Religious leaders are responding to President Barack Obama’s much-anticipated speech on the Middle East, in which the president said that “all faiths must be respected” and suggested “bridges be built among them.”
Much of the sweeping speech addressed political and economic issues in light of recent democratic movements in the majority-Muslim region. Obama promised U.S. support for democracy, human rights and a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But Obama, who famously addressed the Muslim world from Cairo University in two years ago in a speech focused on Islam, also discussed religion several times in Thursday’s comments.
“We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders — whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus; Sanaa or Tehran,” Obama said in the hour-long speech.
“It was very important for the president to call for the respect of religious minorities who are not Muslim. For me, as an imam, I’d like to see the [Muslim] community respond and take action to that,” said Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who attended the speech in Washington, D.C.
In recent months, the plight of religious minorities in majority Muslim countries has made international headlines.
“I think his message was to the American Muslim Community, too. Religious tolerance and respect of women has to be the top priority of any democracy,” said Magid.
“Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain,” Obama said.
The Rev. Timotheus Soliman, a Coptic Christian priest in Miramar, Fl., said Obama made similar statements about religious tolerance in his Cairo speech that “went unnoticed.”
“Didn’t he talk about the Copts last time? There is a lot to pray for and things haven’t gotten better back home,” he said.
Obama’s remarks on religion were significantly less pointed than those in his 2009 speech, when he said wanted to “seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world.”
Eboo Patel, president of Chicago-based nonprofit Interfaith Youth Core, said he was “struck by Obama’s comments on the tremendous resource represented by young people in the region, and how what we are witnessing over there traces the arc of American history, from revolution to sectarian conflict to the spreading of freedom and equality.”
“Just as young people pushed for universal values here and built bridges of cooperation between different communities, so are they doing that there. That presents great opportunities for partnership,” said Patel.
What will likely be the most controversial part of Obama’s speech was his call for a restoration of pre-1967 borders between Israel and the Palestinian Territories, a significant shift in U.S. policy.
Reaction to the speech from Jewish leaders varied.
“I was most struck by the President’s assertion that we don’t need to accept how things are, but can work toward how they could be – with humility,” said Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, president of The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership. “While I am not sure that such humility about the role of history and indigenous culture was a part of all that he suggested we could achieve or help others to achieve, I appreciate the President’s commitment to what I would call hopeful realism.”
Abraham H. Foxman, Anti-Defamation League national director, released a statement applauding Obama’s support for “universal rights” and opposition to ” the use of force and political repression.”
Foxman also directly addressed Obama’s comments on Israel and Palestine, saying, “The Palestinians must heed the President’s warnings about imprudent and self-defeating actions.”
“The economic reforms and economic modernization as proposed by President Obama cannot succeed without religious and cultural reforms in the Arab World,” said Rabbi Marc Schneier, president of The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding. “Muslims must choose between moderation and militancy, tolerance and terrorism.”
Obama’s speech comes after a poll released this week by the Pew Research Center that foud the United States’ popularity has declined within the last year in many Muslim majority nations.
The poll was conducted in March and April, before U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden on May 2 in northern Pakistan. It surveyed about 1,000 people each in Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Turkey. Another 2,000 were polled in Pakistan.
As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam.
We appreciated this statement, however, judging by the uptick in anti-Muslim incidents since the death of bin Laden, the words weren’t enough to resonate with those in America who feel threatened by their Muslim neighbors.
Mr. President, Muslims need your leadership, your strong voice, and your support in this regard. You are a friend to the world’s Muslims, especially those fighting for their freedom, but Muslims need your friendship here on our own soil. Anti-Islam bigotry is getting worse in America — not better.
In our home, we love and respect you as our President; will you show us the same love and respect as a patriotic American family by speaking out strongly against this growing trend of anti-Muslim bigotry?
Bill O’Reilly calculated that half of the world’s Muslims want to “blow the hell” out of Muslims who want democracy and human rights.
O’Reilly–who has long maintained that there is a so-called “Muslim problem” in the world, something he said during the opening of his Thursday show–was speaking to two guests about President Obama’s Middle East speech on Thursday. Towards the end of the discussion, one of them said that Obama needed to stress more that “there are Muslims who want liberty.”
“For every Muslim in the world who wants democracy and human rights, there’s one who doesn’t,” O’Reilly responded. “And the one who doesn’t doesn’t have any rules, and he’ll blow the hell out of the one who does. So that silences the good Muslims who see the danger from the Muslim world.”
WATCH:
“It is impossible to distinguish between Muslims who are anti-American and just waiting for a chance to do us harm, and those who are merely pursuing their religious beliefs in this country. The only way to be sure and safe is to exclude them all.” — Letter to the Editor, Gainesville Times, May 13
The sentiment expressed above reflects an Islamophobic mindset unable to distinguish between the vast majority of law-abiding American Muslims and the few who would do us harm.
While the American Muslim community cheered the death of Osama bin Laden, its celebration was tempered by an odd backlash of sorts. From Maine to California, the U.S. has suffered a rash of anti-Muslim bias incidents, including physical assaults, vandalism of personal property, humiliation in the classroom and the desecration of houses of worship.
The perpetrators of these crimes are clearly unaware of the results from a 2009 Pew Research Study finding that very few American Muslims hold a positive opinion of al Qaeda — only 5% gave the terrorist organization a favorable rating. Yet, too many Americans mistakenly associate Islam with violence and Muslims with terrorism.
What remains puzzling to me, however, are erroneous views that widespread anti-Muslim bias in America is lacking when in fact Islamophobia, understood as the hatred and fear of Muslims and exemplified in the excerpted letter above, pervades our society.
For instance, in a March 26th CNN.com opinion piece entitled “Don’t Overstate Anti-Muslim Bias,” William J. Bennett and Seth Leibsohn argue that the “larger story of anti-Islamic bias in America does not hold water.”
They cite hate crime statistics compiled by the FBI depicting 72% of religious hate crimes in America were anti-Jewish and only 8.4% were anti-Muslim in 2009.
Leibsohn and Bennett buttress their argument by pointing to the ascension of President Barack Obama to the presidency notwithstanding his Arabic name and a Muslim born father. And, in another contest (albeit of a different import), a Muslim, Arab woman was chosen as Miss USA in 2010 — additional proof that anti-Muslim bias is lacking.
Leibsohn and Bennett’s arguments are fatally flawed.
First, their reliance on FBI hate crime statistics is misplaced.
By way of background, the FBI has been collecting hate crime data from state and local law enforcement agencies since 1990 which it compiles in an annual report.
Most civil rights advocates will tell you that the FBI hate crimes report does not tell the whole story. Since hate crimes are often underreported to and by law enforcement, the data reflects the reporting of hate crimes to local police agencies, and even then, only those law enforcement agencies which actually report to the FBI. Having worked with the Arab, Muslim and South Asian communities for the past ten years, I have seen bias incidents go unreported to law enforcement agencies for a number of reasons. These reasons include the fear of compromising one’s immigration status; lack of English-language and cultural proficiency; unfamiliarity with the criminal justice system; apathy towards recourse. Members of these communities may also distrust law enforcement, given past reports of abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, “extraordinary renditions” by the CIA of Muslims to third countries to be subjected to torture, the NSEERS Special Registration program targeting male nationals predominantly from Muslim-majority countries, to name a few. Recent immigrants may also carry cultural baggage from their native lands where law enforcement was not to be trusted and regarded as corrupt. In my view, this may account for the discrepancy between underreported hate crimes versus an increase in employment discrimination claims by American Muslims, which are at an all-time high. While hate crimes must be reported to the police and/or the FBI, employment discrimination complaints do not.
