By Ibrahim Abdil-Muid Ramey
It's no surprise that the free market fundamentalists on the Right side of the ideological spectrum have rolled out all of their big guns-and a few of their small caliber weapons as well-in the onslaught against the Obama health care reform proposal. Their arsenal includes not only well-placed and prominent conservative voices, but a small platoon of people of color who serve as a buffer that would hope to protect the (mostly) white and affluent voices of the Republican Party from the counter-charge of racism.
Perhaps they calculate that, if a few Black people join in their collective attack on the Obama health care "public option", African-Americans and other people of color won't see the issue as one with a social class or racial subtext. One such Obama critic-Star Parker, who writes a column for the stridently anti-Obama Washington Examiner, has even labeled the Obama proposal as "Socialism" and a demonstration of what she calls "fatal conceit", and even "hubris".
It's interesting to note that "Socialism" is the common epithet hurled from the Right as they attempt to whip up Americans into an anti-collectivist frenzy over the issue of universal health care and a proposed public insurance option. To their way of thinking, public health care is just a shade away from a Bolshevik-style takeover of the national government. They predict, quite openly, the erosion of personal freedom in the arena of health care choices, and creeping government control over the medical profession.
The came charge of "Socialism" was leveled at President Franklin Delano Roosevelt when the massive social reforms of the 1930's included the creation of something called Social Security. That term may be used in a pejorative way, but it has never been a deterrent to pursuing, and achieving, the kinds of social change that benefit the masses of people in this society. Southern racial bigots called Dr, King a "communist", but that did not derail his movement.
The phony "death panel" charges from the Right were also exposed as bogus. And a majority of Americans now believe that sweeping health care and health insurance reform is certainly a change whose time has come.
I agree that it is legitimate to debate, and disagree, about the size, scope, and cost of this proposal, and there is clearly no unanimity of thinking in either major national party about the precise content of any proposed reform of our health care and health insurance systems. And whatever the final political choices may be, this will me a gargantuan undertaking that is likely to progress more slowly that many people would like.
But to characterize the public health care option as "fatal conceit" or political hubris is either profound ignorance, or an example of extreme political malice. We don't speak of "socialist" education, or "socialist" food and drug inspection, or "socialist" air traffic control, but the federal government is, most assuredly, responsible for those protections, too.
I would remind Ms. Parker, ( and her friends at the Washington Examiner), that what she scornfully calls "socialized medicine" is alive and well in virtually every industrial democracy in the world, with the exception of the United States. Perhaps that fact contributes to the fact that the overall quality of life in America is only 11th or 12th in global ranking, behind the Nordic nations of Europe and Japan. These nations do not view public health care as harmful to their own plural democratic systems.
No medical insurance and delivery system is perfect, and the U.S. system, whatever it might become, will not be an exception to this rule. But the fundamental need for health affordable and proper health care, as a human right of citizens, can only be advanced if and when the insurance monopolies cease to be the arbiters of who can, and cannot, receive treatment for injury or illness. The growing legion of poor people, the unemployed, and the dispossessed in America have not been well served by the for-profit nature of the status quo. They deserve-and demand-change.
The possible challenge to the unchecked profits of the health insurance monopolies will certainly be far short of a cure-all for the ills of this society. The fight for health care reform and universal coverage is only one skirmish in the continuous struggle for inclusive social justice in this great nation.
But make no mistake about it: the rich and the comfortable will still have their property, their constitutional freedoms, and their human rights when the dust settles and a final legislative compromise is worked out. What they will not have, though, is a system that caters to their health needs while excluding access to millions more who of their compatriots who cannot afford to be sick, or who die in squalid hospital emergency rooms because they can't afford anything else.
No, the red banner of socialism won't fly over the White House. But if health care reform is realized, a banner of greater economic justice just might flutter over it-at least for the next three, if not seven, years.
And even if Star Parker sees it differently, it is a flag that most poor people, working people, and people who believe in dignity and human rights will not only celebrate, but salute.
Showing posts with label Ibrahim Ramey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ibrahim Ramey. Show all posts
Monday, October 26, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Ending War and Political Agendas in Sudan
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
The war in Darfur is now, essentially over.
The person making this assessment is no less an authority on the subject than General Martin Agwai, who commands a multinational peacekeeping force in Sudan composed of United Nations and African Union military personnel.
General Agwai, who is leaving his command position in a few days, did not, of course, say that all the violence in Darfur has ended.
The territory remains under the threat of bandit attacks and attacks by so-called 'rebel' groups against civilians and other targets of convenience.
There is still hunger and suffering in Darfur, and throughout much of the continent of Africa.
There remain enormous political divides that must be bridged, and deep wounds to heal.
But the war, as we define war, has ended.
Much of the attention directed to Darfur, at least in the United States, has come from anti-Khartoum political elements and Darfur 'activists' who have collected millions of dollars for the humanitarian cause of helping the Darfurese – the majority of which has never reached the people who are suffering – despite the moralization and pontification of many within the 'Save Darfur' movement.
Make no mistake – there have been violent atrocities committed in this horrible tragedy, and some of the blame for the situation does indeed rest with the actions of the government of Sudan - but the issue of Darfur has never been one of 'Arabs'' on a murderous rampage against 'Africans', or one of unilateral malfeasance on the part of a single belligerent party.
The 'Africans' and the 'Arabs' in the region are hardly distinguishable in phenotype, language, and culture.
Much of the framing and analysis of the Darfur issue is developed, packaged, and sold to the U.S. Congress and the American corporate media by individuals and groups with both anti-Sudan and anti-Muslim agendas. Some of these groups have been transparently evangelical pro-Christian with a history of involvement in the Sudanese civil war (while promoting the bogus 'buy a slave and set him free travesty'.
Others are backers of the foreign policy of one particular nation-state, not even in the region, that actually supplied weapons and material support to anti-government rebels in the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (in South Sudan) and, very likely, the two main Darfur rebel groups as well.
Still other geo-political interests seek to isolate and possibly balkanize Sudan as a precondition for gaining U.S. corporate access to that most precious of global commodities; oil (and at the same time, cutting of the supply of this petroleum to a major U.S. economic rival, China).
None of these factors make the Krartoum government blamless in this mess. But all of these factors must be taken into account in understanding how the issue of Darfur is both perceived, and distorted.
What remains for those of us in this country to do, I believe, is to support both ongoing reconciliation and peacekeeping work in Sudan, and the sending of material aid that actually reaches the people most in need in the region.
The belligerent parties in Darfur must be part of these efforts, as well as the government currently in power in Khartoum.
When I visited Sudan in 1995 as part of an interfaith MAS Freedom delegation led by Imam Mahdi Bray, I was convinced that, tragic though the situation was (and is), the real solution could only lie in actions taken by the people of Sudan themselves, with the honest collaboration and assistance of the pan-Islamic world.
We called for then, and now, an end to the multilateral violence and war that has creates massive dislocation and suffering in Darfur.
But I am equally clear that the economic and political agendas of outside actors must not become factored into the solution that the people of Darfur, and all of Sudan, must work out for themselves.
I am truly happy with General Agwai's assessment about the end of the war. And now, I am hopeful that this situation will evolve into both peace and justice for the region, orchestrated by the people of Sudan themselves with the support of the international humanitarian community.
This, in the final analysis, is the only way that lasting and legitimate peace can be built and sustained.
The war in Darfur is now, essentially over.
The person making this assessment is no less an authority on the subject than General Martin Agwai, who commands a multinational peacekeeping force in Sudan composed of United Nations and African Union military personnel.
General Agwai, who is leaving his command position in a few days, did not, of course, say that all the violence in Darfur has ended.
The territory remains under the threat of bandit attacks and attacks by so-called 'rebel' groups against civilians and other targets of convenience.
There is still hunger and suffering in Darfur, and throughout much of the continent of Africa.
There remain enormous political divides that must be bridged, and deep wounds to heal.
But the war, as we define war, has ended.
Much of the attention directed to Darfur, at least in the United States, has come from anti-Khartoum political elements and Darfur 'activists' who have collected millions of dollars for the humanitarian cause of helping the Darfurese – the majority of which has never reached the people who are suffering – despite the moralization and pontification of many within the 'Save Darfur' movement.
Make no mistake – there have been violent atrocities committed in this horrible tragedy, and some of the blame for the situation does indeed rest with the actions of the government of Sudan - but the issue of Darfur has never been one of 'Arabs'' on a murderous rampage against 'Africans', or one of unilateral malfeasance on the part of a single belligerent party.
The 'Africans' and the 'Arabs' in the region are hardly distinguishable in phenotype, language, and culture.
Much of the framing and analysis of the Darfur issue is developed, packaged, and sold to the U.S. Congress and the American corporate media by individuals and groups with both anti-Sudan and anti-Muslim agendas. Some of these groups have been transparently evangelical pro-Christian with a history of involvement in the Sudanese civil war (while promoting the bogus 'buy a slave and set him free travesty'.
Others are backers of the foreign policy of one particular nation-state, not even in the region, that actually supplied weapons and material support to anti-government rebels in the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (in South Sudan) and, very likely, the two main Darfur rebel groups as well.
Still other geo-political interests seek to isolate and possibly balkanize Sudan as a precondition for gaining U.S. corporate access to that most precious of global commodities; oil (and at the same time, cutting of the supply of this petroleum to a major U.S. economic rival, China).
None of these factors make the Krartoum government blamless in this mess. But all of these factors must be taken into account in understanding how the issue of Darfur is both perceived, and distorted.
What remains for those of us in this country to do, I believe, is to support both ongoing reconciliation and peacekeeping work in Sudan, and the sending of material aid that actually reaches the people most in need in the region.
The belligerent parties in Darfur must be part of these efforts, as well as the government currently in power in Khartoum.
When I visited Sudan in 1995 as part of an interfaith MAS Freedom delegation led by Imam Mahdi Bray, I was convinced that, tragic though the situation was (and is), the real solution could only lie in actions taken by the people of Sudan themselves, with the honest collaboration and assistance of the pan-Islamic world.
We called for then, and now, an end to the multilateral violence and war that has creates massive dislocation and suffering in Darfur.
But I am equally clear that the economic and political agendas of outside actors must not become factored into the solution that the people of Darfur, and all of Sudan, must work out for themselves.
