Reflections on The Dream

As we reflect on the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his most famous oration enshrined in I Have a Dream, we must conclude no decent human being would dispute the fact that these words were long overdue. It’s well understood that Dr. King’s pronouncements in large part, echoed those inscribed in the Declaration of Independence. What Thomas Jefferson neglected to mention and would have likely opposed, was the realization of Dr. King’s aspiration that his children and indeed all people would someday no longer be “judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Certainly, Dr. King fought and died in the struggle to gain equality when only a few generations before him, African Americans were considered no more than three-fifths of a human being by the US Constitution.

Racism has long plagued this land, predating its independence from Britain. Mistreatment of non-white peoples (or those who failed to measure up, e.g., Irish, Poles, Jews, etc.) began with the post-Columbus era of exploration and continues in various forms to this day. It’s not uncommon to tune into the O’Reilly Factor and hear tirades against Muslims or Rush Limbaugh referring to the president as “Barak the Magic Negro.” Occasionally similar sentiments are scribbled on the walls of bathroom stalls or overheard when people assume no one is listening. So while public acceptance has evolved somewhat, often times entire communities continue to be judged by their ethnic composition, leaving some to suggest little has changed.

Dr. King’s “turn the other check” philosophy appealed to sympathetic policymakers because of the clear line it established between the aggressor and the protester; no reasonable onlooker could make the argument that siccing police dogs on innocent women and children could be justified. Still, Dr. King’s battle was not an easy one, in many ways remains a dream deferred; to do so would require not simplypassing additional laws but an actual transformation of the heart that can only come about through purification, i.e., a conscious effort to conduct oneself by the prophetic example of interconnectedness. 

One of the difficulties of running a secular state is the effort to legislate morality to a society governed by the cult of individualism, an effort made exponentially arduous considering our nation’s superiority complex. Although Dr. King’s address at the climax of the 1963 march on Washington contains some of the most honorable statements ever uttered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, similar sentiments were pronounced nearly 1400 years before by Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace, as he addressed the largest gathering of Muslims of his time.

Enshrined in what is considered the Prophet’s farewell sermon, stands the decree: “an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab any superiority over an Arab; further, a white has no superiority over a black, nor does a black have any superiority over a white, except by piety and good actions. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one family.” In fact, according to Islamic teaching, the bonds shared between believers will transcend even those of blood on the Day of Judgement. Indeed, this is the same principle that guided the behavior of Muslims whom Malcolm X encountered on his pilgrimage to Mecca in 1964. In a letter to his wife, he writes about his experience: “There were tens of thousands of pilgrims, from all over the world. They were of all colors, from blue-eyed blonds to black-skinned Africans. But we were all participating in the same ritual, displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experiences in America had led me to believe never could exist between the white and non-white.” He went on to argue that the prescription to cure America's racial divide lay in understanding of Islam.

Although to Dr. King’s audience, his calls for brotherhood were revolutionary; historically, however, not groundbreaking insofar as calls for equality. Judging a person on the content of their character echoes the Qur’anic verse, “We have created you from a single man and a single woman, and made you into tribes and families so that that you should recognize one another. In God’s view, the most honored of you are the ones most mindful of him.” (49:13) As a reverend, Dr. King was greatly influenced by the Bible, however, it must be recognized that the western portrayal of Jesus, and in fact, all prophets, peace be upon them, as descendants of Europeans, is severely problematic, both historically and geographically. It can be argued that the abuse suffered by people of color, not the least of which took place during the African slave trade, may have been averted were it not for corrupted ideologies of the Curse of Canaan and false images of a white Jesus. After all, had Christians believed the "son of God" to of dark complexion, the scourge of ethic superiority would not have been considered biblically sanctioned. Sadly, the most common solution to this problem has been to Africanize the depictions of Jesus, which is equally ridiculous; hence, the prohibition against constructing graven images as written in the second commandment of Mosaic Law.

Despite the ongoing struggle for equality, Dr. King’s dream lives on in the minds of all those who strive to do what it right by his fellow human beings, regardless of nationality, color, or creed. It is a dream with an honorable desire to recognize the intrinsic value we all share. It cannot be realized by those who try to co-opt sacred passages while ignoring the whole nor can it be realized by political posturing that aims to garner more votes from this or that constituency. It is a dream that can only be recognized by a fundamental change in the heart which transcends national pride and ethnic entitlements used to maintain the status quo for it is not the force of legislation that governs our awareness nor guarantees our freedoms, rather it the ability to recognize the intrinsic worth of ourselves and those who are unlike ourselves.  Indeed, Dr. King's dream can only be fully attained with the implementation of Malcolm's prescription, a prescription that relies on understanding as opposed to force.