But, even when victims report an alleged hate crime, it may not make it into the FBI report for other reasons, including: the police may fail to record it as a hate crime; their departments may not report hate crime statistics to state officials; and those officials may not accurately report to the FBI.
For instance, following the September 11th terrorist attacks, as many as nineteen people were murdered in the backlash against the Muslim, Arab and South Asian communities including, Balbir Singh Sodhi, Waqar Hasan, Adel Karas, Saed Mujtahid, Jayantilal Patel, Surjit Singh Samra, Abdo Ali Ahmed, Abdullah Mohammed Nimer, and Vasudev Patel. Their stories were told in the national media including, USA Today and the Washington Post.
Yet, the FBI hate crime reports for 2001 and 2002 reflect that no anti-Islamic murders were committed in those years (see Table 4 in each report).
Next, it strikes me as peculiar that Leibsohn and Bennett chose the ascension of President Obama — a Christian who attends Church with his family on Sundays — to the Oval Office to make a larger point regarding an absence of anti-Muslim bias.
Never mind that the 2008 presidential campaign was wrought with Islamophobia, from those calling Obama a secret Muslim clearly seeing the term as a pejorative, to political rhetoric by Republican Presidential candidates. While Senator John McCain expressed his preference against Muslims assuming the U.S. presidency, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney disapproved of any Muslim appointments to the Cabinet. Islamophobia runs rampant in politics today.
Further, as elated as I was that a Muslim woman of Arab descent won Miss USA in 2010, I cannot help but reflect upon other types of contests of a different import. Pointedly, the number of actual Muslims running for political office in the U.S. is on the decline from its already small number. While in 2000, some 700 Muslims (out of 2-6 million American Muslims) ran for elected office in the U.S., that figure dropped by 90% to just 70 in 2002. By 2004, it was up to only 100 Muslims.
Finally, while Liebsohn and Bennett point to a CNN survey purportedly showing that 70% of Americans would not oppose construction of a mosque in their area, recent Pew Study Research from March 2011 depicts the American public as divided over whether Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers. Indeed, 40% say the Islamic faith is more likely than others to encourage violence while 42% say it is not.
To place these figures in proper context, in March 2002, just 25% saw Islam as more likely to encourage violence while twice as many (51%) disagreed.
To be clear, I despise racism and prejudice against any groups, including Jews, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, the disabled, etcetera. There is a danger when hate violence and animus against American Muslims is understood as a past phenomenon. We render no service to our country by idealizing ourselves, and ignoring pervasive prejudices as normal.
To overcome a problem, we must expose it, discuss it and then, address it effectively — together.
PRINCIPLES OF SHARIAH. THEY ARE DERIVED FROM THE QUR’AN, WHICH MUSLIMS BELIEVE IS THE WORD OF GOD. ALL ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS RULES MUST BE IN LINE WITH THESE SIX PRINCIPLES OF SHARIAH.
THE SIX PRINCIPLES MUST BE ABOUT KILLING INFIDELS, VEILING WOMEN, STONING PEOPLE FOR ADULTERY, HONOR KILLINGS AND FEMALE GENITAL CUTTING, RIGHT? NOPE.
HERE THEY ARE, THE SIX PRINCIPLES OF SHARIAH:
1. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF LIFE.
2. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF FAMILY.
3. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF EDUCATION.
4. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF RELIGION.
5. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF PROPERTY (ACCESS TO RESOURCES).
6. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN DIGNITY.
WELL, BLESS ME, AS A PLEDGE-OF-ALLEGIANCE-RECITING, CALIFORNIA-RAISED MUSLIM GIRL, THESE SIX PRINCIPLES SOUND A LOT LIKE THOSE ESPOUSED IN MY VERY OWN CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. EXCEPT THAT THESE WERE DEVELOPED OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO.
THIS IS THE CORE OF SHARIAH – THESE SIX PRINCIPLES. THE TERM “SHARIAH LAW” IS A MISNOMER, BECAUSE SHARIAH IS NOT LAW, BUT A SET OF PRINCIPLES. TO MUSLIMS, IT’S THE GENERAL TERM FOR “THE WAY OF GOD.”
BUT HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT THE WAY OF GOD IS? EARLY MUSLIMS LOOKED TO THE QUR’AN AND THE WORDS OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD TO FIGURE THIS OUT. THEY FILLED BOOKS OF INTERPRETIVE WRITINGS (CALLED FIQH) ABOUT HOW TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WAY OF GOD. THEY RARELY AGREED – THE FIQH IS NOT JUST ONE RULE, BUT MANY DIFFERING OPINIONS AND CONTRADICTORY RULES AND SCHOLARLY DEBATES.
SOMETIMES, SHARIAH ALSO REFERS TO THE WHOLE BODY OF ISLAMIC TEXTS, WHICH INCLUDES THE QUR’AN, THE SAYINGS OF THE PROPHET, AND THE BOOKS OF INTERPRETIVE LITERATURE WRITTEN BY MEDIEVAL MUSLIM SCHOLARS. THE FIRST TWO ARE CONSIDERED DIVINE. THE INTERPRETIVE LITERATURE, THE FIQH, IS NOT.
THE FIQH WAS MEANT TO DEVELOP AND CHANGE ACCORDING TO THE TIME AND PLACE — IT HAS INTERNAL METHODOLOGIES FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. IT IS NOT STATIC, BUT FLEXIBLE. NO RELIGION GETS TO BE 1400 YEARS OLD AND THE SECOND LARGEST IN THE WORLD UNLESS IT’S FLEXIBLE AND ADAPTABLE.
THE QUR’AN IS OLD. THE FIQH BOOKS OF JURISPRUDENCE ARE OLD. TO MODERN EYES, THEY CAN LOOK JUST AS OUTDATED AS OTHER ANCIENT TEXTS, INCLUDING THE BIBLE AND TORAH. THAT’S WHY, JUST LIKE THE BIBLE AND THE TORAH, THE ISLAMIC TEXTS MUST BE READ IN THEIR HISTORICAL CONTEXT.
ASSUMING ALL MUSLIMS FOLLOW MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC RULES TODAY IS LIKE ASSUMING THAT ALL CATHOLICS FOLLOW 9TH CENTURY CANON LAW. ISLAM, LIKE CHRISTIANITY, HAS CHANGED MANY TIMES OVER THE CENTURIES, AND IT CONTINUES TO CHANGE. FOCUSING ONLY ON THE NUTCASES WHO ADVOCATE A RETURN TO MEDIEVAL TIMES IS IGNORING THE VAST MAJORITY OF MODERN MUSLIMS.
FOR EXAMPLE, STONING FOR ADULTERY IS A PUNISHMENT THAT APPEARS IN FIQH, AS WELL AS EARLY JUDAIC LAW. BUT IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE QUR’AN. IN ISLAM, THEREFORE, STONING WAS A RESULT OF CULTURAL NORMS IMPOSED ON THE RELIGIOUS TEXTS. MOREOVER, IN THE FIQH, THOUGH THE PUNISHMENT FOR ADULTERY WAS STONING, ADULTERY WAS MADE SUCH A FANTASTICALLY DIFFICULT CRIME TO PROVE THAT THE PUNISHMENT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO APPLY. HISTORICALLY, STONING WAS VERY RARELY IMPLEMENTED IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD, WHICH IS IRONIC, SINCE TODAY THE SAUDI AND IRANIAN GOVERNMENTS APPLY IT AS THOUGH THEY’D NEVER HEARD OF THE STRICT ISLAMIC CONSTRAINTS ON IT.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS TODAY DO NOT BELIEVE IN STONING PEOPLE FOR ADULTERY, AND MANY ARE WORKING HARD TO ERADICATE IT. STONING IS HORRIFIC AND HAS NO PLACE IN OUR WORLD. THE MINISCULE PERCENTAGE OF MUSLIMS WHO ADVOCATE IT ARE IMPOSING THE MEDIEVAL PENALTY WHILE IGNORING ALL THE MYRIAD LIMITATIONS MEANT TO MAKE IT INAPPLICABLE.