I am truly happy with General Agwai's assessment about the end of the war. And now, I am hopeful that this situation will evolve into both peace and justice for the region, orchestrated by the people of Sudan themselves with the support of the international humanitarian community.
This, in the final analysis, is the only way that lasting and legitimate peace can be built and sustained.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Ethnic Tensions in China Turn Bloody as Uighurs and Han Chinese Clash in Western China
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
Most of the world is aware of the tension in China over the occupation, and some might say, oppression of the Buddhist majority of Tibet by the majority Han people who rule the People's Republic. Since 1950, untold numbers of monasteries and other Tibetan cultural institutions have been destroyed, while the massive resettlement of ethnic Han Chinese in Tibet has altered the cultural landscape of the region perhaps for all time.
Now we are witnessing yet another spasm of ethnic/racial violence in the world's most populous nation; but this time the killing involves people of the Uighur nationality, made up of roughly 20 million Chinese Muslims.
To date, news reports indicate numerous clashes in the streets of the city of Urumqi in China's western Xingiang province, with more than 150 persons – likely far more - killed and scores seriously injured.
After an incident in which two Uighurs were killed in a factory fight, Uighurs began attacking Han people on the streets, which led to the retaliation of local Han residents along with a crackdown on local news reporting, internet and Twitter access in the region.
There are also reports of systematic Han reprisals against Uighur Muslims who seek to pray, or to fast during the upcoming month of Ramadan.
But the deeper underlying conflicts are not widely known. The Uighur population of China, like the people of Tibet, has been dealing with attempts by the central Chinese government to vigorously oppose the free practice of Islam, and to enforce the secularization of the Uighur society, including the imposition of Communist/atheist education in local schools. Moreover, the Uighur people, like the Tibetans, have witnessed the displacement of vast areas of their pastoral lands by energy and industrial operations. Like in Tibet, ethnic Han people have also been massively settled by the government into the region.
This spasm of mass killing should force us to confront some central questions: do all Chinese ethnic groups have equal access to the Chinese economic miracle. Is freedom of religion a right for Chinese citizens who belong to religious minorities? And are there any mechanisms in place to deal with the frustrations of the Uighurs (and others) who are regarded as marginalized within the larger society.
Certainly, mob violence – regardless of who instigates it or suffers from it – cannot be a way forward for Chinese Muslims or Chinese of any description.
The killing must stop immediately, for the sake of all human beings.
We should morn the deaths and injuries resulting from this latest wave of violent attacks. But the Muslim population of Xinjiang, from all indications, has numerous legitimate grievances that can only be addressed by negotiation with the Chinese national government. And the world is waiting to see if such possibilities exist, or if mechanisms for settling the disputes might be operative.
Muslim Uighurs, like Buddhists in Tibet, should enjoy the full human rights afforded to all citizens of their nation. These rights include the freedom of worship and cultural expression. They are conveyed upon human beings by our creator, and they must never be arbitrarily abolished or truncated by the powers of a state.
The majority Han government may be a powerful one, but Muslims should be prepared to voice their concern for the freedoms of our brothers and sisters in faith, and indeed, the human rights of all the citizens of China.
If the world cares about the situation in Tibet – as we should – we must also care about the sad plight of religious Muslims in China.
Most of the world is aware of the tension in China over the occupation, and some might say, oppression of the Buddhist majority of Tibet by the majority Han people who rule the People's Republic. Since 1950, untold numbers of monasteries and other Tibetan cultural institutions have been destroyed, while the massive resettlement of ethnic Han Chinese in Tibet has altered the cultural landscape of the region perhaps for all time.
Now we are witnessing yet another spasm of ethnic/racial violence in the world's most populous nation; but this time the killing involves people of the Uighur nationality, made up of roughly 20 million Chinese Muslims.
To date, news reports indicate numerous clashes in the streets of the city of Urumqi in China's western Xingiang province, with more than 150 persons – likely far more - killed and scores seriously injured.
After an incident in which two Uighurs were killed in a factory fight, Uighurs began attacking Han people on the streets, which led to the retaliation of local Han residents along with a crackdown on local news reporting, internet and Twitter access in the region.
There are also reports of systematic Han reprisals against Uighur Muslims who seek to pray, or to fast during the upcoming month of Ramadan.
But the deeper underlying conflicts are not widely known. The Uighur population of China, like the people of Tibet, has been dealing with attempts by the central Chinese government to vigorously oppose the free practice of Islam, and to enforce the secularization of the Uighur society, including the imposition of Communist/atheist education in local schools. Moreover, the Uighur people, like the Tibetans, have witnessed the displacement of vast areas of their pastoral lands by energy and industrial operations. Like in Tibet, ethnic Han people have also been massively settled by the government into the region.
This spasm of mass killing should force us to confront some central questions: do all Chinese ethnic groups have equal access to the Chinese economic miracle. Is freedom of religion a right for Chinese citizens who belong to religious minorities? And are there any mechanisms in place to deal with the frustrations of the Uighurs (and others) who are regarded as marginalized within the larger society.
Certainly, mob violence – regardless of who instigates it or suffers from it – cannot be a way forward for Chinese Muslims or Chinese of any description.
The killing must stop immediately, for the sake of all human beings.
We should morn the deaths and injuries resulting from this latest wave of violent attacks. But the Muslim population of Xinjiang, from all indications, has numerous legitimate grievances that can only be addressed by negotiation with the Chinese national government. And the world is waiting to see if such possibilities exist, or if mechanisms for settling the disputes might be operative.
Muslim Uighurs, like Buddhists in Tibet, should enjoy the full human rights afforded to all citizens of their nation. These rights include the freedom of worship and cultural expression. They are conveyed upon human beings by our creator, and they must never be arbitrarily abolished or truncated by the powers of a state.
The majority Han government may be a powerful one, but Muslims should be prepared to voice their concern for the freedoms of our brothers and sisters in faith, and indeed, the human rights of all the citizens of China.
If the world cares about the situation in Tibet – as we should – we must also care about the sad plight of religious Muslims in China.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Reflections on the Death of Michael Jackson, and the Worship of Celebrities
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
Like almost everyone, I was stunned to hear the news of Michael Jackson's sudden death on Thursday, June 25, 2009. The community around Georgia Avenue in Washington, DC was literally buzzing with the news. As I walked toward my apartment after a long day at the office, several people even stopped me on the street to ask if I had heard of Jackson's passing.
Somehow, the man-child who dominated the universe of popular music for nearly 40-years was someone who seemed to flirt with immortality. Michael Jackson, to hundreds of millions of people who celebrated him with a passion that bordered on worship, never grew old, and wasn't supposed to die. But now that are confronted with the reality that, at the age of 50, Jackson, is indeed, dead.
As the Qur'an teaches us, from God Almighty we come, and to Him, we shall (all) surely return.
As I contemplate on the life and death of Michael Jackson, described by another famous recording artist as "a major strand of our cultural DNA", a second Qur'anic truth resonates with me: there is no deity worthy of worship but the One Lord of Creation. How true these words must be for those of us who believe in God.
Yet we live embedded in a culture where the mass adulation that society pours out on athletes and performing artists approaches, and all too frequently crosses over into, the territory of idolatry.
Michael Jackson, for all of his obvious troubles and even moral ambiguities, was truly an "idol" for millions. His phenomenal talent as a child leading the legendary Jackson 5 had grown, over the years, into entertainment legend equaling that of Elvis Presley and the Beatles.
Our culture looked beyond his fixation with self-mutilation and his fascination with children; brushing them off as nothing more that the eccentricities of genius.
And when reports revealed that Jackson's $20 million annual income could not pay for his extreme spending habits, our culture brushed it off, and seemed prepared to pour more money into his gigantic pockets of self-indulgence; feeding his appetites and the legions of sycophants feeding off him.
As we come to terms with Jackson's untimely demise, a deeper question comes to mind: "When the music stops, who, or what do we actually worship? And what is the nature of our relationship with God if the objects of our adoration are nothing more than false deities?
I believe Michael Jackson was a mirror held up before society, and one that yielded a reflection of the shape and form of modern form of idol worship.
How often do we hear the word "idol" used in context with our celebration of mega-athletes and entertainers? And how is it that we collectively allow these "idols" to hover just above the moral judgments that we reserve for lesser mortals?
When a ballplayer injects steroids, or kills someone while driving under the influence of alcohol, or when an actor gets busted for drug possession at an airport, we say, "So sad", "Too bad", "It's so unfortunate". And within just a few short weeks, after the intervention of a few ultra-expensive lawyers and a team of public relations professionals, we place these "idols" right back in the temple of collective popular worship.
The world treated Jackson the same way.
His phenomenal talent trumped his need to carve away his face and bleach his skin to the point transmogrifying his African-American identity into a white death mask.
And the numerous allegations of his sexual relationships with minor children – one of which was "settled" out of court for a reputed payment of $10 million to the family of the boy who filed the lawsuit – dissolved in the brilliant light of his on-stage persona.
Even when Michael admitted to sleeping with children who were not his own, we winced and kept giving him props, love, and adoration; and yes, the fuel of nearly all idolatry - money.
But now the "King of Pop" is gone, and like all earthly kings who pass away, his soul must answer to the Celestial King of the Universe.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not complaining about Michael Jackson's phenomenal talents, fame, or earlier financial success.
In the final analysis (as once shared by another deceased icon, Tupac Shakur) only God can judge Michael Jackson.
Collectively, however, we can, and we must, judge ourselves for the celebrity worship that permeates modern culture, and ignores the need to give real help to our "famous" – and very human – brothers and sisters when they spin out of control.
I pause to mourn with the rest of those alarmed and saddened by the passing of Michael Jackson, and I offer my sincerest condolences to his family and loved ones.
But I must remind myself, and everyone, that the worship of celebrity, any celebrity, is both false and utterly destructive to the objects of worship and to those who bow down before them.
Let us honor great talent, but save worship for the Almighty God alone.
RELATED:
Michael Jackson Dead at 50 (LA Times June 26, 2009)
Sony Comments on the Passing of Michael Jackson (NY June 25, 2009)
Jackson's Legacy Remains Unsullied by Scandal (Arizona Republic, June 26, 2009)
Jermaine Jackson Press Conference on Michael Jackson's Death (June 25, 2009) (Closing comment in video: "May Allah be with him, Michael, always.")
