Parvez Ahmed

Religious Right and Politics – From Iowa to Cairo

2011-12-27T20:46:00.001-05:00

ALTMUSLIM and HUFFINGTON POST

Guess where in the world candidates for political office are pandering to religious conservatives, using religious imagery in political advertisement and participating in political forums in houses of worship? Where some voters are unwilling to support candidates because they do not belong to the majority faith, dismissing a candidate because they are women, and using religious purity as a litmus test for eligibility? If you said Iowa, USA you will be correct. Cairo, Egypt also qualifies as the correct answer.

The nexus between politics and religion has been on the rise globally for quite some time now. It is an irony that it is the religious right in each country that often expresses the most misgivings about the rise of the religious right in other countries. In America, Republican presidential candidates, with support from the religious right, are the most vocal in their criticism of Islamist politics. On the other hand, Islamists are quick to conflate American hegemony in their region with a war against Islam. The mutual paranoia is palpable.

Elections are underway in Egypt for a new parliament. Openly vying for seats are political parties from the puritanical Salafis, to the conservative Ikhwanis (Muslim Brotherhood) and a plethora of smaller secular groups. After the first round of voting it appears that the religious right, Salafis and the Brotherhood together, will have majority control of the parliament. Similar Islamist victories in Tunisia and Morocco portend an unmistakable trend of increased intertwining of religion and politics in the region.

A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that while a majority of Muslims prefer a significant role for Islam in their politics, substantive differences persist across regions. Majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria favor changing current laws to allow religiously sanctioned capital punishment for adultery, stealing and apostasy. In contrast, Muslims living under secular democracies in Turkey or Lebanon overwhelmingly reject fundamentalism and self-identify themselves as modernists, even when actively practicing their faith.

As politics face a rightward religious tug across the globe, it will be hasty to stereotype the trend. In the U.S., although the Christian right exerts an enormous influence in politics but the state remains neutral towards religion, the occasional display of Christmas trees in government buildings notwithstanding. Such institutional separation between state and religion is lacking across the Middle East, most disconcertingly in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Will the wave of popular opinions that favor a greater role for Islam in politics inevitably lead to a theocratization of the nascent Middle Eastern democracies? Chances are good that the new democracies in Tunisia or Egypt are unlikely to resemble Saudi Arabia or Iran, but neither will they be Jeffersonian.

Reformist scholars of Islam have asserted that Sharia ought not to be codified as state law. The reasons are tantalizingly simple. A state is a political institution, not a religious authority. A state has to be neutral and beneficial towards all its citizens, not just those who belong to the majority. The Muslim belief in the divineness of Sharia is obviously not shared by people of other faiths. Moreover, the interpretation of Sharia is a fallible human endeavor, often leading to conflicting juristic opinions, which then leaves unanswered the question of whose Islam should the state endorse.

While public policy may reflect the values of the citizenry, it should not be promulgated in the name of any one religion. Even when religious values inform a certain policy, the primary reason for enacting public policy must be secular. A wall separating religion from statecraft is good for both religion and state. Once a state begins to enforce the laws of any religion then the coercive power of the state becomes the primary factor in the determining how religion gets practiced. The state loses credibility and faith loses spirituality. The Quran unequivocally states that there is no compulsion in matters related to religion.

Even in the rough and tumble world of Middle Eastern politics there are faint signs of hope. The Islamist leaders in Tunisia have spoken about the secular democracy of Turkey as their aspiring model. A New York Times report quoted a conservative party leader in Egypt saying, “We don’t accept tyranny in the name of religion any more than we accept tyranny in the name of the military.” The yearning for freedom may ultimately overcome parochial religiosity in politics. From Iowa to Cairo, the world watches with trepidation.

From Fear to Faith, From Grief to Understanding

2011-09-25T12:55:00.001-04:00

From Fear to Faith, From Grief to Understanding
September 11, 2011
Delivered at Temple Israel, Tallahassee, FL on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of 9-11. Event hosted by the Interfaith Council of Tallahassee, FL.
By Parvez Ahmed

Good evening. Shalom, Peace and Salaam-

It is my great honor and pleasure to be here today.

Today is a day whose memories are seared into our individual and collective consciousness.

Today is a day that is profound and yet instructive.

Today is a day that is solemn but also a reminder of our capacity to triumph over tragedy.

Rabbi Alvin Fine in his celebrated poem, “Life is a Journey” wrote:

“Birth is a beginning and death a destination.
…..
From innocence to awareness
And ignorance to knowing;
From foolishness to discretion
And then, perhaps, to wisdom;
From weakness to strength
…
From offense to forgiveness,
From loneliness to love,
From joy to gratitude,
From pain to compassion,
And grief to understanding –
From fear to faith….”

The good Rabbi in poignant words reflected eternal truths. Such sentiments are not only part of his Jewish spirituality but are also at the heart of all other great religious traditions. Rabbi Fine could have read this from the pulpit at a mosque or a church and the congregation would have nodded approvingly.

Such commonality between the essential core of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, what we often call the Abrahamic traditions, ought to be our springboard to transform ourselves “From Fear to Faith, From Grief to Understanding.”

Grief, fear, ignorance, loneliness, pain, weakness and foolishness are all part of our human existence. These emotional responses sometimes are useful defense mechanisms, allowing us the means to cope with tragic situations. And yet if such feelings linger then they can also be debilitating.

And so with the passage of time and by reaching deep into our indomitable human spirit we hope to arrive at place where we develop understanding, gratitude, compassion and love. In this journey to rebuild and renew, we stand in need of God and we stand in need of each other.

On the 10th anniversary of the fateful terrorist attacks against our country, it is fair to ask - have we overcome our fears and regained our trust in humanity. Have we overcome our grief and gained new insights about the world we live in?

While we had no choice in being attacked we did and do have a choice on how we respond. Ten years ago we asked questions such as - Why us? Why they hate us? Where were you when you heard the news? What did you feel?

Today the relevant questions are we safer? Are we freer? Are we better off? And finally, where do we go from here?

The fact that there has been no large scale attack since 9-11 creates a perception that we are safer. And yet Americans continue to die at the hand of terrorists. Sometimes the terrorists are foreign born, such as the 9-11 attackers.

Sometimes they are people who we entrusted to protect us, such those who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma in 1995 or the Army major who gunned down his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009. And sometimes the terrorists are our neighbors, such as the gunman who went on a rampage in Arizona killing several innocent people and nearly killing a U.S. Congressman.

Terror comes in many forms. While being vigilant we must also restrain ourselves from applying superficial narratives, which can do more harm than good.

The lingering fear of another attack has caused us to significantly change our lifestyle. In our effort to guard against any and all possible attacks, we have sacrificed essential liberties and accepted cosmetic security measures. Even if we accept the argument that we are safer, we are not the same America we used to be. In the words of my friend David Cole, professor at Georgetown University, we are less safe and less free. Benjamin Franklin’s prophecy that those who trade away liberty to be more safe deserve neither has sadly come true.

But are we better off today?

In 2001 the U.S. GDP per capita was second in the world and the U.S. economy the undisputed and unchallenged leader in the world. In 2011 U.S. GDP per capita is 9th in the world with several major economies closing in fast. China was ranked 129th in 2001 is now ranked 24th.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was around 9600 on September 10th 2001. On Friday the Dow closed at a little below 11,000. This represented an anemic 1.4% annual growth rate in the decade after 9-11. In the decade preceding 9-11 the Dow grew at the rate of about 22% per year.

In 2001 the U.S. had a 128 billion dollar budget surplus. In 2011 we have a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. Gas was about $1.50 per gallon in 2001 and is nearly $3.60 per gallon today. Unemployment rate was 4.9% and today is it 9.1%, more than doubled.

It is true that not all of the economic problems are related to 9-11 or even connected to it. Much of the bleak picture is attributable to the economic recession and financial market troubles that started in 2007. Yet it is undeniable that the costs of 2 ½ wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya) has crossed 1.24 trillion dollars and has had an indelible impact on our life at home and our image abroad.

The changing face of the world after 9-11, is most easily recognized every time we go to the airport to take a flight. The changing face of the world after 9-11 is most readily felt by the military families who bear the disproportionate burdens of keeping us safe. The human toll from the death of soldiers to soldiers returning with life altering wounds has been staggering and yet as a society we have mostly paid lip-service to their plight.

Today we are also less tolerant of each other and generally uncivil in our public discourse. One minority community, the American-Muslims, have been particularly challenged after 9-11. In addition to the things that worry all Americans, Muslims have to put up with increased scrutiny of their activities and constant second guessing of their motives, not to mention discrimination or profiling. Last year, a survey released by Time showed nearly six in ten Americans held an unfavorable view of Muslims. A Gallup poll released the same year revealed four in ten Americans admitting to “feeling at least ‘a little’ prejudice” towards Muslims.

The tragedy of 9-11 naturally evoked fear and many of our fellow citizens mistakenly felt that reducing the freedom of others will increase our safety. During difficult times we need the courage to understand others. Mutual respect is the cornerstone of great civilizations. All great religions of the world teach us this.

In the Jewish tradition, one of the basic teachings of Avot, understood to be Ethics of the Fathers, is the necessity of respecting others - respecting their space, their property, their right to opinions and their humanity. Respect for humans is a distinctive Torah value, as respecting human’s leads to appreciation and reverence of the Almighty Himself.

The Christian tradition asks that honor and dignity be afforded to everyone. "For in the image of God has God made man." (Genesis 9:6)

In the Islamic holy text the Quran we read – “O mankind! Surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you in the sight of Allah (God) is the most righteous of you; surely God is Knowing, Aware of all things.” [49:13].

And yet many times throughout history, people of faith have fallen short of these ideals. A small minority among all faith groups have developed a militant form of piety. The genesis of such militancy is the world view, common to extremists, that God is on their side. They fail to heed the common sense sentiment of Abraham Lincoln that rather than falsely claiming whose side God is on, it is far better that each one of us strive to be on God’s side.

Unfortunately many of my fellow Americans have mistakenly concluded a link between terrorism and my faith of Islam. A closer scrutiny reveals that such heinous actions are a misrepresentation of core religious teachings. The Quran emphasizes sanctity of life, “and do not take any human being's life (the life) which God has declared to be sacred.” (Chapter 6:151).

The Islamic traditions honor Christians and Jews as People of the Book and states, "Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures), and the Christians, and the Sabians, and who believe in God and the last day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve." (2:62)

Terrorism is not a result of any religious teaching. Equating terrorism with any religion makes a community of faith doubly vulnerable - to both the random acts of terror and the ensuing backlash.

All of us can make a difference. We must regain the best of our faith traditions and our core American values. In my faith tradition there is a famous saying: “Do you want to love God? Then start by respecting those you live with.”

Such inward introspection will help us live up to Rabbi Fine’s optimism that from within the depths of unimaginable tragedy can arise the best of our collective and common values.

I will leave you with a poem from my native India, from a poet named Tagore who in his Nobel Prize winning work the Gitanjali (Ode to God), wrote,

In desperate hope I go and search for her in all the corners of my room; I find her not.
My house is small and what has gone from it once, can never be regained.
But infinite is Thy mansion, my Lord, and seeking her I have to come to Thy door.
I stand under the golden canopy of Thine evening sky and I lift my eager eyes to seek Thy face.
I have come to the brink of eternity from which nothing can vanish--no hope, no happiness, no vision of a face seen through tears.
Oh Lord, dip my emptied life into that ocean, plunge it into its deepest fullness.
Let me for once feel the lost sweet touch - the allness of the universe.

Thank you.

May God bless you. May God bless the United States of America.

Muslims in America at the 10th Anniversary of 9-11

2011-08-30T23:08:00.002-04:00

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Published in Khaleej Times, September 1, 2011.

Last year, during a raging controversy over the building of an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan, Time Magazine ran a cover story titled, "Is America Islamophobic?" Shortly thereafter, a poll released by Time showed nearly six in ten Americans held an unfavorable view of Muslims. A Gallup poll released the same year revealed four in ten Americans admitting to “feeling at least ‘a little’ prejudice” towards Muslims.

The Gallup poll indicated that these adverse attitudes are likely the result of most Americans (62 per cent) personally not knowing anyone who is Muslim. The incessant headlines about violence in the name of Islam have led nearly one in two Americans to erroneously conclude that the faith of Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence.

But beyond the headlines lurks another reality.

A recent study by the newly established Abu Dhabi Gallup Center concluded, "Muslim Americans are satisfied with their current lives and are more optimistic than other faith groups that things are getting better." Muslims in America continue to profess a positive attitude despite being misunderstood by many and demonised by a few.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, an American non-profit civil rights organization dedicated to combating bigotry, wrote in a recent report that "…certain Americans, [who have been] prodded into paranoia by clever activists, opportunistic politicians and guileful media players, seem downright eager to deny Muslims the guarantees of religious freedom and the presumption of innocence."

In New York, educator Debbie Almontaser was compelled to resign from a secular Arabic-English public school after she was misquoted in the New York Post, which "clever activists" exploited to insidiously imply she supported violence. However, when a similar cast of characters tried to rile up a controversy by selectively misquoting me to derail my nomination to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission, they were effectively thwarted after influential leaders stood up to condemn the witch-hunt, which lead to the City Council voting in favor of my candidacy.

This year, extreme right-wing activists rallied voters in Oklahoma to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting judges from making rulings based on sharia, the source of Islam's religious and moral laws. A federal judge blocked the implementation of this referendum, but more than a dozen states are considering "banning" sharia. Meanwhile Congressman Peter King of New York continues his series of unbalanced congressional hearings about the "radicalization" of American Muslims, which negatively stereotype the Muslim community with the imprimatur of the US government.

Despite the efforts to marginalize this community, Muslim life in America remains vibrant, youthful and nuanced. According to Gallup, the average age of American Muslims is significantly lower than people of other faiths. This youthfulness explains why Muslims are least likely to vote despite having the most positive attitude towards American democracy, although they also have the least positive view of law enforcement and US military engagement abroad.

One of the most common complaints about Muslims is that they do not condemn terrorism as much as they ought to. Following the London bombings in 2005, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote, "To this day, no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa [a non-binding religious opinion] condemning Osama bin Laden." Such spurious statements help solidify the misperception of Muslims being sympathetic to terrorism. University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole and Professor Charles Kurzman from the University of North Carolina have documented many fatwas and statements from Muslim scholars and groups condemning terrorism. One only need enter the phrases, "Muslims Condemn Terrorism" or "Islamic Statements Against Terrorism", in any online search engine to read the multitude of statements against terrorism.

In fact the latest Gallup survey shows nine out of ten American Muslims saying that they do not sympathize with Al Qaeda and view themselves as loyal Americans. Survey results also show that Muslims are the least likely of all religious groups to say that there is ever any justification for attacking civilians. However, most of their fellow Americans do not see Muslims as being patriotic. To win the hearts and minds of their fellow Americans, Muslims must spend more time not only educating others about their faith but also increase their commitment to endeavors that promote the common good.

Recently, mainstream media and civic groups have begun to question the means and motives of the anti-Muslim network. A report from the Center for American Progress, a progressive research and advocacy organization, shows that from 2001 to 2007 a handful of wealthy donors poured nearly $42 million in financing anti-Muslim activities. Although the money trail is unprecedented, in many respects the challenges facing Muslims are no different from those faced by other religious minorities as they struggled to integrate in America. This gives hope because eventually the marginalized groups found acceptance and respect in mainstream society.

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 30 August 2011, www.commongroundnews.org

How Islamic is “Islamic”?

2011-06-21T12:45:00.001-04:00

PUBLISHED IN ALTMUSLIM AND THE AMERICAN MUSLIM
How Islamic is “Islamic”?
BY PARVEZ AHMED, JUNE 19, 2011

A Malaysian political leader has asked political parties in his country to stop using the word “Islam” in their names so that, “nobody can make use of the religion for their political gains.” This progressive thought is ironically closer to the classical understanding of Islam’s sacred texts. For in the early century of Islam, use of the word “Islamic” (Islamiyyah in Arabic) was limited in its scope. When opining on the permissible (halal) and the impermissible (haram) the classical scholars eschewed the blanket usage of “Islamic” or “un-Islamic” often opting instead to using terms such as “valid”, “accepted”, and “allowable” or their antonyms.

Attaching Islam or Islamic to otherwise secular activities such as politics or art is a newer innovation whose proliferation is traceable to the identity movements that sprang up in the Muslim world in the 1960s and 70s. Even if one were to provide convincing raison d'être for the fields of Islamic Art or Finance, how does one explain Islamic Olympic Games, Islamic Music, Islamic Quizzes, etc.? In their quest to preserve identity, Muslims may have lost sight of the big picture.

The proponents of “Islamic-anything” perform a difficult juggling act. In his book “Islamic Finance”, Mahmoud El-Gamal outlines the dilemma faced by the Islamic finance industry, for example. On one hand the Islamic finance industry tries to be similar to conventional finance so as not to be in any jeopardy of national or international laws. On the other hand, the industry portrays itself to be different by using Arabic words to describe mundane secular contracts and attempting to conform to the sacred texts of Islam, even when such conformity is no more than form over function. This dilemma of being same and yet different is also faced by other Islamized disciplines.

Continuing with the example of Islamic finance, it is common knowledge that Islam prohibits riba (usury), gharar (excessively risky) and maysir (gambling) in financial transactions. But creating a separate industry called “Islamic Finance,” has not eliminated riba, gharar and maysir even in financial transactions branded “Islamic” or “Sharia-compliant.” Moreover, Islamic finance has not led to more equitable distributions of wealth or the elimination of the many vices that plague the finance industry. Thus, even in Muslim majority countries, the success of Islamic finance is limited, because users find little to differentiate it from conventional finance.

Since Islam makes no distinction between the sacred and the secular (defined in Webster as “of or relating to the worldly or temporal”), the rebranding of otherwise secular ideas in religious terms, is a contradiction. A cobbler once asked the Protestant reformer Martin Luther how he could serve God within his trade of shoe making. Luther did not ask the cobbler to make “Christian” shoes. He asked the cobbler to make the best shoe possible and sell it at a fair price. Thus affirming a theme consistently present in the sacred texts of almost all religions, namely that being fair and striving for excellence is part of being religiously righteous.

Islam cannot be of service to all humanity if Muslims confine discussions about Islam to issues related to identity only. Instead of being separate but equal, Muslims should integrate without assimilating. A Muslim women weightlifter is trying to do exactly that. Instead of competing in Islamic Games, she is competing in regular weightlifting competition but petitioning the respective sports bodies to allow her to compete wearing modest clothing including a headscarf.

Islamic games or Islamic political parties limit their participation to Muslims. It is natural for people of other faiths to feel excluded even when the limits are not explicit, much the same way Muslims will feel excluded if someone tried to organize “Christian Games.” The Quran in Chapter 49, verse 13, “We have created you from a male and female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other,” celebrates the plurality of people having a singularity of purpose - getting to know each. How can we know each other if we use identity to seclude us?

Our global struggles today are not between Islam and the rest but between the forces of divisiveness and the champions of inclusiveness, between general welfare for all and the preservation of privileged status for a handful. In such a struggle, Islam can be a force of moderation as long as Muslims treat Islam more as a system of values that can benefit all humanity and less as a “club” where people with certain cultural habits congregate. It is not coincidental that Turkey’s AKP party has grown in popularity despite practicing Muslims governing a secular state, while the identity-driven Islamists in the rest of the Muslim world struggle to find their voices in democratic politics.

Creating an apartheid system of Islamic versus un-Islamic will not address the bigger issues at stake. Subjecting secular endeavors of politics or finance to parochial tests of religiosity will neither benefit Muslims nor the rest of humanity. Rather Muslims should follow Luther’s advice of honestly making the best possible shoe and selling it at the fairest price possible. Actions that benefit the broadest cross section of people, best fulfills the Prophetic mission of being “rahmatul lil alamim” – a mercy to all humanity (creations to be exact).

A City of Hope

2011-05-19T10:16:00.001-04:00

Our city of Jacksonville has made history by electing Alvin Brown to be our next Mayor. This should fill us up with civic pride and energize us. Jacksonville is our home and we love living here. All of us deserve a Mayor who can lead us to greater economic prosperity and social cohesion. The city must now unite behind Alvin Brown’s leadership and help him achieve the goals he set out to make Jacksonville a better city.

A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of meeting Alvin Brown, when Dr. Yazan Khatib hosted a fundraiser for Alvin. Several members of the American Muslim community attended the event. We all came away with the impression that Alvin was the most qualified and the most visionary candidate to lead Jacksonville at this time. We need a Mayor who understands that our best way forward is to increase economic and social opportunities for all. We need a Mayor who will unite the city. Alvin campaigned on that message and we in the city rallied behind him.

Listening to First Coast Connect this morning and reading the blogs on Florida Times Union, it is quite evident that our city is buzzing with excitement and this can only give all of us hope. In these difficult economic times, the positivity of Alvin Brown’s message can only help us. His campaign was uniting and uplifting.

Now comes the tough part of governing. I can only hope that our city’s first African American mayor will not suffer the kind of personal attacks that our nation’s first African American President is still suffering. We can have legitimate differences of opinions about policy. But the type of incivility that has come to characterize our national political discourse should never happen here in Jacksonville. If it does, we will all lose.

To his great credit, Mike Hogan ran a positive campaign. I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Hogan. He is a decent family man. While we disagreed over his policy choices we remained cordial in our conversations. I was very pleased to read Mr. Hogan’s appeal to his followers to unite behind our new Mayor.

Time and time again, the orderly process that characterizes American democracy is beautiful to behold. This American value of gracious in defeat but humble in victory is something I had to learn after arriving in America to do my graduate studies over two decades ago. American democracy remains a beacon of hope to the world. But we must practice it as best we can at home to keep inspiring people around the world.

Today is a proud day for Jacksonville. Let us celebrate. And then let us all get back to work.

Democracy is not merely the process of voting and elections. Democracy requires constant civic engagement and works best when it is also the rule of law that protects the interests of all and provides equal opportunity for all. “The motivating force of the theory of a Democratic way of life is still a belief that as individuals we live cooperatively, and, to the best of our ability, serve the community in which we live,” Eleanor Roosevelt.

Memo to Osama bin Laden, now dead

2011-05-08T13:12:00.001-04:00

Published in Turkey's Today's Zaman, May 3, 2011. Also on Huffington Post. An edited version appears in the Florida Times Union.

MEMO TO OSAMA BIN LADEN, NOW DEAD
Parvez Ahmed

Although rejoicing death is not part of the religious traditions of Muslims, Christians or Jews, I cannot help but feel a sense of joyful relief now that you are no longer capable of plotting your evil. Your elimination as a terrorist threat is a victory for peace and justice. Thousands of people from different nationalities, ethnicities and religions around the world have reacted with understandable emotions. Capital markets have reacted by bidding oil prices down and stock prices up, indicating that they are hopeful of greater stability in the Middle East.

You have caused untold misery to people who had no enmity with you. You have dragged the good name of Islam through the mud by wrapping your heinous actions with the banner of Islam. Your views and your methods have long been discredited by credible and mainstream Muslim scholars. But that did not persuade you from ceasing to poison the minds of gullible and vulnerable youths. You took our children brainwashed them into being maniacs and then used them as weapons against us. And in the end you did not even prove your self-proclaimed warrior mantle. You hid behind a woman and used her as a human shield. You are not a martyr. You are a criminal who deserves to be punished by death, under American, international and Sharia laws.

The cancer that you have left behind will still be with us. We will still have to deal with terrorists like you. But we hope that your death will inject rationality in the discourse about terrorism. It will allow our policy makers and leaders to see terrorism less as a political football and more as a criminal activity undertaken by mafia figures like you. Instead of criminalizing a faith, our leaders will use sensible method to go after the criminals without stigmatizing the faith group they belong to.

We are hopeful that your demise will bring some measure of comfort to all the families who have to contend daily with the loss of their loved ones. We are also hopeful that your departure provides renewed opportunities for building stronger bridges of understanding across faiths and cultures.

As peace loving Muslims, we unequivocally reject terrorism and reiterate that no grievances can ever justify the taking of innocent human lives. Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. Any group that imitates your methods is just as guilty as you are of crimes against their faith and all of humanity.

We are heartened by the fact that no Muslim country took the responsibility of your burial. It is permissible, in fact recommended in Islam to not afford terrorists full burial rites. Terrorists are considered deviants and thus denying them the opportunity for burial rites that seek mercy and forgiveness for the deceased are religiously accepted.

President Barack Obama has eloquently reminded the world that you were not a Muslim leader. He went on to say, "Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity."

In your death you have united us as Americans once more, the same way we were in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Today, like that ill-fated day, people of conscience are once again ready to rediscover the value of peaceful coexistence, so jaded by your rhetoric of war. Even when lamenting or protesting unfair and unjust conditions, we do not want to forget our Prophet's teachings of seeking peace and forgiveness even in the midst of our harshest hardships. Your fellow Arabs are increasingly rejecting your messianic worldview. In Egypt and Tunisia they have peacefully overthrown dictators. What your violence never achieved, their peace did.

It is my hope that your life and death serve as a lesson to all who ever contemplated using the shortcut of violence to satisfy their desires and needs. In your death as in your life, you have failed. You have dishonored your family and the over one billion Muslims from whom you hijacked the good name of Islam.

Editorial in Florida Times Union

2011-04-25T15:55:00.002-04:00

April 25, 2011

There is nothing especially unusual about awards or appreciating the good works of outstanding individuals.

But it is unique to have the sponsoring organization celebrating the audience. That is what happened last Tuesday night during "An Evening of Gratitude" by the Muslim community.

The sentiments were so touching, the positive energy in the Hyatt Regency ballroom so powerful, that it left participants grasping for words.

The Islamic Center of Northeast Florida gave a series of awards at the benefit that in a broad sense were aimed at all the people of good will in the community.
And the sponsors made it clear that this good will did not start recently, but from those days about 30 years ago when there was just a handful of Muslims here.