And When Knowledge is Replaced with Ignorance...

The crises occurring within the Muslim world glares into the face of a tradition twisted by a century and a half of neglect and hubris.  The vacuum triggered by the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate ushered in what has become an era of unprecedented degradation to a system of law rooted in 1400 years of scholarship and consensus.  The magisterium class in Islam, despite its often nonlinear approach, upheld the established methods of evaluation and ruling, has been largely replaced by haphazard individuals who openly disdain the legitimacy of the recognized schools of legal thought.  Interestingly, those largely responsible for the destruction of the caliphate were, and in many quarters continue to be, in collaboration with those forces generally hostile to Islam, while simultaneously, deriving legal opinions from fringe elements that exist within Western ideologies.  This has resulted in a climate of anti-intellectualism and contempt for those striving to maintain the classical institution of teaching and learning established by contemporaries of the Prophet (عليه السلام‎), ultimately culminating in a loss of direction for those seeking his path and the continued decay of the ummah itself.       

Osama and Contemporary Reasoning: A Duel Assassination

The storming of Osama bin Laden’s compound, his subsequent execution, and the joyous triumphalism on behalf of his enemies is troubling on innumerable levels. If we scan through our memory files back to that dreadful morning of September the 11th, we will find a gaping hole in the case against bin Laden as the prime suspect in what was by definition, an international crime (lest we forget, thirteen percent of the victims were foreign nationals). On the face of the allegations made against him firstly is his denial of involvement. If, as the popular line suggests, his motive was driven by faith, it should be understood that people of faith do what they do with the intention of pleasing the Divine. This is particularly true in Islam. To deny an act after having committed it for the sake of God, would serve to nullify any heavenly reward.  For bin Laden to repudiate what his accusers have dubbed his “pinnacle achievement," should initiate a reanalysis of the possible motives attributed to his role in the 911 attacks.  Opponents argue he denounced any involvement only to avert being bombed into oblivion. Interestingly, these same individuals claim the ultimate aim of his ideology was predicated on martyrdom. Such an argument is severely flawed.

The Obligation of Environmental Stewardship in the Shari‘a

‘We offered the Trust to the heavens, the earth, and the mountains, yet they refused to undertake it and were afraid of it; mankind undertook it–they have always been inept and foolish.’ (33:72)[1]

Among the innumerable mercies Allah ta'ala has bestowed upon His creation in the Shari’a is the relationship between humanity and the natural environment. The Qur’anic narrative establishing a khalifat Allah fi’l-ard or vicegerent is fundamentally unique within the monotheistic tradition in which humanity’s relationship to earth is described as steward rather than an owner. Both in the passages of the sacred text and the prophetic traditions pertaining to creation demonstrate an inherent harmony ingrained within the core dimensions of Islam. As with many Qur’anic injunctions, there is an infinite revealing of knowledge taking place with the unfolding of time and our increased understanding of creation through the evolution of the sciences. As modernity illustrates, however, it is only by the Grace of Allah that the seeker of knowledge strives to comprehend revelation utilizing the blessing of the intellect. Dismissing the Divine element in the quest for understanding is to our spiritual peril as environmental degradation is to our existence.

Politics and the Other

Throughout the history of the modern nation state, politicians and agenda-driven media personalities, have maligned ethnic and religious minority communities.  In most cases, race has been the trigger used in marginalization.  During times of economic prosperity, calls to politically disenfranchise or define minorities as “unworthy” of equal protection under the law are reduced to a murmur and occasionally being in association with such views even become a political liability.  When an economic or political downturn begins to spiral, however, the murmurs hovering just below the surface gradually begin to fester and amass sympathetic listeners.  As the audience grows, the frequency of these messages begins to reverberate and zero in on those persons, who for some reason or other, are viewed outside acceptability.  Distrust can be aroused from something as minor as a foreign tongue.  Suspicions about what the other believes turn to fear, and fear to animosity; in its most insidious manifestation: hate.

The Founders and Religious Exclusivity

Around every fourth of July, Americans are encouraged to reflect on their country’s struggle for independence−a struggle largely inspired by those values we, as a people, take a great deal of pride in espousing, perhaps none more than those guaranteed in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...”[1]

Attack on Gaza

The following item is a correspondance between myself and two Christians, one of whom is a pastor, regarding the war on Gaza that broke out last year. Pastor CW spawned the conversation after recieving an email from a Christian-Zionist.