AS FOR OTHER SCARY STORIES ATTRIBUTED TO SHARI’A, LIKE HONOR KILLINGS, VEILING OF WOMEN, AND FEMALE GENITAL CUTTING, THESE ARE CULTURAL PRACTICES AND NOT ISLAMIC. THEY ARE PRACTICED BY NON-MUSLIMS OF CERTAIN CULTURES AS WELL AS MUSLIMS.
SHARI’A IS A SET OF RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES AND IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. THE 50-SOME MUSLIM-MAJORITY COUNTRIES ARE ALL CONSTITUTIONAL STATES AND NEARLY ALL OF THEM HAVE CIVIL CODES (MANY OF THESE BASED ON THE FRENCH SYSTEM). BEING MUSLIM DOES NOT REQUIRE A GOVERNMENTAL IMPOSITION OF SOMETHING CALLED “SHARI’A LAW,” ANY MORE THAN BEING A CHRISTIAN REQUIRES THE IMPLEMENTATION OF “BIBLICAL LAW” (THOUGH THERE ARE, OF COURSE, A TINY MINORITY OF BOTH CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS WHO DO ADVOCATE SUCH THINGS, INCLUDING SARAH PALIN).
AS FOR ISLAM BEING A POLITICAL SYSTEM, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE QUR’AN ABOUT AN “ISLAMIC STATE,” AND THE PROPHET HIMSELF NEVER TRIED TO IMPLEMENT AN “ISLAMIC STATE,” DESPITE HYSTERICAL ACCUSATIONS TO THE CONTRARY. THOSE UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP PRACTICED A VARIETY OF RELIGIONS.
TRADITIONALLY, IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD, THE INSTITUTIONS THAT GOVERNED WERE ALWAYS SEPARATE FROM THE INSTITUTIONS THAT DEVELOPED RELIGION. IN FACT, THEY OFTEN CHECKED AND BALANCED ONE ANOTHER. ALTHOUGH NO CIVILIZATION HAS BEEN FREE FROM ALL CONFLICT, EVERY ISLAMIC EMPIRE WAS A MULTI-RELIGIOUS, MULTICULTURAL EMPIRE, IN WHICH RELIGIOUS MINORITIES WERE GOVERNED BY THEIR OWN LAWS.
THE TERM “ISLAM AS A RELIGION AND A STATE” REALLY ONLY BECAME POPULAR IN THE 1920S, AS A REACTION TO WESTERN COLONIZATION OF THE MUSLIM WORLD. IN FACT, ISLAM CONTAINS PLENTY OF CONCEPTS CONSISTENT WITH MODERN DEMOCRACY – FOR EXAMPLE, SHURA (CONSULTATION) AND AQD (A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GOVERNED AND THE GOVERNING). IN OTHER WORDS, MUSLIMS CAN BE PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE IN AMERICA, FOLLOWING STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS.
THE QUR’AN CONTAINS MANY VERSES ADVOCATING RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE, TOO, THOUGH THE ANTI-ISLAM PROTESTERS WON’T BELIEVE IT. THE QUR’AN SAYS THAT: GOD COULD HAVE MADE EVERYONE INTO ONE PEOPLE, BUT ELECTED NOT TO (11:118); GOD MADE US INTO DIFFERENT NATIONS AND TRIBES SO THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM ONE ANOTHER (49:13); THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION (2:256); AND THAT WE SHOULD SAY, “TO YOU YOUR RELIGION, TO ME MINE” (109:6).
BAHRAMI WAS FINALLY GRANTED A DECISION OF QISAS “AN EYE FOR AN EYE” –ADMINISTERED 20 DROPS OF ACID IN EACH OF HIS EYESBY BAHRAMI HERSELF
Ameneh Bahrami was 23 years old when an inhumane and possessive man destroyed her life. Having had his marriage proposal rejected by her, Majid Movahedi decided it was his right to pour a bucketful of sulfuric acid on her face as she was crossing a street in Tehran in 2004. Since that incident which has left her disfigured and completely blind, Bahrami has felt it was her right to seek retaliation for the crime against her. In the last seven years, following trials and appeals interspersed with tens of surgeries to restore her face and vision (unsuccessful), Bahrami was finally granted a decision of qisas. In Iran’s legal system, there is a kind of justice called qisas – blood money, or retaliatory punishment, that pre-dates Islam (it can be found in the Old Testament of the Bible). It’s more commonly understood as “an eye for an eye” — punishment that equals the crime, so to speak. Qisas has two basic components: the victim can either forgive the assailant (or in the case of a murder, the victim’s family can be the forgivers) and therefore be compensated financially, or a punishment that fits the crime can be administered, i.e. capital punishment for murder. Bahrami, in a move that she hoped would draw attention to the gravity of the crime, opted for punishment. Her attacker had blinded her, so she decided it would only be fair to blind him back, thus ensuring that he not only receive the same treatment she received (minus the total disfiguration of the face, years of surgery, and indescribable pain), but that he would truly understand the depth of her suffering.
She was granted her wish and Movahedi was to be sedated in a Tehran hospital and administered 20 drops of acid in each of his eyes — by Bahrami herself. But the punishment, which was to happen this week, was postponed at the eleventh hour, perhaps due to international outcry, or perhaps due to domestic controversy — Iranians themselves are divided in their views on the matter.
Bahrami and the Iranian legal system are being portrayed by some as barbarians for allowing what is perceived to be archaic and cruel punishment (even though in the United States, Israel, China and elsewhere, retaliatory punishment also exists and is practiced in the form of capital punishment) but no one doubts Bahrami’s reasons for wanting it. What some people doubt is whether qisas is effective in achieving more than the satisfaction of revenge: justice and the prevention of crime. The public prosecutor who defended Bahrami’s wish for the punishment said that his hope was that it would deter such crimes in the future.
But can crimes be deterred through punishment when a society itself pays so little attention to the suffering of the victim?
While Movahedi has been vilified in many segments of Iranian society, it is well known that in countries with trends of acid attacks — such as India and Pakistan — the commonality of the crime has rendered it ordinary and therefore often ignored. Not only are a tiny percentage of the attacks reported, but a minuscule percentage of those reported are prosecuted, and an even less detectable figure of those prosecuted actually involve any kind of punishment. The deeper problem, then, is not only that these attackers are not made answerable for their crimes but also that they are too often accepted back in their societies when news of their crime is made known.
Some experts argue that the most effective deterrent against crimes — especially violent crimes — is the engendering of a culture of intolerance for them. For instance, if an acid attacker knew that he would be shunned by his society for such a crime, perhaps he would be less likely to do it.
With acid attacks in particular, this kind of reasoning makes some sense. Most of these crimes occur within the context of pride and honor so the prospect of societal rejection and dishonor would presumably be more of a deterrent than the mere personal affront of unrequited love. Ultimately, however, debates of qisas and the controversy surrounding Bahrami’s wishes are really discussions of how far the law will allow a victim to go in determining her own justice. While it’s easy to judge from a distance, only a victim can know what could possibly satisfy her need for justice following a life-altering crime. Just ask any member of the staff of Depilex beauty salon in Lahore, Pakistan — the salon is renowned for being staffed by young women who are victims of acid attacks.
