Professor Receives Fulbright Award to Lecture in Bangladesh

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-

Passover Tells a Story Familiar to Both Muslims and Jews

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

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."

Peace is an element of Islam

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091108/opl_330665084.shtml
By Special to the Times-Union

On Sept. 11, 2001, the worst terrorist attack ever to take place on American soil unfolded on live television.

That these attacks were committed by Muslim men is one factor behind the popular misperception linking Islam, the faith of over a billion people, to terrorism.

But is Islam a primary factor behind terrorism? The simple answer is no. In fact, Islam condemns terrorism. Indeed, peace and justice are the foundational elements of Islam.

The Quran states: "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."

Taken together, Islamic jurisprudence advocates the preservation of life, honor and the dignity of all human life as a supreme endeavor.

Even when fighting is permitted, it is not without rules of engagement. The 10 rules of war in Islam state, "Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies.

"Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone."

It should not surprise anyone that Muslims, like people of other faiths, do not always live up to the normative teachings of their faith.

Al-Qaida is one such group whose actions are contrary to the teachings of Islam, yet they are often mislabeled as "Islamic."

Military action is sometimes necessary to combat terrorism, but often it is not the best option. After all, terrorism is not an ideology. It is a tactic. How does one wage a war against a tactic?

The way forward is to engage in common-sense methods of intelligence gathering without criminalizing entire groups of people, military strategies without resorting to large-scale bombings, ending foreign occupations and investing in an agenda that gives impoverished societies economic hope that can then lead to political freedoms.

In combating terrorism, democracies should be mindful of Ben Franklin's admonition, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

PARVEZ AHMED, PH.D.
Jacksonville

Use common-sense method in war on terror

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/letters/story/681517.html

Posted on Thu, Sep. 11, 2008

On Sept. 11, 2001, the worst terrorist attack ever to take place on American soil unfolded on live television. The United States was not alone in its grief. People across the world held prayer vigils and stood in solidarity with America. No one questioned America's declaration of war on ``terrorism.''

However, terrorism is not an ideology; it is a tactic. How does one wage a war against a tactic? That the 9/11 attacks were committed by Muslim men is one factor behind the popular perception of a causal link between Islam and terrorism. But is Islam a primary factor behind terrorism?

Osama bin Laden has a history of conflating political rhetoric with religious imagery. He has said, ``There is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy from the Holy Land.''

However, linking Islam to terrorism because of bin Laden's rhetoric is an oversimplification of a complex problem. Islam condemns terrorism. It 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 Koran emphasizes the sanctity of life.

It should not surprise anyone that Muslims, like people of other faiths, do not always live up to the teachings of their faith. Al Qaeda is one such group whose actions are contrary to the teachings of Islam, yet it is labeled Islamic. In the same vein, the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda cannot be considered Christian despite claims that it is fighting for the establishment of a government based on the Ten Commandments.

Terrorism is obviously a threat, but does not necessitate a declaration of war. Military action is sometimes necessary to combat terrorism, but often it is not the best option. Addressing the grievances of the terrorists cannot automatically be dismissed as appeasement. In fact, the conversion of terrorist groups into peaceful political movements has occurred often because the group's rationale for violence has ceased to exist.

Terrorism is likely to persist. Democracies and free societies are usually vulnerable to terrorism but can protect themselves. The way forward is to engage in common-sense methods of intelligence gathering without criminalizing entire groups of people. It is to use military strategies without resorting to large-scale bombings, to end foreign occupations and to invest in an agenda that gives impoverished societies economic hope that can then lead to political freedoms.

PARVEZ AHMED, Jacksonville

Memo to American Muslims – Shed the Cynicism and Get Engaged

I was there. One of the 84,000 at Invesco Field witnessing history. The day and the moment were as inspiring as it was profound. As the chants of "yes we can" reverberated through the stadium, they re-ignited feelings of optimism about America's future, which in the last eight years had been jaded by the politics of fear and divisiveness. Perhaps no group has been more vilified and continues to bear the brunt of this politics of fear than Muslims and Arabs.