Speakers from the Islamic Center said thanks for the support they have received from Christians, Jews, Hindus and many others. For instance, help was provided to purchase land for a mosque, for architectural work, for legal work.

And during the unfortunate opposition in the community to the appointment of Parvez Ahmed to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission, many people of good will stood up and spoke out.

As Imam Joe Bradford said, Jacksonville's "gracious nature" turned negative energy into a positive.

John Delaney, president of the University of North Florida where Ahmed serves as a professor, said that his support was easy compared to the incredible patience and grace shown by Ahmed.

Mayor John Peyton said that Ahmed was "amazingly unflappable," that his grace was an inspiration during a grueling confirmation process.

"A lot of good came from this," Peyton said, by mobilizing the right-thinking people in the community.

But shouldn't the right-thinking people speak out? What a tragedy if they had not. Times-Union Editor Frank Denton described the coverage as the "journalism of hope."
To quote the Quran: "By no means shall you attain righteousness unless you give of that which you love" (3:92).

It was a beautiful night that made us proud to be living in Jacksonville.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2011-04-25/story/three-cheers-turning-tables#ixzz1KZCXMEMv

Convergence of interests and values

2011-03-30T09:12:00.002-04:00

Today's Zaman, Sunday, March 27, 2011

Convergence of interests and values
by Parvez Ahmed*

It happens once in a blue moon -- the convergence of Western military action with Arab and Muslim public opinion. The last time we witnessed such convergence was during the US-led interventions in the Balkans, which stopped an ethnic cleansing and eventually brought peace to a troubled region of the world. Contrary to assertions from some, Libya 2011 is not Iraq of 2003.

Whereas the war in Iraq lacked any international legitimacy, the military intervention in Libya has legal authority in the form of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. In addition, enforcement of the no-fly zone in Libya also has the support of the Arab League, symbolic as that support may be. But most importantly, unlike 2003, there are no mass demonstrations either in Arab or Western capitals opposing another Western military adventure in yet another Muslim majority country.

The lack of opposition should not be mistaken for a lack of concern. The history of Western military interventions in the region has been largely perceived as neocolonial imperialism. The fact that Iraq remains a bloody mess and Afghanistan a quagmire adds to the anxiety. And yet the hope that has sprung from the peaceful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt gives us reason to believe that military intervention in Libya, as abhorrent as the idea may be, was the right thing to do in order to thwart the brutality of yet another Arab dictator. Something has fundamentally changed in the Arab and Muslim world. The rest of the world is now being forced, albeit reluctantly, to contend with that reality.

Speaking to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, US Sen. John Kerry gave voice to the optimism being felt by many, despite lingering concerns. “If liberation can be translated into lasting democracy, then the new Arab awakening will carry a vital message: simply, that ordinary people everywhere have the ability to determine for themselves how they are governed. The developments in Egypt and Tunisia also represent a dramatic blow against the extremism that we have been struggling with this past decade or more -- a blow against extremism that we could not have dealt ourselves.”

Sen. Kerry went on to say, “But just as the Berlin Wall could not be rebuilt, so we know that the old order of the Middle East cannot be restored.” To stop the restoration of the old order, military intervention in Libya became necessary. If the Muammar Gaddafi regime had overrun Benghazi, as they were poised to do, the Arab spring could have prematurely ended amidst deep suspicion that the West could have stopped the massacre but chose not to. This would have further emboldened the brutal repressions already under way from Yemen to Bahrain. In Yemen the defection of a senior military leader provides hope that if Western powers abandon their realpolitik and finally align their interests with their values, not only the people but also the extant power establishment may reject their brutal overlords.

Michael Gerson, speechwriter to former US President George W. Bush, in a recent op-ed to The Washington Post wrote: “When a government engages in genocide, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity -- effectively waging war against its own citizens -- other nations have the right and duty to intervene. In Libya, this abstract norm became a basis for action. The Obama administration deserves credit for its part in establishing this precedent.” The Arab spring has offered a Sputnik moment for US foreign policy. It appears that President Obama is slowly warming up to the idea that transformative change not only requires moral leadership of words but unfortunately necessitates the use of force when force becomes the only way to stop crimes against humanity. Rwanda still haunts us.

The reticence of emerging democratic powers such as Turkey, Brazil and India to join hands in this effort remains a source of concern. Although negotiations remain the preferred way to end this standoff, Gaddafi’s intransigence coupled with his threat to go door to door to clean out “rebels” offers scant hope for a peaceful resolution.
The extraordinary convergence of Western policy and Arab/Muslim public opinion needs further cementing. Sen. Kerry wants to introduce legislation to financially support “new and fledgling democracies in the region.” Sen. Kerry asserts, “We ought to be helping governments reform their security sectors, building transparency into the fabric of government ministries, strengthening the rule of law and helping leaders to incorporate the views of their public in the day-to-day work that they’re engaged in.”

Turkey, with its long history of democracy and its experience as part of its European Union accession process as well as with enacting changes that brings laws and policies to the standards expressed by Sen. Kerry, must play a pivotal role going forward. Only then can Turkey’s aspiration of zero problems with its neighbors become a sustainable policy.

Rep. King's unAmerican Hearings

2011-03-10T01:02:00.001-05:00

Published in the Gainesville Sun, Tallahassee Democrat. Other newspapers around the state are also likely to publish this.

Ahmed, Romberg and Schlakman: Rep. King's unAmerican hearings
Published: Tuesday, March 8, 2011 at 1:46 p.m.

Before assuming the chairmanship of the House Homeland Security Committee in January, U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) announced his intention to hold congressional hearings on "the radicalization" of the Muslim community. The hearings begin on Capitol Hill this week.

According to a recent poll, while a majority of Americans support King's hearings, a larger majority says the hearings should focus upon extremism generally rather than upon the American Muslim community exclusively.

Some have observed that leveraging Congress this way is, "akin to racial profiling...that would unfairly cast suspicion on an entire group," and that these hearings offend America's proud tradition of religious pluralism and inclusion.
Others say this harkens back to congressional hearings in the 1950s that afforded Senator Joseph McCarthy a platform to exploit the public's fears by brandishing lists of alleged communists in what he characterized as his patriotic quest to ferret out unAmerican activities, with little regard for civil rights and civil liberties.

King contends, "When I meet with law enforcement, they are constantly telling me how little cooperation they get from Muslim leaders." But law enforcement professionals may not be called to testify. Perhaps he is unwilling to subject his underlying premise to their scrutiny in open proceedings.

King also asserts that, "Over 80 percent of the mosques in this country are controlled by radical imams," but Pew survey data indicates Muslims are "decidedly American in their outlook, values and attitudes" and that Muslims in America are "largely assimilated, happy with their lives, and moderate."

Moreover, a two-year study by Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy and the University of North Carolina concluded that American mosques actually deter the spread of extremism by building youth programs, sponsoring antiviolence forums and scrutinizing the curriculum being taught.

It was a Muslim street vendor who thwarted the Times Square bomber, and Muslims in Irvine, California, concerned about the conduct of a fellow Muslim and his apparent efforts to incite violence reported him to the police, only to learn that he was an FBI informant. The so-called underwear bomber was reported to authorities by his father, who worried that his son posed a threat, and placed the safety of others over his own paternal instincts.

Such examples of intervention prompted U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to serve in the U.S. Congress, to note "about a third of all foiled al-Qaida-related plots in the U.S. relied on support or information provided by members of the Muslim community."

Can the Muslim community in America do more? Certainly, but this is not a one-way street. It will take more than congressional hearings to encourage American Muslims to be more proactive. Government officials must place additional emphasis upon developing relationships that build trust and confidence.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder tasked America's U.S. Attorneys to prioritize this kind of engagement. Pamela Marsh, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Florida, has taken a number of constructive steps toward this end. Secretary Janet Napolitano has established similar priorities for the Department of Homeland Security. So have others. However, many members of Congress haven’t even visited their local Islamic centers.

These issues are not limited to the federal government. State and local officials also have important roles to play.

The irony is that King's congressional hearings conceivably could result in more significant repercussions than Pastor Terry Jones' rather bizarre "International Burn A (Quran) Day," the fringe group event that was to take place at Dove World Church in Gainesville, FL, on September 11 last year, or his "International Judge the (Quran) Day" that is slated for March 20th.

While Pastor Jones' actions test the limits of free speech in America, King's congressional inquiry runs the risk of stigmatizing an entire community and carries the imprimatur of the U.S. government and misses a significant opportunity to explore meaningful and appropriate policy options to deter all forms of extremism by focusing exclusively on American Muslims.

The vast majority are presumably outraged when extremists commit heinous acts of terror in the name of Islam, and increasingly vulnerable to backlash in the aftermath.

Parvez Ahmed, is a Fulbright Scholar (2009-10) and associate professor at the University of North Florida and a frequent writer the American Muslim experience. Rabbi Jack Romberg leads Temple Israel (a Reform congregation in Tallahassee) and is a commentator on a range of social justice issues. Mark Schlakman is a lawyer and serves as senior program director at The Florida State University Center of Advancement of Human Rights.

Abuse of women is sadly endemic

2011-02-20T19:11:00.002-05:00

Today's Zaman (Turkey). Feb 21, 2011

Abuse of Women is Sadly Endemic
Parvez Ahmed

Amidst all the euphoria about Egypt’s peaceful revolution, the news of CBS news reporter Lara Logan being sexually assaulted hits like a ton of bricks. The people of Egypt, especially its youth, have been such an inspiration that any hint of deviant behavior understandably elicits gasps and should provoke soul searching. Sadly the incident is not as isolated.

A 2008 survey by the Egyptian Center for Women's Rights shows 98 percent of foreign women and 83 percent of Egyptian women reporting being sexually harassed. Six in 10 men admitted to such behavior. How is it that Muslim society’s, which often pontificate about conservative values and uses such mantra to advocate segregation, that women are denied the most basic of dignity?

The Islamic scripture is unequivocal that the proper treatment of women is a cornerstone in developing personal piety and societal harmony. In chapter 9 verse 71, the Quranic paradigm is clear, “The believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey God and His Messenger. On them will God pour His Mercy: for God is Exalted in power, Wise.”

Expounding on the subject of gender relations, noted Islamic scholar Jamal Badawi writes, “Under no circumstances does the Quran encourage, allow or condone violence (against women). In extreme cases … it allows for a husband to administer a gentle pat to his wife that causes no physical harm to the body nor leaves any sort of mark. …. In the event that dispute cannot be resolved equitably between husband and wife, the Quran prescribes mediation between the parties through family intervention on behalf of both spouses.” Badawi is attempting to contextualize the Quranic verse 4:34. And yet many Muslim religious leaders do not place this verse into its proper context, making it ripe for abuse both at the hands of Muslim men and by those who blame Islam for all that ails the Muslim world.

Contradictions between the teaching in sacred texts and the reality on the ground are not limited to Egypt or the segregated and repressive Gulf States. In Turkey, 4 out of 10 women are physically abused by their husbands, according to a recent study titled "Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey."

To be fair, abuse of women is not exclusively a Muslim problem. The same day that the Lara Logan story broke, news media also reported that female members of the U.S. Navy were alleging cover up of widespread rape. A U.S. Justice Department study shows that 1 in 6 American women are raped during their lifetimes. Nearly half of all murders of women in the U.S. are committed by a romantic partner. Abuse of women is just as problematic in conservative Muslim societies as they are in the liberal West. This underscores the need for less finger-pointing and ought to provide the impetus to collectively address the issue.

The abuse women in Muslim societies are particularly jolting because of its stark contrast with the normative teachings of Islam. I often have the privilege of speaking to people of other faiths about Islam and Muslims. Such contradictions are what most troubles my audience and why they continue to harbor negative opinions about Islam and Muslims. Islamophobia cannot be overcome by merely preaching Islam. It will require Muslims to live Islam and their societies to reflect Islam’s values and ethics. While Muslim preachers rail against those who prevent women from wearing headscarves or hijab they are largely silent on the endemic abuse of women. While Muslim countries, particularly in the Middle East, are quick to defend segregation as a way to “protect” women they have taken few measures to stem the pervasive mistreatment of women in their own backyards.

In the general gloom and doom of the Middle East, once again it is the educated and enlightened Muslim youth that is providing a ray of hope. Visit the Facebook page titled, “Lara Logan: An apology from Egypt.” The messages of apology seem heartfelt. Many Egyptians are rightfully ashamed of this ignominy. My fervent hope is that they turn this moment of shame into motivation for positive change that eradicates this ‘social cancer.’ Can Arabs and Muslims once again turn their hopeful eyes towards Egypt leading the path to civilization? CNN producer and camerawoman Mary Rogers gives voice to the hope of many, “Perhaps it will be people power, the same people power that brought down a regime, that will successfully combat sexual harassment. But the only real protection women can have is when the attitudes of men change.”

[Professor Parvez Ahmed is a Fulbright Scholar and Associate Professor of Finance at the University of North Florida.]

We are all Egyptians now

2011-02-03T09:07:00.002-05:00

Today's Zaman, Feb 3, 2011

We are all Egyptians now

I am mesmerized by the peaceful popular uprisings calling for the end of three decades of dictatorial rule in Egypt. Often the news from the Muslim world is depressing. Not today. The impact of this is still unknown.

But one thing is unmistakably clear: We are all Egyptians now. The young voices from Egypt fill me with hope and optimism about the future of the Middle East and the Muslim world. In the unlikeliest of places and in the most trying of circumstances, the Egyptians are not just demanding their freedoms but, unbeknownst to them, are helping to shatter several myths along the way.

The unforgettable images from Tahrir Square are helping to erase the myth of Muslims and Arabs being apathetic to democracy and docile to authoritarian rule. It is also erasing the lore of the archetypal Muslim male -- conservative and angry -- and the stereotypical Muslim woman -- compliant and veiled. Like any other society, Muslim communities boast a range of voices. Many practicing Muslims favor separation between mosque and state, viewing this as a position closer to normative Islam, while others desire that national laws reflect their religious values, fervent in their belief that such an action is pleasing to God.

Along with the Jasmine Revolution of Tunisia, the popular uprising in Egypt is a deathblow to the urban legend that change in Muslim societies can only be brought about by force. For over a decade al-Qaeda and its affiliates have successfully exploited the lack of freedoms and dignity in parts of the Muslim world to foment terrorism, euphemistically calling them martyrdom operations. Overwhelming majorities in Tunisia and Egypt by their actions emphatically rejected the nihilism of al-Qaeda. They instead chose the Gandhian approach of non-violence and peaceful assembly to redress their grievances. This sign of hope must not be extinguished by the intransigence of Hosni Mubarak to step down. Orderly transition cannot be a pretext to extending his iron-fisted rule.

Equally impressive is the shattering of yet another myth, often the bedrock assumption behind America’s unquestioned support for the Mubaraks and the Abdullahs of the world. For long the Mubaraks and the Abdullahs have sold the notion, and America bought the idea, that choices in the Muslim world are bipolar -- the ruthless dictator or the parochial religious fundamentalist. To most Muslims these are false choices. Like their counterparts in other parts of the world, most Muslims care less about the ideology of their government and more about the services which that government can deliver. Palestinians in Gaza did not choose Hamas for their ideological bent, but rather they voted Fatah out for failing to deliver basic services to the people. Many Turks may not agree with the socio-religious views of their conservative prime minister, but time and again they back his party at the polls because they deliver on their promises of good governance.

The young voices in Tahrir Square showed that in a few days of freedom they have earned a lifetime of wisdom. Even when angry at Israel’s treatment of Palestinians they did not want their new government to walk away from Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel. While remaining skeptical about the motives of the Muslim Brotherhood, they welcomed diverse voices in the new Egypt. Their disappointments over American foreign policy did not make them break out into anti-American chants. When the state apparatus failed to protect innocent civilians from looters and thugs, youths acted in an impromptu fashion to protect the dignity of their families and their communities. Egyptians and Tunisians have best exemplified the slogan “Yes, we can.”

Standing at the edge of a new dawn, one cannot help but be hopeful. But this euphoria of hope should not detract attention from a basic fact -- democracy is a process, not an outcome. The process requires engagement and vigilance. Removing a dictatorial regime is not enough, for democracy is not merely the rule of the majority but also necessitates the protection of minority rights and voices.

In my visits to Egypt I have always been impressed by the sense of civilizational pride that ordinary citizens expressed, from college campuses to coffee shops. Egyptians now have a chance to put their pride in their long legacy of monumental civilizational achievements to good use. Watching from afar, we may not be able to help much, but at the very least we can pray that the extraordinary sacrifices of the most ordinary amongst us is not wasted. Rather, it serves as a powerful motivator to truly usher in a new era of peace and healing to one of the most troubled regions of the world.

Additional Reading: Egypt's Revolution: How Democracy Can Work in the Middle East
By Fareed Zakaria

A Sputnik Moment for U.S. Foreign Policy

2011-02-01T20:12:00.007-05:00

NY Times Photo Gallery on Egypt Protest

Huffington Post, Feb 1, 2011
Florida Times Union, Feb 2, 2011
A Sputnik Moment for U.S. Foreign Policy

The Jasmine Revolution has led to the ouster of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the autocratic leader of Tunisia and has sparked similar revolutionary fervor from Algeria to Egypt. The success in Tunisia has emboldened protestors across the Middle East demanding greater freedom and dignity. The many unforgettable images of the demonstrators are helping to erase the myth of Muslims and Arabs being apathetic to democracy and docile to authoritarian rule. Democracy deficiency has been a fact of life in the Middle East not because the people did not want it but because for decades American support propped up the Arab dictators, all in the name of stability. This policy is now in shambles. Today the region can boast neither stability nor freedom. The "Sputnik moment" opportunity is to reorient the arc of U.S. foreign policy from being solely motivated by American national interests to being guided by the universal values of freedom, liberty, rule of law and democracy.

American Presidents, both Republican and Democrats, have not been totally callous about the lack of freedom and liberty in the Middle East. But they have always made the need for stability in a region whose natural resources (oil) fuels America's economic engine a more urgent priority. Although Egypt and Jordan does not supply the U.S. with oil, their peace treaty with Israel makes them important linchpins of American foreign policy. The dictators in the region obviously know all that and gladly play the fear-card to keep America in their corner, no matter how diametrically opposed their domestic policies are to American values. The Abdullahs and the Mubaraks have for decades successfully invoked the specter of religious hardliners coming to power in the absence of their iron-fisted rules. The distinction between religious conservatives and lawless terrorists were maliciously and deliberately blurred. With Western support Mubarak had cracked down on political opposition often in the name of fighting terrorism. Decades of such actions seeded the violence that convulses much of the Middle East today.

The Iranian experience provided a further pretext. The toppling of an unpopular U.S. puppet, the Shah, was followed by a government hostile to Western interests and restrictive of the freedom and liberty of its own people. When faced with calls for greater democracy, the U.S. foreign policy establishment often argued that the removal of a dictator in the Middle East will not necessarily increase the chances of a liberal democracy in the region. Underlying this assumption is a fallacy that often drives American public opinion about Islam, Muslims and the Arabs -- the propensity to judge vast swaths of people, spanning different cultural backgrounds and historical experiences, with the worst behavior or examples from that part of the world.

For every Iran there is a Turkey. Muslims are neither monolithic nor merely shaped by their religious beliefs. Turkey and Bangladesh for example have held on to their secular democracy, even when religious conservatives rose to power. Instead of using the fear of an Iranian-type religious takeover in Egypt as a pretext to extend President Hosni Mubarak's authoritarian rule, it will be far better to take into account the unique cultural contours of Egypt.

With its three millennium of civilizational experience, Egypt is far more tolerant and pluralistic than many on the outside are led to believe. While religious movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood enjoy some support in Egypt, they are not universally adored. Although, it is likely that in an open and democratic Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood will play some role (unlikely to be dominant), there is no need to fear monger such a possibility. The next Egyptian regime will have to bear in mind that the so-called Arab street is now wide awake. They will not tolerate any government that fails to meet the demands of their people. If a brutal dictator ruling with the unqualified support of the West could be removed in a few days of street protests, as in Tunisia with Egypt hopefully being next, then no regime that rules without the consent of the governed will ever be safe. In addition, the successes, both at home and abroad, of a religiously conservative government in secular Turkey provide a practical model for conservative political forces to emulate in the region.

The time has come for the U.S. government to demonstrate to the Arab and Muslim world that it is indeed on the side of the people. Support for the true democratic aspirations of the people in the region can go a long way in restoring America's image in the Arab and Muslim world. Anything less will only plunge these societies into further darkness from whence could emerge ever more dangerous reactionary and militant forces. The Sputnik moment has arrived. Will President Obama exhibit transformational leadership to provide meaningful American support in transitioning this region to democratic rule of law? Will the Egyptian people see America on their side or will they interpret the mantra of "orderly transition" as code for keeping the Mubarak regime alive, albeit on life support.

Person of the Year

2010-12-29T10:45:00.000-05:00

Professor, father, author, activist, citizen, Muslim. The man who made 2010 a turning point for Northeast Florida.

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Parvez Ahmed slept in. After teaching a late-night investment class at the University of Pennsylvania, and working in his home office until after midnight, he took the rare luxury of sleeping past 8 a.m. His
parents, visiting from Calcutta, milled about downstairs with his wife Savana, fixing breakfast and watching the morning news. When the first jetliner crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m., Savana called up to her husband. Ahmed was just coming down the stairs when the second plane
crashed at 9:03 a.m.

Like everyone in the United States, Ahmed’s family spent the day in shock. By 10:30 a.m., both the south and north towers had collapsed, killing more than 3,000 people. By 4 p.m., CNN was reporting that radical Muslim extremist Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization was responsible.

Click here to read more of this week's cover story.

Is Islam Compatible with American Values?

2010-12-05T13:16:00.004-05:00

On Oct 9, 2010, the Clay County chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State organized a lecture on "Is Islam Compatible with American Values?" I was invited to speak at the Fleming Island Public Library. What happened at the event is well summarized in a letter to the editor by Rev. Harry Parrott, President of the local chapter of AU. Click here to read Rev. Parrott's letter.

Listen to a radio interview on WJCT's First Coast Connect. Listen to the Dec 6, 2010 show.

A group called the ACT! For America, which by most accounts is a hate group, organized a smear campaign to oust me from the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission, to which I was confirmed just a few months ago. You may remember the contrived controversy my nomination generated at that time. If you need a refresher, visit my blog. Most of April 2010 entries on my blog are about that controversy.

Unfortunately, once again the media played into ACT's ploy and gave legs to the unfounded allegations made by ACT. The local NPR station, on their show First Coast Connect analyzed the situation. Click on Fri show of First Coast Connect.

On Sunday Dec 5, 2101 the Florida Times Union today, published a summarized version of my speech stating, "We are running excerpts from the speech on this page so readers can judge for themselves. The entire speech can be read on our Opinion Page Blog: jacksonville.com/opinion."

Guest column: Is Islam compatible with American democratic values?
Source URL: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2010-12-05/story/guest-column-islam-compatible-american-democratic-values

In 2005, a Danish newspaper printed a cartoon depicting Muhammad, who Muslims believe to be the last Messenger and Prophet of God, with a bomb in his turban. This set off an international row as protests erupted from Europe to Asia.
In some Muslim countries, newspapers that reprinted the cartoon were closed. European countries evacuated staffs of embassies and Muslim countries withdrew ambassadors. The fallout also had economic repercussions. According to the Gulf News, Danish exports began to fall as consumers in Muslim countries shunned Danish products in protest.

This provoked the question: Is Islam incompatible with Western values? Are Islam and the West destined to have a clash of civilization?

Those who answer yes point to events like 9/11 or the cartoon controversy as proof positive of the inherent incompatibility of Islam and with the West.

Others who are more knowledgeable about Islam and Muslim societies say that neither 9/11, nor the cartoon controversy, are indicative of any inherent clash of values. The antecedents of such events are socio-political. Religion may at best be a contributing factor.

While people debate the place of Islam in American society, another reality is taking shape right before our very eyes.

According to The New York Times, a record number of Muslim workers are complaining of workplace discrimination ranging from being called "terrorist" to being barred from wearing headscarves or taking prayer breaks.

According to federal data, discrimination complaints by Muslims are up 20 percent from last year and up 60 percent since 2005. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has found enough credibility in these complaints that they have filed several lawsuits on behalf of Muslim workers.

This summer we have seen tensions boil over as a pastor attempted to burn the Quran and many opposed to building of an Islamic community center in New York descended to embarrassing levels of incivility.

Unlike you, who are attempting to dialogue and learn, most Americans choose to remain ill-informed. As a result, today more people have a negative view of Islam than in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Our media outlets, mostly cable news shows and radio talk shows, are major contributors to this trend that bodes ill for the long-term sustainability of our national interests.

A few politicians and religious leaders have only exasperated the situation by trying to ride the coattails of fear of Islam to electoral victories.

The situation has gotten so out of hand, that Time magazine ran a cover story, "Is America Islamophobic?" with the following comment: "In France and Britain, politicians from fringe parties say appalling things about Muslims, but there's no one in Europe of the stature of a former House speaker who would, as Newt Gingrich did, equate Islam with Nazism."

So how do we go past this rancor? By doing exactly what you are doing today. Trying to learn and attempting to dialogue.

President John Kennedy summed it best, "Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others."

To the question: Is Islam compatible with American values? The answer is yes.
Why? Because in a normative sense (Excerpted from Michael Wolfe's The Next American Religion):

Islam is democratic in spirit. The Quran, on which Islamic law is based, enjoins Muslims to govern themselves by discussion and consensus.

Islam is tolerant of other faiths. Like America, Islam has a history of respecting other religions. In Prophet Muhammad's day, Christians and Jews in Muslim lands retained their own courts and enjoyed considerable autonomy. It was the Muslims who made it possible for Jews to return to and live in Jerusalem after centuries of being outcasts.

Islam encourages the pursuit of religious freedom. The Quran clearly states that there is no compulsion in matters related to faith and religion.