It is human nature to contemplate retaliatory justice — Hollywood has banked trillions on the notion. But laws exist in order to siphon that instinct into something that is just and deters crime. The slow fix to problems of crimes such as acid attacks is to gradually — through laws, law enforcement, and education — change the attitudes in societies where these crimes have become so common as to be ignored.
The quick fix, as it has always been, is an eye for an eye. Mahatma Gandhi once famously said that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” — and he was right, of course, but he had never been the victim of an acid attack.
Religious leaders are responding to President Barack Obama’s much-anticipated speech on the Middle East, in which the president said that “all faiths must be respected” and suggested “bridges be built among them.”
Much of the sweeping speech addressed political and economic issues in light of recent democratic movements in the majority-Muslim region. Obama promised U.S. support for democracy, human rights and a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But Obama, who famously addressed the Muslim world from Cairo University in two years ago in a speech focused on Islam, also discussed religion several times in Thursday’s comments.
“We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders — whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus; Sanaa or Tehran,” Obama said in the hour-long speech.
“It was very important for the president to call for the respect of religious minorities who are not Muslim. For me, as an imam, I’d like to see the [Muslim] community respond and take action to that,” said Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who attended the speech in Washington, D.C.
In recent months, the plight of religious minorities in majority Muslim countries has made international headlines.
“I think his message was to the American Muslim Community, too. Religious tolerance and respect of women has to be the top priority of any democracy,” said Magid.
“Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain,” Obama said.
The Rev. Timotheus Soliman, a Coptic Christian priest in Miramar, Fl., said Obama made similar statements about religious tolerance in his Cairo speech that “went unnoticed.”
“Didn’t he talk about the Copts last time? There is a lot to pray for and things haven’t gotten better back home,” he said.
Obama’s remarks on religion were significantly less pointed than those in his 2009 speech, when he said wanted to “seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world.”
Eboo Patel, president of Chicago-based nonprofit Interfaith Youth Core, said he was “struck by Obama’s comments on the tremendous resource represented by young people in the region, and how what we are witnessing over there traces the arc of American history, from revolution to sectarian conflict to the spreading of freedom and equality.”
“Just as young people pushed for universal values here and built bridges of cooperation between different communities, so are they doing that there. That presents great opportunities for partnership,” said Patel.
What will likely be the most controversial part of Obama’s speech was his call for a restoration of pre-1967 borders between Israel and the Palestinian Territories, a significant shift in U.S. policy.
Reaction to the speech from Jewish leaders varied.
“I was most struck by the President’s assertion that we don’t need to accept how things are, but can work toward how they could be – with humility,” said Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, president of The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership. “While I am not sure that such humility about the role of history and indigenous culture was a part of all that he suggested we could achieve or help others to achieve, I appreciate the President’s commitment to what I would call hopeful realism.”
Abraham H. Foxman, Anti-Defamation League national director, released a statement applauding Obama’s support for “universal rights” and opposition to ” the use of force and political repression.”
Foxman also directly addressed Obama’s comments on Israel and Palestine, saying, “The Palestinians must heed the President’s warnings about imprudent and self-defeating actions.”
“The economic reforms and economic modernization as proposed by President Obama cannot succeed without religious and cultural reforms in the Arab World,” said Rabbi Marc Schneier, president of The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding. “Muslims must choose between moderation and militancy, tolerance and terrorism.”
Obama’s speech comes after a poll released this week by the Pew Research Center that foud the United States’ popularity has declined within the last year in many Muslim majority nations.
The poll was conducted in March and April, before U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden on May 2 in northern Pakistan. It surveyed about 1,000 people each in Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Turkey. Another 2,000 were polled in Pakistan.
As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam.
We appreciated this statement, however, judging by the uptick in anti-Muslim incidents since the death of bin Laden, the words weren’t enough to resonate with those in America who feel threatened by their Muslim neighbors.
Mr. President, Muslims need your leadership, your strong voice, and your support in this regard. You are a friend to the world’s Muslims, especially those fighting for their freedom, but Muslims need your friendship here on our own soil. Anti-Islam bigotry is getting worse in America — not better.
In our home, we love and respect you as our President; will you show us the same love and respect as a patriotic American family by speaking out strongly against this growing trend of anti-Muslim bigotry?
Bill O’Reilly calculated that half of the world’s Muslims want to “blow the hell” out of Muslims who want democracy and human rights.
O’Reilly–who has long maintained that there is a so-called “Muslim problem” in the world, something he said during the opening of his Thursday show–was speaking to two guests about President Obama’s Middle East speech on Thursday. Towards the end of the discussion, one of them said that Obama needed to stress more that “there are Muslims who want liberty.”
“For every Muslim in the world who wants democracy and human rights, there’s one who doesn’t,” O’Reilly responded. “And the one who doesn’t doesn’t have any rules, and he’ll blow the hell out of the one who does. So that silences the good Muslims who see the danger from the Muslim world.”
WATCH:
“It is impossible to distinguish between Muslims who are anti-American and just waiting for a chance to do us harm, and those who are merely pursuing their religious beliefs in this country. The only way to be sure and safe is to exclude them all.” — Letter to the Editor, Gainesville Times, May 13
The sentiment expressed above reflects an Islamophobic mindset unable to distinguish between the vast majority of law-abiding American Muslims and the few who would do us harm.
While the American Muslim community cheered the death of Osama bin Laden, its celebration was tempered by an odd backlash of sorts. From Maine to California, the U.S. has suffered a rash of anti-Muslim bias incidents, including physical assaults, vandalism of personal property, humiliation in the classroom and the desecration of houses of worship.
The perpetrators of these crimes are clearly unaware of the results from a 2009 Pew Research Study finding that very few American Muslims hold a positive opinion of al Qaeda — only 5% gave the terrorist organization a favorable rating. Yet, too many Americans mistakenly associate Islam with violence and Muslims with terrorism.
What remains puzzling to me, however, are erroneous views that widespread anti-Muslim bias in America is lacking when in fact Islamophobia, understood as the hatred and fear of Muslims and exemplified in the excerpted letter above, pervades our society.
For instance, in a March 26th CNN.com opinion piece entitled “Don’t Overstate Anti-Muslim Bias,” William J. Bennett and Seth Leibsohn argue that the “larger story of anti-Islamic bias in America does not hold water.”
They cite hate crime statistics compiled by the FBI depicting 72% of religious hate crimes in America were anti-Jewish and only 8.4% were anti-Muslim in 2009.
Leibsohn and Bennett buttress their argument by pointing to the ascension of President Barack Obama to the presidency notwithstanding his Arabic name and a Muslim born father. And, in another contest (albeit of a different import), a Muslim, Arab woman was chosen as Miss USA in 2010 — additional proof that anti-Muslim bias is lacking.
Leibsohn and Bennett’s arguments are fatally flawed.
First, their reliance on FBI hate crime statistics is misplaced.
By way of background, the FBI has been collecting hate crime data from state and local law enforcement agencies since 1990 which it compiles in an annual report.