Like almost everyone, I was stunned to hear the news of Michael Jackson's sudden death on Thursday, June 25, 2009. The community around Georgia Avenue in Washington, DC was literally buzzing with the news. As I walked toward my apartment after a long day at the office, several people even stopped me on the street to ask if I had heard of Jackson's passing.
Somehow, the man-child who dominated the universe of popular music for nearly 40-years was someone who seemed to flirt with immortality. Michael Jackson, to hundreds of millions of people who celebrated him with a passion that bordered on worship, never grew old, and wasn't supposed to die. But now that are confronted with the reality that, at the age of 50, Jackson, is indeed, dead.
As the Qur'an teaches us, from God Almighty we come, and to Him, we shall (all) surely return.
As I contemplate on the life and death of Michael Jackson, described by another famous recording artist as "a major strand of our cultural DNA", a second Qur'anic truth resonates with me: there is no deity worthy of worship but the One Lord of Creation. How true these words must be for those of us who believe in God.
Yet we live embedded in a culture where the mass adulation that society pours out on athletes and performing artists approaches, and all too frequently crosses over into, the territory of idolatry.
Michael Jackson, for all of his obvious troubles and even moral ambiguities, was truly an "idol" for millions. His phenomenal talent as a child leading the legendary Jackson 5 had grown, over the years, into entertainment legend equaling that of Elvis Presley and the Beatles.
Our culture looked beyond his fixation with self-mutilation and his fascination with children; brushing them off as nothing more that the eccentricities of genius.
And when reports revealed that Jackson's $20 million annual income could not pay for his extreme spending habits, our culture brushed it off, and seemed prepared to pour more money into his gigantic pockets of self-indulgence; feeding his appetites and the legions of sycophants feeding off him.
As we come to terms with Jackson's untimely demise, a deeper question comes to mind: "When the music stops, who, or what do we actually worship? And what is the nature of our relationship with God if the objects of our adoration are nothing more than false deities?
I believe Michael Jackson was a mirror held up before society, and one that yielded a reflection of the shape and form of modern form of idol worship.
How often do we hear the word "idol" used in context with our celebration of mega-athletes and entertainers? And how is it that we collectively allow these "idols" to hover just above the moral judgments that we reserve for lesser mortals?
When a ballplayer injects steroids, or kills someone while driving under the influence of alcohol, or when an actor gets busted for drug possession at an airport, we say, "So sad", "Too bad", "It's so unfortunate". And within just a few short weeks, after the intervention of a few ultra-expensive lawyers and a team of public relations professionals, we place these "idols" right back in the temple of collective popular worship.
The world treated Jackson the same way.
His phenomenal talent trumped his need to carve away his face and bleach his skin to the point transmogrifying his African-American identity into a white death mask.
And the numerous allegations of his sexual relationships with minor children – one of which was "settled" out of court for a reputed payment of $10 million to the family of the boy who filed the lawsuit – dissolved in the brilliant light of his on-stage persona.
Even when Michael admitted to sleeping with children who were not his own, we winced and kept giving him props, love, and adoration; and yes, the fuel of nearly all idolatry - money.
But now the "King of Pop" is gone, and like all earthly kings who pass away, his soul must answer to the Celestial King of the Universe.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not complaining about Michael Jackson's phenomenal talents, fame, or earlier financial success.
In the final analysis (as once shared by another deceased icon, Tupac Shakur) only God can judge Michael Jackson.
Collectively, however, we can, and we must, judge ourselves for the celebrity worship that permeates modern culture, and ignores the need to give real help to our "famous" – and very human – brothers and sisters when they spin out of control.
I pause to mourn with the rest of those alarmed and saddened by the passing of Michael Jackson, and I offer my sincerest condolences to his family and loved ones.
But I must remind myself, and everyone, that the worship of celebrity, any celebrity, is both false and utterly destructive to the objects of worship and to those who bow down before them.
Let us honor great talent, but save worship for the Almighty God alone.
RELATED:
Michael Jackson Dead at 50 (LA Times June 26, 2009)
Sony Comments on the Passing of Michael Jackson (NY June 25, 2009)
Jackson's Legacy Remains Unsullied by Scandal (Arizona Republic, June 26, 2009)
Jermaine Jackson Press Conference on Michael Jackson's Death (June 25, 2009) (Closing comment in video: "May Allah be with him, Michael, always.")
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Keeping It Real While Feeling the Hope: A Response to President Barack Obama's Historic June 4, 2009 Speech at Cairo University
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
Like many people who trade in the world of political commentary, I was prepared to write a response to President Obama's speech from the perspective of content analysis and criticism of not only what he communicated, but what, from my perspective, he left unsaid.
And I will still do that because there are areas of concern that many, including Muslim Americans have about the status of the relationship between the broader Islamic world, the Muslim American community and the policies and practices of the United States government.
That said, I believe all of us must acknowledge President Obama's remarks at Cairo University today as not only incisive and hopeful, but even prophetic.
A new paradigm for official US-Muslim world relations may well emerge as a result of President Obama's message. There is critical work (on all sides) to be done, and the task in front of us remains a daunting one.
But in at least three areas, President Obama's words signal a momentous and hopeful shift in the understanding that the new American government may have regarding its present and future relationship with Muslims and the Islamic world.
What are the things that make me hopeful? Here are four of them:
1. President Obama's speech advanced the understanding that Islam is not only a part of the heritage of global civilization, but part of the American historical and cultural mosaic as well. He mentioned, quite accurately, a number of important contributions that Muslims have made, and continue to make, for the advancement of American civil society, including that the fact that the Muslim American community numbers in excess of seven million, with 1,300 mosques nationwide and communities in every state. This fact alone refutes the characterization, by some that Islam is essentially alien to the American landscape, and that Muslim values and practices are incompatible with "American" culture.
Moreover, by further emphasizing the Muslim scientific, literary, and cultural underpinnings of Western and global civilization, President Obama's remarks served to advance a more enlightened understanding of Islamic and Qur'anic ethics and values as an integral part of the larger Abrahamic faith context.
2. There is recognition, for once, of both the oppression and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. It is true that President Obama spoke, quite accurately, of the continued U.S. commitment to the safety and security of the Jewish state, the acknowledgement of the historical suffering of the Jewish people, and the legitimate aspiration for a Jewish homeland. But his recognition of Palestinian displacement and the "intolerable" conditions that afflict the West Bank and Gaza civilian population represented a major shift in American understanding of human conditions rooted in historical Palestinian displacement since 1948. Also – and this was a major pronouncement – President Obama clearly stated the opposition, by his administration, to the continuation and expansion of (illegal) Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
3. President Obama spoke of support for a genuinely universal democratic ideal. There should be no doubt about the significance of a strong statement in support of real democracy articulated by a U.S. president standing on Egyptian soil. No doubt, the Egyptian people listening today, particularly the younger generation sitting in the Cairo University audience, understood that the anti-democratic and authoritarian character of the Mubarak regime, although not named, was one of the political systems in the majority Muslim world that President Obama had in mind when he spoke these words. True social progressives and supporters of popular democracy here in the United States should be encouraged by this implied criticism of past U.S. support for anti-democratic Muslim regimes, past and present, throughout the world.
4. President Obama spoke to the centrality of building economic opportunity in the Islamic world, and especially the linkage between broad societal advancement and the elevation of the human and civil rights of Muslim women. One major (and quite legitimate) criticism of majority-Muslim nations is the fact that they have not pushed strongly for the broad social (and economic) equality of women. The President challenged those nations – in a way that was neither hostile nor disrespectful – to see the education and advancement of women as central to the need for broader economic evolution within the Muslim world. And there was also his announcement of a new cooperative venture between the United States and the Organization of Islamic Conference (O.I.C.) to work for the eradication of Polio.
Of course, pundits and critics (from both the Left and Right) will undoubtedly focus on the things that were missing from the speech, and especially the lack of details related to the architecture of new American policy related to Muslim nations.
For example, would the U.S. government choose to deal with right-wing Israeli intransigence on the issue of West Bank settlements, and for that matter, the idea of a shared Jerusalem with equal human rights and access for Palestinians? How should the U.S. engage Israel on the issue of Israeli nuclear weapons? Should the huge American military policy-stick be transformed into something qualitatively different – say, a genuine Middle East 'Marshall Plan" constructed along the lines of the vision of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Closer to home, though, there's the question of how the new Obama vision will translate to a shift in the reality of U.S. government assaults on Muslim charities, the continued reliance on arrest and torture rendition, and as we have witnessed in the legal issues related to Dr. Sami Al-Arian and so many others, the outrageous twisting of the American judicial system by prosecutors who have clearly evident prejudice against Muslims brought before the bar of justice.
We must also harbor our illusions about the ferocious, and still significant, political opposition aligned against President Obama and any progressive vision he may have for constructive engagement with Muslims, abroad or at home. He will face challenges from the pro-Israel lobby, Conservatives of all stripes, reactionaries and racists who are committed to American hegemony and the maintenance of old imperial relationships.
This speech was historically significant and deeply moving for many of the millions, and perhaps hundreds of millions of people in the global Muslim community who saw and heard it. And there is much that all of us must do to address unanswered questions and translate good intentions into tangible results.
We do live in the world of realpolitik, but we also live in a world of imagination, hope, and commitment to a common humanity.
I am thankful that, on the morning of June 4, 2009 at Egypt's Cairo University, Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th President of the United States of America, reminded us of the enduring reality of not only an American dream, but also a transformative one – clearly shared by many in the broader global community as well.
RELATED:
Transcript of President Barack Obama's June 4, 2009 Speech at Cairo University
VIDEO: Obama Calls for New Start Between U.S. and Muslims (AP)
Like many people who trade in the world of political commentary, I was prepared to write a response to President Obama's speech from the perspective of content analysis and criticism of not only what he communicated, but what, from my perspective, he left unsaid.
And I will still do that because there are areas of concern that many, including Muslim Americans have about the status of the relationship between the broader Islamic world, the Muslim American community and the policies and practices of the United States government.
That said, I believe all of us must acknowledge President Obama's remarks at Cairo University today as not only incisive and hopeful, but even prophetic.
A new paradigm for official US-Muslim world relations may well emerge as a result of President Obama's message. There is critical work (on all sides) to be done, and the task in front of us remains a daunting one.
But in at least three areas, President Obama's words signal a momentous and hopeful shift in the understanding that the new American government may have regarding its present and future relationship with Muslims and the Islamic world.