Seated next to me at Invesco was Mazen Asbahi, the Chicago attorney who was appointed as national coordinator for American Muslim and Arab outreach by the Obama campaign. Mazen lasted only a few weeks. His resignation came in the wake of discredited websites spuriously alleging his links to an imam (Muslim spiritual leader) and that imam's links to the Muslim Brotherhood, a socio-political, albeit often controversial, movement that originated in Egypt.

Mazen resigned not because he did anything wrong but simply because he put his country first. He understood the importance of this election and did not want smears to distract the American public from failing to heed Obama's message of change. He firmly believes that Obama will restore America's respect abroad while addressing many of the pressing issues of our time from the economy to global warming.

In Mazen's story is a lesson for all Americans. The first lesson is for those who fail to stand up to the merchants of fear. The American public and the mainstream media need to realize that there is a well coordinated effort to discredit promising American Muslims and thus marginalize the American Muslim community. These thugs of bigotry feed on ignorance and fear of the unknown. Not standing up to these bigots is not only un-American, but also leads to bad policy.

Although the Obama campaign never asked Mazen to resign, the perception remains that the campaign did not stand-up and challenge the underlying bigotry that led to his unfortunate departure. Obama was correct in denying that he was a Muslim, but in addition he should have added a Seinfeld moment by simply asserting, "Not that there's anything wrong with it (being a Muslim)."

The second lesson is for American Muslims. Community organizers are reporting a lack of enthusiasm in the Muslim community's support for Obama. Standing at the crossroads where history is being shaped, the American Muslim community must not backslide into the familiar comforts of cynicism.

Despite the hurt that the Muslim community feels and the scorns they bear they need to look beyond their immediate discomfort to what serves America and the world best. Instead of the all too familiar horse-trading that special interest group's engage-in, the American Muslim community needs to transcend their disappointments and look to the future and take into account the seriousness of the issues at stake in this election: the rule of law, war and peace, economic justice, education and health care. They must understand that an Obama presidency will not be perfect (no presidency ever is), but a John McCain presidency will only be worse. McCain's selection of Sarah Palin reinforces the perception that McCain lacks both judgment and temperament. We had enough with one decider who makes decisions from the gut. We can ill-afford another.

Beyond the emotions, objectively is there any doubt that from economic policy to environmental stewardship, Obama offers superior solutions? Is it not plainly obvious that Obama prefers diplomacy over war? In Denver he clearly stated that the decision to commit our nation to war can only be made in the face of a clear and present danger and not in the pursuit of some ideological utopia. Is it not refreshing to hear Obama's view that hearts and minds in the Muslim world can be won over by sustained American engagement in improving the lives of those affected by years of war and neglect? Yes not all is palatable in Obama's position, especially his appeasement of the pro-Israeli lobby. But if Muslims define an Obama presidency by the one issue of Israel then they are as guilty of being parochial as AIPAC and ADL (major pro-Israeli organizations), which often ignore all other realities in their blind and obsessive defense of Israel.

Undoubtedly American Muslim participation this election cycle is at record highs. However, given the closeness of the race and the enormity of its consequences, the community will have to provide all hands on deck to make sure that the right candidate gets elected.

Muslims cannot repeat the mistakes of the past when major American Muslim organizations hastily endorsed George Bush over the objections of African American Muslims, the largest sub-group in the community. Nor can they tread the path of 2004 when they gave a "qualified endorsement" to John Kerry, which understandably dampened Muslim enthusiasm at the polls.

Back to Mazen. He has every reason to sulk because he was unfairly "swift-boated." Yet he remains optimistic and enthusiastically chugs along (although not officially part of the campaign). Throughout the evening in Denver while remaining fully cognizant of the historicity of the moment, Mazen did not waste any time and kept furiously working his Blackberry making phone calls and texting friends urging them to support Obama and in the process hoping to contribute to the transformation of American politics. Just as Mazen looks beyond the dirty politics he fell victim to, so should American Muslims look beyond the flaws of the Obama campaign and take into consideration the bigger picture.