Most civil rights advocates will tell you that the FBI hate crimes report does not tell the whole story. Since hate crimes are often underreported to and by law enforcement, the data reflects the reporting of hate crimes to local police agencies, and even then, only those law enforcement agencies which actually report to the FBI. Having worked with the Arab, Muslim and South Asian communities for the past ten years, I have seen bias incidents go unreported to law enforcement agencies for a number of reasons. These reasons include the fear of compromising one’s immigration status; lack of English-language and cultural proficiency; unfamiliarity with the criminal justice system; apathy towards recourse. Members of these communities may also distrust law enforcement, given past reports of abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, “extraordinary renditions” by the CIA of Muslims to third countries to be subjected to torture, the NSEERS Special Registration program targeting male nationals predominantly from Muslim-majority countries, to name a few. Recent immigrants may also carry cultural baggage from their native lands where law enforcement was not to be trusted and regarded as corrupt. In my view, this may account for the discrepancy between underreported hate crimes versus an increase in employment discrimination claims by American Muslims, which are at an all-time high. While hate crimes must be reported to the police and/or the FBI, employment discrimination complaints do not.
But, even when victims report an alleged hate crime, it may not make it into the FBI report for other reasons, including: the police may fail to record it as a hate crime; their departments may not report hate crime statistics to state officials; and those officials may not accurately report to the FBI.
For instance, following the September 11th terrorist attacks, as many as nineteen people were murdered in the backlash against the Muslim, Arab and South Asian communities including, Balbir Singh Sodhi, Waqar Hasan, Adel Karas, Saed Mujtahid, Jayantilal Patel, Surjit Singh Samra, Abdo Ali Ahmed, Abdullah Mohammed Nimer, and Vasudev Patel. Their stories were told in the national media including, USA Today and the Washington Post.
Yet, the FBI hate crime reports for 2001 and 2002 reflect that no anti-Islamic murders were committed in those years (see Table 4 in each report).
Next, it strikes me as peculiar that Leibsohn and Bennett chose the ascension of President Obama — a Christian who attends Church with his family on Sundays — to the Oval Office to make a larger point regarding an absence of anti-Muslim bias.
Never mind that the 2008 presidential campaign was wrought with Islamophobia, from those calling Obama a secret Muslim clearly seeing the term as a pejorative, to political rhetoric by Republican Presidential candidates. While Senator John McCain expressed his preference against Muslims assuming the U.S. presidency, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney disapproved of any Muslim appointments to the Cabinet. Islamophobia runs rampant in politics today.
Further, as elated as I was that a Muslim woman of Arab descent won Miss USA in 2010, I cannot help but reflect upon other types of contests of a different import. Pointedly, the number of actual Muslims running for political office in the U.S. is on the decline from its already small number. While in 2000, some 700 Muslims (out of 2-6 million American Muslims) ran for elected office in the U.S., that figure dropped by 90% to just 70 in 2002. By 2004, it was up to only 100 Muslims.
Finally, while Liebsohn and Bennett point to a CNN survey purportedly showing that 70% of Americans would not oppose construction of a mosque in their area, recent Pew Study Research from March 2011 depicts the American public as divided over whether Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers. Indeed, 40% say the Islamic faith is more likely than others to encourage violence while 42% say it is not.
To place these figures in proper context, in March 2002, just 25% saw Islam as more likely to encourage violence while twice as many (51%) disagreed.
To be clear, I despise racism and prejudice against any groups, including Jews, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, the disabled, etcetera. There is a danger when hate violence and animus against American Muslims is understood as a past phenomenon. We render no service to our country by idealizing ourselves, and ignoring pervasive prejudices as normal.
To overcome a problem, we must expose it, discuss it and then, address it effectively — together.
PRINCIPLES OF SHARIAH. THEY ARE DERIVED FROM THE QUR’AN, WHICH MUSLIMS BELIEVE IS THE WORD OF GOD. ALL ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS RULES MUST BE IN LINE WITH THESE SIX PRINCIPLES OF SHARIAH.
THE SIX PRINCIPLES MUST BE ABOUT KILLING INFIDELS, VEILING WOMEN, STONING PEOPLE FOR ADULTERY, HONOR KILLINGS AND FEMALE GENITAL CUTTING, RIGHT? NOPE.
HERE THEY ARE, THE SIX PRINCIPLES OF SHARIAH:
1. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF LIFE.
2. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF FAMILY.
3. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF EDUCATION.
4. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF RELIGION.
5. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF PROPERTY (ACCESS TO RESOURCES).
6. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN DIGNITY.
2. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF FAMILY.
3. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF EDUCATION.
4. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF RELIGION.
5. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF PROPERTY (ACCESS TO RESOURCES).
6. THE RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN DIGNITY.
WELL, BLESS ME, AS A PLEDGE-OF-ALLEGIANCE-RECITING, CALIFORNIA-RAISED MUSLIM GIRL, THESE SIX PRINCIPLES SOUND A LOT LIKE THOSE ESPOUSED IN MY VERY OWN CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. EXCEPT THAT THESE WERE DEVELOPED OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO.
THIS IS THE CORE OF SHARIAH – THESE SIX PRINCIPLES. THE TERM “SHARIAH LAW” IS A MISNOMER, BECAUSE SHARIAH IS NOT LAW, BUT A SET OF PRINCIPLES. TO MUSLIMS, IT’S THE GENERAL TERM FOR “THE WAY OF GOD.”
BUT HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT THE WAY OF GOD IS? EARLY MUSLIMS LOOKED TO THE QUR’AN AND THE WORDS OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD TO FIGURE THIS OUT. THEY FILLED BOOKS OF INTERPRETIVE WRITINGS (CALLED FIQH) ABOUT HOW TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WAY OF GOD. THEY RARELY AGREED – THE FIQH IS NOT JUST ONE RULE, BUT MANY DIFFERING OPINIONS AND CONTRADICTORY RULES AND SCHOLARLY DEBATES.
SOMETIMES, SHARIAH ALSO REFERS TO THE WHOLE BODY OF ISLAMIC TEXTS, WHICH INCLUDES THE QUR’AN, THE SAYINGS OF THE PROPHET, AND THE BOOKS OF INTERPRETIVE LITERATURE WRITTEN BY MEDIEVAL MUSLIM SCHOLARS. THE FIRST TWO ARE CONSIDERED DIVINE. THE INTERPRETIVE LITERATURE, THE FIQH, IS NOT.
THE FIQH WAS MEANT TO DEVELOP AND CHANGE ACCORDING TO THE TIME AND PLACE — IT HAS INTERNAL METHODOLOGIES FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. IT IS NOT STATIC, BUT FLEXIBLE. NO RELIGION GETS TO BE 1400 YEARS OLD AND THE SECOND LARGEST IN THE WORLD UNLESS IT’S FLEXIBLE AND ADAPTABLE.
THE QUR’AN IS OLD. THE FIQH BOOKS OF JURISPRUDENCE ARE OLD. TO MODERN EYES, THEY CAN LOOK JUST AS OUTDATED AS OTHER ANCIENT TEXTS, INCLUDING THE BIBLE AND TORAH. THAT’S WHY, JUST LIKE THE BIBLE AND THE TORAH, THE ISLAMIC TEXTS MUST BE READ IN THEIR HISTORICAL CONTEXT.
ASSUMING ALL MUSLIMS FOLLOW MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC RULES TODAY IS LIKE ASSUMING THAT ALL CATHOLICS FOLLOW 9TH CENTURY CANON LAW. ISLAM, LIKE CHRISTIANITY, HAS CHANGED MANY TIMES OVER THE CENTURIES, AND IT CONTINUES TO CHANGE. FOCUSING ONLY ON THE NUTCASES WHO ADVOCATE A RETURN TO MEDIEVAL TIMES IS IGNORING THE VAST MAJORITY OF MODERN MUSLIMS.