Islam emphasizes individual responsibility. Every person is responsible for the condition of her or his own soul. Everyone stands equal before God. America is wedded to an ethic of individual liberty based on righteous actions. For a Muslim, spiritual salvation depends not just on faith, but also righteous actions.

Islam is egalitarian. The Pledge of Allegiance (one nation, "under God") and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (all people are "created equal") express themes that are also basic to Islam. If you visit mosques in America, you will find them among the most racially integrated congregations of faith.

Democracy and Islam

I would like to spend a little bit more time on the issue of democracy and Islam with particular emphasis on Sharia.

The former deputy prime minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim wrote:
"It is true that the founding principles of constitutional democracy, as we know it today, have their antecedents in the political philosophy of John Locke, which entered France through the writings of Voltaire and then deeply influenced the framers of the U.S. constitution.

"But the fact that these principles of political freedom and democracy were first articulated in the West does not preclude them from universal application, nor can it be asserted that they have not been expressed in other contexts."

A majority of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims live in democracies, ample proof that there is no inherent discord between Islam and democracy.

But what about those Muslim majority countries, most of them in the Middle East, which are not democracies?

Is Islam the reason for them being held back?

The Council of Foreign Relations concludes that "a mix of historical, cultural, economic and political factors - and not Islam as a religion - explain why democracy has failed to take root in many Muslim countries."

In fact, surveys by Gallup and Pew show that clear majorities in the Arab world would favor democracy as a form of government. The people most animated about this are the so-called Islamists.

Outside of the Middle East (which accounts for fewer than 20 percent of the global Muslim population), Alfred Stepan in the Journal of Democracy argues that Muslim nations are on par with - or outpace - comparable non-Muslim developing nations in terms of civil liberties and free and fair elections.

The democracy deficiency in the Arab world is more a function of oil than religion.
State ownership of oil has stifled the development of market economies and government transparency. Oil has allowed the monarchies in the Middle East to make a Faustian bargain with their citizens.

That bargain: Governments will not tax its citizens (oil revenues pay for government budgets) and in exchange the citizens will not demand voting or representation.
Let me quote Anwar Ibrahim, the erstwhile deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia: "If democracy is about giving dignity to the human spirit, then freedom is the sine qua non."

Within Islam, the great Andalusia jurist Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi in the 14th century, articulated a perspective on the Maqasid al-Shari'a (the higher objectives of the shari'a), demonstrating the central role of freedom as a higher objective of the divine law. The very same elements in a constitutional democracy are moral imperatives in Islam - freedom of conscience, freedom to speak out against tyranny, a call for reform and the right to property."

Mr. Obama Goes to India

2010-11-13T10:18:00.003-05:00

Mr. Obama Goes to India

Huffington Post, Nov 5. 2010

Also in Florida Times Union, Nov 12, 2010

On the heels of a bruising election, President Barack Obama is undertaking his longest foreign trip that will take him to several Asian countries including India. Some media accounts of this trip, primarily Fox News and its affiliates, has focused on an un-sourced report that erroneously suggested the President's trip to cost $200 million per day. The fact is that the true costs of Presidential foreign trips are kept a secret for security reasons. The General Accounting Office, about a decade ago, had released one report on President Clinton's foreign trips. It showed that the cost of such trips total in the tens of millions nowhere near the exaggerated figure of $200 million per day. The hullabaloo over such triviality is once again robbing Americans of an opportunity to engage in a civic dialogue about India and its strategic importance to America.

India is not just an exotic country thousands of miles away. The Indian diaspora in the U.S. is 2.7 million strong. Over a dozen Indian Americans are part of the Obama administration and two Indian Americans have been elected Governors. India is neither the caricature on NBC's Outsourced nor the heartless gloom portrayed in Slumdog Millionaire. In his book The Argumentative Indian, Nobel laureate Amartya Sen presents a succinct description, "India is an immensely diverse country with many distinct pursuits, vastly disparate convictions, widely divergent customs and veritable feast of viewpoints."

India is the world's largest democracy. It is thus not coincidental that America, the world's oldest democracy, shares a bond with India, which transcends economics. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton alluded to this by assuring the people of India that they "should know they have no better friend and partner than the people of the United States." The Obama administration has stated that it wants to deepen its relationship with India on four strategic areas -- energy and climate change; economics, trade, and agriculture; education and development; and science, technology and innovation. And yet progress has been anemic.

Progress is complicated by a sluggish U.S. economy, particularly in the area of job creation. Politically it helps the President to rail against U.S. companies that outsource jobs to India but strategically such outbursts are not helpful. Outsourcing is not the reason why U.S. businesses, despite posting healthy profits, are not hiring. The fault lines remain in the banking and financial sector. Obsessing on the ills of outsourcing belies a pertinent fact that America is now the preferred destination for outsourcing. India is third. In 2007, 20% of InformationWeek 500 companies reported that they've taken back outsourced work. The recent rise of prosperity in India has dampened the lure cheap labor.

Beating up on outsourcing will only make Indians reluctant to open up their markets to American exports. President Obama has correctly identified exports as one of the major sources of new jobs in the U.S. The rising upper and middle class in India offers new opportunities to sell American products. This explains why the President has a large contingent of business leaders in tow. Companies such as Boeing, GE, Caterpillar and Harley-Davidson are all looking forward to seal large deals with their Indian counterparts. Hopefully, the President will be able to impress upon these businesses that such deals should ultimately generate employment in the U.S. The President's legacy and reelection depends on such successes.

During this trip to India, President Obama is expected to visit the tomb of Mughal emperor Humayun, which was commissioned by his wife Hamida Banu in 1562. The tomb is a UNESCO World Heritage site and is precursor to the architecture and vision that inspired the Taj Mahal. By visiting this site, President Obama is giving a nod to India's pluralistic history, a history shaped by a rich inter-religious and cultural interaction between Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity. This is not to suggest that the interactions between the faith communities have always been egalitarian. But the somewhat natural tensions between the faithful did not prevent them from cooperating to create great art, music, literature and philosophy. Prior to the British colonial rule, India was the world's economic superpower. Interestingly, Humayun's tomb also connects India to Pakistan. For it is here that many Muslims took refugee during their arduous migration to Pakistan. The symbolism is powerful as America's Af-Pak policy will partly hinge on the role India plays or does not play.

Disappointingly, President Obama will skip visiting the Golden Temple, the holiest site for Sikhs. To enter the temple, all male visitors are required to cover their heads. He fears that his head covering will be mistakenly linked to the persistent rumors that Obama is a Muslim. Caving into fear-mongers only emboldens them. Sikhs have paid an unfair price for their mistaken identity. They have been targets of anti-Muslim discrimination. And a few days after 9-11, a Sikh was killed in Arizona by a man who mistook him for a Muslim.

There is a lot riding on Mr. Obama's visit to India. Americans can and should hope that President Obama's visit opens up new opportunities for badly needed exports. Indians are hoping that President Obama will support India's bid to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, a step that will help solidify India's ascendency on the world stage.

Professor Parvez Ahmed is a Fulbright Scholar and Associate Professor of Finance at the University of North Florida. He is also a frequent commentator on Islam and the Muslim American experience.

Clarity Missing in Debate over Free Speech

2010-11-05T17:32:00.001-04:00

In AltMuslim. October 27, 2010

Juan Williams is neither a racist nor a bigot. But by perpetuating negative stereotypes he breached the ethics of fairness, crucial ingredients to succeed as a journalist. His firing from NPR, while admittedly handled in a clumsy way, was ultimately the right action. At a time when public discourse has descended to freighting levels of incivility, holding professionals accountable to the highest ethical standards may not be a bad thing. We can and should have vigorous debates. But statements that perpetuate negative stereotypes simply have no place in a civilized society. Just as a doctor or teacher will be rendered ineffective if they were to express their “true feelings” about every situation they encounter, so is true for journalists. Like every other specialists we expect journalists to be professionals who provide us with accurate accounts and unbiased analysis of news. Public expressions of their own biases render them ineffective.

In firing Juan Williams, NPR did not violate his First Amendment rights. NPR asserted its right that the views of those who speak from its platform are consistent with its perceived brand of impartiality. In contrast, Fox News felt that Williams’ opinions were consistent with its brand of hard-charging opinion making and immediately acted to reward him with a lucrative contract. Thus both NPR and Fox made decisions that were consistent with their respective world views.

Consumers make similar choices. Those who prefer thoughtful discussions are likely to be supportive of firing Juan Williams, because they perceive that he violated his fiduciary duties. In contrast, people who enjoy the daily shout-fest at Fox News will welcome the addition of Williams to its all-star lineup of over-the-top opinion makers. NPR wants sanity, Fox News craves controversy. To each their respective audience. To each their own brand. The highest rated NPR show boasts over 13 million listeners while the highest rated show on Fox News averages slightly over 3 million viewers. In contrast, NBC Nightly News average over 7 million viewers. More Americans clearly prefer civility over rancor.

The firing of Juan Williams, has unleashed a firestorm of protest from the far-right with Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich leading the charge to cut-off public funding of NPR. Yet they stood silent when for Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez and Octavia Nasr were fired/resigned for making stereotypical and insensitive comments about Jews. Also disturbing is the double standards of groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations, which recently honored Helen Thomas and yet lead the charge against Juan Williams. Either all such firings/resignations are an outrage, for they purport to curb free speech or they are the right thing to do because they preserve trust in journalism. One cannot have it both ways.

In the greater scheme of things such firings may not necessarily improve journalism. Because it only pushes harsh and insensitive opinion making to the margins without addressing the root causes that led to such erroneous opinions. Juan Williams expressed fear of people in a “Muslim garb.” What did he mean by “Muslim garb?” Did the 9-11 hijackers wear any “Muslim garb”? And even if they did, what connection does a dress have with criminal behavior? Besides the sheer idiocy of attempting to define “Muslim garb” Williams is also guilty of trying to legitimize the irrational fear of American Muslims, a group that is already negatively perceived and against whom hate crimes are on the rise.

Institutions such as NPR by trying to be impartial are attempting to build a firewall against this bigotry. Fox News on the other hand profits from fear-mongering. This election season we have already seen a spike in orchestrated demonization of Latinos and Muslims. So long as consumers reward Fox News for its incessant attack on whoever is the flavor of the day, Fox News has no incentive to change. The excuse that one is expressing their “feelings” is not a substitute for civility. A democracy suffers when our public discourses become loud, cantankerous and caustic. When moderate voices vacate the field we are left with extreme opinion making, which is unlikely to produce sustainable solutions for the many problems that confronts us as a nation.

Juan Williams to Helen Thomas: Clarity Missing in Debate Over Free Speech

2010-11-05T17:28:00.001-04:00

In Huffington Post.

Let us get one thing correct -- Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez, Octavia Nasr and Juan Williams are neither racists nor bigots. By all accounts they are good journalists. But by expressing negative stereotypes about a racial or religious group they are guilty of breaching the ethics of fairness, crucial ingredients to succeed in journalism. Thus their forced resignation or firing from Hearst, CNN and NPR respectively is the right action. Having publicly expressed their biases they could no longer be viewed has having the credibility to be impartial arbiters of news.

In firing Juan Williams, NPR did not violate his First Amendment rights. It asserted the fact that his views were inconsistent with the NPR brand of impartiality much like CNN did with Sanchez and Nasr. In contrast, Williams' other employer, Fox News felt that his opinions were consistent with its brand of hard-charging opinion making. Fox News rewarded Juan Williams with a new and more lucrative contract. Folks who prefer thoughtful discussions will likely support the firing because they perceive Juan Williams to have violated his fiduciary duties. In contrast, people who enjoy the daily shout-fest at Fox News will welcome the addition of Williams to its all-star lineup of over-the-top opinion makers.

The firing of Williams, while the right thing to do, is also a lost opportunity to confront the kind of fears leads to the formation of stereotypical views about Islam and Muslims. It is likely that NPR, by doing the right thing, may have drawn more negative fire towards Muslims, a community already on the receiving end of some of the harshest criticism in this country. No other American ethnic or religious group elicits the kind of negative sentiments that Muslims do.

Juan Williams expressed fear of people in a "Muslim garb." What did he mean by "Muslim garb?" What makes him afraid of someone's dressing style or free expression of their religious beliefs? Did the 9-11 hijackers wear any "Muslim garb"? And even if they did, what connection does a dress have with criminal behavior? Besides the sheer idiocy of attempting to define "Muslim garb" Williams is also guilty of trying to create more fear about a group of Americans who are already negatively perceived and against whom hate crimes are on the rise. Such fear mongering hurts the type of reasoned discourse that NPR prefers. As Americans we can and should have vigorous debates. But bigotry simply has no place in a civilized society. Institutions like NPR, by trying to be impartial, are attempting to build a firewall against this bigotry. Fox News on the other hand profits from fear-mongering.

The firing of Juan Williams, has unleashed a firestorm of protest by folks like Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich. Yet they stood silent when Thomas, Sanchez and Nasr were fired for essentially the same guilt of making stereotypical and insensitive comments about Jews. What is also disturbing is that groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (full disclosure, I served as its National Chairman from 2005 to 2008), honored Helen Thomas at their recent banquet and yet called on NPR to take actions against Juan Williams. Either all these firings/resignations are outrageous for they purport to curb free speech or they are the right action to take in order to preserve trust in journalism. One cannot have it both ways.

Are media outlets right in demanding its employees live up to journalistic ethics? Or is this excessive political correctness? Each case is different, but one thing is true that each business sets its own ground rules for what it will tolerate from people who speak in its name. NPR wants sanity, Fox News craves controversy. To each their own audience and to each their own brand.

In the greater scheme of things such firings may not necessarily improve journalism. Because it only pushes such harsh and insensitive opinion making to the margins without addressing the root causes that led to such erroneous opinions. The fact that Juan Williams has been rewarded by Fox News will make bigotry more commonplace in the public square. This election season has already seen a spike in orchestrated demonization of Latinos and Muslims. So long as consumers reward Fox News for its incessant attack on whoever is the flavor of the day, Fox News has no incentive to change. That to me is the biggest tragedy and lesson from the Juan Williams saga.

Professor Parvez Ahmed is a Fulbright Scholar and Associate Professor of Finance at the University of North Florida. He is also a frequent commentator on Islam and the Muslim American experience.

American Muslims Defend Free Speech

2010-09-23T00:17:00.003-04:00

I am a signatory to, "A Defense of Free Speech by American and Canadian Muslims." This statement was released in response to the threats received by 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day' cartoonist Molly Norris. The statement was crafted by Sheila Musaji, Editor, The American Muslim and Shahed Amanullah, Editor-in-Chief, Altmuslim.

If you are a Canadian or American Muslim ( Imam, scholar, community leader, journalist, author, writer, or cartoonist) and would like to add your signature, please send an email with your name, title, and organizational affiliation (if any) to tameditor@aol.com.

A DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH BY AMERICAN AND CANADIAN MUSLIMS

We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.

We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation.

We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims. We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur’an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.

We affirm the right of free speech for Molly Norris, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and all others including ourselves.

As Muslims, we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance, respect, and forgiveness.

The Qur’an enjoins Muslims to:
* bear witness to Islam through our good example (2:143);
* restrain anger and pardon people (3:133-134 and 24:22);
* remain patient in adversity (3186);
* stand firmly for justice (4:135);
* not let the hatred of others swerve us from justice (5:8);
* respect the sanctity of life (5:32);
* turn away from those who mock Islam (6:68 and 28:55);
* hold to forgiveness, command what is right, and turn away from the ignorant (7:199);
* restrain ourselves from rash responses (16:125-128);
* pass by worthless talk with dignity (25:72); and
* repel evil with what is better (41:34).

Islam calls for vigorous condemnation of both hateful speech and hateful acts, but always within the boundaries of the law. It is of the utmost importance that we react, not out of reflexive emotion, but with dignity and intelligence, in accordance with both our religious precepts and the laws of our country.

We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority.

We therefore call on all Muslims in the United States, Canada and abroad to refrain from violence. We should see the challenges we face today as an opportunity to sideline the voices of hate—not reward them with further attention—by engaging our communities in constructive dialogue about the true principles of Islam, and the true principles of democracy, both of which stress the importance of freedom of religion and tolerance.

SIGNATORIES:
Prof. Hassan Abbas, Quaid-i-Azam Chair, South Asia Institute, Columbia University
Imam Johari Abdul Malik, Director of Outreach, Dar-Al-Hijrah Islamic Center
Mehnaz M. Afridi, PhD, Adjunct Professor (Judaism, Islam & Genocide Studies) Antioch University
Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, PhD, Director, Minaret of Freedom Foundation
Ahrar Ahmad, PhD, Professor of Political Science, Black Hills State University
Prof. Akbar S. Ahmed, PhD, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University
Prof. Parvez Ahmed, PhD, Fulbright Scholar & Assoc. Prof. University of North Florida
Barbara Al-Bayati, Co-Founder, Orphan Whispers
Wajahat Ali, playwright, journalist, and producer of “Domestic Crusaders”
Sumbul Ali-Karamali, JD, LLM (Islamic Law), author of “The Muslim Next Door”
Salam al-Marayati, Pres., Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)
Shahed Amanullah, Editor-in-Chief, Altmuslim
Aref Assaf, PhD, President, American Arab Forum
Hazami Barmada, Pres, American Muslim Interactive Network (AMIN)
Victor Ghalib Begg, Senior Advisor, Chairman Emeritus, Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan
Farah Brelvi, Board of Directors, ACLU-NC
M. Ali Chaudry, PhD, President, Center for Understanding Islam (CUII)
Kamran Cheikh, Activist, Committee member, Muslims for Peace, Justice & Progress (MPJP), researcher for Deen Research Center (DRC)
Robert D. Crane, JD, author of numerous books
Almoonir Dewji, blogger - “That We May Know Each Other”
Lamia El-Sadek, political and human rights activitist
Mohamed Elsanousi, Director of Communications and Community Outreach for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
Mona Eltahawy, journalist
Aziz Enhaili, Political analyst, columnist for Tolerance.ca
Prof. Mohammad Fadel, PhD
Fatemeh Fakhraie, Editor-in-Chief, Muslimah Media Watch
Mike Ghouse, President, World Muslim Congress
Iftekhar Hai, President, UMA Interfaith Alliance
Hesham Hassaballa, M.D., author, journalist, blogger - “God, faith, and a pen”
Amir Hussain, PhD, Professor of Theological Studies, Loyola Marymound University
Arsalan Iftikhar, author, human rights lawyer, blogger - “The Muslim Guy”
Jeffrey Imm, Director, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)
Ghazala Irshad, journalist, blogger - “The Floating Lotus”
Nakia Jackson, writer
Prof. Muqtedar Khan, PhD, author of several books, Blogger - “Globalog”
Farah Kinani, Journalist, blogger - “Global Voices”
Faisal Kutty, Visiting Asst. Prof. of law, Valparaiso University School of Law and Adjunct Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School (Toronto)
M. Junaid Levesque-Alam, writer, blogger - “Crossing the Crescent”
David Liepert, M.D., blogger and author of “Muslim, Christian AND Jew”
Radwan A. Masmoudi, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID)
Shelina Merani, community activist, artist, founder of Muslim Presence
Melody Moezzi, JD, MPH, writer and attorney
Daniel Abdal-Hayy Moore, author of many books of poetry
Ebrahim Moosa, Assoc. Professor of Islamic Studies, Dept. of Religion, Duke University
Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, President Sound Vision
Sheila Musaji, Editor, The American Muslim (TAM)
Muneeb Nasir, President, Olive Tree Foundation, Editor IQRA Canada
Aziz H. Poonawalla, PhD, scientist and blogger - “City of Brass” on Beliefnet
M.Waheed-uz-Zaman Rana, Imam, Prof. Emeritus, Dept. of Surgery, Saint Louis University
Hasan Zillur Rahim, PhD, journalist
Prof. Hussein Rashid, PhD, blogger - “Religion Dispatches”
Shafi Refai, President, United Muslims of America
Louay Safi, PhD, Common Word Fellow, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Christian Muslim Understanding, Georgetown University
Robert Salaam, blogger - “The American Muslim”
Raquel Evita Saraswati, activist, writer, blogger
Sarah Sayeed, President of One Blue
S. Abdallah Schleifer, Distinguished Professor, Dept. of Journalism & Mass Com, American University in Cairo
Jafar Siddiqui, blogger - “Penjihad”
Prof. Laury Silvers, PhD
Prof. Ibrahim B. Syed, PhD, President of Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc., author,
Pamela Taylor, Co-founder Muslims for Progressive Values, Panelist for On Faith
Tayyibah Taylor, Editor, Azizah Magazine
Dr. Hashim El-Tinay, President, International Peace Quest Institute (IPQI)
Tarik Trad, writer, humorist, photographer, artist and activist
Asma T. Uddin, Attorney, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Editor, Altmuslimah
Wahida Valiante, President, Canadian Islamic Congress and Chair of Islamic History Month Canada
Amina Wadud, PhD, consultant on Islam and gender, visiting scholar Starr King School for the Ministry
Svend White, blogger - “Akram’s Razor”, activist, writer
G. Willow Wilson, author of “Butterfly Mosque” and “Air” graphic novel series

Urgency and Creativity Needed in Response to Pakistan Flood

2010-09-15T00:32:00.002-04:00

In Huffington Post.

The numbers are sobering. Nearly 1 in 8 Pakistanis are homeless as a result of an epic flood. Besides the staggering human cost of the tragedy the geo-political importance of Pakistan to US security interests cannot be overemphasized. With over 100,000 U.S. troops stationed in nearby Afghanistan and American drones routinely dropping bombs on suspected terrorist hideouts in Pakistan, both American security and American moral authority is at stake.

And yet according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, "Twenty-two U.S. aid groups have raised a total of $10.6-million to assist the estimated 20 million people affected by the floods; two-and-a-half weeks after the Haiti earthquake, 40 aid groups had brought in a total of $560-million."

While 3 million people were affected in Haiti the number affected in Pakistan is 7 times as much and climbing. As the flood waters recede, human misery is escalating.

Official U.S. contribution to the relief efforts stands at nearly $170 million accounting for nearly 1 in every 5 dollars pledged. The European Commission is next with nearly $95 million in assistance while Saudi Arabia comes third at $75 million. Impressive, but not nearly enough, given the scale of the disaster. Donations from China, which calls Pakistan its closest ally, is a paltry $18 million and neighboring India, which stands a lot to benefit from winning the hearts and minds of Pakistanis, have only $25 million in "uncommitted" pledges.

In contrast, total official relief to Haiti is over $3 billion in funded aid and another $1.15 billion in "uncommitted" pledges. Pakistan facing a much larger catastrophe has received just over $1 billion in total aid. The biggest difference makers -- while official U.S. aid to Haiti is over $1.16 billion that to Pakistan is only about a tenth at $170 million. Also, private individuals and non-governmental organizations pledged over $1.23 billion for Haiti but for Pakistan the number is only $95 million. According to the Pakistan's High Commissioner to Britain, the cost of rebuilding Pakistan is estimated at $10 to $15 billion and will take nearly 5 years.

Several reasons have been offered as possible explanation for the lethargic response to the Pakistan floods. Donor fatigue, concerns about corruption in Pakistan and weariness about Pakistan's lackadaisical effort countering radicals and terrorists are most cited. The reasons may be legitimate but this is no time to let the people of Pakistan down. Doing so will not only further destabilize an already wobbly nuclear power but it will also give radicals another pretext to continue their mindless violence. A proper tone must be set at the highest levels.

President Obama needs to articulate a sense of urgency if not for humanitarian reasons then at least as a national security imperative. His ability to cook dal may tickle Pakistanis but what will endear him is aid that will allow the 20 million displaced Pakistanis to cook dal, a staple diet in South Asia. Former Presidents Clinton and Bush (both W. and H.W.) have in the past teamed-up to raise funds for Indonesia and Haiti. They can do the same for Pakistan. This could be President Bush's moment of redemption for getting Pakistan so wrong.

The list of people who can help Pakistanis at their moment of crisis is not limited to U.S. Presidents. Hollywood can do its part. Angelina Jolie in her role as the UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador donated $100,000 and is urging that more be done. A quick way for ordinary citizens to follow her lead will be to text the word SWAT to 50555 for a $10 donation. But to raise the kind of money needed will take more creative efforts from Jolie's Hollywood compatriots. Sean Penn has set a great example in Haiti. Who will do the same for Pakistan?

Bollywood with its propensity to copy Hollywood can certainly take the lead in helping its neighbors in Pakistan much like Hollywood stars have thrown their support behind rebuilding neighboring Haiti. Hosting benefit concerts or telethons should not be too much to ask. Bollywood stars have as much following among Pakistanis as they have among Indians. Is it not time that they transcend the caustic India-Pakistan border politics and make a humanitarian gesture that may very well be the first salvo for lasting peace in the region?

The Pakistani Diaspora in the US, Europe and Middle East can also do more. In the US they should lobby members of Congress to increase US humanitarian aid to Pakistan perhaps by reallocating military spending towards humanitarian aid. They should also hold benefit events appealing to a broad cross-section of the society to participate. The Pakistani and Indian Diaspora in the US can also set a good example by working together to raise funds. Such gestures will not only accomplish the immediate funding need but also could very well become the seed for long run peace in the region. Failing to revive Pakistan will only make it more vulnerable to radicalization. If not for the humanitarian reasons then at least for national security reasons we must do more and inspire others to do more.

To see a list of how governments and private donors are helping relief efforts in Haiti and Pakistan and other ongoing humanitarian tragedies visit: ReliefWeb.

How can you help Pakistan? Click here to find out.

Burning the Quran is likely to provoke, not inspire us

2010-09-15T00:29:00.002-04:00

In Huffington Post and the Florida Times Union

Nearly two centuries ago, the Jewish poet Heinrich Heine wrote, "Those who begin by burning books will end by burning people." Quran burning is a tool of provocation and intimidation. Despite admonitions from General David Petraeus, Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville vowed that he will go ahead with his plans to burn copies of the Quran on the ninth anniversary of September 11. While Pastor Jones is within his constitutional rights to undertake this despicable act, he is as misguided in his actions as the terrorists who abuse the Quran to justify their murderous acts. Both the terrorists and Pastor Jones erroneously make the same argument that the Quran sanctions violence.