The time has come for American Muslims to demonstrably show that they can make the necessary contributions to return American politics to be once again get rooted in the universal values of peace, liberty and justice for all. It is time for the Muslim community to join the growing legions of fellow Americans who are inspired by hope and powered by a sense of optimism that things can and do change. Change does not come from just wishing for it. The way forward is clearly indicated in the Quran, "God does not change the condition of a people unless they change that which is within themselves."

War with Iran Unnecessary and Avoidable

Pubslihed in the Florida Times Union on Aug 8, 2008
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/080808/opl_315487458.shtml
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/53237

By Lawrence Davidson and Parvez Ahmed

About a year and half ago WorldPublicOpinion.org did a survey and found that majority of Americans and Iranians agree with the statement, "Most people in the West and the Islamic world have similar needs and wants, so it is possible to find common ground." Only about a third of Americans and only a quarter of Iranians choose the counter-argument that "Islamic and Western religious and social traditions are incompatible with each other."

Despite such aspirations to find common ground, American-Iranian relations remain at a dangerous impasse. Earlier in July, after Iran fired long-range missiles, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shot back reiterating that the United States remains determined to prevent Iran from threatening the interests of America and its allies, particularly Israel. The media hoopla that predictably ensued was largely devoid of the historical context to the unfolding events. That history shows that in the twentieth century Iran has been subject to interference and aggression by outside powers including Iraq, Russia, Great Britain and the United States. It is the U.S. which overthrew a democratically established Iranian government in 1953 substituting for it the dictatorship of the Shah. The bellicose position of the Bush administration is quite in tune with this history and, predictably, brings forth heightened reactions from Teheran.

The more America provokes, the worse Iran reacts, which in turn leads to harsher recriminations from Washington. This cycle of mutual bellicosity is exasperated by the Israeli claim that an assumed Iranian desire for nuclear weapons poses an "existentialist threat" to Israel. This claim is undoubtedly fueled by Iranian President Ahmedinajd's rhetorical desire to see the "regime now occupying Jerusalem vanish from the page of time," but also realistically is a far cry from any imminent "existential" threat. The Iranians have neither the capacity now nor will in the foreseeable future (if ever), to "wipe Israel off the map,” (which is a mistranslation of what Ahmedinajd actually said).

Yet a diplomatic resolution is not that far-fetched an idea. A framework for peace exists.

In a New Review of Books article Thomas Pickering, former US Ambassador to UN, proposed, "that Iran's efforts to produce enriched uranium and other related nuclear activities be conducted on a multilateral basis, that is to say jointly managed and operated on Iranian soil by a consortium including Iran and other governments....a multinational program will reduce the risk of proliferation and create the basis for a broader discussion not only of our disagreements but of our common interests as well." The article goes on to make a case for urgent diplomatic engagement.

Iran also appears to be seeking such engagement. For instance, in 2003 Iran proposed direct talks with U.S. only to be rebuffed. The Boston Globe in a May 31 article reported that Iran had made a proposal to the UN secretary general suggesting, "six months of negotiations on regional security, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, energy cooperation, and narcotics trafficking, as well as ways to improve international nuclear safeguards and monitoring and prevent the diversion of nuclear material." David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based think tank, said the Iranian offer "shows a willingness" to negotiate.

Adding to this, there are other facts that further underscore the case for peace. Republican Senator Lugar points out that a confrontation with Iran could trigger economic collapse at home and abroad should Iran's oil and gas resources be withdrawn from the global energy market and the sea lanes through the Straits of Hormuz disrupted. Further, Teheran has cooperated with the U.S. in the "war on terror." This reflects Iran's overwhelming rejection of bin Laden and his murderous ideology. And finally, hostility toward Iran is compounding the harm done to America's image by the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Five countries with a Muslim-majority and four with Muslim-minority publics surveyed by Pew viewed Iran much more favorably than the United States. Can the U.S. afford to alienate the Muslim world even more than it already has? And how will such disregard for the hearts and minds of a billion Muslims help America's interests?