FOR EXAMPLE, STONING FOR ADULTERY IS A PUNISHMENT THAT APPEARS IN FIQH, AS WELL AS EARLY JUDAIC LAW. BUT IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE QUR’AN. IN ISLAM, THEREFORE, STONING WAS A RESULT OF CULTURAL NORMS IMPOSED ON THE RELIGIOUS TEXTS. MOREOVER, IN THE FIQH, THOUGH THE PUNISHMENT FOR ADULTERY WAS STONING, ADULTERY WAS MADE SUCH A FANTASTICALLY DIFFICULT CRIME TO PROVE THAT THE PUNISHMENT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO APPLY. HISTORICALLY, STONING WAS VERY RARELY IMPLEMENTED IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD, WHICH IS IRONIC, SINCE TODAY THE SAUDI AND IRANIAN GOVERNMENTS APPLY IT AS THOUGH THEY’D NEVER HEARD OF THE STRICT ISLAMIC CONSTRAINTS ON IT.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS TODAY DO NOT BELIEVE IN STONING PEOPLE FOR ADULTERY, AND MANY ARE WORKING HARD TO ERADICATE IT. STONING IS HORRIFIC AND HAS NO PLACE IN OUR WORLD. THE MINISCULE PERCENTAGE OF MUSLIMS WHO ADVOCATE IT ARE IMPOSING THE MEDIEVAL PENALTY WHILE IGNORING ALL THE MYRIAD LIMITATIONS MEANT TO MAKE IT INAPPLICABLE.
AS FOR OTHER SCARY STORIES ATTRIBUTED TO SHARI’A, LIKE HONOR KILLINGS, VEILING OF WOMEN, AND FEMALE GENITAL CUTTING, THESE ARE CULTURAL PRACTICES AND NOT ISLAMIC. THEY ARE PRACTICED BY NON-MUSLIMS OF CERTAIN CULTURES AS WELL AS MUSLIMS.
SHARI’A IS A SET OF RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES AND IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. THE 50-SOME MUSLIM-MAJORITY COUNTRIES ARE ALL CONSTITUTIONAL STATES AND NEARLY ALL OF THEM HAVE CIVIL CODES (MANY OF THESE BASED ON THE FRENCH SYSTEM). BEING MUSLIM DOES NOT REQUIRE A GOVERNMENTAL IMPOSITION OF SOMETHING CALLED “SHARI’A LAW,” ANY MORE THAN BEING A CHRISTIAN REQUIRES THE IMPLEMENTATION OF “BIBLICAL LAW” (THOUGH THERE ARE, OF COURSE, A TINY MINORITY OF BOTH CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS WHO DO ADVOCATE SUCH THINGS, INCLUDING SARAH PALIN).
AS FOR ISLAM BEING A POLITICAL SYSTEM, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE QUR’AN ABOUT AN “ISLAMIC STATE,” AND THE PROPHET HIMSELF NEVER TRIED TO IMPLEMENT AN “ISLAMIC STATE,” DESPITE HYSTERICAL ACCUSATIONS TO THE CONTRARY. THOSE UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP PRACTICED A VARIETY OF RELIGIONS.
TRADITIONALLY, IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD, THE INSTITUTIONS THAT GOVERNED WERE ALWAYS SEPARATE FROM THE INSTITUTIONS THAT DEVELOPED RELIGION. IN FACT, THEY OFTEN CHECKED AND BALANCED ONE ANOTHER. ALTHOUGH NO CIVILIZATION HAS BEEN FREE FROM ALL CONFLICT, EVERY ISLAMIC EMPIRE WAS A MULTI-RELIGIOUS, MULTICULTURAL EMPIRE, IN WHICH RELIGIOUS MINORITIES WERE GOVERNED BY THEIR OWN LAWS.
THE TERM “ISLAM AS A RELIGION AND A STATE” REALLY ONLY BECAME POPULAR IN THE 1920S, AS A REACTION TO WESTERN COLONIZATION OF THE MUSLIM WORLD. IN FACT, ISLAM CONTAINS PLENTY OF CONCEPTS CONSISTENT WITH MODERN DEMOCRACY – FOR EXAMPLE, SHURA (CONSULTATION) AND AQD (A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GOVERNED AND THE GOVERNING). IN OTHER WORDS, MUSLIMS CAN BE PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE IN AMERICA, FOLLOWING STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS.
THE QUR’AN CONTAINS MANY VERSES ADVOCATING RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE, TOO, THOUGH THE ANTI-ISLAM PROTESTERS WON’T BELIEVE IT. THE QUR’AN SAYS THAT: GOD COULD HAVE MADE EVERYONE INTO ONE PEOPLE, BUT ELECTED NOT TO (11:118); GOD MADE US INTO DIFFERENT NATIONS AND TRIBES SO THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM ONE ANOTHER (49:13); THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION (2:256); AND THAT WE SHOULD SAY, “TO YOU YOUR RELIGION, TO ME MINE” (109:6).
BAHRAMI WAS FINALLY GRANTED A DECISION OF QISAS “AN EYE FOR AN EYE” –ADMINISTERED 20 DROPS OF ACID IN EACH OF HIS EYESBY BAHRAMI HERSELF
Ameneh Bahrami was 23 years old when an inhumane and possessive man destroyed her life. Having had his marriage proposal rejected by her, Majid Movahedi decided it was his right to pour a bucketful of sulfuric acid on her face as she was crossing a street in Tehran in 2004. Since that incident which has left her disfigured and completely blind, Bahrami has felt it was her right to seek retaliation for the crime against her. In the last seven years, following trials and appeals interspersed with tens of surgeries to restore her face and vision (unsuccessful), Bahrami was finally granted a decision of qisas. In Iran’s legal system, there is a kind of justice called qisas – blood money, or retaliatory punishment, that pre-dates Islam (it can be found in the Old Testament of the Bible). It’s more commonly understood as “an eye for an eye” — punishment that equals the crime, so to speak. Qisas has two basic components: the victim can either forgive the assailant (or in the case of a murder, the victim’s family can be the forgivers) and therefore be compensated financially, or a punishment that fits the crime can be administered, i.e. capital punishment for murder. Bahrami, in a move that she hoped would draw attention to the gravity of the crime, opted for punishment. Her attacker had blinded her, so she decided it would only be fair to blind him back, thus ensuring that he not only receive the same treatment she received (minus the total disfiguration of the face, years of surgery, and indescribable pain), but that he would truly understand the depth of her suffering.
She was granted her wish and Movahedi was to be sedated in a Tehran hospital and administered 20 drops of acid in each of his eyes — by Bahrami herself. But the punishment, which was to happen this week, was postponed at the eleventh hour, perhaps due to international outcry, or perhaps due to domestic controversy — Iranians themselves are divided in their views on the matter.
Bahrami and the Iranian legal system are being portrayed by some as barbarians for allowing what is perceived to be archaic and cruel punishment (even though in the United States, Israel, China and elsewhere, retaliatory punishment also exists and is practiced in the form of capital punishment) but no one doubts Bahrami’s reasons for wanting it. What some people doubt is whether qisas is effective in achieving more than the satisfaction of revenge: justice and the prevention of crime. The public prosecutor who defended Bahrami’s wish for the punishment said that his hope was that it would deter such crimes in the future.
But can crimes be deterred through punishment when a society itself pays so little attention to the suffering of the victim?