In media interviews, Pastor Jones has admitted that he has never read the Quran. He harbors negative feelings about Islam while having little or no understanding of the faith. He fails to distinguish between the terrorists who misuse Islam and the overwhelming majority of Muslims who live Islam by being at peace and harmony with others. When this point is made, many well intentioned people raise the counterargument, "But what about all the violence being committed in the name of Islam?"

Graham Fuller, former CIA official and historian, says in his book A World Without Islam that the world would not be any different from the world today if Islam had never come into being. The West's often bloody relationship with the Middle East is not about religion and predates the rise of Islam. "I'm not arguing that Islam has not had great impact on the Middle East region and its cultures and civilization," Fuller says in an interview on NPR. "But I'm arguing that the nature of conflict between the West and the East does not depend on that, and precedes Islam."

In other words, burning the Quran or equating Islam with Nazism or caricaturing Prophet Muhammad or stopping Muslims from building houses of worship will not solve any of America's problems in Iraq or Afghanistan. Islamophobia is not only un-American; it is against America's vital national interests. Rev. Richard Cizik, of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, summed it up best: "And to those who would exercise derision ... bigotry [and] open rejection of our fellow Americans for their religious faith -- I say shame on you."

Bigotry and derision arises in part due to the fact that most Americans know nothing about the Quran, allowing themselves to be manipulated by demagogues. The Quran is to Muslims what the Gospels are to Christians: the Word of God. The Quran's 6236 verses divided into 114 chapters interweave many facets of our existential experience. Using one or two isolated sentences (such as verse 9:5) to assert Islam's lax attitude towards violence ignores a reality that all religions eschew cherry-picking sacred texts. No Christian will take this verse attributed to Jesus, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword," as sanctioning violence. Nor are Crusaders or abortion-clinic-bombers representatives of their faith.

The Quran acknowledges and reveres previous messages and messengers, such as the Torah of Moses or the Gospel of Jesus. Ironically, Pastor Jones does not realize that in burning the Quran, he will be incinerating the name of Jesus, who is venerated in Islam and mentioned in the Quran 28 times. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is also revered, with an entire chapter named after her. The Quran acknowledges the miraculous birth of Jesus and his many miracles. Two verses of the Quran articulate the resurrection of Jesus, "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)" (19:33).

Given the deep regard with which Muslims hold the Quran, Pastor Jones' act of desecration has provoked outrage among Muslims both here and across the world. However, if Muslims in their protestations overstep the bounds of decency, they will play into the negative stereotypes of Islam. At the same time if people of other faiths remain silent at this extreme act of provocation, they will solidify the misperception that America is at war with Islam.

What Would Our Founding Fathers Say About the 'Ground Zero Mosque'?

2010-08-26T13:57:00.000-04:00

What Would Our Founding Fathers Say About the 'Ground Zero Mosque'?
Parvez Ahmed

In Huffington Post. Aug 23, 2010

In the debate over the Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero in New York, two competing arguments have emerged.

The supporters of the Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero (called the Park51 project) have argued that the First Amendment gives American Muslims the right to build a house of worship wherever they wish so long as the project complies with local ordinances. Some proponents also assert that building a mosque near Ground Zero is a statement that America is not turning its back on the fundamental value of freedom of religion despite religious fanatics abusing a religion to perpetrate a crime against humanity.

The detractors of the Park51 project principally base their opposition on erroneous links between the terrorism being committed in the name of Islam by a handful of fanatics and the faith of Islam as peacefully practiced by the vast majority of Muslims. Opponents have drawn encouragement from various polls that show that nearly 7 in 10 Americans oppose the project. Opposition from some, but not all, families of 9/11 victims has also been cited as a reason.

The debate was already rancorous, but when President Obama weighed in on the controversy by affirming the right of the Park51 planners to build their mosque on a site of their choice, the decibel level from the partisan opposition went up a notch. The opposition have obfuscated several pertinent facts, which, if known, could convince the vast majority of the American public to change its opinion. How many Americans know that Muslims were among the victims of 9/11? How many Americans know that a mosque already exists near Ground Zero? How many Americans know that American Muslims have unequivocally condemned 9/11? How many Americans know that al-Qaida has killed and targeted more Muslims than people of any other faith?

Either Muslims have the right to practice their religion or they do not. Raising questions about the "appropriateness" of the project or its "wisdom" are indirect ways to infringe on the freedom of religion. Is the First Amendment sacrosanct or is it subject to a popularity contest? Our founding fathers anticipated this conundrum and laid out clear markers that we should use to guide our views.

George Washington, in a letter to the Jews of Rhode Island, affirmed the essential nature of America, "a Government which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance -- but generously affording to All liberty of conscience, and immunities of citizenship." But today we have government officials openly giving sanction to bigotry.

In 1784, George Washington, seeking to hire craftsman for Mount Vernon, said, "If they are good workmen, they may be of Assia [sic], Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans [Muslims], Jews, or Christian of any Sect -- or they may be Atheists." Thus the foundation of America was based on meritocracy. On merits, the Park51 project has cleared all hurdles. No other consideration should stop the project from moving forward.

Ben Franklin wrote in his autobiography, "[S]o that even if the Mufti [Imam] of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service." Whereas Franklin was welcoming of foreign imams, today an insidious propaganda has opened up against a stalwart American imam.

Thomas Jefferson, who owned and read a copy of the Quran, wrote in 1816, "The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." Today government officials are dictating where private citizens should erect their houses of worship.

In 1797 the U.S. Senate approved the Treaty with Tripoli, noting, "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen [Muslims]." Today President Obama, who emphasized this point in his Cairo speech and again reiterated it during the iftar dinner at the White House, is being mercilessly attacked for standing with America's founding values.

John Locke, whose writings influenced our founding fathers, wrote, "Nay, if we may openly speak the truth, and as becomes one man to another, neither Pagan nor Mahometan [Muslim], nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Gospel commands no such thing." Is it not ironic that one of the biggest opposition to the Park51 project is coming from religiously conservative groups?

Park51 has a right to pursue the building of this mosque. Its proximity to Ground Zero does not provide any rational reason to pull back. However, given that we live in an imperfect world where the public is prone to episodic bursts of cognitive dissonance, it is better for Park51 to seriously explore an alternative location so long as the new location can effectively serve its constituents. (Reports indicate that the developer is open to such an idea.) They should do this to honor the peace over pride principle well illustrated by Prophet Muhammad during the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, where he compromised by voluntarily giving away his rights in order to gain peace. An imperfect peace is preferable to a righteous conflict.

If Park51 were to relocate the project, will the opponents then turn their energy to support the other mosque projects around the country that are facing bigoted opposition? Will opponents repudiate the church in Florida that is planning to burn the Quran on the 2010 anniversary of 9/11? Will Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich educate their supporters on the reality of the American Muslim community, which is described in the Pew 2007 Survey as being "decidedly American in their outlook, values and attitudes?"

Guest column: What would founders do about New York mosque?

2010-08-19T12:28:00.000-04:00

Guest column: What would founders do about New York mosque?
Parvez Ahmed

Florida Times Union, Aug 18, 2010.

The supporters of the mosque near Ground Zero, called the Park51 project, have argued that First Amendment gives American Muslims the right to build a house of worship wherever they wish so long as the project complies with local ordinances.

Some proponents also assert that building of a mosque near Ground Zero is a statement that America is not turning its back on the fundamental value of freedom of religion despite religious fanatics abusing a religion to perpetrate a crime against humanity.

The detractors of the Park51 project principally base their opposition on erroneous links between the terrorism being committed in the name of Islam by a handful of fanatics and the faith of Islam as peacefully practiced by the vast majority of Muslims.

Opponents have drawn encouragement from various polls that show nearly 7 in 10 Americans oppose the project. Opposition of some, but not all, victim families of Sept. 11, 2001, have also been cited as a reason.

When President Barack Obama weighed in on the controversy by affirming the right of the Park51 planners to build their mosque on a site of their choice, the decibel level from the partisan opposition went up a notch.

However, in this debate, the opponents have obfuscated several pertinent facts:

- How many Americans know that Muslims were among the victims of Sept. 11, 2001?

- Or a mosque already exists near Ground Zero?

- Or American Muslims have unequivocally condemned Sept. 11, 2001?

- Or al-Qaida has killed and targeted more Muslims than people of any other faith?

Either Muslims have the right to practice their religion or they do not. Raising questions about the "appropriateness" of the project or its "wisdom" are indirect ways to infringe on the freedom of religion.

Is the First Amendment sacrosanct or is it subject to a popularity contest? Our Founding Fathers anticipated this conundrum and laid out clear markers that we should use to guide our views.

George Washington, in a letter to the Jews of Rhode Island, affirmed the essential nature of America, "a government which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance - but generously affording to all liberty of conscience, and immunities of citizenship."

In 1784, Washington sought to hire craftsman for Mount Vernon and said: If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe. They may be Muslims, Jews, or Christian of any sect - or they may be atheists.

Ben Franklin wrote in his autobiography, "so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service."

Thomas Jefferson, who owned and read the Quran, in 1816 wrote, "The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens."

Park51 has a right to pursue the building of this mosque. Its proximity to Ground Zero does not provide any rational reason to pull back.

However, given that we live in an imperfect world where the public is prone to episodic bursts of cognitive dissonance, it is better for Park51 to seriously explore an alternative location so long as the new location can effectively serve its constituents.

They should do this to honor the peace- over-pride principle so well illustrated by Prophet Muhammad during the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah.

An imperfect peace is preferable to a righteous conflict.

If Park51 were to relocate the project, will the opponents then turn their energy to support the other mosque projects around the country that are facing bigoted opposition?

Will opponents repudiate the church in Florida that is planning to burn the Quran on the 2010 anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001?

Will Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich educate their supporters on the reality of the American Muslim community, which is described in the Pew 2007 Survey as being, "decidedly American in their outlook, values and attitudes?"

Looking for common ground in lower Manhattan

2010-08-09T22:31:00.002-04:00

Now that the developers of the Muslim community center known as Park51 have secured their legal rights to continue development, what can we do to help heal the tensions that arose in its wake?

BY PARVEZ AHMED, AUGUST 9, 2010
in AltMuslim.com

That most Americans are fearful of Islam and distrustful of Muslims is not new. Most polls show that 1 in 2 Americans have a negative view of Islam. Thus, it is not surprising that a majority of New Yorkers acting on such perceptions oppose the construction of an Islamic community center and mosque called Park51, two blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood. Opponents of Park51 have often cited the negative public sentiments as a reason why American Muslims should voluntarily give up their right to freedom of religion. That argument was most vocally articulated by the storied and iconic Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which opposed the mosque construction, explaining that “ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right.” The ADL’s leader, Abraham Foxman, went on to assert that the anguish of the victims of 9-11 “entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”

Supporters of the project, however, have also been full throated in their support. Jewish Rabbis such as Arthur Waskow and Christian leaders such as Bob Roberts have decried the opposition. However, the most articulate defense came from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. In a speech for the ages, Mayor Bloomberg succinctly framed the issue saying, “Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.”

Mayor Bloomberg drew attention to an often ignored fact when he said:
“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans... Muslims are as much a part of our city and our country as the people of any faith. And they are as welcome to worship in lower Manhattan as any other group. In fact, they have been worshipping at the site for better, the better part of a year, as is their right.”

Perhaps the boldest stance was taken by Newsweek columnist and CNN host Fareed Zakaria, who returned an award he had received from the ADL in 2005. He urged the ADL to reverse its decision and refuted its arguments by wondering aloud, “Does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they're victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?” He then went on to mount a practical defense of Park51, noting that “if there is going to be a reformist movement in Islam, it is going to emerge from places like the proposed institute. We should be encouraging groups like the one behind this project, not demonizing them. Were this mosque being built in a foreign city, chances are that the US government would be funding it.”

Park51 was intended to bring people together, but unfortunately it is fueling divisiveness. The developers of Park51 were perhaps guilty of “insensitivity” - not for choosing the proposed site, but rather for not better anticipating the sometimes understandable but often contrived opposition. The opponents, on the other hand, may have a few legitimate concerns but overall are misguided in their opposition. Arguing against the core American value of religious freedom while purporting to protect America makes the opposition irrational and hypocritical.

Now that Park51 has won its legal rights, how can it win the hearts and minds of fellow New Yorkers, at least those who are willing to be fair? And how can the ADL gain back the moral high ground? First of all, cooler heads must prevail. The ADL should withdraw its opposition without giving up its right to ask the developers of Park51 to be sensitive about the pain being felt by so many people of good will. In return, Park51 should also take steps to address legitimate sensitivity.

Next, Park51 should pledge to not accept any foreign funding. While they have the right to seek donations and support from all legitimate sources - including foreign ones - it is better to make this institute an all-American effort. In the best traditions of Prophet Muhammad, who allowed a Christian delegation to pray at his mosque, Park51 could dedicate space for Jewish and Christian prayer services. During the 8th century, the Cordoba Mosque in Spain set a good example of religious traditions sharing worship space. Why not recreate such convivencia (coexistence) in New York, where the Statue of Liberty beckons all to freedom?

Some people will never be convinced of the moral legitimacy of Muslims seeking a place of worship in some proximity to Ground Zero. Yet many may change. Giving that moderate center a fair chance rests partly with the developers of Park51. However, putting their vision into practice will also require the support of a broad cross section of civic and religious leaders. Groups like ADL and leaders like Newt Gingrich will serve America better by seeking ways to positively engage with projects like Park51. Strident opposition and fear mongering are not the answer. A vast common ground does exist, a point that one of the main leaders of the development effort, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, evokes in his book, “What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America.” There is no better way to defeat the morally bankrupt ideology of al-Qaida than to seek that common ground.

Professor Parvez Ahmed is a Fulbright Scholar and Associate Professor of Finance at the University of North Florida. He is also a frequent commentator on Islam and the Muslim American experience.

"Mosque" ado about nothing

2010-07-28T12:25:00.003-04:00

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 27 July 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Published in: Khaleej Times (UAE), July 29, 2010.

Published in: Kuwait Times, Aug 4, 2010.

Jacksonville, Florida - The proposal for a Muslim community centre called the Cordoba House, two blocks from where the World Trade Centre stood, has unleashed a torrent of emotions. The New York Times described some of the speech emerging from debates in the media and during protests against the centre as "vitriolic commentary, pitting Muslims against Christians, Tea Partiers against staunch liberals, and Sept. 11 families against one another."

The proposed project is organised by the Cordoba Initiative, a New York City organisation focused on improving Muslim-Western relations. Organisers describe the Cordoba House as a "community centre with Islamic, interfaith and secular programming." Though frequently described as a mosque because it will have an Islamic prayer room, the Cordoba House will be more of a public space that will celebrate our common humanity and further community harmony.

Such a message seems to be the perfect antidote to the hate and anger that fuels fear and violence.

Several other mosque-construction projects across the country, including in Brooklyn, Staten Island and Dayton, Ohio, have encountered similar acerbic opposition in recent months. This suggests that something more is going on than just outrage over the proposed centre's proximity to Ground Zero.

Fears of terrorism and its erroneously perceived links to Islam are cited by detractors as their most common concerns. However, the detractors either ignore or are ignorant of the fact that those who perpetrate terrorism betray the teachings of Islam, which is why 9/11 has been unequivocally condemned by all major Islamic scholars, organisations and countries. One only needs to Google the phrases "Islamic statements against terrorism" or "Muslims condemn terrorism" to read a sampling of the many condemnations issued by Muslims worldwide.

Linking Islam, a faith practiced by over a billion people worldwide, to the terrorism being committed by a handful of fanatical and misguided Muslims is absurd. This absurdity is perhaps best exemplified in the signage on display at one of the protests near the Cordoba House site that read, "Building a mosque at Ground Zero is like building a memorial to Hitler at Auschwitz."

Former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has only added fuel to the growing fire by asking "peace-seeking" Muslims to protest the building of this centre. Yet she fails to repudiate the hate of Mark Williams, former leader of the Tea Party Express, an umbrella organisation of several Tea Party groups, who angered Muslims nationwide when he claimed on his website that the centre would serve as a monument to the 9/11 terrorists, and be used for "the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god".

Certainly, we should preserve the memory of the Sept. 11 tragedy and be respectful of those who lost their loved ones. But this does not mean that as a nation we can succumb to fear mongering about Muslims. A commentary in the New York Post further stoked such fears by stating, "Where there are mosques, there are Muslims, and where there are Muslims, there are problems."

On NBC News, Pamela Geller, one of the Cordoba House's lead protesters, objected to the building of the 13-story community centre because they will then be able to look down at Ground Zero from the upper floors of the building. By Geller's logic then, building churches near the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City should not be allowed. After all Timothy McVeigh, a United States Army veteran who was convicted of detonating a truck bomb in front of the Murrah Building in 1995, was influenced by the Christian Identity movement.

The opposition to Cordoba House near Ground Zero is being led by some of the most intolerant elements in our society. Thankfully, well-reasoned voices, such as Rabbi Darren Levine of the Jewish Community Project Downtown, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, are consistently decrying such fears. But New York Mayor Michel Bloomberg summed it up best when he stated, "What is great about America, and particularly New York, is that we welcome everybody…. The ability to practice your religion was one of the real reasons America was founded."

Such voices of reason are triumphing over the voices of discord. Despite orchestrated opposition, mosque projects are gaining regulatory approval. But overcoming misguided fears about Islam and Muslims requires gaining the trust of neighbors. Mosques and Muslim-run community centres ought to go beyond their usual religious functionality and undertake a leadership role by becoming sanctuaries for dialogue and understanding, which the Cordoba House aims to do. Only then will the voices of paranoia be relegated to the footnotes of history.

###

* Professor Parvez Ahmed is a Fulbright Scholar and Associate Professor of Finance at the University of North Florida. He is also a frequent commentator on Islam and the Muslim American experience. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

A Mosque Near Ground Zero

2010-07-20T00:41:00.007-04:00

by Parvez Ahmed
Also In Huffington Post.

A proposed mosque, two blocks from where the World Trade Center twin-towers stood, have unleashed emotions, which the New York Times described as, "vitriolic commentary, pitting Muslims against Christians, Tea Partiers against staunch liberals, and Sept. 11 families against one another." What began as a well intentioned project to promote interfaith understanding and to help American Muslims preserve their moderate Islamic identity has devolved into name-calling, mud-slinging and political grandstanding.
The proposed project is described by the organizers' Cordoba Initiative as a, "community center with Islamic, interfaith and secular programming." It is less of a mosque, in a commonly understood sense, and more of a public space aimed at celebrating our common humanity and increasing community harmony. Such a message seems to be the perfect anti-dote to the hate and anger that fuels violence and terrorism.

The fact that other mosque-construction projects across the country from Brooklyn and Staten Island in New York to Dayton in Ohio have also encountered similar acerbic opposition points to something more to than just outrage over the proposed mosque's proximity to ground zero. Fears of terrorism and its perceived links to Islam seem to be the most cited concern. Mistaken perceptions of Muslims having no more than six degrees of separation from terrorists have spread paranoia among detractors, obfuscating reality.

Take for example a basic fact that the so-called ground zero mosque is actually not on ground zero. This prompted commentator Chris Matthews on MSNBC to ask - what distance away from ground zero could any mosque be in order to be deemed appropriate? If building a house of worship two blocks away from where the worst terrorist attacks on American soil killed over three thousands innocent souls is sacrilegious then why has making money off the memory of this tragedy by souvenir and tourist gawking not evoked any similar protest?

The absurdity is further seen in the signage on display at a protest event. One sign read, "Building a Mosque at Ground Zero is Like building a memorial to Hitler at Auschwitz." Equating the building of a mosque, by Muslims who reject and condemn al-Qaeda and its violent ideology, to a memorial for Hitler at Auschwitz is fear-mongering and ignoring reality. No Ms. Palin, peaceful Muslims do not need to "refudiate" the building of this mosque. You need to repudiate people who harbor Islamophobic views such as Tea Party leader Mark Williams saying Muslims worship a "monkey god." You need to repudiate demagogues like Pamlea Geller who said that for Muslims to "pray next to" Ground Zero is "repugnant," and a "kick in the head" to Americans.

New York City is home to several thousand Muslims, many of whom work in Manhattan. They need a place to pray and are perfectly within their rights to seek a suitable space. By all accounts, their choice was not merely within their rights but their conception of the project is quite egalitarian. And yet detractors are upset and keep justifying their opposition based on Muslims flying airplanes into the twin towers on September 11, 2001. They either ignore or are ignorant of the fact that those who perpetrated this crime against humanity betrayed the teachings of Islam, which is why 9-11 has been unequivocally condemned by all major Islamic scholars, organization and countries.

We should preserve the memory of this tragedy and be respectful of those who lost their loved ones. But as a nation we cannot succumb to unfounded fears of everything Muslim. In a news segment on NBC News one of the lead protester's (Pamela Geller) main objection was that Muslims should not be allowed to build this 11-story mosque because then they will be able to look at ground zero from the upper floors of that building. Such frivolity would be comical if the issue was not this serious. Since Timothy McVeigh was influenced by the Christian Identity movement, should churches be inappropriate near the Murrah building in Oklahoma City?

The debate over the mosque near ground zero needs to be placed in the context of the protests over building other mosques now spreading across America. These protests are being led by the some of the most extremist elements in our society. Thankfully, well reasoned voices from Jewish Rabbis to Christian Pastors to a wide array of politicians and public servants have been consistently decrying such fears.

The voices of reason are triumphing over the voices of discord. Despite orchestrated opposition, mosque projects are gaining regulatory approval. While American Muslims are winning their rights they are not necessarily winning many hearts and minds. Overcoming misguided fears about Islam and Muslim will require gaining the trust of neighbors. More mosques, even those not seeking new expansion or new construction, will have to go beyond their usual religious functionality and undertake a leadership role in becoming a sanctuary for dialogue and understanding. Only then will the voices of paranoia be relegated to footnotes in history.

Thank those who serve our country

2010-07-10T11:47:00.002-04:00

AltMuslim.com July 9, 2010
It is possible to be a good American and a good Muslim. More of one does not mean less of the other. Weaving American patriotic traditions into Muslim events will make this point loud and clear.

BY PARVEZ AHMED, JULY 9, 2010

Over the July 4th weekend I was one of the speakers at the 47th Annual Convention of the Islamic Society of North America, the largest gathering of Muslims in North America. At their Community Service Luncheon I was seated next to Lieutenant Colonel Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad, the first Muslim chaplain in the US military. After some initial small talk I leaned over and thanked him for his service.

Chaplain Abdul-Rasheed with a wide grin accepted my thanks and then with sadness in his voice said that in his experience not too many Muslims extend such appreciation to our men and women in uniform. Some even question the Islamicity of being in the US army. This despite the fact that, according to American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, upwards of 15,000 Muslims serve in the US armed forces. Chaplain Abdul-Rasheed went on to say, “If America is worth being inhabited by Muslims, reaping her many benefits, then Muslims have a natural obligation to serve in her defense against those who choose to do harm to its citizens, property, or values.”

Extremists, both from within the Muslim community and outside, fail to grasp the importance and necessity of Muslims serving in the US armed forces. The American Family Association, a conservative Christian group, has published an article on its website calling for Muslims to be barred from military service. The radical Muslim cleric Anwar al Awlaki, who influenced the Maj. Nidal Hasan to go on a killing rampage at Fort Hood said that the only way a Muslim can justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to “follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal.” Awlaki went on to say that Hasan, “is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.”

American Muslims are sickened by the views of radicals like Anwar al Awlaki as much as they are alarmed by the anti-Muslim rhetoric loudly reverberating among the extreme right of American politics. However, simply expressing outrage is not enough. Collectively and individually American Muslims need to take concrete and meaningful steps that marginalize the views of radicals like Awlaki and also win the hearts and minds of those who stay silent when powerful forces align to marginalize the Muslim community.

One useful step is making a conscience effort to make overt gestures of patriotism even when such gestures are symbolic. Regardless of whether the men and women in uniform are Muslims or people of other faiths they all deserve our gratitude and appreciation. Showing that gratitude is not symbolic and does not undermine any advocacy against current US foreign policy and armed conflicts.

American Muslim events generally begin with the recitation of the Holy Quran. This can easily be followed with a Pledge of Allegiance or the singing of the National Anthem. A few organizations have been doing this despite the cynicism of the misguided few. Flying the American flag on the premises of the Islamic centers will also be a step in the right direction. Several Islamic centers already do this. More need to follow their lead. Incorporating the "Changing of the Colors" flag ceremony could also be an appropriate fixture at American Muslim events.

In 2001 when the US was preparing to invade Afghanistan, Taha Jabir Alwani then president of an institute that trains Islamic military chaplains, issued a fatwa (religious decree) that allowed Muslims to fight for the United States in Afghanistan. The fatwa also gave Muslims the option of refusing to fight on grounds of religious conscience. With the gathering danger of radicalization looming over the American Muslim community, a case can be made for a more clearly worded fatwa that encourages, instead of merely allowing, Muslims to serve in the US army.

The presence of American Muslim soldiers can be beneficial on many fronts. Besides being appropriately reflecting of our national diversity the presence of American Muslim soldiers can mitigate abusive incidents such as the ones at Abu Ghraib that justifiably deserve our condemnation. At a time when the American mission in Afghanistan and Iraq is not merely to win a conflict but also to win hearts and minds, American Muslims in the U.S. military can be a valuable bridge between the U.S. military and the Muslim world.

It is possible to be a good American and a good Muslim. More of one does not mean less of the other. Weaving American patriotic traditions into Muslim events will make this point loud and clear. Thanking our men and women in uniform is not just keeping up with finest traditions of being American but it is also authentically Islamic. God loves people who express their gratitude towards those who serve us. The men and women in the armed forces volunteer to lay their lives so that we can live free. Undoubtedly they deserve our thanks.