Concerning Obama's Election

Recently, following the recent election results, I received an email, forwarded a few days before,that had originated with a family that has always been dear to my heart. It was a letter authored by Dutch Sheets, an Evangelical pastor, urging people to support the McCain/Palin ticket. The reasons, as you may or may not already be aware of, focused primarily on the worrisome likelihood that President-Elect Obama is pro-choice and would appoint supreme court justices reflecting this opinion, so-called “liberal Justices” [sic.]. Pastor Sheets goes onto invoke the The Book of Daniel 10, which relates to the message Daniel received, deemed apocalyptic by some, referring to the King of Persia and Israel, particularly as the angel Michael is mentioned herein and later in Jude 9 and finally in Revelations 12.

Looking for a Leader

Looking down the pike to the Iowa primary come January 14th, democrats are scrambling for the party endorsement. While I find it difficult to imagine real change will come via the democratic ticket, we have reached a breaking point in this country, especially as it relates to foreign and environmental policy. The same could be said relating to education and healthcare, and although these too, are pressing issues, averting climatic catastrophe and nuclear annihilation are dire concerns in need immediate attention.

Islam and Democracy in Turkey

Ahead of Turkey’s upcoming presidential election, originally scheduled in May, there was a lot of clamoring regarding the Justice and Development Party candidate Abdullah Gul, an experienced politician and foreign minister. Unlike most senior officials, Mr. Gull’s wife Hayrunisa Gul wears the Islamic headscarf and if elected, would have been the country’s first First Lady to do so. This set off a scorching controversy among Turkey’s faithful secularists. They claimed Mr. Gul was a stealth islamist with a radical agenda which threatened to impose draconian rule on their institutions. His record as a politician up to then disputed their claims. He actually pushed for entrance into the EU, despite bigoted opposition of those afraid of letting a predominately Muslim country in. The sickening part of this debate is that it placed significant pressure on Ms. Gull and took away from what should have been at the heart of the election question, viz., who is has the best qualifications for the job? Instead, people wanted to focus on what clothes the candidate’s spouse would wear to the inauguration.

Why is it that when discussing religiosity and secularism in the Islamic World, the debate is divided between headscarves and bikinis; between nightclubs and madrasas? Why is it that people are condemned as archaic extremists because they don't feel comfortable running around the beach in the equivalent of undergarments? Are the values of drunkenness and promiscuity found in the nightclub scene somehow superior to the moral teachings learned in the mosque? What about those who remain true to their faith- which explicitly prohibits alcohol and lewd behavior- and yet are active participants in everyday society, i.e., working, attending university, dining out, exercising their voting rights, etc, etc? Are they to be harangued for not contributing to the STD epidemic or being on the delivering end of drunk driving accidents and the like? There is no reason why a woman CHOOSING to wear a head scarf cannot also be educated, politically engaged, and professional.

Furthermore, the electability of Mr. Gul ought to have focused on his record rather than his wife’s attire. But I suppose to be part of the boys club of elites in Turkey- or any country attempting westernization- one's wife has to wear a low-cut blouse and skirt, toasting champagne. The irony of this situation is that by the state impeding a woman’s right to chose what she wears somehow is on par with democratic principles whereas letting her CHOOSE for herself exhibits “islamofascism”, to quote George W. Bush. Actually, this is in line with the Bush administrations commitment to so-called, “democracy” as when Turkey was lambasted by Paul Wolfoitz and Colin Powell for its refusal to allow access to its airstrips as a launching pad to invade Iraq in 03, despite the overwhelming opposition to the war among its population. It’s all a bit Orwellian, isn’t it?

Searching for Tolerance: The Netherlands

This morning, as I flipped to the world news section of the Daily Yomiuri, I was stunned to read an article about the Dutch cabinet's consideration to ban the burka in all public places, a measure that has already made it past parliament. One respondent noted in the article that she would resort to wearing a surgical mask if the ban goes into effect, illustrating the fact that she wears the religious garments on her own volition, not paternal intimidation, as argued by Dutch politicians.

Of course, the Netherlands would not be the first to enforce discriminatory legislation against Muslims- France banned wearing the hijab (and all outwardly symbols of religious affiliation), and Turkey implemented similar legislation years prior. What urks me about the case in the Netherlands is the unseemly timing (interestingly, at the time the initial caricatures of Prophet Muhammad-peace be unto him- were published last fall, parliament was passing the said legislation), and the Dutch reputation for tolerance. In a country where shooting heroin and soliciting sex is legal, one would assume their level of tolerance would outweigh their European counterparts. Not so, apparently.

