars dating back to Adam Smith and Max Weber have argued that religion plays a fundamental role in shaping economics. The development of a stronger ethical foundation for Bangladesh's financial markets can be aided by understanding the consistency between normative Islam and modern theories of virtue ethics.

The comparable word for ethics in Islam is 'akhlaq' or 'khuluq'. The issue of "internal good" is best captured in the two Islamic concepts of 'taqwa' (piety) and 'ihsan' (excellence). Having 'taqwa' allows a person to be aware of God's omnipresence and attributes, serving to remind believers of their responsibility towards God. 'Ihsan' pertains to obtaining perfection or excellence in worship, morals, manners, attitudes and social interactions.

The idea of "moral judgment" is best exemplified by two Islamic concepts of justice (adl) and trusteeship (khilafa). In pursuing wealth maximisation, people should not lie or cheat; they must uphold promises and fulfill contracts. Usurious dealings are prohibited. Excessive speculation is shunned. In the Islamic hermeneutics, the rich are not the real owners of their wealth; they are only the trustees. Thus, justice requires that the rich spend their wealth in accordance with the terms of the trust, one of the most important of which is fulfilling the needs of the poor. Islam views human beings as God's vicegerent or trustee (khalifa) on earth, implying that there is no conflict between the morality and the pursuit of economic success. Given the right motivation and means, all economic activity can assume the character of worship.

The second leg in the effective integration of ethics in finance rests with businesses voluntarily adopting the UN Global Compact. On July 26, 2000 the United Nations launched an innovative public-private partnership (PPP), calling it the UN Global Compact. The idea was to foster "social responsibility," amongst corporations. It was a call to the business community that their goal in managing businesses should not be exclusively focused on profit margins but in addition take steps to realise a more sustainable, just and inclusive global economy.

To achieve this goal, the Global Compact outlined ten principles broadly classified in the areas of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption. The Global Compact requires participating businesses to annually report their progress on the ten principles. If the business community takes the necessary steps to apply these principles, it will inevitably lead to not only preserving their profit margins but to a general well-being of the society. In particular, principle 10 of the Global Compact asks businesses to strive against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery. Only 25 Bangladeshi companies have signed on to the UN Global Compact. Unfortunately, over half of them are classified as "non-communicating", having failed to comply with the reporting requirements. Eight Bangladeshi small and medium enterprises (SME) have signed on the UN Global Compact but only three have complied with all the reporting requirements. More businesses need to voluntarily adopt the UN Global Compact and this will come about only if civic society uses the marketplace of morality to demand business practices adhere to standards, which can ensure a more sustainable globalization.

Adam Smith defines "internal good" as "the man who acts according to the rules of perfect prudence, of strict justice, and of proper benevolence." Attaining "internal good" is necessary not just for altruistic reasons but also for profit making purposes. Providing profit by harming society perverts the purpose of business. An effective marketplace of morality, Dobson asserts will make financial markets truly ethical. He goes on to say, "Dishonesty and deceit would be anathema, because honesty and integrity are themselves internal goods. A truly ethical individual, pursuing internal goods, would never sacrifice honesty for material gain, but only too readily sacrifice material gain for honesty."

More Americans Empathize with Muslims

Huffington Post, Sep 11, 2009
Also on AltMuslim

The latest survey from the Pew Research Center for People and the Press shows an unmistakable trend of Americans slowly but surely beginning to appreciate the challenges and aspirations of its fellow Muslim citizenry. Perhaps this trend is a result of nearly half of Americans saying that they personally know someone who is a Muslim. The fact that so many Americans profess knowing a Muslim is surprising given the fact that American Muslims makeup fewer than 2 percent of the overall U.S. population. The latest Pew poll shows the percentage of Americans who view Islam to be a violent religion is at its lowest level in recent years although not lower than the 25 percent mark recorded in the first Pew poll on this subject shortly after the terrorist attacks on 9-11. The biggest change in attitude came among surprisingly conservative Republicans, a 13 point decrease in the view that Islam is violent.

Coinciding with this positive trend are the findings that show more Americans, nearly 6 in 10, saying that Muslims are subject, “to a lot of discrimination.” While the empathy factor for Muslims have increased, knowledge about Islam and Muslims remain pitifully low. Two-thirds of people who are not Muslims find Islam to be “very different or somewhat different” from their faiths. The Pew report states that, “slim majorities of the public are able to correctly answer questions about the name Muslims use to refer to God (53%) and the name of Islam’s sacred text (52%).” Only four-in-ten correctly answered both “Allah” and “the Quran.” Those who know a Muslim are least likely to see Islam as encouraging of violence and most likely to express favorable views of Muslims.