Professor Parvez Ahmed is a Fulbright Scholar and Associate Professor of Finance at the University of North Florida. He is also a frequent commentator on Islam and the American Muslim experience.

When media acts responsibly

2010-05-25T00:39:00.002-04:00

Huffington Post and AltMuslim.
In Kuwait Times (May 31, 2010).

When media acts responsibly
By Parvez Ahmed, May 19, 2010

In a span of just over a month two incidents rocked my city of Jacksonville garnering wall-to-wall coverage in local media. The first was my nomination to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission. The mayor's nomination, which is otherwise routinely approved by the City Council, drew an unusual and unprecedented scrutiny in my case. The second incendiary (no pun intended) situation was related to a pipe bomb that exploded at my city's largest mosque and Islamic center. Both situations had one thing in common; it impacted Muslims who were the target of hate, anger and violence. And one other thing, both situations did not draw any national media attention, which led American Muslim groups to question the national media silence and double standards. But is such silence, as disturbing as it maybe, a sign of bias?

Decrying the national media's silence as bias solidifies the misperception that the Muslim community is perpetually playing the victim card. In reality the Muslim community in Jacksonville feels anything but victims. The community faced formidable challenges but respond with positivity with timely help from public officials, faith leaders and law enforcement professionals. Far from being the victims, the Muslim community has been helped by the controversy as the local media has enabled an extended public dialogue on difficult issues like diversity, inclusiveness and faith. Such positive lessons deserve far more attention than any complains about bias.

Much of the controversy surrounding my nomination to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission was contrived. The first sparks flew when City Councilman Clay Yarborough emailed me a series of irrelevant questions regarding my views about the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the issue of legalizing gay marriage. Although I was under no obligation to answer his boorish questions, being very sensitive to the extreme misunderstanding about Islam and Muslims that permeates American society, I felt not answering the questions could cause greater harm.

Our local newspaper, the Florida Times Union, found out about this exchange (thorough Florida's Sunshine Laws), and wrote a story. The media report had an unintended consequence. A hate group called ACT For America, which has a history of all being virulently anti- Muslim, predictably organized opposition to my nomination. ACT bombarded the city council and the mayor's office with a series of unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations mostly stemming from my past associations with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

As the situation unfolded, the local media generally acted with restraint. The local newspaper, Florida Times Union ran several stories refuting the spurious allegations of my links to terrorism. To the contrary, I have a long record of not only condemning terrorism in all its forms but also persistently advocating dialogue between faiths and nations. The newspaper also exposed Councilman Yarborough's prejudices who when pressed by local columnist Mark Woods could not answer if Muslims deserve a chance to serve in public offices. The newspaper later used a full-page editorial to offer its unequivocal endorsement of my nomination. The local NPR radio station interviewed me on their morning show First Coast Connect allowing me to get my side of the story out in my own words. Later when Councilman Redman made the awkward request that I "pray" to "my God" it was the local media that took umbrage and over next several days painstakingly explained to the public the potential economic and social damage that are likely to result from this hullaballoo. As result of the media spotlight Councilman Redman later apologized.

Rather than decry what the national media did not do, American Muslims should celebrate what the local media and public officials did despite heavy pressure from a minority but vocal group. They exemplified that even in an age of extreme sensationalism responsible journalism and diligent public stewardship is alive and well. Partly as a result of this, the City Council was able to vote 13-6 in favor of my nomination.

When my mosque got bombed, literally hours before I was to attend my first meeting of the Human Rights Commission, many in the local media speculated that the bombing could be related to the anger exhibited by a few people who were most vocal in agitating against my nomination. The local media speculated that the circumstances were too coincidental, but did not sensationalize the issue. They exhibited great professionalism by staying with the story even when the blogosphere was complaining about too much attention being given to the bombing of a Muslim mosque. The local media rightfully felt that this matter required extended attention so long as the perpetrator of this heinous crime remains at large.

American Muslims instead of decrying what did not happen should celebrate what did. This is a teachable moment. The importance of relationship building with media and public officials, a task that is not undertaken with the seriousness it deserves, is amply demonstrated. The silence in the national media is less related to bias and more the result of a lack of meaningful relationships between the community and national media outlets.

Legitimacy of issues is not the only criterion that the media uses to focus its attention on a story. With many competing interests each fighting for media attention, it becomes the responsibility of American Muslims, individually or collectively, to undertake proactive steps to develop sustained relationships. The Jacksonville saga shows that getting the appropriate media attention and support from religious/civic organizations is much easier when the community has taken the time to build such relationships well in advance of a crisis. This more than anything else is the path to empowerment that American Muslims rightfully seek.

American Muslims must be on guard against radicalization

2010-05-18T14:39:00.002-04:00

Delaware Online

American Muslims must be on guard against radicalization
By Muqtedar Khan • May 18, 2010

Faisal Shahzad, Major Nidal Hassan and Anwar Awlaki: Is it now official that American Muslims too have become radicalized and are well on their way to becoming Al Qaeda in America?

The recent incidents involving American Muslims may suggest so, and it has triggered panicky responses from Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. John McCain, who have called for the suspension of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights (Mirandization).

I guess their line of thinking is: Why wait for the terrorists to destroy our freedoms violently, when we can legislate them away peacefully? I would recommend that before we rush to judgment and look at every Abdullah with suspicion, let's pause, take a deep breath and review the evidence.

To do just that, I hosted a conference on Muslim Radicalization in America at the University of Delaware on May 12. The conference was sponsored by the Islamic Studies Program at the university and the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. The speakers included professor Charles Kurzman from the University of North Carolina; professor Parvez Ahmed from the University of North Florida; Lydia Khalil of the Council on Foreign Relations; and special agent Jeffery Reising, in charge of the Delaware Joint Terrorism Task Force.

The presentations and discussions shed light on the nature of Muslim violence in the U.S., its causes and the ways and means to fight it. Dr. Kurzman has studied nearly 140 cases from 2000-2010 of American Muslims accused of planning violent terrorist actions in the U.S. (The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were made by foreigners.)

He argued that even if the victims of John Muhammed, the sniper in the Washington D.C., area, were included, victims of American Muslim terrorism in the U.S. amounted to 31 in ten years.

His study found that the American Muslim communities' efforts to mainstream Islam has played a major role in keeping this count low. Based on his findings, one could argue that the probability of an American killing himself by suicide is 10,000 times higher than being killed by an American Muslim.

Parvez Ahmed argued that Islam did not teach violence, and by associating terrorists with Islamic concepts like jihad, which for Muslims is a noble endeavor, we demean Islam and glorify the terrorist. No religion, he argued, would teach violence and therefore it is important that we invoke religious language judiciously. He acknowledged that there was a problem of radicalism in the community and
called for a stronger partnership between the community and the government to combat it.

Lydia Khalil emphasized the importance of ideology. It was neither faith nor economic conditions that led to individuals becoming terrorists, she argued. It was the indoctrination of ideology that made people choose the path of radicalism. Whether it was Shahzad or Nidal, the impact of the ideological worldview that sees Islam and the West embroiled in a conflict was palpable in transforming them from disgruntled Muslims to murderous terrorists.

Reising shared the challenges that law enforcement faces in trying to balance security and liberty. He discussed how the FBI worked with Muslims to identify and deal with emerging threats.

Clearly, the extent of radicalization among American Muslims is disturbing. Muslims here enjoy more freedom of religion and prosperity than in most Muslim countries. The queue of people lining up to immigrate to the U.S. from the Muslim world is unending. Yet, more and more American Muslims are allowing their hatred to compel them to do terrible things.

Muslims must find a way to escape this hypocritical condition where they love to live in America, but also love to hate it.

The case of Anwar Awlaki is more disturbing than Shahzad and Nidal.

An American born of Yemeni origins, he does not come from anyplace affected negatively by U.S. foreign policy, which is the principal reason for Muslim anger against the U.S.

The man has used the benefits of his American upbringing to reach out to a large number of Muslim youth and preach hatred of America and non-Muslims. He is clearly a traitor, ungrateful to the land that welcomed his family and allowed them to prosper, and desires to make traitors and terrorists out of many young Muslims.

As American Muslims enjoy their American dream, it is time for them to give back. Make America stronger and safer. Teach your children to understand and respect the country that they call home. As you protect them from drugs, crime and immorality, also protect them from ideologies of hate.

The small number of cases that actually involve American Muslims indicates that the community is doing a good job in ensuring that their youth are not radicalized. I am just calling for more vigilance and more focused efforts to pre-empt youth from taking the wrong turn. There is no glory in killing innocent people. The Quran teaches that killing one innocent individual is like killing all of humanity (Chapter 5, verse 32). Can there be a clearer and stronger condemnation than this?

Dr. Muqtedar Khan is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Delaware and a fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.

Accusations were absurd

2010-05-05T11:01:00.000-04:00

Parvez Ahmed: Accusations were absurd

Source URL: http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2010-04-28/story/accusations-were-absurd

In 2003 and 2004, I was invited with United States Attorney Paul Perez to participate in forums in Florida to discuss the high profile and sensitive issues surrounding the renewal of several provisions of the Patriot Act.

This federal legislation was passed immediately after the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001, with the proviso that its continued implementation be revisited after two years.

In the first symposium, the third panelist was Parvez Ahmed. Despite the baseless, unwarranted and unsubstantiated suggestions that Ahmed either enjoys some form of relationship with, or tacitly endorses organizations which engage in terrorist activities, Ahmed's voice at the presentation was one of reason, conciliation and impressive judgment.

He fully acknowledged the intended purposes of the Patriot Act, and Perez has often remarked to me that the current accusations against Ahmed, when measured against our experiences with him, constitute the highest form of absurdity.

I was disappointed at the Anti-Defamation League letter, which included the suggestion that to "understand" certain organizations (Hamas, Hezbollah) is to condone their terrorist activities.

I recently represented a man in Jacksonville whose telephone calls were intercepted by the FBI, made from Jacksonville to Beirut, Lebanon. The phone calls purportedly authorized the release of weapons held in Beirut to Hezbollah leadership, which constituted a serious crime under United States law.

I felt obligated to study and learn as much as I could about the origins, dynamics and methods of Hezbollah. As with Ahmed, I cannot fathom that my "understanding" of Hezbollah could be translated into an endorsement by me of Hezbollah terrorist acts.

As the German minister charged with ridding that nation of the Baader-Meinhof terrorists of the 1960s and 1970s urged his anti-terror commission, there would never be a solution to these terrorist activities until Germany understands what drives the behavior.

One of my partners at the Bedell law firm often uses a phrase, "To a hammer, everything is a nail."

Human beings of all races, ethnicities and faiths are not hammers, and others are all not nails.

HENRY M. COXE III

Jacksonville

Muslims nearly impossible to elect in Bible Belt

2010-05-05T10:54:00.003-04:00

Florida Times Union, May 2, 2010

Muslims nearly impossible to elect in Bible Belt
By Jeff Brumley

The smart money says a snowball has a better chance you-know-where than a Muslim has being elected to statewide or national office from Northeast Florida - or anywhere else in the Bible Belt.

If the recent hullabaloo surrounding Parvez Ahmed's appointment to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission didn't confirm that, maybe this does: Observers of Southern politics and religion can't recall a single Muslim candidate running for major office.

"I thought about it, and I couldn't come up with any names," said Ken Wald, a political science professor and expert on religion and politics at the University of Florida.

"Of all the places, the South is the least likely for that to happen," Wald said.
The reason: The region is dominated by evangelical Protestantism, "a religion that has intellectual difficulties with religious diversity."

Not that the rest of the country is welcoming Muslims into public office with open arms.

There are just two Muslims in Congress. The first, from Minnesota, was elected to the House in 2006. The other is from Indiana. Both candidates caused consternation among conservatives nationwide.

"Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies," commentator Glenn Beck asked then Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn. "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."
Sadie Fields, executive director of the Georgia Christian Alliance, said similar questions would plague any Muslim running for office in the South.

"The real stumbling block would be the trust factor," she said. "In light of the threats to our national security that occur on a semi-regular basis, I think it would be very difficult for a confessing Muslim to convince Christians to vote for them."
Evangelicals in particular feel that way about Islam, which relegates Jesus to mere prophet status, as well as Mormons, who have added to the Bible with the Book of Mormon.

The latter explains why Mormon Mitt Romney had to repeatedly speak about his faith during his unsuccessful run for the presidency in 2008.

"Some Christians are concerned that Mormons describe themselves as Christians," Wald said. "You used to hear the same thing about Catholics from evangelicals, who more or less felt the pope was the Antichrist."

But unlike Catholics, Mormons and Muslims have yet to enjoy the political clout that comes with being the largest single religious group in the nation, Wald added. Both groups typically rank well below other religious groups - but still above atheists - in political polls.

In Florida, a Muslim running for governor would have trouble raising money or getting their message past the accusations of connections to terrorist groups.
"If you had a Muslim who was born and bred in the United States, achieved success personally and had a record as a military hero, that is what it would take to dispel some of the images that are out there," Wald said.

Questions of national loyalty

Mario Piscatella doesn't think it would take that sterling of a resume for a Muslim to win office in Florida or anywhere else in the South.
It's about convincing voters a candidate is best qualified to improve their communities, said the political consultant and veteran Democratic campaign manager from St. Johns County.

"If the candidate got into the race to spread their Islamic faith, that's probably going to be a tough race," Piscatella said. "If it's because roads are in disrepair, then that's what they should be talking about."

One piece of advice he'd give a Muslim candidate is to give up trying to win over evangelicals and others who are convinced all Muslims are terrorists. "Those folks who were against Parvez were never his to get."

That means not trying to emphasize values Muslims share with conservative Christians, like viewing gay marriage, divorce and abortion as immoral.

Stick to the main issues

If questions of national loyalty and terrorism are raised, the candidate should answer them and then move the discussion back to the economy, taxes, roads or whatever a community's main issues are, Piscatella said.

"If you have done those things right, the majority of the people aren't going to pay attention to the fact that you're a Muslim or a Jew or a black guy in a white district," he said. "They want to know what you can do for this country, this community or whatever you are running for."

Issues or not, a Muslim would have almost no chance getting elected in Duval County at the moment, said Marcella Washington, a political scientist at Florida State College at Jacksonville.

"That's not going to fly here in Jacksonville," she said. "The city has always been on the cusp of being extremely conservative when it comes to religion."
Washington is convinced the difficulty Ahmed faced resulted in part from his dark complexion and the fact he isn't American born.

"Any Arab-American can now sympathize with the plight of African-Americans," she said.

Coupled with the belief of some that "every single Muslim is an enemy" because of 9/11, getting elected to the mayor's office or City Council in Duval County "would be an uphill battle," Washington said.

'Going to take time'

Former Jacksonville mayor and state legislator Tommy Hazouri got a little taste of that when running for office in the 1980s and '90s.

Seeing the firestorm that engulfed Ahmed "brought me back to thinking of when I ran for mayor," said Hazouri, a Christian of Lebanese descent.

An opponent claimed an Arab could never win the mayor's office, a fact proven wrong by his 1987-1991 stint in the mayor's office and another 12 years in Tallahassee.
On another occasion, opponents doctored photographs of Hazouri, a current Duval County School Board member, to make him resemble former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

"I would have hoped that we would have taken a giant step forward," he said. "I don't think we've come far enough."

"In an evangelical region, like the Bible Belt is, I think it would be very difficult for a confessing Muslim to get elected to office," said Fields of the Christian Alliance.

Such a candidate would at a minimum have to admit that 9/11 and the Fort Hood shootings were terrorist acts and then go a step further by publicly condemning them, Fields said.

The Rev. Larry Lowry of Jacksonville said evangelicals would also have deep concerns about that candidate's intentions, if any, to infuse legislation and government with Muslim values.

Conservative, born-again Christians will also want to know if the candidate "has any ties to any type of terrorist groups, and how do they feel about those kinds of things?" said Lowry, a local pastor and bishop of the Church of God of Prophecy's
Northeast Florida congregations.

One Muslim leader said the ongoing War on Terrorism has helped put all Muslims under a microscope that makes it hard for them to even be appointed to office as the Ahmed case demonstrated.

"Our only exposure in the media has been as terrorists," said Mohammad Ilyas, Southeastern president of the Islamic Circle of North America and a member of the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida. What's needed are education efforts and interfaith dialogue to chip away at the myth that all Muslims are extremists, he said.

In the near future, Muslim candidates for public office should include that kind of information in their campaigns.

But history, Ilyas said, proves this situation won't last forever. There was a time when Jews and blacks were considered largely unelectable in some parts of the country, but that is no longer the case.

For the time being, Muslims with political ambitions may have to aim low, seeking seats on school boards or city councils.

"It's moving forward," Ilyas said, "but it's going to take time."

jeff.brumley@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4310

Perception of intolerance may carry economic price

2010-05-05T10:51:00.000-04:00

Jacksonville leaders fear perception of intolerance may carry economic price

Source URL: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-05-04/story/leaders-fear-perception-intolerance-may-carry-economic-price

By Deirdre Conner

In the room when the Jacksonville City Council debated the appointment of Parvez Ahmed, a Muslim scholar and university professor, there were a lot of people holding their breath.

Ben Warner, deputy director of the Jacksonville Community Council Inc., said he heard from many who said they just hoped the story wouldn't "get out" of Jacksonville.

"Everybody is just praying, 'Keep it off Drudge,'" he said, referring to The Drudge Report, a news aggregation site with a national following.

So far, the story hasn't gone national. But those fears illustrate a broader concern about the price of perception. If Jacksonville develops a reputation as being less tolerant, could it have deeper economic ramifications?

Throughout the Ahmed controversy that culminated in the April 27 meeting, many wondered whether it would tarnish the city's image. Already, the story had locals buzzing after Councilman Clay Yarborough told Times-Union columnist Mark Woods he would prefer gays not hold public office, and he wasn't sure whether Muslims should either.

Then, during the meeting, another councilman, Don Redman, called Ahmed to the podium and asked him to pray to his God, leading some in the audience to gasp audibly and sending a city attorney rushing to speak with Redman privately before he went any further.

Ahmed was confirmed on the city Human Rights Commission - though a third of the council opposed the appointment - leaving some to wonder whether they could exhale.

If the city wants to develop an international reputation to build economic engines such as the port or the Mayo Clinic, a welcoming face is necessary, said Matthew Corrigan, political science chairman at University of North Florida.

"There's a moral reason, but there's also an economic reason," he said.

Stories such as the Ahmed controversy or the failed renaming of Nathan B. Forrest High School can portray the city in a negative light. Whether it's fair or not, cities competing for businesses and talent can use that against Jacksonville, Corrigan said.

"You could argue there's more important things going on at Forrest High than the name right now," he said. "But from an outsiders' perspective, having it named after the founder of the Ku Klux Klan is going to be used against us."

Perceptions of intolerance and crime are listed as a possible threat in Visit Jacksonville's most recent strategic plan: "Crisis communications issues such as ... race relations are negatively impacting the perception of the city as a safe and welcoming destination."

Yet Lyndsay Rossman, spokeswoman for Visit Jacksonville, said race relations "never come up" as an issue for visitors.

"We don't look at it as deterring people from coming to Jacksonville," she said.

Rossman said the issue was included in the plan simply to be sensitive to Jacksonville's past. She pointed to an initiative that recruits multicultural groups to hold conventions in Jacksonville. Bookings by such groups through the visitors' bureau jumped from eight in 2005 to 46 in 2008. There were another 18 groups booked for 2009, after the economic collapse, and 29 groups are set for this year.

"We just haven't been seeing race relations ... being an issue," she said.

One of the chief questions for cities is how race relations and economic prosperity are linked - and which causes which, said David Denslow, an economist with the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Florida.

"You can look at places in the South that have dwelled on these issues," he said. "Do they stay tied up in race because they are poor? Or does it make them stay backward?"

For his part, Denslow sees Jacksonville becoming a more progressive place.

Still, recent events have some locals worried.

Diane Brunet-Garcia, president of Brunet-Garcia Advertising, which does a lot of multicultural marketing work, said she is concerned about recruiting creative professionals to the city and keeping homegrown talent.

"I look at the young people who I think naturally are more tolerant," she said. "They see issues like this happening in their hometown, and why would they want to stay here?"

She said she followed the Ahmed appointment closely and compared it to a small-scale version of the uproar over the immigration law in Arizona, which has been decried as racist and led to the call for boycotts of the state.

"I fear for the same kind of situation for Jacksonville," Brunet-Garcia said. "It does have a very negative effect on our brand."

And with the rise of the Internet, such issues have a longer shelf life and a wider reach.

When Redman asked Ahmed to pray at the podium, local tweeters - those using the social media site Twitter tend more toward the young and well-educated - reacted with horror. Two days after the meeting, dozens of tweets could be found on Twitter's search engine calling the incident embarrassing or shameful. Liberal and conservative blogs picked up on the issue, weighing in on both sides.

Redman later apologized for his actions, but did not regret his "no" vote.

The recent Ahmed controversy had Brunet-Garcia, who has worked extensively with the local Hispanic chamber, feeling disheartened after what she called many years of progress in making Jacksonville more progressive and tolerant.

"The degree of polarization and anger really took me by surprise," she said.

UNF President John Delaney called the Ahmed appointment a teachable moment. On the one hand, there are uglier elements, he said, such as a cartoon circulating that depicted Ahmed as a terrorist and his City Council supporters in burqas.

On the other hand, there was a time in Jacksonville when Ahmed would never have been nominated to the Human Rights Commission, Delaney said.

"I think it's going to blow over," he said of the story.

Even if it does, effects of the past linger. Perceptions of race could have an impact on tourism or recruiting minority business owners, said Carlton Robinson, president of the First Coast African American Chamber of Commerce.

"There are some things of a historic nature that maybe our region has not been able to shed," he said.

But Robinson said he's also seen more people working to help Jacksonville shed that perception, such as greater cooperation among chambers of commerce and efforts to increase civic engagement.

Ultimately, Robinson said, such discussions are needed, especially when asking whether race plays a part in decisions.

"Many times race may be a secondary or third factor ... but if we don't get an explanation, we're left to assume," he said.

deirdre.conner@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4504

Morning Show Interviews

2010-04-29T14:34:00.001-04:00

Click on links below to view:

Video: Interview on The Morning Show, WJXT, Channel 4.

Video: Interview on Good Morning Jacksonville, First Coast News.

Councilman's use of 'Jesus' in prayer leads to legal questions

2010-04-29T14:31:00.002-04:00

Florida Times Union, April 28, 2010

Jacksonville City Councilman Don Redman said he was trying to prove a point about religious freedom when he asked a Muslim man to pray during Tuesday's council meeting.

But Redman's own prayer at the beginning of the meeting has raised questions about religion in politics and whether overtly Christian prayers cross the line. And his request of Parvez Ahmed, a nominee to the city's Human Rights Commission, was a decision he regretted and for which he later apologized, Redman said Wednesday.

There was a harsh reaction in the council chamber immediately after Redman asked Ahmed to "pray to your God." Redman said Wednesday he was trying to make a point not because Ahmed is a Muslim, but because he is a board member for interfaith group OneJax, which in a 2007 letter asked the City Council to make its prayers inclusive, rather than sectarian.

Redman said his answer then, as it is now, is, "If somebody asks me to pray, I'm going to pray to my God."

As the council's chaplain for the fiscal year, Redman gives an invocation to begin each biweekly meeting. Tuesday's meeting was no different. He began by asking the Lord to guide the council's deliberations and decision-making and ended with a traditional Christian closing, "In Jesus' name I pray, amen."

Redman said he asked Ahmed to pray to show that he was comfortable hearing prayers of other faiths and that he was offended by OneJax's request that he not pray in his normal manner. Instead, his comments came across as intolerant.

Redman said Wednesday that he regretted his line of questioning and decided to apologize to Ahmed. His assistant hand-delivered a letter to the professor. Redman said he told Ahmed he handled the situation inappropriately.

"It was a very poor reason," Redman said, "but the reason I asked him was I had been asked by a group he belongs to to not pray in Jesus' name in public City Council meetings."

Councilman Stephen Joost followed Redman's comments Tuesday night with a stinging rebuke. Wednesday, he said Redman is a good person who feels bad about how things came across.

It would have been better, Joost said, if Redman would have plainly stated his beef with OneJax.

"It just came out totally wrong for him," Joost said.

Councilman Reggie Brown openly questioned the legality of Redman's line of questioning Tuesday night. A day later, he still feels the council made itself vulnerable to allegations of unfair treatment.

"We're setting up the strong possibility that someone can file claims against the city that there is disparity in the process of questioning candidates that are interested in becoming commission members because there is no consistency," Brown said.

He suggested that the council create a template of questions for potential nominees.
"It's sad we have to do that," he said, "but we can't afford any more black eyes than we received last night."

The council used to invite citizens from around the city to offer the opening invocations, which led to representation by diverse denominations and faiths. But most recently, the chaplain has taken on the prayer duties.

The council's past three chaplains - Redman, Ray Holt and Clay Yarborough - are all members of First Baptist Church of Jacksonville and have opened council meetings with Christian-specific prayers.

That puts the city at risk of a lawsuit, several constitutional law experts said.
Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, is considered one of the nation's leading experts on religious liberty. He said the Supreme Court has allowed legislative bodies to open meetings with prayer, but sectarian prayers muddy the waters.

"There are some indications in the Supreme Court opinions and holdings in lower-court opinions that it has to be interfaith prayer, non-sectarian prayer," Laycock said. "Explicitly Christian prayer may well be unconstitutional, but that hasn't clearly been settled yet."

Laycock said even without a clear precedent prohibiting prayers like the one Redman spoke Tuesday, a risk is taken every time he does.

"They are certainly opening themselves up to a lawsuit by doing it that way," he said.