Sadly inane suggestions of Senator McCain that we "bomb Iran" or kill them by exporting more cigarettes only serves the interests of those failed ideologues that dragged us into a disastrous war with Iraq. American taxpayers must forcefully tell their politicians that hostility with Iran is not in our nation's interests. It does not make America more safe or free or respected. It is now time to give peace a chance. The recent meeting between a Nicholas Burns, the third ranking member in the U.S. State Department, and the top nuclear negotiator for Iran is a step in the right direction.

[Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University and Parvez Ahmed is associate professor at the University of North Florida.]

American and Muslims Voices: Both Seek Common Ground on U.S. Foreign Policy

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/53018

In the latest Washington Post/ABC poll respondents by 16 points favored McCain over Obama in knowledge about world affairs. In an effort to overcome such perceptions Obama will undertake a major international trip later this month. While details of the trip remain vague, it is the expected that Obama, in addition to visiting our traditional allies in Europe will also visit Muslim countries like Jordan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama is also expected to give a major speech in front of the historic Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. After seven years of Bush unilateralism, mending fences with Europe is desirable and understandable. However, the European challenge pales in front of the continued worsening of our relationship with the Muslim world. American troops are engaged in two wars in the Muslim nations of Iraq and Afghanistan and are perhaps poised to invade a third, Iran.

Moreover, ill-advised rhetoric from the Presidential candidates, continue to add fuel to the fire. McCain singing “bomb Iran” and “joking” about exporting American cigarettes to kill Iranians or Obama supporting an “undivided Jerusalem” (which he later backtracked on) and “willing to attack inside Pakistan” are hardening perceptions about America’s intent in the Muslim world.

Earlier last year, Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org testifying before House Committee on Foreign Affairs said, "For decades, polls in the Muslim world and the statements of Muslim leaders have shown a variety of resentments about US policies. Muslims share the worldwide view that the US does not live up to its own ideals of international law and democracy. … These attitudes persist. But now there … now seems to be a perception that the US has entered into a war against Islam itself.” No more than 5 to 10 percent of people living in Muslim majority countries find the United States to be trustworthy, friendly or respectful. Even those Muslims who aspire to better relations with the West remain skeptical of the United States (in “Who Speaks for Islam?” by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed).

Dotting these ominous clouds are many silver linings promising hope.

A recent Gallup poll, chronicled in Esposito and Mogahed’s book, shows that nearly 9 in 10 Muslims 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.

Back at home, in a poll conducted by the non-partisan group Public Agenda, overall anxiety about foreign policy remains high. Clear majority of American’s support diplomatic and economic means to resolve conflicts. Nearly half favor the use of such methods to deal with Iran. Most respondents want America’s top foreign policy priorities to be humanitarian, such as assisting with clean water supplies, helping poor countries move out of poverty, providing more access to education or controlling the spread of deadly diseases.

Such convergence of aspiration creates new opportunities for cooperation through sustained intellectual and diplomatic engagement. To his credit, Obama in a July 15 interview with CNN’s Larry King spoke about the need to engage with Pakistan’s newly elected government. He went on to say, “what we need to do is to form an alliance with the Pakistani people, saying that we're willing to significantly increase aid for humanitarian purposes, for schools, for hospitals, for health care. We want to support democratic efforts in Pakistan.”

In addition, increasing student and scholar exchange programs, spending on anti-poverty programs, opening new opportunities for businesses will do more to help America’s security and image than putting more boots on the ground. It is time to break our foreign policy from the grips of special interest groups whose ideological bent have dragged us into unnecessary wars fueling dangerous perceptions about America’s neo-imperialistic intentions.

Chairman of Council on American-Islamic Relations resigns

http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=2489
Leadership Changes at CAIR
By TMO July 10, 2008

By Ayub Khan, MMNS

Dr. Parvez Ahmed has resigned from the chairmanship of the Council on American Islamic Relations citing family and professional reasons as well as disappointment with the pace of renewal and change in the organization.