The change in attitude towards Islam and Muslims are undoubtedly the result of more American Muslims than ever before taking the time to and making the effort to reach out to their neighbors and colleagues trying to explain away the misunderstandings about their faith. In recent days and months, major American leaders have also taken extraordinary steps in reminding fellow Americans about the valuable contributions being made by American Muslims. “I saw….a photo essay …of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave….you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards -- Purple Heart, Bronze Star -- showed that he died in Iraq….. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone …. it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. ….. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life,” observed General Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State in while being interviewed on Meet the Press.

More recently President Barack Obama speaking at a Ramadan iftar noted, “And like the broader American citizenry, the American Muslim community is one of extraordinary dynamism and diversity -- with families that stretch back generations and more recent immigrants; with Muslims of countless races and ethnicities, and with roots in every corner of the world. Indeed, the contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country. American Muslims are successful in business and entertainment; in the arts and athletics; in science and in medicine. Above all, they are successful parents, good neighbors, and active citizens.” Perhaps the President stated the obvious but if more American opinion leaders find the courage to do just that then the trend towards a more positive view Islam and Muslims will undoubtedly accelerate. And America will be better for that.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently noted that U.S. military is bungling its outreach to the Muslim world and squandering good will by failing to live up to its promises. Adm. Mullen’s views are backed by data that shows opinions about America and America’s intentions remain alarmingly poor in much of the Muslim world. To change the hearts and mind, American rhetoric will have to be backed by American action. Adm. Mullen went on to say, “Our messages lack credibility because we haven’t invested enough in building trust and relationships, and we haven’t always delivered on promises.” One reason we have failed to build trust relationships with the Muslim world, is because so few Americans understand Islam and Muslims.

American Muslims will have to increase their efforts to reach out to their neighbors and colleagues. Americans of other faiths will have to reciprocate. Undoubtedly understanding is a two-way street. Muslims must also increase their efforts to understand the faiths of other people. Given today’s global political tensions, economic unease, and ecological concerns, the need for identifying our common ground and working together for the common good is urgent.

Understanding the Current Economic and Financial Crisis

Islam Online. Aug 5, 2009

Easy credit and risky derivatives are the apparent factors that triggered this once-in-a-generation global financial crisis.

However, the fact is that responsible and reputable institutions, that are otherwise risk-averse, engaged in extremely risky trades without adequate protective measures, which points to something more fundamental being amiss.

Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, major financial institutions and regulators mistakenly clinged to the dogma that human beings are "rational" and make financial decisions purely motivated by economic incentives.

This assumption has been challenged for quite a while, but has grown louder since the start of the crisis. Influential voices in the field of economics, including Nobel laureates, are seeking fundamental changes in public policy.

The quest to better understand human nature is as old as human civilization. Religious texts and non-religious philosophies have pondered over this matter quite extensively.

Islam is no exception; it can be posited that Islam does provide a more holistic look into human reality by exploring not just observable facts about human nature, but also the eternal mysteries of soul and heart.

The Crisis

The current global financial and economic crisis, while not unprecedented, is certainly the most severe since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

On October 23, 2008 testifying before the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan called this crisis a "once-in-a-century credit tsunami," that resulted from the collapse of the US housing sector.

The impact of this crisis on the developed world is quite well documented. The US unemployment rate is expected to reach 10 percent and the projected GDP growth for 2009 is at an anemic 0.1 to 0.2 percent (Most economists agree that the ideal growth for US GDP is between 2-3 percent per a year).

Somewhat lost in the maelstrom is the impact of this crisis on the 1.4 billion people who live in extreme poverty, mostly in the developing world.

A global economic crisis is turning poverty into a catastrophe. The administrator of the UN Development Program, Kemal Dervis, warned that the, "current global economic conditions threaten the gains that have been made to reduce poverty, and advance development for large numbers of people."

The number of people who are chronically hungry could increase by 130 million in 2009, reaching three-quarter of a billion people now.

A crisis evokes a quest for not just solutions, but a renewed interest in examining the very fundamentals of the current system.

Economics Noble Laureate Joseph Stiglitz recently said that the current financial crisis requires a global response based on the principles of social justice and solidarity.

Rejecting "trickle-down" theories that dominated finance and economics since the 1980s (championed by Ronald Regan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in United Kingdom), Stiglitz questioned the fundamentals of the current system, saying: "what is good for Wall Street is not necessarily good for all."

The Dogma

We have arrived, in part, to a dogmatic belief in free markets – primarily the notion that the "invisible hand" of the market is adequate to keep markets properly functioning.

The regulators of the economy (the Fed and the Treasury in the United States) placed an inordinate emphasis on laissez-faire (hands-off or let do) ideology, thus favoring systems that prefer "efficiency" without regarding the equally important societal concern of "fairness".

Moreover, regulators and many economists were unwilling to budge from the assumption that investors are "rational", (technically the marginal investor is assumed to be rational) disregarding an emerging body of literature in finance and economics that posited investor behavior to be driven by psychological or cognitive factors, such as fear and greed.