Brenda Ezell, OneJax's board chairwoman, said the group has researched its legal options and would not sue the city to end sectarian prayers at council meetings. It wants the council to accept its suggestions, though.

"What we asked is that the prayers be inclusive so that no one religious group would be isolated," Ezell said.

Court challenges that invoke the Constitution's establishment clause are common. The ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of an Indiana high school valedictorian who believes the student-led prayer scheduled for his graduation violates his First Amendment rights.

A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled last Thursday that the observance of National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it amounts to a call for religious action.
Caroline Corbin, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law, said there are cases on both sides of the prayer issue.

"One could easily argue that a sectarian prayer to Jesus would seem to be favoring Christianity over other religions, and, in that case, would be unconstitutional," she said. "And several courts have held that to be the case."

However, she said other courts have interpreted other Supreme Court decisions as allowing any prayer "so long as it's not proselytizing or denigrating any other religions."

Council President Richard Clark said he had hoped to nominate a non-Christian as chaplain this fiscal year, but realized that all 19 council members identify themselves as Christian. He said he would be open to allowing non-Christian leaders to pray at the beginning of some council meetings, but no one has asked or complained.

"It's never been an issue," Clark said. "I've never even thought about it. It's a nice way to open our meeting. It gets everybody in the right form of mind or in a nice place."

tia.mitchell@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4425

Some Jacksonville council members embarrassed themselves

2010-04-29T14:28:00.003-04:00

Florida Times Union

Submitted by Ron Littlepage on April 29, 2010

Opponents of Parvez Ahmed's nomination to the Human Rights Commission are demanding retribution at the polls after City Council approved his appointment.

I agree. There should be retribution - against those council members who voted no on Ahmed's nomination and shamed the city in the process.
Start with Don Redman.

I've been covering the City Council as a columnist for more than two decades, and I've never seen a more embarrassing moment than when Redman called Ahmed, a Muslim, to the podium Tuesday night and asked him "to say a prayer to your God."

Whatever point Redman was trying to make in his bumbling, disjointed inquisition of Ahmed was inappropriate.

When Redman's name appears on the ballot next spring, surely the voters in District 4 can find a better candidate to represent them.

Clay Yarborough in District 1 also needs to go.

His previous questions of Ahmed about "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, gay marriage and whether he would support and defend the U.S. Constitution - with the underlying hint being that Ahmed would replace it with Islamic law - kicked off this ugly mess.

Glorious Johnson joined Redman and Yarborough in voting against Ahmed. Using incredibly twisted logic, she confused all of those listening.

"Look at us," she said of the polarization surrounding Ahmed's nomination. "Just look at us. We have separated ourselves from one another."

Then she said she would vote no because Ahmed would be a distraction on the commission, a bizarre conclusion for a politician who promotes herself as wanting to shake things up.

Fortunately, Johnson's mayoral campaign will fail, and we will be rid of her.
Ray Holt in District 11 and Jack Webb in District 6 hopefully will draw strong opposition.

Holt's reasoning for voting against Ahmed showed he clearly doesn't understand the difference between analysis and advocacy.

Webb complains he had "legitimate questions" about allegations Ahmed had ties to terrorist groups and he is being criticized for asking them.

The problem is not Webb's questions, but the fact that he refused to listen to the answers.

Considering Webb's well chronicled stumbles of late in the Trail Ridge Landfill debate, the dispute over the JTA allowing advertising on bus shelters and now this, his fellow council member should reconsider Webb's elevation to the council presidency this summer.

The sixth vote against Ahmed by Daniel Davis was disappointing. I've always considered Davis a straight-shooter and fair.

He told Times-Union reporter Tia Mitchell his vote was based on concerns he and his constituents had about Ahmed.

Davis can't run for re-election because of term limits, but he is eyeing a legislative race.

Coincidentally, Adam Hasner, the current Florida House majority leader, helped stir the opposition to Ahmed. Hasner is someone Davis would look to for support.

If Hasner influenced Davis' vote, I would be even more disappointed.

The best thing about Tuesday? The 13 council members who ignored the intolerance and voted to approve Ahmed's nomination, and offered apologies for what he had been put through.

ron.littlepage@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4284

Ahmed nomination sails rockily to Jacksonville council approval

2010-04-28T11:59:00.005-04:00

Florida Times Union, April 28, 2010
Ahmed nomination sails rockily to Jacksonville council approval
By Tia Mitchell

Ending three weeks of controversial back-and-forth, University of North Florida finance professor Parvez Ahmed was confirmed to the city’s Human Rights Commission Tuesday night.

The City Council vote was 13-6, but it came after a half-hour of debate that included a line of questioning from Councilman Don Redman that produced gasps from the audience, concern from one of the city’s top attorneys and sharp rebukes from his fellow council members.

After the vote, Ahmed said he was grateful Mayor John Peyton continued to support him through all the accusations and that a majority of council members voted to confirm him.

“That bodes very well for the future of the city that the city could handle controversy and at the end the day, as messy as the process was, the outcome was exactly what the city needed,” he said.

As discussion on the nomination began, Redman called Ahmed, who is Muslim, to the podium and asked him to “say a prayer to your God.”

The comment elicited an audible, negative reaction from the audience and Ahmed refused to comply, saying it had no relevance to his nomination to the commission. At the same time, Chief Deputy General Counsel Cindy Laquidara rushed to the podium to reign in Redman, asking to speak with him privately before he continued.

Instead, Redman changed his approach, asking Ahmed if he was offended by Redman’s opening prayer, in which he referenced Jesus. Ahmed again questioned the relevance of the question, but he said Christian prayers did not bother him.

“People do have the right to pray according to their faith and according to their beliefs,” he said.
Redman wasn’t convinced. He insisted that Ahmed, despite his answer, would be offended by prayers to Jesus and that is why he shouldn’t serve on Human Rights Commission.

Later, he joined Daniel Davis, Ray Holt, Glorious Johnson, Jack Webb and Clay Yarborough in voting “no.”
Voting in the majority were council members Bill Bishop, Reggie Brown, Richard Clark, Michael Corrigan, John Crescimbeni, Ronnie Fussell, Johnny Gaffney, Art Graham, Kevin Hyde, Warren Jones, Stephen Joost, Denise Lee and Art Shad.

Joost was among those who sharply rebuked Redman.

“This is not the Muslim commission; this is not the Jewish commission, or the Christian commission. This is the Human Rights Commission,” Joost said. “I’m offended by this line of questioning.”
Member Glorious Johnson chastised her fellow council members — at first.

“Look at us. Just look at us. We have separated ourselves from one another. This makes no sense,” she said.
Moments later, though, Johnson said that because Ahmed’s nomination was so controversial and would distract from the commission’s work, she couldn’t support it.

“If he is on the commission it will polarize what we are trying to do on the commission,” she said. “For that reason I will be voting against Mr. Ahmed’s nomination to the commission.”

But others spoke passionately about the need to confirm Ahmed, a Fulbright Scholar, saying the vocal opposition to his nomination was not reason enough to deny him.

“That’s probably the worst excuse I’ve heard,” John Crescimbeni said in response to Johnson’s statement.
Several other council members spoke on behalf of the nomination, including Art Shad and Kevin Hyde, each of whom apologized to Ahmed and said they hoped the city wouldn’t be tainted by the vote of the vocal minority.

Fussell said he was undecided on how he would vote until after he met one-on-one with Ahmed an hour before the meeting. Fussell said he asked the nominee about his background, personal views and the allegations that he had ties to terrorists.

“I was comfortable that the man that I met wasn’t the man being portrayed,” Fussell said.

Councilman Clay Yarborough, who at first voted in favor of Ahmed’s nomination in the Rules Committee but reversed himself when the committee voted again last week, read a long statement about why he changed his mind.

He said he was given reason to pause because four U.S. representatives asked the attorney general to look into relationship between the Council on American-Islamic Relations, of which Ahmed was once a board member and national chairman, and terrorism.

Reggie Brown wondered if the council in general, and presumably Redman’s questioning in particular, had gone too far.

“Have we overstepped our boundaries legally?” he asked. “I really need someone to answer that question.”

The campaign against Ahmed was led by the anti-radical Muslim group ACT! for America. Randy McDaniels, leader of the Jacksonville chapter, expressed his disappointment after the vote.

“This is a bad move,” McDaniels said during the public comment period. “It’s an embarrassment to our community, and the country is watching.”

Links:
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/ron-littlepage/2010-04-23/story/despite-shrill-critics-ahmed-ideal-appointee
http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2010-04-22/story/florida-house-leader-weighed-jacksonville-muslim-professors-nomination
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-04-26/story/mayor-backs-ahmed-holt-withdraws-support
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-04-19/story/council-panel-again-backs-unf-professor-jacksonville-commission
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-04-25/story/more-council-members-support-ahmed-nomination-oppose

More Letters of Support

2010-04-27T11:01:00.003-04:00

Florida Times Union, April 27, 2010

Support from UNF

Representing faculty and the senior administration of the University of North Florida, we want to go on record as supporting the nomination of Professor Parvez Ahmed to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission.

Ironically, much of the controversy around Ahmed's nomination proves just how urgently we need to appoint men and women like him to this commission.
Regrettably, to be "different from" too often is regarded as being "less than" or "more dangerous or threatening than."

When that is the case, an occasion for learning is supplanted by fear, prejudice and stagnation.

Since first moving to Jacksonville and the University of North Florida, Ahmed has worked tirelessly to help open dialogue about such differences.

He has met with numbers of community and church organizations, helping many of us understand the similarities between Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and the differences between Islam and Muslim extremists.

When we have looked behind the quotes taken out of context that have been offered in opposition to Ahmed's nomination, we found a message of respect and a belief in honest dialogue among all parties.

These are the characteristics that would make him an incredible and much needed asset to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission.

JOHN A. DELANEY,
president,
University of North Florida,
and
KATHERINE M. ROBINSON,
president,
UNF Faculty Association

Florida Times Union April 23, 2010

An excellent choice

Having concluded eight years as a member of the Human Rights Commission, I speak with some experience in writing that Jacksonville needs commissioners like Parvez Ahmed to serve this city.

The commission is concerned about the human rights of the entire community - blacks and whites, women and men, young and old, Asian and Latinos, Arabs and Jews, gays and straights, religious and non-religious.

Ahmed is uniquely qualified. He is a man of Indian birth, Muslim faith and American citizenship.

He will join with other commissioners of diverse backgrounds to support freedom and justice for all.

Like many Jacksonville residents, I regret the narrow-minded views of a few council members who fail to appreciate the larger patriotism that Ahmed expresses.
As a student of Jacksonville history, I am hopeful that these views increasingly are outside the mainstream in this city.

My 38 years here have seen a growth of tolerance, greater acceptance of diversity and a realization that there are no real alternatives.

Our city remains an imperfect expression of human rights and social justice, but in Mayor John Peyton's appointment and City Council's confirmation of Ahmed, Jacksonville will have taken a small step toward becoming a world class city.

JAMES B. CROOKS
Jacksonville

Intolerant statement

The comments by Jacksonville City Council member Clay Yarborough in The Times-Union are not only troubling because they reflect an intolerance for individuals of a different religion, but because they reflect an increasing trend that endangers a core strength of our nation.

Yarborough indicated that he would consider opposing an individual, not based on qualifications, experience and philosophy, but whether that individual was a member of a particular religion.

Yarborough and other members of the City Council should set an example of the importance of the Constitution in every day American life.

They should approve the appointment of Parvez Ahmed to the Human Rights Commission rather than give credence to groups that advocate intolerance.

DAN DUNDON
Jacksonville

Minister supports Ahmed

I have been a resident of Jacksonville for the past 12 years, serving as both a minister and a community volunteer.

I know many teachers, community volunteers, religious leaders, police officers, parents, students and individuals in our city who work hard to create an environment of peace, progress, and prosperity for Jacksonville.

I am a fan of Jacksonville and have consciously chosen to raise my family in this fine town.

Yet, I am deeply saddened and disturbed by the overt, blatant, intentional and unapologetic religious discrimination by some on the Jacksonville City Council toward Parvez Ahmed and his appointment to the Human Rights Commission.

Councilman Clay Yarborough's "moral vetting" of Ahmed represents an attitude of discrimination, profiling, stereotyping and extreme narrow-mindedness.

Although I do not know Ahmed well, I do know him to be a person who is deeply committed to both education and human rights.

In my opinion, he is a much-needed asset to the Human Rights Commission, and would bring a great deal of experience, wisdom, and compassion to the commission.

For our city to continue to be a place of peace, progress and prosperity, we've got to acknowledge, accept and appreciate religious and racial diversity and call out those who fight against it.

BRETT FOSTER,
Baptist minister,
Jacksonville

Florida Times Union Editorial - Rhetoric tops reality

2010-04-25T11:55:00.006-04:00

Human rights board: Rhetoric tops reality
Source: Florida Times Union, Editorial, April 25, 2010.

The biggest contract in city history awaits a City Council vote Tuesday. Hard choices on budget cuts and city fee hikes of all kinds loom because of next year's $58 million budget gap.

But the hottest issue facing council right now is whether members should put University of North Florida finance professor Parvez Ahmed on an unpaid board that most city residents probably don't know exists: The Jacksonville Human Rights Commission.

Ahmed is many things: A Ph.D., a recent Fulbright Scholar and a Muslim from India who speaks to groups locally, nationally and overseas about resolving ethnic and religious conflicts through dialogue and mutual respect. He is a husband and father of two children.

He's also a former national board chairman of the Council for American-Islamic Relations, a national Muslim civil rights group that's a lightning rod for controversy.

He left that group in 2008 after a fallout over its direction and leadership. Nevertheless, his ties with CAIR have prompted detractors to depict Ahmed as an extremist and terrorist sympathizer.

For those who know him as a soft-spoken, professorial type, the characterization as an extremist simply does not compute.

Same man, different views

The state chapter of the Anti-Defamation League says Ahmed's views are divisive and he has defended anti-Israeli terrorist groups. ACT! for America, a group concerned about threats from radical Islamic terrorists, says Ahmed's past associations, views and positions make him an unacceptable choice for the commission.

Even Adam Hasner, Florida House majority leader from Delray Beach, has called local Jacksonville officials regarding concerns about Ahmed's appointment.

Meanwhile, an all-star cast of local supporters - including OneJax, the Community Foundation Inc., the NAACP and UNF President John Delaney - touts him as a highly respected voice of reason who promotes understanding, unity and tolerance among people of different religions, cultures and ethnic backgrounds.

Ahmed denies he has supported terrorism or advocated violence in any way, either before, during or after his involvement with CAIR. He was its volunteer board chairman from 2005-2008 and the state CAIR's board chairman from 2002 to 2005.

He said he condemns all violence, that his positions have been taken out of context and distorted.

Talking about terrorism or seeking to understand its dynamics does not make Ahmed a bad guy, nor is that the same as endorsing or advocating it.

In the same sense, the mere questioning of Ahmed's past associations and positions do not necessarily make critics into bigots or haters.

This issue's spiraling emotional rhetoric overshadows reality.

Consider the position

Ahmed isn't being pitched for secretary of state or ambassador to the United Nations.
Mayor John Peyton nominated him to be one of up to 20 volunteer board members of a commission that typically meets once a month.

Its job isn't to tackle Middle East conflicts. Its main business is to promote fair treatment and equal opportunity for all local residents regardless of their race, religion, national origin, sex, age or disability.

It investigates and helps settle discrimination complaints about jobs, housing and businesses.

Actions of the board require a majority vote of board members.Its power is mostly advisory.

Background checks

Anyone who serves on any public board should be of good character and, preferably, have relevant experience.

We have seen no evidence that Ahmed has condoned violence or terrorism. There is plenty of evidence he has been involved in many positive community activities, from helping local charities to speaking at local places of worship about mutual understanding.

Delaney said UNF has not received any subpoenas, requests for documents or other inquiries from any investigating authorities about Ahmed during his years there.

Deputy Chief General Counsel Cindy Laquidara said she found no criminal complaints against Ahmed and just a few "garden variety" civil complaints involving national CAIR during Ahmed's leadership. Those involved services the group provided and were not directed at Ahmed.

She said she did not do a complete background check on him, but that the city doesn't do one for any nominee to a city board.

City Council member John Crescimbeni said he called a former veteran FBI agent who headed the Jacksonville office, who was "astounded" at some of the allegations against Ahmed and had seen no evidence to support them.

Crescimbeni said a call to the U.S. Attorney's Office "provided comfort to me as well."

It should be noted that the FBI has severed its ties with CAIR. But Ahmed did, as well. And he has worked with the FBI and law enforcement on diversity issues.

The council has haggled over Ahmed's appointment for weeks, with Councilman Clay Yarborough going far as asking him whether he would support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, if he were appointed.

"Absolutely, yes," said Ahmed, a U.S. citizen.

CAIR is a controversial group. Middle East conflicts are the world's thorniest. Ahmed's opinions about them won't appeal to everyone.

But those aren't relevant in regard to serving on this commission.

One appointment is not going to make or break this board and its mission.

And the noise surrounding Ahmed's appointment should not keep City Council from confirming him.

City looks at stance on human rights

2010-04-25T11:51:00.003-04:00

Source URL: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-04-25/story/city-looks-stance-human-rights

The Jacksonville City Council Rules Committee recommended on Monday that UNF professor Parvez Ahmed be confirmed to the city Human Rights Commission despite opposition from the anti-Islamist group ACT! for America. The full council will take up the issue Tuesday. Ahmed participated in a live discussion on Jacksonville.com's Talk of the Town on Thursday, answering questions about the Human Rights Commission as well as his association with the American Muslim advocacy group the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Here are excerpts from that live online chat.

[Comment From David West]: The JHRC serves the same purpose as the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Why do we need such commissions at both the state and the local levels? Does Jacksonville really need the JHRC?

Ahmed: There are issues at the city level that are best resolved locally. It also allows us local mediation before either federal or state agencies can review any complaint.

Jeff Reece-moderator: Could you give us an example of an issue better resolved at the local level?

Ahmed: Issues related to city employees for example. Or issues related to reasonable accommodation of religious practices can be best resolved locally because they will take into account local customs and practices.

[Comment From Bill Graham]: Dr. Ahmed, I want to say first of all that I appreciate your willingness to serve. I feel, as you do, that the JHRC is necessary if only to serve issues that are of local importance to us. What do you feel are the most important issues to Jacksonville?

Ahmed: Right now, I do not know all of the issues that are in front of the commission. Once I'm confirmed by the City Council, I intend to find out.

Jeff Reece-moderator: What do you think are some of the issues in Jacksonville that the commission should be dealing with?

Ahmed: Some of the conversations surrounding my nomination suggests that there is an opportunity to do more dialogues and conversations on issues related to racial or religious stereotyping. I view my current situation as a teachable moment. I hope the commission will enhance its outreach efforts related to education and inter-group harmony.

JeffReece-moderator: Much has been made of your association with CAIR. Some want to know what led you to join CAIR and what you hoped to accomplish through that organization. Can you speak to this?

Ahmed: CAIR was at that time and is now perhaps the only Muslim civil rights organization in America. After the tragic events of 9/11 there was an unfortunate backlash against American Muslims. An organization that was dedicated to defending the rights of American Muslims was necessary, not only for the sake of American Muslims, but also for the greater good of America itself. It is in this spirit I joined CAIR.

[Comment From S.P.]: Dr. Ahmed, Once nominated, how will you educate the Jax community on issues related to Human Rights?

Ahmed: I have been speaking at churches, synagogues, temples, schools and civic organizations around the city. I will continue doing that. I will also try to find new partners who can enhance the cause of human rights for all.

[Comment From Claire]: Currently, the only thing the commission does that is not a duplication of services is outreach. Why shouldn't we cut most of the commission, and only leave the outreach department? (Taking care of the city's employee's issues is currently under the JHRC umbrella, but sectioned off).

Ahmed: It is difficult for me to comment on this without knowing the full scope and impact of the commission. But I do know from experience that the commission has been an effective mediator in many human rights-related conflict situations.

[Comment From Claire]: Within the community, but that is outreach. Most of the taxpayer money goes toward paying the JHRC to do the same thing as the EEOC and Florida Commission

Ahmed: The JHRC is a first line of defense before matters escalate to federal or state levels. So it does not duplicate resources, it actually streamlines the process.

Jeff Reece-moderator: There is great fear in the U.S. about the radicalization of Muslims. Is this a legitimate concern?

Ahmed: It is a concern, but we should not be hysterical. There is a report that was put out by Duke University that expresses some concern, but also commends the American Muslim community for taking positive steps toward mitigating this problem. More can be done. It requires cooperation and understanding across all religious communities and also our civic and political leaders.

Jeff Reece-moderator: When T-U columnist Mark Woods asked Councilman Clay Yarborough, "Do you believe Muslims should be able to hold any public office in Florida?" his response was "I don't know." When asked "Do you think homosexuals should be able to hold a public office in Florida?" his response was "I would prefer they did not." What is your reaction to his answers?

Ahmed: It is disappointing to see an elected official so fundamentally misinformed about our constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[Comment From Bill Graham]: What would you like to leave as your legacy for Jacksonville?

Ahmed: A bridge-builder and a peacemaker.

Jeff Reece-moderator: Some Americans believe that Islam teaches that women don't have as many rights as men. As a Muslim, do you see this as a human rights issue and what is your personal stance on the issue?

Ahmed: Women have the same rights in Islam as men. Some cultures do have institutional discrimination against women. This is more cultural than religious. The rights of all human beings is a human rights issue. I have advocated for greater expansion of women's rights within Muslim communities, both here and abroad.

Despite shrill critics, Ahmed an ideal appointee

2010-04-25T11:48:00.002-04:00

Source: Florida Times Union, April 25, 2010.

Despite shrill critics, Ahmed an ideal appointee
By Ron Littlepage. From the editorial page

Some are upset that the terms "bigoted" and "intolerant" have been used in the debate over Parvez Ahmed's nomination to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission.

Here's just one example of why those descriptions are accurate. An e-mail I received read:

"It is not bigotry to protect our country. We are in a war against muslims (small m because these people do not deserve to be capitalized.)

"We do not need any more muslims in our government setting policy. We have one in
the white house and that's more than enough.

"Yes, he is a muslim. He attended their schools as a child and why do [you] think he and his family have not chosen to attend church?

"Thank God for Webb and Yarborough who are trying to protect this country."

It would be one thing if such uninformed sentiments were rare, but they weren't rare in e-mails and telephone calls I received after writing about Ahmed's nomination.

One motivation for the anti-Muslim rhetoric often mentioned was the despicable actions of Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood in Texas.

I'm guessing those detractors never read what Ahmed wrote after that tragedy.

"Muslims in America do face the problems of discrimination and many feel dismayed about America's policy towards hot spots like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Palestine," he wrote on Huffington Post.

"But those issues cannot be solved by acts of terror or random violence.

"Terror in the name of Islam has only brought more misery to Muslims at home and abroad. Terrorism is morally bankrupt and strategically unsuccessful."

Such condemnations of terrorism is a constant theme in Ahmed's writings and speeches.
Others are promoting peace and understanding, and bridging divides among different religions.

The goals of the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission include promoting "mutual understanding and respect among members of all economic, social, racial, religious and ethnic groups" and eliminating "discrimination against and antagonism between religious, racial and ethnic groups."

In a city with a population that's becoming more diverse, Ahmed's voice would be a welcome addition to the 20-member commission.

As disturbing as some of the bigoted and intolerant comments have been, there have been the numerous e-mails and calls supporting Ahmed's nomination.

Much of that support comes from people who actually know and work with Ahmed, unlike those who are railing against him.

The Jacksonville City Council is set to take up Ahmed's nomination during its regular meeting on Tuesday night.

Council members Clay Yarborough and Jack Webb, who wants to be the next council president, already have said they will vote against Ahmed's nomination.

One voice that has not been heard in this debate - at least not as loudly as those of Webb and Yarborough - is that of Mayor John Peyton.

Peyton would do well to go before the council and remind council members that the action they take will say a lot about our city.

Bigotry rears its ugly head in Jacksonville City Council committee

2010-04-22T00:34:00.000-04:00

Jacksonville.com

Submitted by Ron Littlepage on April 20, 2010 - 1:30am

Good people came to the City Council Rules Committee meeting Monday in support of Parvez Ahmed, Mayor John Peyton's nominee to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission.

Their presence and words will help erase some of the stain placed on this community by the bigotry and intolerance that have surfaced in opposition to Ahmed, a Muslim.

But the stain will remain, and it was reinforced by the actions of two committee members - Jack Webb and Clay Yarborough.

One who spoke in favor of Ahmed was former Mayor John Delaney, now the president of the University of North Florida where Ahmed, a Fulbright scholar, is a professor.

"This is a man of peace," Delaney said.

Ahmed has worked to bridge divides, Delaney said, and he certainly isn't a supporter of terrorism, as some on the fringe have claimed.

They, not Ahmed, were the ones who stomped out of the council chambers when their motives were questioned.

It would have been better for Webb and Yarborough if they had stomped out as well.

Webb, who had recommended at last week's council meeting that Ahmed's nomination go back to Rules, went into some hard-to-follow riff about the Irish Republican Army.

Then after challenging Ahmed, he happened to be out of the room when a majority of the committee voted to recommend that the full council approve Ahmed's nomination.

Afterward, Webb insisted that he wasn't "ducking" a vote and that he had gone to get a diet soda.

I must admit that I chuckled. Webb shot back that he will vote against Ahmed at Tuesday's council meeting because of his concerns.

Yarborough's position was predictable.

He asked Ahmed a couple of questions:

Would Ahmed uphold and support the U.S. Constitution?

"Absolutely."

Did Ahmed think the Constitution should be replaced with other laws?

"No."

Well, Yarborough said, he would still vote against Ahmed because of concerns that were raised during his "research."

Councilman John Crescimbeni put Webb's and Yarborough's questions into the proper perspective. He had done some research as well.