From a libertarian viewpoint, Geert Wilders' (Dutch MP and sponsor of the ban) comment about the burka being a 'medieval symbol against women' misses the mark. Who is he to impose his views on a religious group of people for which he is not part of? The only thing medieval about this situation is his attempt to impede personal freedoms of those who wish to abide by what they believe is divine law. Honestly, which is more demeaning, legal prostitution or entirely covering one's body? Is making one's body an object less offensive than refusing to do so? The hypocrisy of this case is repulsing. From an apocalyptic view, which I'm not endorsing, it would be easy to suggest to some that the rise of a modern Sodom is taking place in Western Europe.

In recent times, it has been more acceptable in the west to don clothing without regard to shame. In some cities, prostitutes have actually complained that of having difficulty being noticed among the scanty fashions being displayed on the street. Indeed, I once witnessed a group of women who were stopped by police and questioned- come to find out, they were headed to the club, not the corner. Historically, it was the Christian Byzantine women who donned the veil. Take any depiction of the Virgin Mary (God be pleased with her) and you essentially see a woman in hijab. Apparently, the majority of Christian women find her example unimportant, or perhaps she, too, was oppressed. All of that aside, to single out a religious minority by passing discriminatory legislation is abhorrent in the 'free' world.

If Wilders is able to get approval on the ban, it will only further escalate east-west tensions. News reports are notorious for grouping Muslims together as immigrants, as though the two were synonymous. Islam does not recognize class or ethnic divisions. Legislation targeting a Muslim minority is directed at nationals as well and says to the rest of the world, "Muslims are unwelcome." Unless women forcibly have to wear traditional Muslim clothing, the state has zero jurisdictions to intervene, insofar as it refers to itself as a free nation. Islamically, and reiterated by the words of Martin Luther King, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"; to target one is to target all. Far be it from me to determine the laws of a country to which I am not a citizen; that said, however, a country that restricts people from openly practicing their faith should not use the word freedom in their vocabulary.

Freedom of Speech: The David Irving Case

Last week, right wing Briton historian and writer, David Irving, was sentenced to a three year prison sentence in Austria. His crime? Free speech. The verdict, concluded within a single proceeding, rested on a speech he delivered 17 years ago, wherein he apparently denied the Jewish Holocaust (although he claimed he was never a Holocaust denier, he pled guilty to the charge of doing so). In Hitler’s War, originally published in 1977, and revised several times thereafter, Irving asserted the gas chambers were non existent in the Nazi death camps and that Hitler was unaware of the Final Solution.

Certainly, an analysis to substantiate the accuracy of his work in regards to these views is unnecessary; as Noam Chomsky has repeatedly said, any attempt at denying the Holocaust will result in “losing one’s humanity.” Indeed, Irving is a racist, chauvinistic scoundrel. That aside, the courts are without moral grounding to restrict his right to free speech. As I’ve I stated previously, in regards to the infamous personas of Muhammad, peace be upon him, freedom of speech cannot and must not be applied only to those views that either we, or those in power, agree with. In fact, free speech is a human right, recognized to protect the very views we detest.

Americans are better off than their European counterparts in this arena. In Britain, for example, albeit technically not in Europe, it remains an offense punishable by law, to insult the Church of England. Although many of us live and die by the concept of our freedoms in the United States, and despite the fact that free speech is protected by the Bill of Rights, wide application in defense of the right to free expression is fairly recent. It was Martin Luther King Jr.’s struggle, protesting against state sanctioned racial injustice within the United States and his stance against the war in Vietnam, which allowed free speech to reach its current status as a human right, not to be infringed.

The blaring hypocrisy of the case against Irving is the fact in Austria, it is illegal to publish material defaming Judaism or denying the Holocaust, while on the same token allowing cartoons insulting Muslims under the argument of free speech can freely be published. This is also the case in France, Germany, and a slew of other European countries. What is especially troubling about the Irving case, not discounting his disdainful views, is the idea of the state determining what is, or is not, historical fact.

Few serious historians sympathize with Irving’s historical arguments regarding the Nazi genocide, which is precisely why the state must not be allowed to interfere in or instigate the policing of historical accuracy- indeed, allowing it to do so is tantamount to endorsing the erection of a Ministry of Truth, not unlike what determines fact from fallacy in places like China and North Korea. The point of historical research is not to fall lockstep with the establishment of the ruling party but to enlighten debate, present new interpretations, and challenges, leaving the review process to one’s peers in historiography- a process not unlike what occurs in the sciences.

With freedom comes responsibility, however. Just as the Jylland-Posten of Denmark should not have published the caricatures of the Prophet, insulting an already oppressed minority, their right to do so should also not be infringed, nor should have the writings of David Irving resulted in a prison sentence, no matter how deplorable we may consider them. In the words of John Stuart Mill, “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”