What are the things that make me hopeful? Here are four of them:
1. President Obama's speech advanced the understanding that Islam is not only a part of the heritage of global civilization, but part of the American historical and cultural mosaic as well. He mentioned, quite accurately, a number of important contributions that Muslims have made, and continue to make, for the advancement of American civil society, including that the fact that the Muslim American community numbers in excess of seven million, with 1,300 mosques nationwide and communities in every state. This fact alone refutes the characterization, by some that Islam is essentially alien to the American landscape, and that Muslim values and practices are incompatible with "American" culture.
Moreover, by further emphasizing the Muslim scientific, literary, and cultural underpinnings of Western and global civilization, President Obama's remarks served to advance a more enlightened understanding of Islamic and Qur'anic ethics and values as an integral part of the larger Abrahamic faith context.
2. There is recognition, for once, of both the oppression and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. It is true that President Obama spoke, quite accurately, of the continued U.S. commitment to the safety and security of the Jewish state, the acknowledgement of the historical suffering of the Jewish people, and the legitimate aspiration for a Jewish homeland. But his recognition of Palestinian displacement and the "intolerable" conditions that afflict the West Bank and Gaza civilian population represented a major shift in American understanding of human conditions rooted in historical Palestinian displacement since 1948. Also – and this was a major pronouncement – President Obama clearly stated the opposition, by his administration, to the continuation and expansion of (illegal) Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
3. President Obama spoke of support for a genuinely universal democratic ideal. There should be no doubt about the significance of a strong statement in support of real democracy articulated by a U.S. president standing on Egyptian soil. No doubt, the Egyptian people listening today, particularly the younger generation sitting in the Cairo University audience, understood that the anti-democratic and authoritarian character of the Mubarak regime, although not named, was one of the political systems in the majority Muslim world that President Obama had in mind when he spoke these words. True social progressives and supporters of popular democracy here in the United States should be encouraged by this implied criticism of past U.S. support for anti-democratic Muslim regimes, past and present, throughout the world.
4. President Obama spoke to the centrality of building economic opportunity in the Islamic world, and especially the linkage between broad societal advancement and the elevation of the human and civil rights of Muslim women. One major (and quite legitimate) criticism of majority-Muslim nations is the fact that they have not pushed strongly for the broad social (and economic) equality of women. The President challenged those nations – in a way that was neither hostile nor disrespectful – to see the education and advancement of women as central to the need for broader economic evolution within the Muslim world. And there was also his announcement of a new cooperative venture between the United States and the Organization of Islamic Conference (O.I.C.) to work for the eradication of Polio.
Of course, pundits and critics (from both the Left and Right) will undoubtedly focus on the things that were missing from the speech, and especially the lack of details related to the architecture of new American policy related to Muslim nations.
For example, would the U.S. government choose to deal with right-wing Israeli intransigence on the issue of West Bank settlements, and for that matter, the idea of a shared Jerusalem with equal human rights and access for Palestinians? How should the U.S. engage Israel on the issue of Israeli nuclear weapons? Should the huge American military policy-stick be transformed into something qualitatively different – say, a genuine Middle East 'Marshall Plan" constructed along the lines of the vision of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Closer to home, though, there's the question of how the new Obama vision will translate to a shift in the reality of U.S. government assaults on Muslim charities, the continued reliance on arrest and torture rendition, and as we have witnessed in the legal issues related to Dr. Sami Al-Arian and so many others, the outrageous twisting of the American judicial system by prosecutors who have clearly evident prejudice against Muslims brought before the bar of justice.
We must also harbor our illusions about the ferocious, and still significant, political opposition aligned against President Obama and any progressive vision he may have for constructive engagement with Muslims, abroad or at home. He will face challenges from the pro-Israel lobby, Conservatives of all stripes, reactionaries and racists who are committed to American hegemony and the maintenance of old imperial relationships.
This speech was historically significant and deeply moving for many of the millions, and perhaps hundreds of millions of people in the global Muslim community who saw and heard it. And there is much that all of us must do to address unanswered questions and translate good intentions into tangible results.
We do live in the world of realpolitik, but we also live in a world of imagination, hope, and commitment to a common humanity.
I am thankful that, on the morning of June 4, 2009 at Egypt's Cairo University, Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th President of the United States of America, reminded us of the enduring reality of not only an American dream, but also a transformative one – clearly shared by many in the broader global community as well.
RELATED:
Transcript of President Barack Obama's June 4, 2009 Speech at Cairo University
VIDEO: Obama Calls for New Start Between U.S. and Muslims (AP)
Friday, March 27, 2009
The Hatchets May Swing, But the Tree Still Stands
A Response to Investigative Project 'Expose' of Imam Mahdi Bray
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
WASHINGTON, DC (MASNET) March 26, 2009 – It's no secret that many national Muslim leaders have been in the cross-hairs of organizations with a singular dedication to attacking Islam or characterizing high-profile American Muslim leaders as dangerous extremists. Imam Mahdi Bray, Founder and Executive Director of MAS Freedom (MASF), the civic and human rights advocacy entity of the Muslim American Society (MAS), is the latest target in this ongoing form of smear campaigning.
On March 26, 2009, Steve Emerson's Investigative Project released an expose on Imam Bray, outlining details from a past felony conviction, complete with photos from the arrest record; clearly with the intent to implicate that Imam Bray leads some sort of 'secret' life.
However, it goes without saying that, what happened in the past, and what Imam Bray has achieved subsequent to those earlier, troubled years, paint quite a different picture altogether from the one that the IP expose would lead readers to believe.
For starters, Imam Bray has never, either in private or in his extensive public life, denied serving time in prison or having a prior history of experience with drug use while working in the entertainment industry in his earlier years.
That said, it might also be pointed out that, while incarcerated Imam Bray was heralded by corrections officials as a model prisoner, and subsequent to his release, became extensively active in religious dawa (outreach), organizing the National Islamic Prison Foundation – a project with the mission of supporting incarcerated Muslims.
The success of the prison outreach program resulted in Imam Bray receiving a 1995 invitation to return to the Federal Correctional Institution in Morgantown, West Virginia as a motivational speaker for Muslim inmates.
What is important to Imam Bray's colleagues, community members, friends and family, is not the time that he spent in jail; it is the quality and integrity of the life he has led subsequent to having paid for past mistakes.
What is really troubling to Emerson, Spencer, Pipes, and their fellow travelers, is not Imam Bray's felony conviction or time spent in prison, but rather his effectiveness in building Muslim institutions and defending the rights of unjust targets of prosecution, as in the cases of the Six Traveling Imams and Dr. Sami Al-Arian, to name just two.
Much of Imam Bray's work is spent promoting Muslim community civic engagement, encouraging Muslim voter registration and participation in the electoral process, and advocating for justice on behalf of the many innocent victims of the post 9/11 anti-Muslim dragnet that has become so evident to all of us.
The body of Imam Bray's work – all within the context of nonviolence – is something that Muslim bashers and Islamophobes love to hate.
Islam is a transformational force in the lives of many Muslims, as is evident in the case of Imam Bray. It is with a note of personal pride, I might add, that this transformational force is also evident in the work and legacy of another African-American former inmate: El Hajj Malik Shabazz, better known as Malcolm X.
Clearly the intent of the Investigative Report's expose is to excoriate Imam Bray by portraying his past moral turpitude as an indicator of un-trustworthiness. The article should, in my opinion, be viewed in the context of the larger campaign against Muslim activists and the advances that Muslims have made in bringing Islamic values and the Muslim community presence to a more central place in the American inter-religious discourse.
The evidence of this advancement is reflected, in part, in Imam Bray's national stature, as well as the vehement attempts by some of his opponents to discredit him.
They can (and will) chop away at him; but I know this tree – and it won't succumb to the blows of their hatchets.
A Chinese political philosopher once said, "To be attacked by one's enemies is not a bad thing, but a good thing."
Perhaps this latest broadside will only help to illuminate that Islam, indeed, can change the lives of people for the better.
It certainly did in the case of my beloved friend, colleague, and brother in faith, Imam Mahdi Bray.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MAS Freedom (MASF) is a civic and human rights advocacy entity and sister organization of the Muslim American Society (MAS), the largest Muslim, grassroots, charitable, religious, social, cultural, civic and educational organization in America - with 55 chapters in 35 states.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MAS Freedom
1325 G Street NW, Suite 500
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 552-7414
or (703) 642-6165
Toll Free: 1-(888)-627-8471
Fax: (703) 998-6526
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
WASHINGTON, DC (MASNET) March 26, 2009 – It's no secret that many national Muslim leaders have been in the cross-hairs of organizations with a singular dedication to attacking Islam or characterizing high-profile American Muslim leaders as dangerous extremists. Imam Mahdi Bray, Founder and Executive Director of MAS Freedom (MASF), the civic and human rights advocacy entity of the Muslim American Society (MAS), is the latest target in this ongoing form of smear campaigning.
On March 26, 2009, Steve Emerson's Investigative Project released an expose on Imam Bray, outlining details from a past felony conviction, complete with photos from the arrest record; clearly with the intent to implicate that Imam Bray leads some sort of 'secret' life.
However, it goes without saying that, what happened in the past, and what Imam Bray has achieved subsequent to those earlier, troubled years, paint quite a different picture altogether from the one that the IP expose would lead readers to believe.
For starters, Imam Bray has never, either in private or in his extensive public life, denied serving time in prison or having a prior history of experience with drug use while working in the entertainment industry in his earlier years.
That said, it might also be pointed out that, while incarcerated Imam Bray was heralded by corrections officials as a model prisoner, and subsequent to his release, became extensively active in religious dawa (outreach), organizing the National Islamic Prison Foundation – a project with the mission of supporting incarcerated Muslims.
The success of the prison outreach program resulted in Imam Bray receiving a 1995 invitation to return to the Federal Correctional Institution in Morgantown, West Virginia as a motivational speaker for Muslim inmates.
What is important to Imam Bray's colleagues, community members, friends and family, is not the time that he spent in jail; it is the quality and integrity of the life he has led subsequent to having paid for past mistakes.
What is really troubling to Emerson, Spencer, Pipes, and their fellow travelers, is not Imam Bray's felony conviction or time spent in prison, but rather his effectiveness in building Muslim institutions and defending the rights of unjust targets of prosecution, as in the cases of the Six Traveling Imams and Dr. Sami Al-Arian, to name just two.