Dr. Ahmed has been leading the national organization since 2005, and has also led its Florida chapter of the organization for four years. In an telephonic interview to the Muslim Observer Dr.Ahmed said that he retains his basic membership of CAIR and will continue to help the organization whenever he is called.

“I hope my departure will create an opportunity to accelerate the process of desired change,” he said.

When contacted for their reaction a CAIR representative issued the following statement: “We thank Dr. Ahmed for his contribution to the organization over the past three years and wish him the best in his future endeavors. Leading a non-profit organization is at best a difficult task and it is understandable that Dr. Ahmed wishes to devote more time to his career and family. There are always debates and discussions about the correct course for any organization. Ultimately, the majority of organizational stakeholders supported a vision for implementing change and growth that differed from that of Dr. Ahmed.”

Dr. Ahmed, a a business professor at the University of North Florida, said that his resignation is also due to his family commitments. He has two young home schooled children and they require more of his attention.

Dr. Ahmed plans to devote more of his time to his academic and research pursuits. He is working on two books-one on American Muslims and another on Mutual Funds. The latter will have a section on Islamic finance as it pertains to social responsibility.

FLORIDA TIMES UNION
Jacksonville.com at http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/070808/met_301001680.shtml.

Jacksonville resident Parvez Ahmed has resigned as chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, saying he's frustrated about the national organization's failure to be more proactive and positive in its promotion of Muslim civil rights.

The nation's most well-known Muslim advocacy group, which he has led as board chairman since 2005, also needs to be more inclusive of younger, less-religious Muslims and encourage regular turnover of leadership ranks to ensure an infusion of new ideas, he told the Times-Union on Monday, a day after resigning.

These and other goals have been agreed to in principle by the organization's board and professional leadership, Ahmed said, but "an old guard mentality" among some of those leaders has kept elements of the strategic plan from being realized.

"And I got a little bit burned out pushing so hard" for the organization to be more open and transparent, he said.

The Washington, D.C.-based council declined to answer specific questions about Ahmed's comments. Instead, it e-mailed a four-sentence statement thanking Ahmed, 44, for his contributions and acknowledging differences in vision.

"Ultimately, the majority of organizational stakeholders supported a vision for implementing change and growth that differed from that of Dr. Ahmed," the statement said.

Two board members did not return phone calls seeking comment Monday.

An outspoken critic of the group said Ahmed did not capitalize on a golden opportunity to transform the organization.

The council was the only Muslim agency in the United States experiencing growth when Ahmed assumed its leadership, said Muqtedar Khan, director of Islamic Studies at the University of Delaware. But its continued foray into political and foreign-policy matters - such as seeking rights for foreign combatants held at Guantanamo Bay - has detracted from its mission of promoting Muslim-American rights, he said.

"He had an opportunity to take it to the next level and I think he failed," Khan said.
Ahmed said one of his unrealized goals was to transform the council into an organization that doesn't sound anti-American when it's criticizing government policies.

An example would be racial profiling, he said. In such cases the organization rightly criticizes the practice but routinely fails to work behind the scenes with government agencies to ultimately eliminate the practice.

Ahmed, a business professor at the University of North Florida, said his resignation has as much to do with a busy personal and professional life as it does with the council's sluggish movement. He's in the process of writing two books. And he said his children - a daughter, 11, and son, 7 - are beginning to require more of his time and energy for home schooling.

"I also wanted to send a message that a change in leadership is needed at the highest level, that we need some new blood at the board and executive levels," he said.

Ahmed has been a member of the council since 1991 but got actively involved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"Before that I was a very studious, quiet academic," he said.

By October of that year he had formed Pennsylvania's first council chapter and was named state chairman. In 2002 he had moved to Jacksonville to teach at UNF and was named chairman of Florida's council. At the time it boasted a $70,000 annual budget, one small office and a single part-time staffer. Today, he said, the council has additional offices in Tampa, Orlando and Jacksonville, 10 full-time employees and an annual budget of $900,000.