Crescimbeni said he had talked to a retired FBI agent with 31 years in the agency, including serving as the agent-in-charge in Jacksonville, who knows Ahmed.

The retired agent, Crescimbeni said, was "astounded" by the allegations.

The councilman said he also talked with a member of the U.S. Attorney's Office about Ahmed, and what he was told "provided comfort to me, as well."

"I can't imagine a better candidate," Crescimbeni said. "Thank you for enduring this process."

As for his part, Ahmed said those opposing him "have never met me. They have never spoken to me."

While those supporting him, he said, have worked along side him as he condemned terrorism and violence, and pushed for peace and justice and diplomacy.

Crescimbeni was right: Ahmed is the right kind of candidate needed for the Human Rights Commission.

ron.littlepage@jacksonville.com,(904) 359-4284

Letters of Support From OneJax, CAHR/FSU, NAACP, Community Foundation

2010-04-20T14:57:00.008-04:00

FROM ONEJAX

April 15, 2010

Dear Jacksonville Friends and Supporters,

We at OneJax, an interfaith organization whose mission is to promote respect and understanding among people of different religions, races, cultures and beliefs, must go on record to express our dismay and disappointment at the actions of the City Council regarding the delay of a vote to approve the Mayor's nomination of Dr. Parvez Ahmed to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission.

Dr. Ahmed, a UNF professor, Fulbright Scholar and longtime Board member of our organization, works tirelessly in this community to unify people across cultures, races, and religions. His human relations track record locally, nationally and internationally speaks volumes about his integrity, dedication, and competence. Dr. Ahmed embodies the guiding principles of our organization:

Respect: We respect and value every person's human dignity.
Unity: We celebrate our common humanity and honor our differences.
Courage: We stand together and speak out when oppression hurts people.
Integrity: We live the principles we talk about in our everyday lives.
Accountability: We act accountably with those we serve and with those who support us.

We ask that our City Council embrace these principles, refuse to give further credence to attempts at cultural stereotyping, and approve the nomination of Dr. Ahmed to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission.

If you agree, take action and contact the members of City Council today. Make your voice heard and support Parvez Ahmed.

We appreciate your commitment to helping us make Jacksonville an inclusive community.

Brenda B. Ezell
Board Chair
Celeste Krueger, Ed.S.
Executive Director

From Center for Advancement of Human Rights, Florida State University

*Open message to the Council regarding Mayor John Peyton’s nomination of Dr. Parvez Ahmed…

April 15, 2010

I write in support of Mayor John Peyton’s nomination of Dr. Parvez Ahmed, Fulbright Scholar and Associate Professor of Finance, Department of Accounting and Finance, Coggin College of Business, University of North Florida, to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission.

More specifically, I write given my understanding that the Council recently voted to refer his nomination back to the rules committee for further consideration in response to certain accusations that Dr. Ahmed has ties to extremist groups -- which presumably refer to his prior role as national chair of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

From my perspective, that course of action is perplexing given that Dr. Ahmed is widely recognized as a highly regarded commentator on the American Muslim experience and consistently has been an eloquent voice of moderation. Moreover, I understand that Dr. Ahmed has garnered wide-ranging support for this appointment.

For context, I serve as senior program director for The Florida State University Center for the Advancement of Human Rights (FSU/CAHR) in Tallahassee. I am a lawyer with almost two decades of policy experience and have served as senior staff in the Florida’s Governor’s Office, the White House and the U.S. State Department. Of particular note, I directed the Center's Liberty in the Balance Project -- a two-year initiative that FSU/CAHR launched several months after 9/11 with partial support from the Office of the Florida Attorney General in an effort to help facilitate an appropriate balance between law enforcement imperatives and civil liberties interests in a post-9/11 environment.

My initial interaction with Dr. Ahmed dates back to the aforementioned project. Simply put, his contributions proved to be invaluable. We have worked together on various other issues over the course of the past several years.

The irony in this instance is compelling… Several weeks ago, against the backdrop of Ft. Hood, Flight 253 and recent reporting relating to activities by certain Christian Militia groups in Michigan, Dr. Ahmed, Bob Cromwell (a former FBI Special Agent in Charge within the Bureau’s Jacksonville, FL, Division… who I am aware has developed a strong working relationship with Dr. Ahmed) and I concluded that there was ample cause to reengage on these issues in Florida. Accordingly, the three of us resolved to pilot a renewed version of the Liberty in the Balance Project, which FSU/CAHR plans to launch in the near term. Once again, Dr. Ahmed will play a key role.

I am confident that Dr. Ahmed’s background, experience and insights will serve the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission and thereupon the people of Jacksonville well. I encourage Council members to take favorable action on his nomination without further delay.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you would like clarification regarding any element of this message.

Respectfully,

Mark Schlakman

Note1: Before I joined FSU’s faculty in early 2002, I had the privilege of serving in several senior government positions at the state and federal levels including, special counsel to Governor Lawton Chiles, special advisor to Governor Jeb Bush during his first several months in office, senior advisor to Governor "Buddy" MacKay amidst his tenure as White House Special Envoy for the Americas during the final two years of the Clinton administration, and as a special advisor to U.S. Senator Bob Graham toward the end of my tour in Washington, D.C.

I also served as a Foreign Affairs Officer for the U.S. Department of State where I received its Superior Honor Award in recognition of my service within the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs while assigned to the White House. I subsequently served as Alternate Representative for the US Permanent Mission to the Organization of American States (OAS).

Note2: I have copied Dr. Ahmed, The Honorable Mayor John Peyton, Talbot "Sandy" D'Alemberte (President Emeritus, The Florida State University and former president of the American Bar Association), Terry Coonan (Executive Director, FSU/CAHR), Derick Daniel (Executive Director, Florida Commission on Human Relations) and Bob Cromwell (former Special Agent in Charge, FBI -- Jacksonville, FL, Division) on this message.

FROM NAACP - Jacksonville Branch

April 19, 2010

The Honorable Richard Clark
President, Jacksonville City Council
11 7 W. Duval St., Ste 425
Jacksonville, FL 32202

RE: Dr. Parvez Ahmed

Dear President Clark:

This letter is written in support of Mayor John Peyton's nomination of Dr. Parvez Ahmed, an associate professor of finance at the University of North Florida, to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission. As the President of the Jacksonville Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and speaking for the Branch, we support Dr. Ahmed's confirmation. The NAACP has a long standing history of fighting for human rights of all people and we consider these circumstances no different.

Dr. Ahmed, a United States Fulbright Scholar, brings this community outstanding experiences with his nomination as the first Muslim representative to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission. His service on the Commission would truly expand its diverse representation. His long standing commitment and his valuable contributions to the Jacksonville community helps our essential development. Dr. Ahmed is not new to Jacksonville. He is an advocate for human rights. In order to embrace the diversity that is destined for this city, we must have a Human Rights Commission that is socially and racially inclusive. We have seen what happens over the years when Jacksonville excludes rather than includes.

The cultural characteristics and the fabric of all races shape our nation. Jacksonville is merely a small microcosm of our country and this nomination is crucial to shaping the thoughts we must embrace in our diversity. We must begin to accept and understand all people. The Jacksonville City Council should not condemn Dr. Ahmed before all facts are presented. A person's religious affiliations, color of their skin, and ethnic background should not be a precursor for elimination.
We support Dr. Parvez Ahmed and the valuable and extensive knowledge and perspectives he brings to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission.

Mr. President, if the Jacksonville City Council aspires to carry Jacksonville to loftier heights through its leadership; then you should not allow the denial of Dr. Ahmed's nomination, and the obvious appearance of racism and discrimination, further tarnish the image of Jacksonville.

Sincerely,
Isaiah Rumlin
President, Jacksonville Branch NAACP

From Community Foundation in Jacksonville

Earned our respect

As a nation, the United States is committed to the notion of equal opportunity, regardless of gender, race, creed or national origin.

At The Community Foundation in Jacksonville, we share that commitment.

Therefore, we are particularly offended and appalled by the decision of certain City Council members to obstruct the nomination of Parvez Ahmed to serve on the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission.

Ahmed has earned the respect of his peers locally and nationally. The University of North Florida professor is the recent recipient of a coveted Fulbright grant and has received the Outstanding Researcher Award three times from Coggin College of Business at UNF as well as the Outstanding Teacher Award.

More importantly, he has been a steady voice for reason and understanding among people of different faiths in the community.

In short, he is ideally suited for service on the Human Rights Commission.

We urge the reasoned and responsible representatives on City Council not to be hijacked by hysteria and misinformation, hatred and intolerance.

We urge them to support the nomination of Ahmed to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission.

CINDY EDELMAN,
chairman, The Community Foundation in Jacksonville

Jacksonville panel votes again to recommend Ahmed for commission

2010-04-20T14:33:00.001-04:00

Video of Rules Committee Meeting, April 19, 2010

Florida Times Union, April 20, 2010
By Tia Mitchell
University of North Florida President John Delaney said he decided to speak up in public for Parvez Ahmed not just because he is an employee but because he felt an upstanding man was being vilified.

"He's a person of peace," Delaney said after speaking at Monday's City Council Rules Committee meeting. "He's about love, and he's about mutuality and reconciliation.

He's never been a militant or rabid in interpersonal dealings, and the faculty here will tell you that."

The Rules Committee agreed with the former two-term mayor and voted 4-1 to uphold its previous decision to recommend Ahmed for confirmation to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission. The full council will now take up the issue at its April 27 meeting.

Voting in favor of recommending Ahmed were Art Shad, John Crescimbeni, Denise Lee and Bill Bishop.

Councilman Clay Yarborough voted "no" - changing his stance from two weeks earlier. Yarborough said the recent allegations that Ahmed, a UNF professor and a Muslim, has ties to terrorism were enough to change his mind.

"I have too much of a reasonable doubt based on the research I've done over the last week and a half," he said.

Council Vice President Jack Webb left the room before the vote was taken. He told The Times-Union he stepped out to get a soft drink and then ran into Delaney, who wanted to talk about Ahmed's nomination.

Webb said he was surprised that the vote came so soon and would have voted against Ahmed's nomination. Asked why he didn't ask the committee to reopen the ballot so he could cast his vote on the record, Webb said, "I probably should have in retrospect."

At least two unidentified men walked out of the meeting, including one who had an angry outburst during Delaney's statements. As Delaney described the opposition campaign as fueled by hate, the man shouted his disagreement.

"I am not a racist! I am not going to be called a racist! It's not going to happen!" the man yelled as security officers followed him out of the council chambers.

After the vote, members of ACT! for America - the anti-Islamist group that has been most vocally opposed to Ahmed's nomination - and others expressed their disappointment. Randy McDaniels, leader of the organization's Jacksonville chapter, said he felt the council was ignoring troubling facts.

"With this many allegations and this much controversy, should someone like this be nominated?" McDaniels asked.
Ahmed, a Fullbright Scholar, professor at UNF and a Muslim, said the committee's vote was vindication not only for him as an individual but for the city as a whole.

"The city needed an outcome that demonstrated courage," he said, "that demonstrated moral clarity."

tia.mitchell@jacksonville.com,
(904) 359-4425

My Ordeal with Jacksonville City Council

2010-04-16T22:10:00.006-04:00

I was nominated by Jacksonville Mayor John Peyton to serve on the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission. The nomination needed to voted by the Rules Committee of City Council. In advance of this meeting, one of the Council members named Clay Yarborough sent me a bunch of irrelevant questions asking me about my views on "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and gay marriage. Although I was not required to answer such irrelevant questions, I went ahead and answered them in the spirit of respectful dialog and mutual understanding.

The Rules Committee met and approved by nomination 4-0. The local newspaper (Times Union) found out about this and wrote a story.

Yarborough quizzes Jacksonville commission nominees on gay marriage, God, Islamic ties

A hate group called ACT got wind of this issue through the news report and started to bombard city hall with spurious allegations stemming from my time with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), where I first served as its Florida Chairman from 2002-05 and then as the National Chairman from 2005-2008. I resigned from the organization after a public fallout over its direction and leadership.

Click here to learn more about ACT.

Next day the newspaper ran yet another story.

Anti-Muslim group opposes professor's appointment to Jacksonville commission

When the turn came for the full city council vote, instead of confirming the nomination as is the usual practice, they voted to refer the issue back to the Rules Committee for a re-vote.

Muslim's slot on Jacksonville human rights panel opposed

Following the city council's vote, I received a lot emails from a diverse group of people expressing outrage at the council's action and extending their support to me.

Times Union columnist Ron Littlepage wrote, "Any council member who has paid even the smallest amount of attention to what's going on in the world around them would know that charge is a crock. Ahmed has been a voice of reason and peace in these troubled times. But I guess paying attention isn't high on some council members' agendas."

On Thu, April 15, I was interviewed on Jacksonville's NPR station WJCT 89.9FM. To listen to the show click here.

When you listen to the interview, you will notice the overwhelming positive response that came from ordinary citizens of Jacksonville. I was gratified by this response.

Americans do not know much about Islam and Muslims. A recent Gallup Poll shows, "More than 4 in 10 Americans (43%) admit to feeling at least "a little" prejudice toward Muslims -- more than twice the number who say the same about Christians (18%), Jews (15%) and Buddhists (14%)." Hate groups like ACT, exploit this fear. Sometimes unfortunately they succeed. In the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King let me remind ourselves that our finite disappointments should not make us give up on the infinite hope of equality for all people.

One final note, during the public comment section of the city council meeting on Tuesday, April 13, a bunch of ACT folks stood up and railed against the Quran, Islam and me. Their free speech rights allow them to make those comments uninterrupted. However, it is also the moral duty of our leaders to stand up to such hate and bigotry. It is also a duty of ordinary citizens to condemn such rhetoric particularly when such hate speech is uttered in a citizen funded public building. What kind of message does such ranting send around the country and the world to people and businesses who want to relocate to Jacksonville?

To view the city council meeting visit click here. Scroll down to city council meeting 4/13/2010. The public comment section begins around the 45 minute mark.

I still hold out hope that the City Council members will do the right thing when the matter comes for re-voting.

In a letter to all members of the City Council I wrote, "ACT believes that Muslim-Americans shouldn't be allowed to hold public office and instructs people to contact the FBI if they see a mosque being built in their neighborhood. Their leader also said, "Every practicing Muslim is a radical Muslim." Educational materials available on ACT's website makes ridiculous claims such as "Islam does not coexist well with other religions," "[Islam] Co-opts the moon god Allah," "Islam was spread by the sword, not conversion."

If the words Muslim in those quotes were replaced by the words African-American or Jewish or Buddhist will the Council treat information from such a source with credibility?"

In addition, I said, "By now you have heard a lot about me, but from others. Some of the people you heard from have had years of associations with me. I am thankful that my work and views have made a positive impression on them. While others who wrote or spoke using snippets of disjointed information gathered from the internet painted a distorted picture of my record and views. The irony is not lost on anyone that those who never met me seemed loudest in their condemnation."

The Current Economic Crisis – Is Islamic Finance a Solution?

2010-03-29T10:25:00.004-04:00

In AltMuslim, March 29, 2010

Throughout the current economic and financial crisis one contrarian statistic has stood out. Financial assets offered by the Islamic Financial Services Industry (IFSI) and generally classified as “Shariah-compliant,” were less affected by the crisis. Economist Loretta Napoleoni during a lecture at the University of New Mexico proclaimed, “Islamic finance ... [a] system [that] could help us to get out of the current crisis.” Writing in the influential Turkish daily Today’s Zaman, columnist Ibrahim Ozturk declared, “Islamic finance has entered a bright new stage of development, emerging after the global financial crisis as a more equitable and efficient alternative to the Western approach.” The widely read Arabic daily Asharq Al Awsat opined, “Islamic banks are untouched by the current crisis due to the nature of Islamic banking especially that it does not deal in debt trading and distances itself from market speculation that takes place in European and American banks.” How do such claims stack up against reality? Is Islamic finance different enough from conventional finance to avoid its pitfalls?

The IFSI, which has marketed itself as being an alternative to the conventional financial system, has come a long way from its rather modest and relatively recent beginnings. The IFSI was recently estimated by Moody’s to be worth $700 billion and projected by the Islamic Development Bank to be $2.8 trillion by 2015. By 2015, majority of the IFSI will be geographically centered in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region while the South Asian region will provide about 15 to 25 percent of the total services. The IFSI encompasses almost all of the institutional and architectural features of the conventional finance industry. However, it should be noted that the size of IFSI relative to the Conventional Finance Industry (CFI) is very small (about 2 percent). In other words the IFSI has not been sufficiently stress tested to proclaim its efficacy when applied to a broader set of economic situations.

One distinguishing feature of IFSI has been its insistence that in complying with Shariah (the jurisprudence of Islam) it considers dealing with interest as totally unacceptable. The avoidance of interest reflects verses in the Holy Quran (3:130; 2:175; 4:161) which forbid riba, most often and commonly translated as interest rates. The IFSI contends that it has replaced interest rates with rate of profit on equity, profit sharing finance and markup transactions.

In practice the contracts of the IFSI fall short of the “interest-free” claims it makes. IFSI contracts do allow for presence of interest rates mostly indirectly but sometimes directly albeit in small measures. Islamic mutual funds for example allow investment in stocks of companies that use interest based debt (current practices allow 33 percent debt-ratios). Sukuks, described as Islamic bonds, guarantee a fixed rate of return, which to most financial observers look like interest. In murabaha, Islamic jurists opine that home buyer (mortgagor) is involved in credit sales and not a loan contract (as in traditional mortgages). Yet murabaha loan documents use the conventional terms like “note,” “loan,” and “interest” to describe its features much like any home mortgage contract. Moreover, the mark-up used in murabaha is usually benchmarked to a conventional interest rate.

This has given rise to what Rice University’s Mahmoud El-Gamal pejoratively calls Shariah-arbitrage, defined as the practice of extracting premium rents from participants in a captive-market for products labeled and perceived to be Shariah compliant. The paradox is not merely of academic interest. Among the producers and users of Islamic financial products there is pervasive skepticism. A unique insight about this perception is gathered from a recent research on the attitude of customers and bankers using IFSI. A significant majority (6 in 10) believe that the development of Islamic banking has more to do with being faithful to Islam than any other criterion (although the proponents of Islamic finance often cite the superiority of IFSI is due to its purported commitment to social justice and welfare). Nearly 7 in 10 believe that the “rate of profit” or “markup profit” charged by Islamic banks do not differ much from interest based transactions offered by the CFI. Potential patrons (7in 10) are unwilling to transact with the IFSI because they do not find much difference between the IFSI and the CFI.

In discussing how bankruptcy courts are likely to rule on foreclosures under IFSI contracts like ijarah (lease-based transactions), murabaha (cost plus markup sale) and musharaka (partnership contract), legal experts observe, “We would not anticipate that this type of foreclosure would differ materially from that of a conventional mortgage foreclosure. ... The ‘borrower’ holds all the benefits and risks of ownership in a Musharaka transaction as well.” As such in bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings, IFSI providers have the same legal protections as those afforded to CFI institutions in debt based transactions.

The current state of IFSI is prohibition driven primarily centered on taking existing CFI contracts and pronouncing the Islamicity or lack thereof for those contracts. The IFSI then proceeds to institute contractual changes that alter the structure of the contract to make them contractually Shariah-compliant without addressing any of their possibly inherent fault lines. This process is enabled by Shariah-boards, which pronounce the Islamicity of such contracts. The Shariah-boards are beset with agency problems (conflict of interest) as they are not subjected to disclosure rules equivalent in scale and scope to those for corporate boards, which many argue are in urgent need for more reform and transparency themselves! According to a recent study the top 5 Shariah-scholars makeup 15 percent of the entire universe of Shariah board positions. Only 180 scholars are involved in nearly 1000 Shariah board positions. This stifles innovations and fosters unhealthy imitations.

One thing is clear, if Islamic Finance is to remain restricted to Muslims then not only will Islamic Finance not save the day but it will also pervert the mission of Prophet Muhammad, described in the Quran (21:07) as a mercy to all humanity (creation, to be precise). The emphasis on the prohibition based aspects of Shariah have led to missed opportunities to promote the maqasid or objectives of Shariah whose aims are not prohibition-driven but rather, inclusive and egalitarian. The maqasid or objectives of Shariah is to protect and preserve life, mind, faith, property and offspring, which according to the noted Andalusian Islamic scholar Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi is a set of objectives that are common to all religions and must be the transcendent framework to evaluate all Islamic law, social obligations and contracts (financial or otherwise). The attainment of these goals require the development of a positive and inclusive vision, which can truly address the many shortcomings that plagues the world of finance - from bad regulation, to un-transparent contracts, to plain old greed.

Islamic finance has a role to play in the world of finance. But to do so, the IFSI will have to de-emphasize its innovations based on Shariah-arbitrage and engage in developing a more holistic vision that will resonate with all people of conscience, not just Muslims. Islamic mutual funds for instance will have to beyond the negative screens it primarily imposes in selecting stocks to developing positive screens that steer investments towards those opportunities that can lead to sustainable development strategies. Islamic finance must also promote the highest ethical standards and the most transparent disclosure rules enabling a healthy dose of sunshine into the complex world of financial engineering (responsible for the now infamous credit default swaps that produced the toxic home loans). Islamic banks must also provide a positive vision of efficient and effective distribution of zakat wealth. Islamic financial institutions must develop innovative programs to produce equity based partnerships with small and medium enterprises, which are often the forgotten sector in the world of high finance. The Islamic financial service industry can truly differentiate itself by adopting a more socially conscious role that will enable them to not only fulfill the objectives of Shariah but also inject an alternative vision into the world of global finance allowing a necessary paradigm shift if only to avoid another global economic crisis.

A role for Muslim Americans in preventing extremism?

2010-02-12T11:05:00.001-05:00

Distributed by Common Ground News Service.
Published in Daily News Egypt

A role for Muslim Americans in preventing extremism?
by Parvez Ahmed
05 February 2010

Jacksonville, Florida - A recent report by researchers at Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) states that the number of Muslim Americans vulnerable to radicalisation is small, but not negligible. Since 9/11, a total of 139 Muslim Americans have been arrested on terrorism charges, some have been convicted and some are still pending verdict. It is a small number relative to the nearly seven million Muslims who call America home, but the number is still distressing: one terrorist is one too many.

While raising concerns about the radicalisation of Muslim youth, the Duke-UNC report also commends the Muslim American community for the steps it has taken thus far to limit radicalisation, including the denunciation of terrorism. But more can to be done.

Engagement in the political process–ranging from voting to running for public office–is one useful step towards stunting domestic radicalisation. Getting involved politically, according to the report, provides "an example to Muslims around the world that grievances can be resolved through peaceful democratic means."

I also believe that instead of presenting issues as Muslim-centric, the community would be better served by making their cause issue-centric. For example, instead of complaining about discrimination, Muslims need to advocate for greater diversity in the workplace so that political and corporate establishments are reflective of the communities they serve. This will allow a broader coalition across faith and ethnic lines to coalesce, increasing the chances of success and removing cynicism that often permeates the community.

Second, the Muslim American community has made, and should continue to make, efforts to improve relations with law enforcement. Such efforts, like conducting regular meetings with the law enforcement community, need to be sustained and enhanced by motivating young Muslims to join its ranks. The Muslim American community has legitimate concerns about its use of informants and agent provocateurs. However, these concerns do not trump the need for better engagement.

Third, the Duke-UNC report asserts, "Muslim-Americans with a strong, traditional religious training are far less likely to radicalize than those without such training." Religious discourse taking place in American Islamic centres is often too esoteric for youth.

Instead, it should tackle issues that are contemporary to living in America, such as how to expand freedom of expression in the face of rhetorical attacks against Islam. This will allow young people to appreciate that the solutions to Islamophobia do not involve clamping down on freedoms by passing meaningless anti-blasphemy laws, but rather championing one’s right to offend while upholding another’s right to defend.

"Building Bridges to Strengthen America", a publication released by the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a public service agency working for the civil rights of Muslim Americans, suggests that the first step towards radicalisation is socio-economic-political discontent which may precipitate a personal crisis. This identity crisis often leads people to seek answers–and causes some people to find comfort in religion. If the seeker consciously or inadvertently engages with members of any extremist movement, then the chances of radicalisation increase.
Successful recruitment occurs because individuals are ignorant of or lack access to accurate religious knowledge. Sustaining this state of mind requires isolating the individual from mainstream Muslim society.

Telltale signs emerge well before someone commits an act of violence; radicalisation does not spring out of vacuum. Parents and members of a community can be on the lookout, if they know what to look for.

A study by the Dutch Clingendael Centre for Strategic Studies argues that social integration is an antidote to this kind of troubling behaviour. They outline the indicators of propensity towards integration versus radicalisation: a person's attitude towards feeling accepted or welcomed in a society; their satisfaction in being able exercise their rights of citizenship; their perception of fairness in professional life; their expression of allegiance toward their country; their pride in citizenship; or their attitude toward freedom and human rights.

Some of these factors, such as engendering positive attitudes towards social values like human rights, are well within the purview of communities and families to mitigate. Others, such as ensuring that Muslim Americans receive fair and just treatment in places of employment, are responsibilities that need to be shared by the broader society.

Inculcating a pride in citizenship and the responsibility of stewardship within Muslim youth is a message that needs to be reinforced–from the mosque pulpit to the kitchen table.

###

* Parvez Ahmed, Ph.D. (drparvezahmed.blogspot.com), is a US Fulbright Scholar, Associate Professor of Finance at the University of North Florida and a frequent commentator on Islam and the Muslim American experience. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 9 February 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Homegrown Radicals: Complacency is not an Option

2010-02-03T09:13:00.002-05:00

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”!

2010-01-26T21:25:00.002-05:00

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

2009-12-06T15:00:00.006-05:00

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

2009-12-06T14:47:00.002-05:00

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!

2009-12-06T14:38:00.004-05:00

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

2009-11-13T03:37:00.002-05:00

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

2009-10-24T01:26:00.006-04:00

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

2009-10-08T00:03:00.002-04:00

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

2009-09-12T13:19:00.003-04:00

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

2009-08-15T22:38:00.003-04:00

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.