Much of Imam Bray's work is spent promoting Muslim community civic engagement, encouraging Muslim voter registration and participation in the electoral process, and advocating for justice on behalf of the many innocent victims of the post 9/11 anti-Muslim dragnet that has become so evident to all of us.
The body of Imam Bray's work – all within the context of nonviolence – is something that Muslim bashers and Islamophobes love to hate.
Islam is a transformational force in the lives of many Muslims, as is evident in the case of Imam Bray. It is with a note of personal pride, I might add, that this transformational force is also evident in the work and legacy of another African-American former inmate: El Hajj Malik Shabazz, better known as Malcolm X.
Clearly the intent of the Investigative Report's expose is to excoriate Imam Bray by portraying his past moral turpitude as an indicator of un-trustworthiness. The article should, in my opinion, be viewed in the context of the larger campaign against Muslim activists and the advances that Muslims have made in bringing Islamic values and the Muslim community presence to a more central place in the American inter-religious discourse.
The evidence of this advancement is reflected, in part, in Imam Bray's national stature, as well as the vehement attempts by some of his opponents to discredit him.
They can (and will) chop away at him; but I know this tree – and it won't succumb to the blows of their hatchets.
A Chinese political philosopher once said, "To be attacked by one's enemies is not a bad thing, but a good thing."
Perhaps this latest broadside will only help to illuminate that Islam, indeed, can change the lives of people for the better.
It certainly did in the case of my beloved friend, colleague, and brother in faith, Imam Mahdi Bray.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MAS Freedom (MASF) is a civic and human rights advocacy entity and sister organization of the Muslim American Society (MAS), the largest Muslim, grassroots, charitable, religious, social, cultural, civic and educational organization in America - with 55 chapters in 35 states.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MAS Freedom
1325 G Street NW, Suite 500
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 552-7414
or (703) 642-6165
Toll Free: 1-(888)-627-8471
Fax: (703) 998-6526
Monday, December 15, 2008
Saving Detroit Won't Save the Economy
The Challenge of Real Economic Revival
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
Share your comments in MAS Freedom's discussion forum!
SHOULD THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BAIL OUT THE AUTO INDUSTRY?
Here: http://www.masfreedomvip.com/forum/topics/should-the-us-government
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Dec. 15, 2009 – The word socialism, if you recall, was the pejorative that we heard thrown from Republicans during the 2008 presidential primary. Every speech and policy announcement from candidate Barack Obama was seen as a threat to American capitalism and a harbinger of the "spread the wealth" ideology that Wall Street has heretofore embraced.
Even "Joe the Plumber" – who was neither a real plumber nor, apparently, someone who knew anything about tax policy or macroeconomics – got his own 15-minutes of fame as a mouthpiece for keeping America safe from the collectivist desires of poor folks.
Never mind that President-elect Obama is anything but a socialist; just mentioning the word was enough to scare the rich, even if it could not win the presidency for Senator McCain.
Socialism, in this case, the idea of collective (state) ownership of the major means of economic production, is a horror for the well-to-do; that is, until private businesses that are "too big to fail" actually do go nearly belly-up, and the state is bludgeoned into bailing them out.
Such is the case now for the U.S. auto industry. As bailout proposals are hashed out in Congress, the American public is getting play-by-play coverage through media reports while the heads of General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler grovel for an infusion of more than 14 billion dollars (and much more, if they can get it), to keep the factory wheels turning in the face of projected business failures.
"Save us," they argue, because if the domestic auto industry fails, some 3 million jobs will evaporate and the whole economy will fall into the abyss of depression.
The Washington Post reported on Saturday that United Auto Workers (UAW) President Ronald A. Gettelfinger lashed out against Senate republicans after a congressional compromise bailout plan (that included a proposal to cut UAW wages) failed, accusing lawmakers of trying to "pierce the heart of organized labor."
Gettelfinger also reportedly blamed Republican senators representing states with foreign-auto plants of trying to put American companies at a disadvantage by allowing southern states to subsidize foreign automakers with hundreds of millions of dollars to build factories while turning their backs on Detroit and using tax payer dollars to subsidize the competition. "We can't compete like this as a country."
They are both right and wrong.
In classical economic theory, private capital is free to do business and make profit, but if businesses are not profitable, they should be allowed to fail so that more efficient (and presumably, profitable) enterprises can fill the void and fill the market share that the doomed enterprises formerly occupied.
Theoretically, American consumers could buy Nissan cars and Toyota trucks, and displaced auto workers (or some of them, at least) could be hired by other companies headquarters in Japan, Germany, or South Korea.
But the current crisis is a very different animal. The nation (and the world) is facing a potential economic catastrophe the magnitude of which has not been seen in 60-years.
The flag-wavers for market fundamentalism are now forced to admit that private capital (the same agglomeration that made this mess in the first place) can't save them; only a massive infusion of money from U.S. taxpayers could "possibly" save the banks, the brokerage houses, and now, the American auto industry.
If there is lesson to be learned, it may be this: Pure capitalism is a myth and the theology of absolute belief in the marketplace is false.
Government "bailout" plans backed by public funding to save private business capital from its own excesses (and machinations) must come with both real conditions, and the realization that capital is neither self-sufficient nor sacrosanct.
Don't misunderstand me. There should be a vigorous government response to the Detroit automobile manufacturing crisis (saving the Detroit Lions may be another thing altogether), as a component of larger government intervention to avert a complete economic meltdown.
The Bush administration has already announced it will consider using the $700 billion already set aside under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to cover the initial $14 billion in loans requested by General Motors and Chrysler; a figure that has yet to include figures for loans anticipated on behalf of Ford, who, as of Friday had not yet requested immediate funding.
Congress must act responsibly and swiftly to facilitate the auto industry bailout, with a foresight insuring that the post-bail auto industry emerges substantially different.
Putting the "Big Three" on life support won't save the American auto industry, and certainly won't save the rest of the nation from a projected $7.5 trillion economic crisis either; only a complete, long term restructuring of the economy – from the tax system, to the public investments we make in education, health care, and our infrastructure will accomplish that.
And alleviating the real crisis confronting working class and poor people must be at the forefront of the architecture of this new "New Deal".
The crisis in the "Market" is real, and eventually, things will change. But the reign of private capital as the unchallenged force that dictates the course of our collective future has come to an end.
If tax payers end up owning a big chunks of formerly private industries and financial institutions, we need to pro-active in how that will operate by emulating, for example a German programs that place unionized worker representatives on the corporate boards of any and all businesses operating with the largest portions of public bailout money.
Sweden, despite its own crisis in the 1990's, has rallied in more recent years under a reformed version of democratic socialism, achieving an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits.
Privately owned firms currently account for about 90% of industrial output, of which the engineering sector accounts for 50% of output and exports. Coupled with robust finances the government has been able to broaden its scope for implementing reform programs aimed at increasing employment, and reducing welfare dependence.
Thus, under the Swedish system, poverty, homelessness, and social misery have become increasingly less common in Stockholm and Helsingborg than what we see here in New York City or Washington, D.C.
The Swedes also enjoy a largely government funded universal health care system (85% costs are paid by the state vs. a mere 44.6% by U.S. standards); they live longer (age 80.5) than their U.S. counterparts (age 77.5), and their infant mortality rate (3.0%) is lower than that of the U.S. rate of 6.0% – all interestingly enough, while the percent of Swedish government revenue spent on health care is 13.6% vs. a U.S. government revenue expenditure on health care of 18.5%.
Another note; Swedes reportedly give a higher percentage of their wealth to foreign assistance than do U.S. citizens.
Sure, for-profit businesses exist in Sweden (and they even have an indigenous defense industry and a Swedish military as well), however, taxes for individuals and businesses are higher (a typical worker receives only 40% of his income after taxes and overall taxation in 2007 was reportedly 51.1% of the Gross Domestic Product) than in the U.S.
Suffice it to say, the Swedish model is not a utopian system by any means.
The Swedish model of reformed "Democratic Socialism" seems to be working for them; thus, in Sweden "socialism" is not regarded as a dirty word.
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
Share your comments in MAS Freedom's discussion forum!
SHOULD THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BAIL OUT THE AUTO INDUSTRY?
Here: http://www.masfreedomvip.com/forum/topics/should-the-us-government
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Dec. 15, 2009 – The word socialism, if you recall, was the pejorative that we heard thrown from Republicans during the 2008 presidential primary. Every speech and policy announcement from candidate Barack Obama was seen as a threat to American capitalism and a harbinger of the "spread the wealth" ideology that Wall Street has heretofore embraced.
Even "Joe the Plumber" – who was neither a real plumber nor, apparently, someone who knew anything about tax policy or macroeconomics – got his own 15-minutes of fame as a mouthpiece for keeping America safe from the collectivist desires of poor folks.
Never mind that President-elect Obama is anything but a socialist; just mentioning the word was enough to scare the rich, even if it could not win the presidency for Senator McCain.
Socialism, in this case, the idea of collective (state) ownership of the major means of economic production, is a horror for the well-to-do; that is, until private businesses that are "too big to fail" actually do go nearly belly-up, and the state is bludgeoned into bailing them out.
Such is the case now for the U.S. auto industry. As bailout proposals are hashed out in Congress, the American public is getting play-by-play coverage through media reports while the heads of General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler grovel for an infusion of more than 14 billion dollars (and much more, if they can get it), to keep the factory wheels turning in the face of projected business failures.
"Save us," they argue, because if the domestic auto industry fails, some 3 million jobs will evaporate and the whole economy will fall into the abyss of depression.
The Washington Post reported on Saturday that United Auto Workers (UAW) President Ronald A. Gettelfinger lashed out against Senate republicans after a congressional compromise bailout plan (that included a proposal to cut UAW wages) failed, accusing lawmakers of trying to "pierce the heart of organized labor."
Gettelfinger also reportedly blamed Republican senators representing states with foreign-auto plants of trying to put American companies at a disadvantage by allowing southern states to subsidize foreign automakers with hundreds of millions of dollars to build factories while turning their backs on Detroit and using tax payer dollars to subsidize the competition. "We can't compete like this as a country."
They are both right and wrong.