While Movahedi has been vilified in many segments of Iranian society, it is well known that in countries with trends of acid attacks — such as India and Pakistan — the commonality of the crime has rendered it ordinary and therefore often ignored. Not only are a tiny percentage of the attacks reported, but a minuscule percentage of those reported are prosecuted, and an even less detectable figure of those prosecuted actually involve any kind of punishment. The deeper problem, then, is not only that these attackers are not made answerable for their crimes but also that they are too often accepted back in their societies when news of their crime is made known.
Some experts argue that the most effective deterrent against crimes — especially violent crimes — is the engendering of a culture of intolerance for them. For instance, if an acid attacker knew that he would be shunned by his society for such a crime, perhaps he would be less likely to do it.
With acid attacks in particular, this kind of reasoning makes some sense. Most of these crimes occur within the context of pride and honor so the prospect of societal rejection and dishonor would presumably be more of a deterrent than the mere personal affront of unrequited love. Ultimately, however, debates of qisas and the controversy surrounding Bahrami’s wishes are really discussions of how far the law will allow a victim to go in determining her own justice. While it’s easy to judge from a distance, only a victim can know what could possibly satisfy her need for justice following a life-altering crime. Just ask any member of the staff of Depilex beauty salon in Lahore, Pakistan — the salon is renowned for being staffed by young women who are victims of acid attacks.
It is human nature to contemplate retaliatory justice — Hollywood has banked trillions on the notion. But laws exist in order to siphon that instinct into something that is just and deters crime. The slow fix to problems of crimes such as acid attacks is to gradually — through laws, law enforcement, and education — change the attitudes in societies where these crimes have become so common as to be ignored.
The quick fix, as it has always been, is an eye for an eye. Mahatma Gandhi once famously said that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” — and he was right, of course, but he had never been the victim of an acid attack.
She was granted her wish and Movahedi was to be sedated in a Tehran hospital and administered 20 drops of acid in each of his eyes — by Bahrami herself. But the punishment, which was to happen this week, was postponed at the eleventh hour, perhaps due to international outcry, or perhaps due to domestic controversy — Iranians themselves are divided in their views on the matter.
Bahrami and the Iranian legal system are being portrayed by some as barbarians for allowing what is perceived to be archaic and cruel punishment (even though in the United States, Israel, China and elsewhere, retaliatory punishment also exists and is practiced in the form of capital punishment) but no one doubts Bahrami’s reasons for wanting it. What some people doubt is whether qisas is effective in achieving more than the satisfaction of revenge: justice and the prevention of crime. The public prosecutor who defended Bahrami’s wish for the punishment said that his hope was that it would deter such crimes in the future.
But can crimes be deterred through punishment when a society itself pays so little attention to the suffering of the victim?
While Movahedi has been vilified in many segments of Iranian society, it is well known that in countries with trends of acid attacks — such as India and Pakistan — the commonality of the crime has rendered it ordinary and therefore often ignored. Not only are a tiny percentage of the attacks reported, but a minuscule percentage of those reported are prosecuted, and an even less detectable figure of those prosecuted actually involve any kind of punishment. The deeper problem, then, is not only that these attackers are not made answerable for their crimes but also that they are too often accepted back in their societies when news of their crime is made known.
Some experts argue that the most effective deterrent against crimes — especially violent crimes — is the engendering of a culture of intolerance for them. For instance, if an acid attacker knew that he would be shunned by his society for such a crime, perhaps he would be less likely to do it.
With acid attacks in particular, this kind of reasoning makes some sense. Most of these crimes occur within the context of pride and honor so the prospect of societal rejection and dishonor would presumably be more of a deterrent than the mere personal affront of unrequited love. Ultimately, however, debates of qisas and the controversy surrounding Bahrami’s wishes are really discussions of how far the law will allow a victim to go in determining her own justice. While it’s easy to judge from a distance, only a victim can know what could possibly satisfy her need for justice following a life-altering crime. Just ask any member of the staff of Depilex beauty salon in Lahore, Pakistan — the salon is renowned for being staffed by young women who are victims of acid attacks.
It is human nature to contemplate retaliatory justice — Hollywood has banked trillions on the notion. But laws exist in order to siphon that instinct into something that is just and deters crime. The slow fix to problems of crimes such as acid attacks is to gradually — through laws, law enforcement, and education — change the attitudes in societies where these crimes have become so common as to be ignored.
The quick fix, as it has always been, is an eye for an eye. Mahatma Gandhi once famously said that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” — and he was right, of course, but he had never been the victim of an acid attack.
IDENTITY OF MALAYSIA
• Is Malaysia a secular or Islamic state ?
•The question has been a topic debated
from 1957 till now, esp. among the political
parties.
• Though it is viewed by some quarters that the
FC is founded on a secular foundation, the FC
itself does not specifically mention whether
Malaysia is Islamic State or secular state.
• It only state that Islam is the religion of the
Federation.
FUNDAMENTALS OF SECULARISM
• A secular constitution separates State from
the Church and law from religion.
• Functions of state are confined to mundane
matters and religion is left entirely to religious
establishments.
• There is no state religion.
• eg. India- Constitution specifically mentions
that India is a sovereign socialist secular
democratic republic.
Islam is as simple as philosophy and as complicated as commonsense.
A PAS leader repeated today his party’s highly-criticised call to form an Islamic state, claiming it will put an end to the nation’s racial and religious woes.
A PAS leader repeated today his party’s highly-criticised call to form an Islamic state, claiming it will put an end to the nation’s racial and religious woes.
“I realise this solution is not as easily accepted and implemented as it is proposed but I urge all parties, including all races and religions, to see, examine and discuss this solution for the good of the people’s future and racial unity,” said PAS Youth chief Nasrudin Hasan at Tantawi in a blog posting today.
The Islamic state issue has been a major source of conflict between the Islamist party and its partners in the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) pact, particularly the DAP.
While PAS has been more widely accepted by non-Muslims over the years due to its more liberal and progressive stand, its leaders have often made it clear that the party has yet to abandon its intention to form an Islamic state, which DAP has vehemently rejected.
Nasrudin’s posting appeared on PAS organ, Harakah Daily’s website earlier today, but was removed later for reasons unknown.
When contacted, the youth leader said he was unaware of this.
He, however, insisted that he would stand by his statement, despite acknowledging that the Islamic state issue remains a sensitive matter between PR parties.
In his post, Nasrudin said there was no need for panic or phobia over the Islamic state concept and called for a fair, honest and rational assessment of it.
“After all, all this time, people have been forced to accept the bitterness, trauma and prolonged suffering under this manmade system of administration that is treasonous towards God the Creator,” he said.
Nasrudin was addressing the ongoing racially-charged spat spurred by a recent report in Utusan Malaysia on an alleged conspiracy between DAP and Christian leaders to wrest Putrajaya from Barisan Nasional (BN), usurp Islam as the religion of the federation and appoint a Christian prime minister.
He said that the issue was being exploited by those in power for the purpose of achieving their “divide and rule” agenda.
“Every time they hit a wall in trying to defend their power, the issue of race and religion is used as capital to formulate a divide and rule conspiracy.
“Newspapers and television will be fully exploited to fire up conflict and hostility between the different races.
“But as long as the government or the opposition continues to be locked in the shackles of such narrow understanding, the people will continue to suffer,” he said.
On this note, Nasrudin said PAS’s Islamic state agenda should be implemented.
“I believe this is the solution to achieve racial unity,” he said.
He said that governments should be founded on the basis of God’s teachings for the purpose of ensuring racial unity, adding that mankind, as God’s creation, are bound by his rules and regulations.
“All would agree that he who created the heaven, earth and all its contents is Allah. We, as inhabitants of his world, are subject to the rules and regulations as established by God the Creator.