If people were purely rational then we would not see massive expenditures on lottery or gambling, where the cost of a lottery ticket always exceeds the expected pay-off from winning the lottery. For example, if the winning jackpot was $1,000,000 and 1,000,000 tickets were sold, then the probability of winning the jackpot is 1 in 1,000,000.

The expected payoff from this gamble is computed by multiplying the winning jackpot with the probability of a win; this equals $1.

If the cost of this lottery ticket exceeds $1 then the ticket is overpriced. Even without knowing any expectation theory, it is easy to understand that if this were not the case, Las Vegas will go out of business! In gambling, the house always wins and for every winner there are a million losers.

Thus, the Qur’anic injunction (5:93-94) against gambling is not just a matter of religious spirit, but also a matter of common sense[1].

A More Realistic Look at Economic Decision Making

Since Kahneman and Tversky's ground-breaking work 30 years ago, a new area of research called Behavioral Finance or Behavioral Economics explains why people often fail to rationally respond to economic choices[2]. The example on gambling is illustrative of such failures[3].

Value or price of an asset (financial or otherwise) is not always efficient — not reflecting the asset's true, fair value.

Thus, irrational human beings contribute toward irrational markets. The British economist John Maynard Keynes in his 1936 classic "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" wrote that contrary to being rational, human beings are far more likely to make decisions under the impulse of what he described as the "animal spirits".

In our time, economists Robert Shiller and George Akerlof in their book, "Animal Spirits ”, identify five "animal forces" that drive economic choices:

Confidence: Rather than making investment decisions based on objective facts, such as cash flows, investors are more likely to use "gut feelings" to make asset pricing decisions. Confidence is also contagion, like any virus. This leads to severe boom and bust cycles.

Fairness: People in general want to be fair and they want others to live with fairness. Thus, the ideas of fairness influencing wage-setting and the labor market explain "sticky" wages and persistent involuntary unemployment.

Corruption: Each major financial crisis of the past century has been preceded by anti-social behavior. The 1991 recession was preceded by the savings and loan crisis. The lead-up to the 2001 recession, with an outbreak of corporate corruption cases like Enron and WorldCom.

The current recession was preceded by sub-prime mortgages issued to people who logically could never have the means to repay them, and their securitization in packages that even the rating agencies that gave them AAA ratings could not understand.

Even watch-dog agencies, like the US Federal Reserve, had no understanding of types of risk that AIG was exposed to and how that risk could take down the US economy[4].

Money illusion: Refers to the tendency to think of asset value in nominal rather than real terms. People often take the numerical or face value of an asset as its true value, ignoring the impact that inflation had in reducing the purchasing power or real value of the asset.

Since accounting is based on nominal value and not real value "money illusion" clouds economic decision making.

Stories: Human lives are built around story telling. Without a narrative, life will be just one event after another, seemingly unrelated and random.

Stories give life purpose allowing the development of confidence in nations or institutions. Sometimes the "stories" are urban legends.

Take for example the myth that property prices or housing prices will always rise, because there is only so much land available.

This is not true. Yet, people believed this urban legend which led to the housing bubble in the United States. Stories can propagate myths, which in turn leads to bubbles. Eventually the bubble has to burst causing untold misery.
This "behavioral" deconstruction of human reality is not new to Islam's foundational texts. It is common knowledge that human beings have both an angelic and devilish side to them.

God says in the Holy Qur'an [We have indeed created man in the best shape, then we reduced him (to be) the lowest of the low, except those who believe and do righteous deeds: for they shall have a reward unfailing.] (95:46).

The presence of "animal spirits" in human beings is well illustrated in the many stories of human failings in the Quran.

However, the same human being is also capable of extraordinary compassion and understanding. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said, "God created Adam in His form".

This suggests that human beings have unlimited capacity for development and the pursuit of perfection. With proper nurturing, appropriate environment, and enforceable reward-punishment structure, human beings can gain reasonable control over their "animal spirits".

Thus, it is important to understand human nature in order to better explain why economic systems undergo severe boom and bust cycles, and what can be done to create a more stable and sustainable economic and financial system.


Footnote:

[1] [O you who believe, truly intoxicants and gambling and divination by arrows are an abomination of Satan; avoid them in order that you may be successful. Assuredly Satan desires to sow enmity and hatred among you by means of intoxicants and gambling, and to hinder you from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. Will you not then desist?] (Al-Ma'idah: 93-94)

[2] Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky (1979) "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk", Econometrica, V. 47 No. 2, 263-292.

[3] Over half the US population has at one time or another bought a lottery ticket. The average expenditure on lottery exceeds that of spending on books or movie tickets.

[4] "Fool's Gold: How Unrestrained Greed Corrupted a Dream, Shattered Global Markets and Unleashed a Catastrophe," By Gillian Tett. Little Brown.