In classical economic theory, private capital is free to do business and make profit, but if businesses are not profitable, they should be allowed to fail so that more efficient (and presumably, profitable) enterprises can fill the void and fill the market share that the doomed enterprises formerly occupied.
Theoretically, American consumers could buy Nissan cars and Toyota trucks, and displaced auto workers (or some of them, at least) could be hired by other companies headquarters in Japan, Germany, or South Korea.
But the current crisis is a very different animal. The nation (and the world) is facing a potential economic catastrophe the magnitude of which has not been seen in 60-years.
The flag-wavers for market fundamentalism are now forced to admit that private capital (the same agglomeration that made this mess in the first place) can't save them; only a massive infusion of money from U.S. taxpayers could "possibly" save the banks, the brokerage houses, and now, the American auto industry.
If there is lesson to be learned, it may be this: Pure capitalism is a myth and the theology of absolute belief in the marketplace is false.
Government "bailout" plans backed by public funding to save private business capital from its own excesses (and machinations) must come with both real conditions, and the realization that capital is neither self-sufficient nor sacrosanct.
Don't misunderstand me. There should be a vigorous government response to the Detroit automobile manufacturing crisis (saving the Detroit Lions may be another thing altogether), as a component of larger government intervention to avert a complete economic meltdown.
The Bush administration has already announced it will consider using the $700 billion already set aside under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to cover the initial $14 billion in loans requested by General Motors and Chrysler; a figure that has yet to include figures for loans anticipated on behalf of Ford, who, as of Friday had not yet requested immediate funding.
Congress must act responsibly and swiftly to facilitate the auto industry bailout, with a foresight insuring that the post-bail auto industry emerges substantially different.
Putting the "Big Three" on life support won't save the American auto industry, and certainly won't save the rest of the nation from a projected $7.5 trillion economic crisis either; only a complete, long term restructuring of the economy – from the tax system, to the public investments we make in education, health care, and our infrastructure will accomplish that.
And alleviating the real crisis confronting working class and poor people must be at the forefront of the architecture of this new "New Deal".
The crisis in the "Market" is real, and eventually, things will change. But the reign of private capital as the unchallenged force that dictates the course of our collective future has come to an end.
If tax payers end up owning a big chunks of formerly private industries and financial institutions, we need to pro-active in how that will operate by emulating, for example a German programs that place unionized worker representatives on the corporate boards of any and all businesses operating with the largest portions of public bailout money.
Sweden, despite its own crisis in the 1990's, has rallied in more recent years under a reformed version of democratic socialism, achieving an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits.
Privately owned firms currently account for about 90% of industrial output, of which the engineering sector accounts for 50% of output and exports. Coupled with robust finances the government has been able to broaden its scope for implementing reform programs aimed at increasing employment, and reducing welfare dependence.
Thus, under the Swedish system, poverty, homelessness, and social misery have become increasingly less common in Stockholm and Helsingborg than what we see here in New York City or Washington, D.C.
The Swedes also enjoy a largely government funded universal health care system (85% costs are paid by the state vs. a mere 44.6% by U.S. standards); they live longer (age 80.5) than their U.S. counterparts (age 77.5), and their infant mortality rate (3.0%) is lower than that of the U.S. rate of 6.0% – all interestingly enough, while the percent of Swedish government revenue spent on health care is 13.6% vs. a U.S. government revenue expenditure on health care of 18.5%.
Another note; Swedes reportedly give a higher percentage of their wealth to foreign assistance than do U.S. citizens.
Sure, for-profit businesses exist in Sweden (and they even have an indigenous defense industry and a Swedish military as well), however, taxes for individuals and businesses are higher (a typical worker receives only 40% of his income after taxes and overall taxation in 2007 was reportedly 51.1% of the Gross Domestic Product) than in the U.S.
Suffice it to say, the Swedish model is not a utopian system by any means.
The Swedish model of reformed "Democratic Socialism" seems to be working for them; thus, in Sweden "socialism" is not regarded as a dirty word.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
POST OBABA VICTORY ANALYSIS: What should Muslims do in the brave new world of an Obama Administration?
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Nov. 6, 2008 – There is, understandably, a huge wave of euphoria sweeping across the nation, and throughout the world, after Barack Obama's historic Nov. 4 victory in the U.S. Presidential Election.
Also notable is the that the 2008 Presidential campaign also makes the history books as one of the longest and most expensive presidential campaigns – pitting a veteran Republican maverick and "war hero" backed by powerful conservative interests against a previously unknown, first-term Senator and African American with Muslim ancestry.
But the more obvious cause for celebration stems from the fact that for the first time in U.S. history an African-American major party candidate was not only nominated, but actually won the election.
The Obama victory, celebrated by virtually all political progressives, comes after eight years of a truculent and increasingly unpopular Bush administration. The victory comes also in the context of a national financial and market crisis, rising unemployment, a ten trillion dollar national debt, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are draining the national treasury.
As the world celebrates with us, we must pause to ask; what does this mean for Muslims in America and what does this new political zeitgeist compel Muslims to do?
I contend, first of all, that Muslims should exhale a collective sigh of relief as the Bush administration fades into history.
Our joy over the election results should be tempered, however, with a critically needed strategy to consolidate and amplify both our political strength and our legitimate presence in civil society.
Not to diminish that the Muslim community has a lot to be happy about. An Obama administration means, first of all, a new Department of Justice, with (hopefully) a great deal more respect for civil rights and greater willingness to enforce the laws that guarantee equal protection.
The Guantanamo prison camp and torture abomination is likely to be dismantled, and it is likely we will see a more progressive policy in the U.S. Department of Justice regarding protection for immigrant rights, especially those of Muslim immigrants and Latinos.
President Obama will also be in a position to appoint federal judges that can counter-act the right-wing stacking of the judiciary under President Bush, and restore some modicum of objectivity and fairness to the courts.
We might also look forward to a potential shift in resources to enhance education, health, and the internal infrastructure with more emphasis on job creation and positive environmental stewardship and conservation compared with the deplorable record of George Bush and Company.
The numbers aren't in yet, but if Virginia is at all typical of trends in our wider community, it's quite likely to be reported that something in the range of an approximate 90% Muslim American vote went for President-Elect Obama.
The number of registered Muslim registered voters in Virginia, for example, exceeded 72,000 persons in the 2008 election. If 80% of this number voted and 90% of those votes went for Obama, then it is likely that Muslim Democratic votes provided a large component of the margin of Democratic victory in the key battleground states.
While Muslims are a relatively small part of the overall electorate, the bloc voting tendency points to the importance of concentrated and mobilized Muslim votes in close elections.
It can also be observed that Muslims leveraged their voting power by forging new and potentially powerful strategic alliances with, for example, Latino communities, labor activists, and African-American civil rights activists.
In the 2008 election campaign, it is clear that the convergence of shared interests within the Muslim community gave birth to larger, progressive collaborations with other political forces to help move the nation beyond the legacy of the Bush administration.
Yet more sobering realities remain.
While the Muslim community voted in large numbers, our impact on a possible shift in American foreign policy in the Middle East leaves something to be desired.
It is no secret that the policy statements from both President-Elect Obama concerning Israel and Palestine – especially Obama's recognition of Jerusalem as the de facto capital of Israel – reinforces the status quo of American regional foreign policy at the expense of a more even-handed and democratic discourse that recognizes not only Israeli security rights, but Palestinian national and human rights as well.
In the course of his marvelous campaign President-Elect Obama made a concerted effort to directly reassure Jewish voters of his sensitivity to their concerns; in comparison, however, Muslims received no such consideration.
There is also the question of challenges to the legitimacy of the American Muslim identity itself.
We remember that Obama campaign staff members removed Muslim women in hijab from a photograph with the candidate – an action that subsequently resulted in a public apology. However, the incident signaled to the Muslim community a "don't-get-too-close-to-Muslims" policy that may carry over into the Obama administration as positions of power are assigned.
Added to these concerns is the ambivalence shown by the Obama campaign on the issue of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
President-Elect Obama's endorsement of American military strikes inside Pakistan raises enormous anxiety and concern for Muslim advocates who seek to demilitarize our foreign policy and create non-violent approaches to building new and better relationships with Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, and other majority-Muslim states on the current American military target list.
However, none of these concerns should dampen our hope and enthusiasm at this moment of monumental political change in America. But the realpolitik of our position requires clear vision, sound policy analysis, and above all, continuous Muslim political mobilization and coalition-building work to assure that a progressive Muslim-American agenda is not subsumed, or even lost, in the mix of regime change in Washington.
So let's congratulate President-Elect Obama for his extraordinary victory, and let's share in the happiness that most of the world is feeling.
But as Muslims, let us also continue to strategize and organize, not only for our own community, but for an even more progressive vision of real peace and a better future for all of America - and all of humanity.
--------------------------------------
MAS Freedom (MASF) is a civic and human rights advocacy entity and sister organization of the Muslim American Society (MAS), the largest Muslim, grassroots, charitable, religious, social, cultural, civic and educational organization in America – with 55 chapters in 35 states. Learn more here. To donate click here.
--------------------------------------
MAS Freedom
1325 G Street NW, Suite 500
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 552-7414
Toll Free: 1-(888)-627-8471
Fax: (703) 642-6191
MASF on the Web
Contact MASF by Email
Friday, August 22, 2008
Musharraf Finally Leaves - What Now for Pakistan?
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Aug. 22, 2008 – Yielding to enormous pressure and the threat of impeachment from the national legislature, General Perez Musharraf has resigned as President of Pakistan. His departure from office was hailed by a wide spectrum of internal dissidents, from secular democratic forces to radical Islamists in Pakistan, the second most populous majority Muslim country on earth and a critical player in the intrigues of geopolitics. But where does this political change leave Pakistan, and what are the prospects for the future?
As an non-Pakistani Muslim, I'll hazard a guess: there is no certain future for Pakistan. But it seems that the future, whatever it will be, should be much brighter than the continuation of nine years of military and dictatorial rule that marked the leadership of General Musharraf.
Pakistan, like much of the Islamic political world, has been embroiled for decades in multiple violent conflicts and deep social and political division. To some extent, these realities both preceded the Musharraf presidency/dictatorship, and are likely to continue, in some form, now that he has surrendered the pinnacle of state power. But there are three salient factors that make Pakistan a special case.
The first, simply put, is that Pakistan is, in its national construction, a parliamentary democracy, with a clear separation of power (like the U.S.) between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Large areas of the country (like the Western territories on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border), have been under de facto tribal authority, and outside the orbit of the central government since the establishment of the state in 1947.
However, this constitutional rule of law, with the limits on executive authority, is something that General Musharraf blatantly dismissed since he came to power in the coup of 1999. The most powerful card in his political hand was never the legitimate authority of an election, but the authoritarian power of the Pakistani military that supported him.
The second reality that differentiates Pakistan from other nations is the context of events that followed the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.
The Bush administration put enormous pressure on Musharraf to line up against armed Islamists in Pakistan, not only in the frontier provinces, but throughout civil society, including elements of the army and the security services.
The geopolitics of the U.S. "war on terror", and especially Pakistan's proximity with the war in Afghanistan, gave license for the U.S. to support the Musharraf dictatorship, even in the face of enormous civil society dissent and the heavy-handed overturning of constitutional law – as evidenced by Musharraf's sacking of Pakistan's Chief Justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudry, in 2007.
Throughout this chain of events, the Bush administration was willing to arm, finance, and politically support Musharraf (in a way similar to the support for Hosni Mubarak in Egypt), despite the clear will of a majority of Pakistanis that he needed to leave power.
The third, and perhaps most ominous reality is that, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan, or other majority-Muslim conflict areas, Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state. While Pakistan's arsenal is estimated to be less than 100 warheads (and smaller than that of regional rival India), the presence of these weapons of mass destruction in an area of intense geopolitical conflict, coupled with ongoing political instability and the power of armed groups in Pakistan that might be willing to use these weapons if they could get them, suggests that the future of Pakistan will be closely related to some stability within the state/military apparatus, and a real de-escalation of Pakistan's conflict with India.
It is not at all clear whether the coalition government led by Asif Ali Zardawi, the widower of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, will be able to form a government of national unity that can effectively control extremism and violence while bringing Islamic radicals into some form of detente with civil society.
Formidable ethnic and regional rivalries will remain, to be sure, regardless of the forces that rule the nation after the departure of former President Musharraf.
Whatever the political alignment, it is clear that the U.S. must reverse its support for an unpopular dictatorship, and come forward with massive, nonmilitary foreign assistance for the rebuilding of Pakistan's civil society and the eradication of the poverty and deprivation that are key ingredients supporting the extremism and are so prevalent in Pakistan. More affluent Muslim states should also lend a generous hand in providing the material underpinning for peace and social welfare in Pakistan.
I believe that the enormous energy and talent of the people of Pakistan, especially its youth, can help create the systemic changes that will support the prospects of real democracy and the evolution of a nonviolent, and tolerant, political culture.
While this possible post-Musharraf future is far from guaranteed, it is one that both the global Muslim community and the U.S government should be prepared to support.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Aug. 22, 2008 – Yielding to enormous pressure and the threat of impeachment from the national legislature, General Perez Musharraf has resigned as President of Pakistan. His departure from office was hailed by a wide spectrum of internal dissidents, from secular democratic forces to radical Islamists in Pakistan, the second most populous majority Muslim country on earth and a critical player in the intrigues of geopolitics. But where does this political change leave Pakistan, and what are the prospects for the future?
As an non-Pakistani Muslim, I'll hazard a guess: there is no certain future for Pakistan. But it seems that the future, whatever it will be, should be much brighter than the continuation of nine years of military and dictatorial rule that marked the leadership of General Musharraf.
Pakistan, like much of the Islamic political world, has been embroiled for decades in multiple violent conflicts and deep social and political division. To some extent, these realities both preceded the Musharraf presidency/dictatorship, and are likely to continue, in some form, now that he has surrendered the pinnacle of state power. But there are three salient factors that make Pakistan a special case.
The first, simply put, is that Pakistan is, in its national construction, a parliamentary democracy, with a clear separation of power (like the U.S.) between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Large areas of the country (like the Western territories on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border), have been under de facto tribal authority, and outside the orbit of the central government since the establishment of the state in 1947.
However, this constitutional rule of law, with the limits on executive authority, is something that General Musharraf blatantly dismissed since he came to power in the coup of 1999. The most powerful card in his political hand was never the legitimate authority of an election, but the authoritarian power of the Pakistani military that supported him.
The second reality that differentiates Pakistan from other nations is the context of events that followed the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.
The Bush administration put enormous pressure on Musharraf to line up against armed Islamists in Pakistan, not only in the frontier provinces, but throughout civil society, including elements of the army and the security services.
The geopolitics of the U.S. "war on terror", and especially Pakistan's proximity with the war in Afghanistan, gave license for the U.S. to support the Musharraf dictatorship, even in the face of enormous civil society dissent and the heavy-handed overturning of constitutional law – as evidenced by Musharraf's sacking of Pakistan's Chief Justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudry, in 2007.
Throughout this chain of events, the Bush administration was willing to arm, finance, and politically support Musharraf (in a way similar to the support for Hosni Mubarak in Egypt), despite the clear will of a majority of Pakistanis that he needed to leave power.
The third, and perhaps most ominous reality is that, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan, or other majority-Muslim conflict areas, Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state. While Pakistan's arsenal is estimated to be less than 100 warheads (and smaller than that of regional rival India), the presence of these weapons of mass destruction in an area of intense geopolitical conflict, coupled with ongoing political instability and the power of armed groups in Pakistan that might be willing to use these weapons if they could get them, suggests that the future of Pakistan will be closely related to some stability within the state/military apparatus, and a real de-escalation of Pakistan's conflict with India.
It is not at all clear whether the coalition government led by Asif Ali Zardawi, the widower of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, will be able to form a government of national unity that can effectively control extremism and violence while bringing Islamic radicals into some form of detente with civil society.
Formidable ethnic and regional rivalries will remain, to be sure, regardless of the forces that rule the nation after the departure of former President Musharraf.
Whatever the political alignment, it is clear that the U.S. must reverse its support for an unpopular dictatorship, and come forward with massive, nonmilitary foreign assistance for the rebuilding of Pakistan's civil society and the eradication of the poverty and deprivation that are key ingredients supporting the extremism and are so prevalent in Pakistan. More affluent Muslim states should also lend a generous hand in providing the material underpinning for peace and social welfare in Pakistan.
I believe that the enormous energy and talent of the people of Pakistan, especially its youth, can help create the systemic changes that will support the prospects of real democracy and the evolution of a nonviolent, and tolerant, political culture.
While this possible post-Musharraf future is far from guaranteed, it is one that both the global Muslim community and the U.S government should be prepared to support.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Crossing the Line: NY Post Attempts to Label Prominent Muslim Advocate as 'Terror Imam'
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) July 28, 2008 – Rupert Murdoch's New York Post has, once again, re-established itself as having the journalistic integrity and ethics rivaling the worst of tabloid publications found in the check-out isle at most convenience stores. The in-your-face sensationalism and hyperbole of Post news articles is not designed to elevate intelligent debate or present objective news information. Rather, it is published to sell tabloid-style news – trading on the emotional responses, and often prejudices – of those who might not otherwise be inclined to read publications such as the New York Times or the Economist.
So it wasn't any surprise to me when, on Monday, July 21, I was alerted to a Post "Exclusive" cover story titled, "Train-ing Day for Jihadists – Muslim Subway Ads Have Terror Tie-In" referring to Imam Siraj Wahhaj, of Brooklyn, as the 'inflammatory imam', who has organized a campaign to post advertisements on 1,000 New York City subway cars, this September (during Ramadan), guiding commuters to a source for information explaining the true nature of Islam to non-Muslims curious about the religion, or who, based on inaccurate information (largely provided through media sources), believe the religion is bent on acts of violence.
This, of course, in the eyes of the Post editorial team and its journalists, would make Imam Wahhaj guilty of being a purveyor of terrorism and a supporter of radical Islam and its proponents, who launched an attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) in 1993.
Despite the fact that Imam Wahhaj was never formally charged with having any connection to the 1993 WTC tragedy, cited as 'evidence' for the inappropriately titled Post article, was U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White's statement alleging him to be 'one of 170 unindicted co-conspirators' in the WTC bombing; the fact that he testified as a character witness for Sheikh Oman Abdul Rahman - convicted of playing a role in the same incident; and past statements wherein Wahhaj is said to have referred to the FBI and CIA as the 'real terrorists'.
While it can be said that Imam Wahhaj is, indeed, a highly vocal and prolific critic of U.S. foreign policy and the blanket indictment of Muslim activists by the Justice Department, it is clear that the intent of the Post's article is to suggest that the "Why Islam" campaign, very simply designed in an attempt to aid in clarifying long-held misperceptions about Islam and being Muslim for the 4.9 million people riding the New York City subway, is nothing less than a blatant attempt to recruit people into criminal or terrorists acts.
What the Post failed to include in their report is the fact that the "Why Islam" initiative has been a part of the east coast billboard landscape for the past several years, has been advertised in community newspapers, promoted at booths in local malls, and has never once been associated with promoting violence or condoning crime.
Now to address the matter of the nebulous and dangerous 'smear' otherwise known as the 'unindicted co-conspirator' (UCC) phenomenon, a tool used by government prosecutors empowering them with the ability to cast a wide net of implied conspiracy in criminal cases – with or without evidence of guilt. More than 150 UCC's were named in the WTC case – a number that rose to 300 or more as the government prosecuted the Holy Land Trust (a Muslim charitable organization).
Despite the fact that Imam Wahhaj is a well-established, prominent, national Muslim leader and highly regarded advocate and fund-raiser for Muslim institutions throughout the United States, the tag, "UCC" has, in effect, according to the Post, morphed into his being labeled as the 'terror imam'.
Numerous national legislators, including Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) have called the Justice Department to task for their use of the UCC label as a substitute for real evidence in legal actions against Muslim individuals and institutions – an act that has subsequently produced 'trial by trash' journalism – just one of numerous strategies designed to malign, and even destroy, the credibility and work of Muslim individuals and organizations who have had nothing to do with criminal activities. Perhaps that was the intent of the Post's article as it relates to the "Why Islam" initiative.
For the record, I believe that all people are free to accept or reject the call of the Holy Qur'an, and equally, they are free to reject the ideology and vision presented to them by any Muslim individual or organization propagating the message of Islam. We are all free to form our own opinions about the credibility and authenticity of – or lack thereof – Muslims in the public sphere. After all, there is no compulsion in religion, and there should never be.