“It is God who wants religion kept alive; lives protected; dignity preserved; property not pillaged; for our future generation not to suffer; justice upheld; affection fostered; friendships unbroken; that there is no coercion of religion; mutual respect; that there is security and peace; a responsible government with trustworthy leaders; harmony among citizens; stable politics; economic development; and a welfare state,” he said.
Nasrudin added that these regulations were set by God to ensure mankind’s survival on earth and should therefore form the foundation of any government administration.
“God created man with regulations that must be followed so that they do not perish … similar to how a vehicle factory produces cars with operation manuals so that users can use their products without damaging them.
“Users would not be able to use operation manuals from other companies as they would not be applicable,” he said.
They say in Persian: Shud pareeshaa(n) khwaab-e man az kasrat-e ta‘beerhaa (my dream got spoilt by so many interpretations), and it sums up the case of Islam very well. Maybe our ta‘beer of Islam is complicated while Islam is in fact quite philosophical i.e. very simple. Islam will be complicated when we will consider “interpretation of Sharee‘ah laws or Hadeeth or Fatwas or Personal laws or matters dealing with madrasas” as “religious” and matters like “Muslim educational institutions, or reservation for Muslims in educational institutions and jobs, or the need to address the community’s socioeconomic and educational uplift, or the political situation of the community, or the civil liberties, or the situation of Muslim women” as “non-religious”. And we will do so with utmost self-confidence and with no room for second-thoughts.
Islam is a ‘way of life’ – very simple. It sounds complicated because it is divorced from life. It gives a direction and greater sense to all that we do. Without it we will not be able to satisfactorily reason any higher purposes of our actions. It gives the complete answer. If I were to meet Charles Darwin I would ask him, “Thanks a lot for taking the pain of explaining to us where we have come from. Kindly tell us more about the origin of species and how the fittest survive. After having done the above, please do one more favour and tell us what are we supposed to do on this earth and what is our ultimate objective and destination – after having successfully evolved from all the named and unnamed species”. If, however, we settle down for an incomplete answer then the simplicity of Islam will elude us.
Islam guides the human beings in every aspect of life with its beautiful principles – without dividing it into the categories of “religious” and “non-religious” or Deeni and Dunyaawi. You divorce it from life and it will become extremely complicated. It will become difficult to understand and explain. Because it will not have a frame reference. It will lose the ground which is where it was supposed to be standing. When you keep it in suspended animation it will not be itself. It will certainly complicate the situation. When we hear a lecture dealing only with what is beneath the earth or above the heavens we are certainly going to say, “Islam is really complicated, my friend”.
Islam does not make the lawful unlawful and the unlawful lawful. It is between fisq (transgression) and rahbaaniyyah (monasticism). Islam is not about speeding when the signal is red. It is not about remaining stationary even when the signal is green. (For an assessment of the current situation we only need to ask a few people about the percentage of Halaal and Haraam in Islam and then analyze the answers.) This is what is meant by the ‘middlemostness’ (wasatiyyah), which is inherent to Islam. As soon as we utter ‘Islam’ it immediately implies wasatiyyah. This is the ‘bi-polarity’ of Islam which combines the East and the West (soul and body) – seamlessly. If, however, we do not combine the two despite believing in Oneness then Islam will certainly be complicated.
Islam and truth are one and the same thing. If instead of walking all the way to the truth we start urging the truth to follow our path it will not remain simple anymore. Because it will not remain truth anymore. An incomplete truth is anything but truth. Ek bhi harf ahtaanay ki nahee(n) gunjaa’ish! Truth has never been complicated. Our perception of Islam has, in fact, been partial and distorted. Truth is not easily recognized due to the conditioning effects of generations after generations. Hence, truth has become extremely “complicated” and highly “philosophical”.
Islam is a religion of common humanity. It is as simple for that humanity as air, light and water within everyone’s reach and satisfying everyone’s need in all walks of life (whether public or private). If it remained like that it was simple. But it has become a private affair. Becoming a private affair and a matter of personal preference, it has immediately become complicated. Now it is so complicated that we don’t know in which aspects of our life we can refer to this manual and in which situations there isn’t any need, in fact! In many a matters of life it is obviously non-applicable!! Being applicable at one time and non-applicable at another and a constant switching between the two is a sure recipe for making it complicated.
For commonsense to become common and for philosophy to become simple we will have to change our discourse. We will have to redefine the terminologies which we frequently use in a borrowed sense. We are not going to use new words for a change in the discourse. We are only going to assign new meanings to the already existing words. Or more correctly, to regain the lost meanings. If we do not do so, Islam will not become as simple as philosophy and as complicated as commonsense.
Enough already. The blood of Usama Bin Laden’s corpse had barely dried on the Abbottabad compound floor when the complaints about the raid began. By Sunday May 8, the whining had become a veritable Greek chorus.
Currently, 20 states have introduced anti-Muslim legislation, with more pending. Some of our country’s lawmakers and politicians have made very bigoted inflammatory commentsabout Muslims and Islam. Very recently, Tennessee, under extreme pressure, rewrote a bill that would have made it a crime punishable by 15 years in prison for Muslims to worship together in groups of two or more. Organized groups are staging hate rallies against Muslims building houses of worship around the country. Local municipalities are playing the zoning game by zoning Islamic schools and mosques out of the community. Mosque playgrounds are being torched. Muslim family homes, property, and mosques are being vandalized. Children are being bullied and harassed because they are Muslim. Shockingly, last week the Editor of the Gainesville Times in Florida published a letter that called for the expulsion of all Muslims from America. Recently, several Muslim clerics, and also a young Muslim woman were pulled off airplanes for no other reason other than they were dressed in recognizable Muslim attire. This is all being seen through the modern technology’s “window into the wider world” that you mentioned in your speech, but like all windows, you can also look from the world outside and see what’s happening inside. What does it say to the world when our President speaks about rights for people in the Muslim world that “include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion” when our own people are being hindered from building mosques, and schools, and our right to worship freely is even being threatened?
Mr. President, Muslims in America know that you do not stand with this kind of bigotry and hatred. During your announcement of the killing of Osama bin Laden you said,
SITUATION IN MALAYSIA TODAY
Islam is the religion of the Federation
Head of states or Rulers - all Muslim
Majority in the state –Muslim
The Malay status – person who professes the
religion of Islam
• The Head of executive- the Prime Minister and
Deputy
• The civil service – Chief Secretary, Majority critical
position in government
• Police, the army, judiciary and legislatures are
dominated and controlled by Muslims
• The Federal Constitution and State constitutions
embedded withy Islamic features
• The Islamic economic and religious institutions
supported by the state and the Federal
government
•Muftis, Majlis Agama Islam in states, Fatwa
Council.
•Administration of justice-The improvement
to the Shariah Court in terms of jurisdiction,
officers, salary scheme of the judges, Peguam
syarie.
• Powers of states to legislate in Islamic matters
(state List).
REBRANDING
• Is rebranding necessary?
Considering all above it is submitted that
efforts to rebrand Malaysia as an Islamic state
is unnecessary.
Coupled with wide and ascending acceptance
to the practices of Islam, it can be contended
that Malaysia as it stands today is already an
Islamic State.
CONCLUSION
• The status accorded to Islam and Islamic law in
Malaysia as we have it today is the result of the
experience undergone in legislative history.
• Islam unlike other religion in Malaysia has been
formally ascended by the Federal Constitution
with considerations however to the needs of
observing the social contract of the society.
END OF LECTURE. THANK YOU.
No comments:
Post a Comment