Although he will no longer be involved with the national council, Ahmed said he hopes it will devote more resources to demonstrating that Americans and Muslims share the values of peace, justice, understanding and inclusiveness. "The values of Islam and the values of America are complimentary."

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

Obama and the Pesky Muslim Rumors

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062608/opl_295470633.shtml

Smear: Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Sen. Obama in his justifiable quest to correct the record, so unfairly distorted by viral emails and insidious propaganda, has launched a website titled 'Fight the Smears.' He is well within his rights to vehemently deny that he is a Muslim, when in reality he has always been a Christian.

But is it acceptable to insinuate that being Muslim is a 'smear'? That is a question Muslims, many of whom are Obamaniacs, are asking.

What if Obama was a Muslim? Would it make his message less hopeful? Will it make his personality less charming? Will it make his candidacy less viable?

A recently released report by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, titled 'U.S. Religious Landscape Survey,' shows 70 percent of Americans affiliated with a religion or denomination said they agreed that 'many religions can lead to eternal life'- a sign of progression towards a more inclusive and pluralistic society. And yet despite this progress, a Presidential candidate is being forced to go to unprecedented lengths to counter smears.

Last week New York Mayor Bloomberg speaking in front of a Jewish audience in South Florida stated that the deceptive campaign against Obama, 'threatens to undo the enormous strides that Jews and Muslims have made together in this country.' He went on to say, 'This is wedge politics at its worst, and we've got to reject it - loudly, clearly and unequivocally.' Despite the Mayor's commendable efforts, one audience member was reported in the New York Times to say, 'I still have doubts about him (Obama).'

Rumors often stick, which is why rumor mongering persists. Rumors are particularly lethal when they are easy to remember (Obama's middle name is Hussein thus it is easy to insinuate his alleged Muslim links) and they exploit emotive stereotypes (Muslims are out to destroy America). Simply dispelling the rumor without addressing the stereotype that makes such rumors stick is like treating the symptom without isolating the cause.

Thus, potential for blowbacks continue to fester. Given that Obama has not vigorously challenged the inherent bigotry behind the 'Muslim' rumors, some of his supporters got the errant message that any association between Obama and Muslims is potentially damaging to his candidacy. At a rally in Detroit last week, volunteers from the Obama campaign, citing 'a sensitive political climate,' prohibited two head scarf donning Muslim women from sitting too close to the stage lest they be visible in photo and video footage. Obama, to his credit, later apologized to the women and his campaign put out a message that the volunteers were not carrying out any campaign policy.

Over the past couple of months, I have been lecturing across America to Muslim audiences about civic and political engagement. Over the course of my trips I found that American Muslims in general recognize the historicity of the moment and are genuinely excited about the upcoming election. However, they are appalled at their faith being exploited for political gains.

Most Muslims were dismayed by Obama's clumsy denials. Many more were offended by his support for an undivided Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. Yet they are willing to look past them, partly because they perceive the alternative to be worse. They believe that Obama will restore lost civil liberties, is less likely to start a war and instinctively favors diplomatic resolutions to contentious foreign policy issues.

The second camp thinks that Obama will be so bloodied by the time he takes office that to prove his toughness he may swing to the right of Bush. They cite his comments that he may unilaterally send U.S. armed forces into Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence, as a grave concern. This group though small is prepared to sit out this election if their concerns remain unaddressed.

A recent Wall Street Journal article noted that while Muslims remain a small minority in the overall electorate, they are however likely to play a decisive role in the swing states of Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Obama ought to reach out to the Muslim community much in the same way he has reached out to Evangelicals and Jews. His claims of a holistic attitude towards all faith groups require consistency in engaging all groups.

Obama needs to not only continue assuring people that he is not a Muslim but also challenge the collective conscience of this nation to not let their fears undo the progress we have been making towards racial and religious tolerance. His ultimate legacy will not only be judged by becoming the first person of color to be elected President but more importantly what he does after he is elected.

Obama's vision of 'One America' needs to be more than mere rhetoric.