Fulbright scholar promotes equality

2009-06-29T16:32:00.005-04:00

FLORIDA TIMES UNION, June 29, 2009

UNF teacher will study Bangladesh culture for "common problems."
By Josh Salman

Parvez Ahmed understands the importance of culture.

The assistant (associate) finance professor at University of North Florida has worked hard to bridge the gap between the general population and Muslim community in Northeast Florida. He practices equality and preaches the same to his students.

So when Ahmed was awarded the coveted Fulbright Grant, he fulfilled a lifelong dream. He could take the same principles he strives to teach at UNF and apply them to students in South Asia.

Ahmed will be leaving in August to spend the fall semester teaching finance and doing research at the Independent University of Bangladesh in Dhaka, the nation's capital.

"[Teaching] is our way of affecting the hearts and minds of people we are visiting," Ahmed said. "I'm hoping to apply what I learn there to the classroom here and create exchanges."

While in Bangladesh, Ahmed will study the region's economy and financial sector. He will explore the nation's villages and the study the people.

He will venture into the bordering country of India, and see the effects an economic powerhouse can have on a smaller nation.

And he will break down market development in the third-largest Muslim country in the world.

"Most people associate Bangladesh with natural disasters," Ahmed said. "But there's a lot more to it than that."

Ahmed grew up in an Indian town near the university he will be visiting. He hopes this advantage will allow him to develop a deeper social relationship with the native residents.

"This allows us to better understand what's going on in these countries," Ahmed said. "The common problems requiring common solutions."

Ahmed is one of 1,100 faculty nationally awarded the Fulbright grant. He has been at UNF since 2002 and has received the Outstanding Researcher Award three times from Coggin College as well as the Outstanding Teacher Award.

Ahmed has also served on the OneJax board of directors for more than three years, where he's worked to suppress the public's post-Sept. 11 anxiety toward Muslims.

"Being selfish, I can't believe he's going to be gone," said Bobbie O'Connor, executive director of OneJax. "But he's really deserving of the award and has such a strong commitment to the community."

Ahmed plans to use his experience as a motivational tool and generate interest from his students in foreign culture and economics.

He is also planning a study-abroad trip to Egypt for finance students this March. And whether in America or across seas, Ahmed's students said there's no professor they would rather learn balance sheets and market indexes from.

"His lectures are so thought-provoking," UNF graduate student James Fugard said after one of Ahmed's classes. "His courses are definitely a challenge, but you come out learning a lot."

Amanda Mullins said she takes Ahmed's courses every opportunity she has. "He makes sure you know your stuff and can apply it in the real world," Mullins said. "His style definitely make concepts easy to understand."

Can Iran be Precursor to Major Changes in the Muslim World?

2009-06-24T11:55:00.004-04:00

Published in Huffington Post.

In Cairo, a U.S. President owned up to a well known fact that in 1953 the United States played a role in overthrowing Mohammad Mosaddeq, the then democratically elected leader of Iran. Over half a century later, following the botched 2009 Presidential elections in Iran, it is no longer America denying Iranians the right to be represented by popular choice. It is no longer America playing puppeteer. Ironically, the ones pulling the strings are those who have most vociferously decried America’s ungodly interference in their region.

It is hard to prognosticate how events will unfold in Iran. Will there be any spillover effects in the rest of the Muslim world? Although, change has not yet fully blossomed, the atmosphere is pregnant with expectations. The battle for the future of Iran is emblematic of the broader struggle across many Muslim majority societies. At the core lies two questions, will democracy finally gain a firm foothold and what role will religion play in their political future?

In Iran, both sides have claimed religious justification for their actions. Ayatollah Khameni invoked his religious authority to issue a Nixonian edict that, if the Ayatollah says that the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is legitimate, then it must be so and it is Islamic. The opposition candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi also invoked Islam’s call for justice echoing the Quranic sentiment, “Stand firmly for justice as witnesses to God, even if it is against yourself.” (4:135).

However, literal reading of religious texts alone cannot provide all the necessary answers in this struggle for legitimacy and fairness. The issue of state-governance is not discussed in great details in Islam’s revealed text - The Quran. In verses 42:38 and 3:159, the Quran provides only basic principles, in that governance should be based on "mutual consultation," or “shura.” How this “shura” is to be conducted is left wide open for interpretation. Scholars of Islam contend that “shura” contains three essential elements - equal rights for all citizens, majority rule for public policy and the promotion of justice and human dignity. The degree to which a government is “Islamic” and “democratic” will depend on how well they rank on these three elements of “shura.”

The unfolding saga in Iran has not drawn much criticism from other countries in the region, for understandable reasons. In the struggle of ordinary Iranians, the other authoritarian regimes in the region, foresee an existential challenge to their own authority. If Iran “falls” to democracy, then can others be far behind? Too much support for Mousavi, and his success, is likely to give rise to similar popular movements across the region, which not only threatens the ruling elites but also makes America uncomfortable with the prospect of dealing with unknown actors who may emerge out of this quest for democratization. Too little support will result in the unsustainable continuation of the status quo. This is the dilemma facing President Obama.

Today’s Iran highlights the combustible mix of religion and politics. Muslims do not doubt the veracity of the Quran being the word of God. However, the interpretation of the divine words is entirely human and thus, its translation into practical law is open to multitudes of understandings. Using the power of the state to resolve such differences only creates discord, undermining both the state of faith and faith in the state. Historically, many Muslim jurists opted to stay out of government in order to retain their independence and credibility, thus making an argument favoring the separation of mosque and state.

Although majority of Muslims in countries like Egypt, Pakistan or Jordan today favor the introduction of Shariah, they do so because the current secular laws have failed to deliver justice to the people. Their hope is that Shariah will require, in the words of Noah Fledman (author of The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State), “all human beings — and all human governments — are subject to justice under the law.” Muslims are yearning for justice that they have been denied for so long, often due to outside interference but increasingly due to internal failures of Muslim majority states.

The onus for change is not only on those most affected, but also on Muslims living under democracies. In particular, Muslims in America and Europe can play a more assertive role in prodding Muslim majority nations to build civil societies whose governments are truly representative, whose judiciaries are respectful of the rights of all people and whose legislature fosters positive development of the material and the spirit. A success story in Iran can very well augur a sea change across the Muslim world. An unanswered question is how to support the struggle of the ordinary Iranians without appearing to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation? It is a delicate balancing act requiring patient diplomacy by governments and peaceful civic engagement by ordinary citizens.

Professor Receives Fulbright Award to Lecture in Bangladesh

2009-05-22T00:56:00.005-04:00

Media Relations & Events
Press Release For: May 06, 2009

Dr. Parvez Ahmed, associate professor of finance in the Coggin College of Business at the University of North Florida, has been awarded a Fulbright Scholar grant to lecture and conduct research at the Independent University of Bangladesh in Dhaka during the fall 2009 academic year.

Ahmed, who speaks and writes fluent Bangla, is one of approximately 1,100 U.S. faculty and professionals who will travel abroad through the Fulbright U.S. Scholar Program, which is America’s flagship international educational exchange program. Recipients of Fulbright awards are selected on the basis of academic or professional achievement as well as demonstrated leadership potential in their fields.

The Arlington resident will teach and conduct research in finance, with his research being focused in the areas of financial asset pricing and market efficiency in Bangladesh. Additionally, Ahmed wants to perform empirical studies on the stock market in Bangladesh as well as study the state of private investing. He may also study the private-public partnership in economic development that is being conducted by Non-Governmental Organizations.

“The Coggin College is thrilled that Dr. Ahmed has earned the Fulbright Award,” said Dr. John McAllister, dean of the Coggin College of Business at UNF. “His achievement is an explicit acknowledgement of his insights and academic record and an implicit endorsement of the excellence of the Coggin College and UNF.”

Ahmed has been at UNF since 2002 and has received the Outstanding Researcher award three times from Coggin College as well as the Outstanding Teacher award. He is the author of “Mutual Funds—Fifty Years of Research Findings” and has had his research on market efficiency and asset pricing published in numerous top finance journals.

Prior to coming to the University, he was the assistant professor of finance at Pennsylvania State University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He also served as a visiting professor of finance in the Executive MBA Program at Instituto Superior de Economia y Administracion de Empresas in El Salvador.

Ahmed has developed study abroad programs both for UNF and Pennsylvania State and is in the process of developing a study abroad program to Egypt. He earned his doctorate in finance from the University of Texas and his master’s degree in business administration from Temple University. He received his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from Aligarh Muslim University in India.

Since its establishment in 1946 under legislation introduced by the late Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, the Fulbright Program has provided approximately 286,000 people with the opportunity to observe each other’s political, economic, educational and cultural institutions, to exchange ideas and to embark on joint ventures of importance to the general welfare of the world’s inhabitants.

With more than 3,800 students, the Coggin College’s mission is to educate and develop business professionals through rigorous, relevant accredited degree programs offered by faculty devoted to student learning and engaged in scholarly activities.

Since 1976, the Coggin College of Business has been accredited by AACSB—only one in five business schools are awarded the accreditation, which honors the best business schools in the world. The AACSB is the world leader in accreditation for business education.

Contact: Joanna Norris, Assistant Director
Department of Media Relations and Events
(904) 620-2102

-UNF-

Muslims Disproportionate Victims of Flawed Terrorist Watch List

2009-05-08T22:45:00.003-04:00

The Huffington Post, May 8, 2009

The Justice Department has now found that the FBI’s terrorist watch list is flawed. Not only does the list consist of a mind-boggling 1.1 million names of 400,000 people, the Justice Department has also found that the FBI was “sometimes dangerously slow to add suspects to the nation's terrorist watch list, and even slower to remove those cleared of suspicion.” As many as 24,000 people have been incorrectly kept on that list.

I have firsthand experience with the inefficacy of this list. Every time I travel overseas, I am subjected to extensive searches and wasteful questioning. This is a waste of scarce government resources. Let me illustrate a typical encounter at the border.

About a year and a half ago, my wife and I (both U.S. citizens) were returning home after my Hajj or pilgrimage to Mecca. Upon landing at New York’s JFK airport, we were met by two DHS officers who stood at the end of the jet way scanning the passport of every passenger who stepped off that airplane. Along with several other returning pilgrims, we were escorted into a special room where I found over two dozen other people awaiting questioning. When my turn came, the officer asked me to explain why I was being stopped for additional questioning. I answered that since I did not stop myself to be questioned, how am I supposed to know why was I singled out? I added that one reason for my special treatment is perhaps the fact that I am a Muslim. Such profiling is supposed to be illegal and the officer dutifully pointed that out. However, overwhelming numbers of people waiting additional questioning were visibly Muslims, most of them American citizens returning from Hajj.

Not only is the fact that I will be stopped entirely predictable (it happened again this Sunday as I was returning from a trip to Egypt) but the questions are exactly the same every time. The officers will ask me questions like where I work, why I traveled abroad, and who I met while abroad. Then they look through my baggage much like a Customs officer will be looking for items like food or seeds (that are illegal to bring in) but unlike a typical Customs stop the DHS/CBP officers seem curious about the books and magazines they find in my hand carry bags. That appears to me an intrusion into my first amendment rights.

An April 2009 report titled, Unreasonable Intrusions: Investigating the Politics, Faith & Finances of Americans Returning Home shows, “that U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Customs & Border Protection (“CBP”) agents have systematically questioned individuals about their political beliefs, religious practices, and charities they support. Questions include “What is your religion?,” “What mosque do you attend?,” “What do you think of the war in Iraq?,” and “What charities do you contribute to?” Agents have also sought to review and copy business cards, credit cards, and data on laptops, digital cameras and cell phones. These interrogations and searches – which appear to be targeting Muslims or those perceived to be Muslim -- are taking place without evidence that the travelers have engaged in wrongdoing.”

Eight years into the so called war on terror, profiling of Muslims remain quite in vogue. Prejudices against Muslims remain real and progressively worsening. A recent ABC News/Post Poll finds that “Americans by 48-41 percent hold an unfavorable opinion of Islam — its highest unfavorable rating in ABC/Post polls since 2001. And 29 percent express the belief that mainstream Islam encourages violence against non-Muslims — down slightly from its peak, but double what it was early in 2002.”

Once again a vulnerable minority in America is being treated with unwarranted suspicion. Such suspicion only provides illusions of security because they yield no suspects plotting to harm Americans. Moreover, they alienate an entire community whose cooperation is critical in keeping our homeland safe and upholding our image as a nation respecting due process. It is time for America to reclaim its true legal tradition of judging a person by their actions, not on the basis of their color or practices of their faith or merely on the basis of their names.

A Muslim advocacy group, Muslim Advocates has asked the Obama administration to make sure that U.S. citizens are not detained and interrogated, or threatened with detention for failure to answer questions that go beyond establishing their legal status to enter the U.S. or whether they are carrying contraband. Also DHS should share data about travelers they are stopping, searching and questioning to demonstrate to the public that they are not engaging in discriminatory profiling of travelers.

The Justice department’s report pointing out the deficiencies in the watch list is a good start but more needs to be done. A congressional hearing on this matter can greatly aid in restoring trust and confidence in a border entry process that appears flawed and discriminatory.

In Search of a Model Muslim State

2009-04-14T18:30:00.002-04:00

Huffington Post, April 14, 2009

During his recent visit to Turkey, President Obama spoke about the promise of a new era in Turkish-U.S. relationship that can serve as a "model partnership" between the West and the Muslim world. America's quest to find a "model" Muslim partner is not new. In January 2008, then U.S. President George W. Bush during his visit to Dubai described the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as a "model Muslim state." UAE's economic progress and moderate political views made it a cause célèbre. But now many are predicting Dubai's demise as the global economic crisis strangles easy credit, which was critical in fueling its growth.

The euphoric crowning of UAE in 2008, and the hasty predictions of its demise a year later, both miss an important point. Beneath the glittering gold lies an underbelly that the rulers in the region are fighting to hide with the government planning to impose a fine for "carrying misleading news that harms the national economy."

Dubai is one of seven emirates that make up UAE, which today stands seventh in GDP per capita in the world. It ranks third highest among Muslim majority nations (only behind neighboring Qatar and Kuwait). A fairy story has been unfolding in the desert. In my visits to the region, I was awestruck by the sheer audacity of their dreams.

Dubai's rise as an economic powerhouse is not unprecedented in the region. Following the rapid rise of oil prices in the seventies, Saudi Arabia too had stunning economic growth. And yet it did not transform the country into a "model Muslim state." Like Saudi Arabia then, Dubai today is unable and unwilling to grant its citizens and residents socio-political freedoms that must go hand-in-hand with economic success to propel a country's rise into a model state.

UAE is home to the largest number of foreign-born residents in the world. A few of these residents enjoy great luxuries but most live a life of hopeless servitude. Unlike legal immigrants in most countries, the foreign-workers in UAE and the neighboring states will never gain equal rights in a country where they work, live and perhaps die.

Johann Hari (Huffington Post contributor), writing for the British newspaper The Independent, presents a heart-tugging expose of the many shattered dreams in the desert as a global recession converts Dubai (and perhaps the region) from being "Under Construction" to now teetering "Under Collapse."

A 2008 ABC News report describes working conditions in Dubai (could be said for the other countries in the region as well) as follows, "You are working in a system where you are not really free to leave your job. You actually need employers' consent to change jobs. You're working in a system where your passport is withheld. And really, if you displease your employer, you are going to find yourself on a plane right back to Sri Lanka or Bangladesh or India. Most of the workers live in labor camps an hour outside the city .... The men putting up the world's finest buildings live six to eight, sometimes 12, to a room."

Johann Hari further reports that, "This is all supposed to be illegal. Employers are meant to pay on time, never take your passport, give you breaks in the heat -- but I met nobody who said it happens. Not one. These men are conned into coming and trapped into staying, with the complicity of the Dubai authorities."

For the moment, setting aside the debate about separation of mosque and state, a "model Muslim state" at the bare minimum must embody Islam's normative ethics. At the foundation of economic justice lies a Quranic verse, "Give just measure and weight, nor withhold from the people the things that are their due." (7:85) In addition, verses 42:38 and 3:159 instruct that governance is best when based on "mutual consultation," or shura, which must be infused with three essential elements -- equal rights for all citizens, majority rule for public policy and the upholding of justice and human dignity.

Prophet Muhammad said, "Your servants are your brethren upon whom God has given you authority. So, if someone has their brethren under control, they should feed them with the like of what they eat and clothe them with the like of what they wear. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them in their hard job."

UAE, like many of its neighbors, has indeed made giant strides in transforming the region's commerce and culture. U.S. exports to UAE are expected to surpass those to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps this economic growth is a precursor to other freedoms, particularly those pertaining to democracy and worker rights. But if history is any guide, the translation of economic success into socio-political freedoms will not be automatic or organic. It will require an effort by all who benefit from the status quo to look beyond their immediate comforts and aspire to doing well while doing good. There is no reason why economic well being should come at the expense of common sense decency and values.

A model Muslim state will uphold those values that the faithful most desire to see reflected in state policies. John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, analyzing a recent worldwide survey by Gallup write, "Muslims across the world want neither secularism nor theocracy. They want freedom, rights and democratization." A model Muslim state will not only dazzle the world with commerce but also exhibit moral leadership in addressing common concerns like environmental stewardship and bridging the growing economic disparity between the haves and the have-nots.

Turkey perhaps stands a chance of achieving leadership that, in the words of President Obama, is "respectful," "secure," and "prosperous." States like UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have achieved economic success but little of anything else. In any case, American President's should not try too hard to sell "a model Muslim state." The world will know one, when they see one.

Passover Tells a Story Familiar to Both Muslims and Jews

2009-04-10T10:13:00.001-04:00

Huffington Post, April 9, 2009

A week before Passover, a local interfaith group called the Table of Abraham organized a Seder event at Congregation Ahavath Chesed, a Reform Jewish congregation in Jacksonville. The goal was to enact all of the rituals that are part of Seder as a way of informing and teaching people who are unfamiliar with this tradition.

Turning the pages of the Haggadah, I was specially struck by the similarity in both Judaism and Islam about this seminal Jewish event of Passover. At a time when so much of the contemporary narrative about Jews and Muslims is written in the context of differences and conflicts, it is useful to mark the solemn occasion of Passover as a mutual reminder about the commonalities between the faiths.

No other story in the Quran is recounted as frequently as the bondage of the Children of Israel in Egypt and their subsequent deliverance from the tyranny of the Pharaoh. God says in the Quran:

O children of Israel! Remember those blessings of Mine with which I graced you, and how I favored you above all other people; .... And [remember the time] when We saved you from Pharaoh's people, who afflicted you with cruel suffering, slaughtering your sons and sparing [only] your women - which was an awesome trial from your Sustainer; and when We cleft the sea before you, and thus saved you and caused Pharaoh's people to drown before your very eyes. (2:47-50)

The genesis of Muslim-Jewish relationship goes back to the founding of a political state in Madinah by Islam's Prophet Muhammad in 622 of the Common Era. Madinah of that time was a city inhabited by primarily polytheist Arab tribes, a few Jewish tribes and some Christians (although not as organized tribes). The Jewish tribes joined the rest of the city in welcoming Prophet Muhammad and upon entering the city the Prophet signed a treaty with all of the surrounding tribes.

This treaty is called the Charter of Madinah. It is perhaps the earliest known constitution in the world, predating the Magna Carta by 600 years. It is also the first known legal document that confers rights and responsibilities upon distinct religious minorities. It particularly recognizes Jews as a distinct nation (or ummah) entitling them to the same rights and responsibilities as any other signatories to the document. The treaty required each to assist the other another against any violation of the covenant. When placed in the context of the socio-economic-political conditions of the seventh century this document was indeed revolutionary.

Azizah al-Hibri, a legal scholar wrote:

The Charter .... declared all Muslim and Jewish tribes of Madinah to be one community. At the same time, each tribe retained its identity, customs and internal relations. The "federal" system of Madinah was responsible, however, for such matters as common defense and peacemaking, purposes similar to those in the Preamble to the American Constitution.... The Charter also contained its own partial bill of rights, ... among the rights that it protected were the right to freedom of religion, and the right not to be found guilty because of the deeds of an ally, a form of guilt by association which was widely practiced at the time.....The Charter of Madinah repeatedly emphasized the principles of fairness and equity for Jews and Muslims....It is readily apparent that there are significant parallels between the concepts expressed in the Charter of Madinah, executed in the seventh century, and those of the American Constitution, drafted in the eighteenth century.

Despite such early documentary evidence of reciprocal respect, relationship between the two communities was clouded by mutual mistrust leading to several bloody conflicts.

And yet there are also many inspiring examples of coexistence and cooperation. It was during the Muslim rule in Spain that Jewish art, philosophy and literature reached one of its golden ages. A recent documentary on PBS characterized that era as, "The fascinating story of a central bureaucracy staffed by elites from all three faiths, with Jews in all but the highest post and Christian scholars outperforming "native" Arabic speakers in their own language and culture, is a fascinating and powerful antidote to our modern stereotypes concerning Christians, Jews, and Muslims."

Which part of our shared history do we want to use as our guide to the future? The part that steers us to presume the worst stereotypes about each other or the part that shows how much we can benefit humanity through our mutual cooperation. How we reminisce the past will dictate how effective we are in building a new future.

By the end of my Seder meal at the synagogue, it was quite apparent that beneath the headlines that scream conflict are Jewish, Muslim and Christian hearts yearning to build a more hopeful future based on mutual understanding. The eternal message of hope was my take-home lesson from the Seder.

Waiting to exhale: Obama visits Turkey

2009-04-05T23:07:00.005-04:00

Published in Today's Zaman, April 5, 2009
(Turkey's largest circulating English daily)

Long before Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States of America, people in Turkey had expressed a sentiment of hope about his presidency. Reporting for The New York Observer in January 2008, Suzy Hansen quoted Omer Taspınar, director of the Turkey program at the Brookings Institution, as saying: "Turks know that Obama represents something quite different -- they've seen 'Roots.' They know the history. So an African-American with an African name and a name like Hussein -- the fact that people are willing to give him a chance, despite that he attended a madrasa, and had a Muslim father, would represent a huge change in the US, compared to the Bush-Clinton dynasties." As Turkey prepares to welcome Obama this week, what can they expect from him? And what can Obama expect in return?

A recent poll by the BBC World Service shows a majority of Turkish people believing that Obama will improve America's relations with the rest of the world. However, the number of people in Turkey who believe this (51 percent) is far below the average (68 percent) in the 17-nation BBC survey. Thus, amidst the general optimism there lies a nagging concern: Can Obama deliver on his promise?

Despite being saddled by a once-in-a generation economic crisis, the young American president has shown an uncanny ability to, in his own words, "walk and chew gum at the same time." Giving his first interview as president to the Arab TV station Al Arabiya, sending video greetings to the Islamic Republic of Iran on the Persian new year, quoting a saying (hadith) of the Prophet in one of his speeches, ordering the closing down of the abomination that is Guantanamo, retiring the use of ill-defined terms such as the "war on terror" and refraining from even rhetorically linking Islam to terrorism are all trends that evoke hope. Although these moves are mostly symbolic, they are nonetheless important, as part of leadership is setting the right tone.

How President Obama translates this emergent goodwill into tangible actions will ultimately determine his success. A recent survey by Gallup shows that nearly nine in 10 Muslims, spread across many Muslim-majority nations, support freedom of speech, defined as allowing all citizens to express their opinions freely on all major issues of the day. Overwhelming majorities support women having the same legal rights as men. Similar numbers hold beliefs that their faith ought to inform and guide them in their politics. Yet most do not want sacred religious texts to be the exclusive source of law in their societies. The most common aspiration, all across the Muslim world, is to see America help in reducing unemployment, improving economic infrastructure, respecting political rights and promoting freedom.

To get the Muslim world right, President Obama will first have to get Turkey right. During the Bush years, Turkish sentiments saw some of the most dramatic swings from overwhelmingly pro-American to stridently anti-American. Turkey sits at the nexus of several hot spots, such as Iraq, Syria and Iran. Turkey is eager to play a role in mediating an amicable solution. Turkey is not just a Muslim-majority nation; it is also a secular democracy. Turkey is also trying to grapple with its own version of separation of church (mosque) and state. The ban on students donning symbols of their faith while attending university classes strikes many in the West and across the Muslim world as excessive. But the fact that the Turkish people are continuing to debate this issue is a sign of religious, intellectual and social vitality. President Obama could use his enormous appeal across the Muslim world to prod other Muslim societies to borrow a page from Turkey and enhance their own internal dialogues about the appropriate role of religion and faith in state governance.

Back at home, a poll conducted by the non-partisan group Public Agenda shows that a clear majority of American's express support for using diplomatic and economic means to resolve conflicts, even with Iran. Most Americans want America's top foreign policy priority to be humanitarian, such as helping poor countries move out of poverty, providing more access to education and controlling the spread of deadly diseases.

All around the world there is an emerging consensus of aspiration. People are less interested in ideologies and care more about how governments can better their lives. This creates new opportunities for cooperation through sustained intellectual and diplomatic engagement. Instead of looking at Turkey as just an important geostrategic military ally, President Obama needs to prod European allies to welcome Turkey into the European Union, giving Turkey a more effective platform to act as a bridge between America, Europe and the Muslim world.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama tells Turkey: U.S. ‘not at war with Islam’ (AP April 6, 2009)

ANKARA, Turkey - Barack Obama, making his first visit to a Muslim nation as president, declared Monday the United States "is not and will never be at war with Islam."

Urging a greater partnership with the Islamic world in an address to the Turkish parliament, Obama called the country an important U.S. ally in many areas, including the fight against terrorism. He devoted much of his speech to urging a greater bond between Americans and Muslims, portraying terrorist groups such as al Qaida as extremists who do not represent the vast majority of Muslims.

"Let me say this as clearly as I can," Obama said. "The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical ... in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject."