Boston: lessons still not learned

News of the harrowing explosion at the finish line of the Boston Marathon struck a nervous chord in the hearts of us all last week.  The first thought that comes to mind is a hope that it was an accident, a ruptured gas line or the like.  Shortly after the first blast comes the report of a second.  Not unlike the second plane to hit the World Trade Center, the likelihood of malicious intent begins to resonate.  For most Americans, any doubts soon give way to anxiety, manifested and swollen with fear, anger, and suspicion.  “Who could have committed such an atrocity and why?”  Unsubstantiated news reports of two men of “dark complexion” go unchallenged[1] seem to satiate the knee-jerk reaction to accuse the usual suspects.  Meanwhile, for Muslim Americans, experiencing the same feelings of violation as the rest of America, have a compounded sense of apprehension as we worriedly await reports that we hope will alleviate the thoughts racing through our minds and silent prayers of “God, please don’t let it be a Muslim who has done this” made beneath our breath.    

The hours turn to days; claims of responsibility go unspoken for.  While there are always quick accusations by the likes of Erik Rush and his tweets that Muslims are “evil” and “Let’s kill them all” we maintain hope that the accused will turn out to be another Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Wade Page, or Joe Stack[2]- names which statistics far more associate with violent crime than the likes of ”Muhammad” or “Omar.”[3]  Video stills are released by the FBI and reports emerge that the two suspects are “white males.”  Tensions remain elevated but somewhat decreased, for as Muslims, we know our faith to be represented by all ethnicities and backgrounds―despite the misconceptions that Islam is a religion of Arabs.[4]  Upon seeing the stills we notice the suspects also appear clean shaven, wearing baseball caps― another sign that perhaps  this was again a massacre committed by an anti-government, white male whose religion will largely go unmentioned and for whom the terrorist label will be set aside, regardless of motive.[5]  Yet, if we were to attach the same conditions to white males that are attached to Muslims―or brown people with whom a certain semblance is shared, civility in this country would suffer a complete breakdown.      

Confirmation of the suspects’ identity brings joy to the likes of Erik Rush and Pamela Geller, who can now bask in the stench of their bigotry―“we told you so!  Muslims are evil!” they can say with empty rhetoric and false confidence.  More posters featuring images of the WTC buildings ablaze followed with Qur’anic verses taken out-of-context[6] can convince unstable individuals such as Erika Menendez that pushing a man off a subway platform, ahead of an oncoming train is justified.  The man in this case, Sunando Sen, a Hindu, was mistaken for a Muslim.  The aforementioned posters adorned the subway walls, serving as a backdrop of hate for all to aspire.  Wade Page can now rest peacefully that his savage assault on the Sikh temple he mistook for a mosque, was “close enough.”  In fact, few were alarmed at these killings―as if the only crime was one of mistaken identity.  The latest victim, Sunil Tripathi, found floating face down in the Providence River (as of now, the cause of death is unknown), was falsely named as a suspect of the Boston bombing by careless social media “journalists.”  His family received a surge of hateful threats that were simply glazed over with an empty apology from the Redit social media outlet and the pushing of a delete button by the wave of tweeters who felt it their place to reproduce unsubstantiated reports.  One journalist reports the after she confronted one such twitterer about his “confirmation” of Mr. Tripathi’s involvement, he essentially replied “well, there’s so many people saying it, it must be true!”[7]  These reckless reports may have resulted in a young man’s death. 

Conclusions made about the motivations of the suspects fall in line with the bloodstained ads on the subway walls, that is, the religion of Islam made them do it.  “They became more religious,” it’s reported, “praying five times a day; the senior brother’s wife wore a hijab,” as if the mere practicing of Islam must be the motivation behind committing atrocities.  Thus, women who wear hijab and men who have beards (or heaven forbid turbans), are legitimate targets.  Yet, the images seen everywhere of the perpetrators demonstrates they were not unlike their victims in appearance.  When I arrived up at my mother’s house the day the suspects’ identities were announced wearing traditional Islamic attire, she said I should be careful to avoid being shot.  “For what”, I ask, “wearing a turban?”  Should I simply shave my beard and hide who I am because of someone who looks nothing like me kills in the name of my faith?  Should a Catholic leave their crucifix at home because yet another priest was caught molesting a child?  Should a Jew remove his yarmulke because one of his own shot up a theater in Aurora?  Perhaps conservative Christians should stop proselytizing because of Timothy McVeigh?  Of course not, but this is the common logic as applied to Muslims.  “It’s their religion” it’s said when a Muslim stands accused, but it’s their “sanity” or “political ideology” when someone else commits a heinous act.  As to cancel the Boston Marathon would give victory to the suspected terrorists, hiding my identity as a Muslim or to be ashamed of my faith would be to do likewise.

Few persons charged with committing or attempting to carry out terror attacks are outwardly Muslim and not a single one of them ever received lessons in Islam by a qualified teacher or alim, yet the majority of these people have spent years of their lives earning degrees in western secular studies.[8]   In simple matters of etiquette, which if violated constitute a major sin, such as interrupting the Friday sermon to voice a disagreement with the speaker, as was mentioned about the deceased suspect, is indicative of a simpleton bereft of a basic understanding of his faith.  The excuses of such persons are predictable and in line with those of federal agencies, that is, violence against Muslims abroad, be it drone strikes[9] that have taken the lives of nearly 200 children[10], or a full scale war, resulting in the insurmountable civilian casualties, heightens the risk of terrorism against the United States.[11]  The common claim by those who attack this country is that the military’s failure to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants somehow justifies doing the same― a concept absolutely antithetical to the teachings of Islam as agreed upon  by our scholars.  In reality, such persons exhibit profound ignorance of Islam, compounded by cowardice, for how often have they made an effort to share their religion with non-Muslims?  One simply has to look at the life of the Prophet, upon who is peace, to understand that were it not for his noble character, Islam would have never won the hearts of his people.  Rather, the character these persons resembles that of Robert Bales, charged with leaving his base in Kandahar and gunning down 16 Afghan men, women, and children.   Neither religion nor state was a motivating factor, yet surely he felt himself a patriot.

As sensible people try to understand how anyone could walk into a crowd of innocent spectators and detonate a bomb, killing an eight year old child, a young woman, and a student from China, not to mention those wounded, must recognize that the acts of individuals cannot serve to represent the adherents of an entire faith community, despite what Glenn Beck may advocate.  For no more than can the crimes of Christians during the African Slave Trade or the subsequent crimes of Jim Crow be attributed to Christianity (despite the justifications made at the time), can terror committed by individual Muslims represent Islam.  To paint Muslims with the broad brush of terrorism adds insult to injury.  The blasts that went off in Boston were intended to kill Americans; we, too, are Americans, Muslim Americans.  Those who sought to strike fear into the hearts of the American public did not set about on an inquiry into the religion of those present ahead of time.  Such persons consider all Americans, citizens or not, as an equal opportunity to satisfy their aims.  Yet, before the ashes land, Muslims on the opposite side of the country become suspects.  We are then expected to apologize for something which we as individuals had nothing to do with, and therefore to accept responsibility for the actions of ignorant people whose actions do not represent our religion.  For those who want to blame the religion of Islam, know that Islam condemns the killing of innocent people, for the Prophet, in no uncertain terms forbade such action and it is from his example that Muslims are to conduct ourselves.[12] [13]   

Acknowledging that Muslims have carried out such acts should cause us to reflect on our own priorities, however.  What is the level of our practice?  Are we proud of who we are and the Prophetic tradition we have been gifted?  Are we embarrassed to pray in public or be identified as Muslims?  If so, who are we benefitting?  Where does our faith fit in on our priority scale?  Do we send our children to study Islam?  Do we learn from those qualified to teach, that is, those who have demonstrated a commitment to the formal study of Islamic sciences―not simply from someone who picks up a book and thinks they know all the answers?  Have we learned our creed (Aqeedah), as our faith requires?   For if we are doing nothing to better our understanding or improve our practice, how can we understand, beyond the level of the mundane, that our religion specifically condemns all attacks against innocent people?  Our Prophet, upon him be peace, abhorred such behavior and the attempt to excuse it by arguing reciprocity is to turn one’s back on the teachings of Islam and embrace the teachings of rogue elements within anarchist movement or worse still, the very people who justify “collateral damage”―these become one’s teachers.  None can argue that Islam allows its adherents to kill innocent civilians because “they do it to us.”  They are not the example our religion sets forth, rather, it is we who are tasked to rise above such savagery not adopt it.   

For those who feel they cannot practice their Islam in America, what does our religion command?  The answer lies in what was considered to be the greatest form of worship during the time of the Prophet: Emigrate.  This is the prophetic example and the example by which Muslims are to live.  Never has living in non-Muslim lands been an excuse to either leave aside our practice or force others to comply with them.[14]  For the vast majority of Muslim Americans, however, we understand that we live in a country wherein a system exists that affords us our religious liberties, where the letter of the law can be used to stand against lawmakers who would prefer such rights be stripped from us, as in states that have enacted anti-Shari’a laws.  How Muslims conduct ourselves through this process will have significant ramifications for our future in the country.  In times when our scholars are being replaced with clowns who lack a basic understanding of this religion, offering two-day degree programs, and believing they are qualified to guide others will only denigrate a masterful tradition built upon 1,400 years of learning.  Our seat at the American table awaits us.  To fulfill that promise will require us to live up to the prophetic example―nothing more, and nothing less.  Only then will we pull ourselves up from the caverns of ignorance and in so doing, the country as a whole.  Choosing to ignore the involvement of Muslims found guilty of egregious crimes will not enlighten our community.  Our tradition abounds in teachings on how to respond to difficulty in challenging times; any student of history can attest to the success engendered by those who embodied these teachings.  If, by the will of Allah ta’ala, we do so, never again will “I hope it wasn’t a Muslim” enter our hearts, for we will have taken our seat at the table of the American family. 

Endnotes

---

[1] Immediately following news reports of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, media outlets released similar statements regarding two Arab men seen driving a pick-up truck in the area at the time of the blast.

[2] Profiles of the aforementioned persons: Lanza: white, male, Catholic; Holmes: white, male, Jewish; Page: white, male, Christian; Stack: white, male, former member of Universal Life Church.

[3] Although his aim was, by definition, an act of terrorism, he is most often referred to simply as “a pilot.”  Had his name been Abdullah, the conventional designation of “terrorist” would apply.  Case-in-point, the following article appearing in Wall Street Journal:  Russell Gold, Bob Sechler, and Evan Perez, “Tax Protester Crashes Plane Into IRS Office,” Wall Street Journal, 10 Febuary 2010.  Available from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315004575073401102945506.html (Accessed April 26, 2013).
[4] The actual figure being roughly 13%.
[5] The definition of Terrorism as defined by Merriam Webster: “Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.” 
[6] 3:151-154 can be rendered in English as follows and concerns the Battle of Uhud in which the Meccans sought revenge for earlier losses by Muslim forces: “We will strike panic into the disbelievers’ hearts because they attribute partners to God although He has sent no authority for this: their shelter will be the Fire– how  miserable is the home of the evildoers! God fulfilled His promise to you: you were routing them, with His permission, but then you faltered, disputed the order, and disobeyed, once He had brought you within sight of your goal – some of you desire the gains of this world and others desire the world to come– and then He prevented you from [defeating] them as a punishment. He has now forgiven you: God is most gracious to the believers. You fled without looking back while the Messenger was calling out to you from behind, and God rewarded you with sorrow for sorrow. [He has now forgiven you] so that you may not grieve for what you missed or for what happened to you. God is well aware of everything you do.”  Thus, in no way is this verse be justification for the September 11^th attacks, as implied.  Translation available from: M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, trans., The Qur’an: A new translation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), cited by verse.
[7] Ross Reynolds, “Boston Marathon Bombings: Social Media Manhunt,” The Conversation, interview transcript  http://kuow.org/post/boston-marathon-bombings-social-media-manhunt (Accessed 22 April 2013).
[8] Of the high profile terrorism cases involving Muslims in recent years, all have invested their time in secular studies rather than studies of Islamic sciences: Faisal Shahzad, MBA from Southwestern University, Bridgeport; Umar Farouk Adbulmutalib, Engineering, Business Finance University College London; Nidal Hasan, Biochemistry, Virginia Tech, Psychiatry USUHS; Anwar al Awlaki (though never found to commit nor ever charged with committing any act of terror, was considered to have inspired all of the above persons―and was killed by a drone strike, despite being an American citizen), Civil Engineering, Colorado State; Educational Leadership, San Diego State; Human Resource Development, George Washington University.
[9] Tom Brokaw made a striking observation on Meet the Press, not normally made in popular media in which he states, “What prompts a young man to come to this country and still feel alienated from it, to go back to Russia and do whatever he did and I don’t think we’ve examined that enough? I mean, there was 24/7 coverage on television, a lot of newspaper print and so on, but we have got to look at the roots of all of this because it exist across the whole subcontinent, and the-- and the Islamic world around the world. And I think we also have to examine the use of drones that the United States is involved and-- and there are a lot of civilians who are innocently killed in a drone attack in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq. And I can tell you having spent a lot of time over there, young people will come up to me on the streets and say we love America. If you harm one hair on the-- on the head of my sister, I will fight you forever and there is this enormous rage against what they see in that part of the world as a presumptuousness of the United States.”  Referenced: Meet the Press, “April 21: Deval Patrick, Mike Rogers, Dick Durbin, Pete Williams, Michael Chertoff, Tom Brokaw, Doris Kerns-Goodwin, Peggy Noonan, Jeffery Goldberg,” review of the events surrounding the Boston Marathon bombing, Meet the Press, PDF Transcript, p 10:       

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51611247/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/april-deval-patrick-mike-rogers-dick-durbin-pete-williams-michael-leiter-michael-chertoff-tom-brokaw-doris-kearns-goodwin-peggy-noonan-jeffrey-goldberg/ (Accessed 23 April 2013).
[10]  “178 Report.” War Costs. http://www.warcosts.com/178_report (Accessed 20 April 2013).

[11] Although we reject all attacks on civilians, it must be recognized that the Obama administration’s drone policies, like those of his predecessor, serve as a major recruitment tool for those wishing to avenge the killing of civilians in the Muslim world.  For further reading see the report (specifically chapter 5: “Strategic Considerations”) published by the Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic and the Global Justice Clinic at NYU School of Law:  Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan, September 2012, available from http://www.livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stanford-NYU-LIVING-UNDER-DRONES.pdf (Accessed 25 April 2013).
[12] Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4320, Chapter 19: Prohibition of killing women and children in war.
[13] For a discussion on this issue, refer to: Imam Zaid Shakir, “Youth, Politics & Islam” (lecture, New York University, New York, NY, 10 December 2010).  Viewable at: http://www.newislamicdirections.com/media/youth_islam_and_politics (Accessed 23 April 2013).  Referenced comments begin at 17:30. 
[14] To this day, in some Muslim majority countries, school children are required to learn about the religion of their family―be they Muslim or otherwise, not unlike the confirmation process required of Catholics. 

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]

Rumors of an Evangelical

The following is a response to a chain email that I received from a friend of mine who knew little about Islam but had enough sense to ask me about subject before contributing to the ignorance propagated online and in the media. The title of the article being circulated is Allah or Jesus. The author demonstrates the typical credentials of a first rate an Islamaphobe, i.e., ignorance of the faith in which he denounces and an astounding negligence for historic fact regarding his own faith….

FEAR + IGNORANCE = HATE

The following is a response to an entry that I regretfully stumbled upon in the blogmosphere sometime last year. The author was spewing her frustration over a hospital that officially recognized Islamic dietary prescriptions within its kitchen facility. In addition to criticizing the hospital administration policy, she took the opportunity to write some very hateful comments regarding Islam in general based on her own misunderstandings. What follows is my reply...
Have any of you actually known, personally, a single Muslim? Before passing judgment on anyone, you ought to at least know and understand them. This cannot be done through he said/she said channels but only through actual experience.

As to the issue of halal meat being the exclusive choice at hospitals, I don't see a problem with that. Are you familiar with what halal meat is? I'll assume you do not. Halal is a method of slaughtering an animal wherein it is recognized that the life being taken belongs to God and thereby an acknowledgement of thanks must be demonstrated. It's not akin to kosher standards as practiced by Orthodox Jews and by Jesus himself, peace be upon him.

Regarding the sale of pork and other things prohibited for Muslims, it should be noted that under Islamic/Shari’a law, these things apply to Muslims only. This is due to the fact that Islam tolerates other faiths. If Christians are not forbidden alcohol within the constructs of their own faith, an Islamic state must allow them their right to produce and sell alcohol amongst themselves; the same is true of the consumption of pork.

As for implying that all Muslims are terrorists, again, I ask, have you ever sat down and talked with one? You seem to espouse the same baseless hatred toward Muslims that those shouting “death to America!” have for you. Neither of you know one another, yet both of you hate. How can this be? Sheer ignorance.

As for Muslims who seem to lock themselves into their own shells, consider for a moment what happens when they try integrating. When a Muslim woman, for example, goes out in public, she knows she's being judged without cause. People are standoffish and often times rude out of their own prejudice. I'm sure you can relate. When Muslims read things like the current entry, of course they're standoffish. If you found yourself in a place where people displayed open distain for westerners you'd probably not feel very comfortable yourself.

The commentator who referenced the Qur'an, did so inaccurately. First, one has to take the entire chapter into consideration when quoting a verse. In this case, it begins with condemning those who have killed previous prophets of God. It goes onto to warn Muslims to be mindful when befriending non-believers- this does not refer to Christians and Jews but to non believers in God and in some cases excludes Hindus and Buddhists− it basically refers to the non-religious or those who are hostile to believers in God. Further, “befriending” in this case also relates to having authority over the individual. It goes onto state "Indeed he who acts likewise [as non believers in God, acting carelessly], he has nothing to do with God." It is in no way a prohibition from befriending non-Muslims.

As for Muslim countries, most were created by the west at the close of WWII. Corrupt? Without question. But let's not throw stones. Not only are own countries likewise not on the straight and narrow, who props their dictators up? Who trained bin Laden? Who gave Saddam bio weapons? Why is Egypt the second largest recipient of US financial support, followed by Israel? Even the Taliban was taking handouts by the US a few months prior to 911.

Extremist groups can be found within any group of people; let us not forget Hitler, the abortion clinic bombers, Milosevic, or the people in our own countries who murder, rape, and rob their own neighbors. There is no doubt that Islam has its share. But why is it that there has become such anti-western sentiment in recent years?

Rather than become the very thing that you distain, why not actually try to solve the problem by understanding the vicious cycle that you are currently contributing to? Until real dialogue can take place, there will be no end to the madness that is plaguing us all. Throwing more punches will not solve anything.

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.