But to label Imam Wahhaj as the 'terror imam' based merely on guilt-by-association, or by a desire to propagate his religion, is simply a flimsy and crude attempt at character assassination and fear-mongering.
Imam Wahhaj is not underground, by the way. It's fairly easy to find his mosque, Masjid Al-Taqwa, in the Bedford-Stuyvesant community of Brooklyn. I would suggest that, New York Post reporters, and anyone else with a legitimate interest in the truth about who he is and what he believes, meet him and visit his community before launching future attempts to label or smear him, Islam, or the Muslim community at-large.
If the Post has hard evidence of the involvement of Imam Siraj Wahhaj, or anyone else, in conspiracy to commit violent crimes, they should present the evidence to the proper law enforcement authorities. If the publication and/or its publishers have contempt for Islam, that is its/their right. And for those objecting to the public display/advertisement of educational material on the subject of Islam, I would suggest a good read-through of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
And finally, the Post, and the general public, should also be aware that labeling someone as a terrorist, or implying that a person has connections with terrorists, is a very, very, serious charge that cannot be used as a cover for bigotry, religious hostility, or a sensationalist pretext to sell newspapers.
"Why Islam" is a public information campaign to bring information about the religion of Islam, the Holy Qur'an, and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) to the American public. The centerpiece of the campaign is a toll-free number (1-877-WHY ISLAM) and a website (whyislam.org) that gives people access to further information about the fastest growing religious affiliation in the United States.
RELATED:
"Why Islam", Chicago Tribune, December 13, 2007
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) July 28, 2008 – Rupert Murdoch's New York Post has, once again, re-established itself as having the journalistic integrity and ethics rivaling the worst of tabloid publications found in the check-out isle at most convenience stores. The in-your-face sensationalism and hyperbole of Post news articles is not designed to elevate intelligent debate or present objective news information. Rather, it is published to sell tabloid-style news – trading on the emotional responses, and often prejudices – of those who might not otherwise be inclined to read publications such as the New York Times or the Economist.
So it wasn't any surprise to me when, on Monday, July 21, I was alerted to a Post "Exclusive" cover story titled, "Train-ing Day for Jihadists – Muslim Subway Ads Have Terror Tie-In" referring to Imam Siraj Wahhaj, of Brooklyn, as the 'inflammatory imam', who has organized a campaign to post advertisements on 1,000 New York City subway cars, this September (during Ramadan), guiding commuters to a source for information explaining the true nature of Islam to non-Muslims curious about the religion, or who, based on inaccurate information (largely provided through media sources), believe the religion is bent on acts of violence.
This, of course, in the eyes of the Post editorial team and its journalists, would make Imam Wahhaj guilty of being a purveyor of terrorism and a supporter of radical Islam and its proponents, who launched an attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) in 1993.
Despite the fact that Imam Wahhaj was never formally charged with having any connection to the 1993 WTC tragedy, cited as 'evidence' for the inappropriately titled Post article, was U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White's statement alleging him to be 'one of 170 unindicted co-conspirators' in the WTC bombing; the fact that he testified as a character witness for Sheikh Oman Abdul Rahman - convicted of playing a role in the same incident; and past statements wherein Wahhaj is said to have referred to the FBI and CIA as the 'real terrorists'.
While it can be said that Imam Wahhaj is, indeed, a highly vocal and prolific critic of U.S. foreign policy and the blanket indictment of Muslim activists by the Justice Department, it is clear that the intent of the Post's article is to suggest that the "Why Islam" campaign, very simply designed in an attempt to aid in clarifying long-held misperceptions about Islam and being Muslim for the 4.9 million people riding the New York City subway, is nothing less than a blatant attempt to recruit people into criminal or terrorists acts.
What the Post failed to include in their report is the fact that the "Why Islam" initiative has been a part of the east coast billboard landscape for the past several years, has been advertised in community newspapers, promoted at booths in local malls, and has never once been associated with promoting violence or condoning crime.
Now to address the matter of the nebulous and dangerous 'smear' otherwise known as the 'unindicted co-conspirator' (UCC) phenomenon, a tool used by government prosecutors empowering them with the ability to cast a wide net of implied conspiracy in criminal cases – with or without evidence of guilt. More than 150 UCC's were named in the WTC case – a number that rose to 300 or more as the government prosecuted the Holy Land Trust (a Muslim charitable organization).
Despite the fact that Imam Wahhaj is a well-established, prominent, national Muslim leader and highly regarded advocate and fund-raiser for Muslim institutions throughout the United States, the tag, "UCC" has, in effect, according to the Post, morphed into his being labeled as the 'terror imam'.
Numerous national legislators, including Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) have called the Justice Department to task for their use of the UCC label as a substitute for real evidence in legal actions against Muslim individuals and institutions – an act that has subsequently produced 'trial by trash' journalism – just one of numerous strategies designed to malign, and even destroy, the credibility and work of Muslim individuals and organizations who have had nothing to do with criminal activities. Perhaps that was the intent of the Post's article as it relates to the "Why Islam" initiative.
For the record, I believe that all people are free to accept or reject the call of the Holy Qur'an, and equally, they are free to reject the ideology and vision presented to them by any Muslim individual or organization propagating the message of Islam. We are all free to form our own opinions about the credibility and authenticity of – or lack thereof – Muslims in the public sphere. After all, there is no compulsion in religion, and there should never be.
But to label Imam Wahhaj as the 'terror imam' based merely on guilt-by-association, or by a desire to propagate his religion, is simply a flimsy and crude attempt at character assassination and fear-mongering.
Imam Wahhaj is not underground, by the way. It's fairly easy to find his mosque, Masjid Al-Taqwa, in the Bedford-Stuyvesant community of Brooklyn. I would suggest that, New York Post reporters, and anyone else with a legitimate interest in the truth about who he is and what he believes, meet him and visit his community before launching future attempts to label or smear him, Islam, or the Muslim community at-large.
If the Post has hard evidence of the involvement of Imam Siraj Wahhaj, or anyone else, in conspiracy to commit violent crimes, they should present the evidence to the proper law enforcement authorities. If the publication and/or its publishers have contempt for Islam, that is its/their right. And for those objecting to the public display/advertisement of educational material on the subject of Islam, I would suggest a good read-through of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
And finally, the Post, and the general public, should also be aware that labeling someone as a terrorist, or implying that a person has connections with terrorists, is a very, very, serious charge that cannot be used as a cover for bigotry, religious hostility, or a sensationalist pretext to sell newspapers.
"Why Islam" is a public information campaign to bring information about the religion of Islam, the Holy Qur'an, and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) to the American public. The centerpiece of the campaign is a toll-free number (1-877-WHY ISLAM) and a website (whyislam.org) that gives people access to further information about the fastest growing religious affiliation in the United States.
RELATED:
"Why Islam", Chicago Tribune, December 13, 2007
Monday, June 2, 2008
Living Peace: Ibrahim Ramey - June 5, 2008
On Thursday, June 5, 2008, at the Tibet Center in Brooklyn, Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey will discuss Islam's approach to inner peace as part of the LIVING PEACE workshop series.
A native of Norfolk, Virginia, Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id (Clayton) Ramey is the civil and human rights director for MAS Freedom (MASF), the civic and human rights advocacy entity of the Muslim American Society (MAS), America’s largest grassroots Muslim organization. Prior to joining MAS Freedom in September 2006, Ibrahim coordinated national disarmament work for the Fellowship of Reconciliation in Nyack, New York.
Since 1974, Ibrahim has worked as an international activist and advocate for human and civil right issues in the United States and throughout the world. He is a vice president of the Steering Committee of the Religious NGO Community at the United Nations. He is a board member of the Muslim Women’s Institute, the Temple of Understanding (an interfaith organization promoting dialogue and cooperation among diverse religious tradition, and a member of the Steering Committee of the Climate Crisis Coalition, a leading environmental action organization in the United States.
A collaboration between CTICE and the The Tibet Center in Brooklyn, "LIVING PEACE: Spiritual Approaches to Achieving Inner Peace" is a series of seminars and workshops where teachers and leaders of different faith backgrounds will present their respective techniques for realizing inner peace. LIVING PEACE seeks to offer the New York City community practical exposure to different ways of achieving and maintaining inner peace, and promoting awareness of the importance of this state.
The Tibet Center is located at 25 Washington Street, Suite 304, in Brooklyn. By subway, take the F train to York Street or C train to High Street. By car, take I-278 to Cadman Plaza (Exit 28).
LIVING PEACE is free and open to the public.
For information, please e-mail LM2500@COLUMBIA.EDU.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Playing the Muslim 'Fear' Card is Wrong for Colorado, and America
Rima Barakat Sinclair: Palestinian Muslim American Woman Under Siege
It's not because of her political ideology, or opinions about matters that concern the taxpayers and voters of the 6th Assembly District in Colorado – where she is running for a seat in the Colorado House of Representatives as a Republican party candidate in a heavily Democratic district – on the contrary – Rima Barakat Sinclair is under siege because her nationality and faith.
Sinclair, 48, is a Muslim of Palestinian ancestry (originally from Amman, Jordan), sworn in as a U.S. citizen in July 1998. She is also an accomplished, educated woman of character and integrity, in addition to being a translator and successful businessperson with an excellent reputation for serving her community.
However, despite her accomplishments, Sinclair has been targeted by a Republican counter-part petitioning to qualify for the primary ballot alongside her, for the most vile and amazingly xenophobic excoriation imaginable: she has been called a "terror apologist", an "Islamist", and a person "waging jihad dressed up as a Republican candidate" – simply because of her faith.
But the vilification doesn't stop there. It has extended to outright racial attacks on the Palestinian people.
One critic even stated that "many in the Palestinian land movement are like cockroaches and light (sic) when confronted with the truth they scurry away and hide. Clearly Ms. Barakat is a Palestinian cockroach."
It's certainly permissible, and even expected, for individuals to express their public disdain for certain political ideas and positions expressed by candidates for public office. That's an expression of our precious rights of free speech and freedom of political expression.
But to call someone a terrorist or, God forbid, a cockroach, isn't political criticism. It is raw, unvarnished slander and racism. It does not pretend to try to discern the real political beliefs of Rima Barakat Sinclair. And it has no place in American politics, or for that matter, in America , period.
It is fashionable now, in some political quarters to make "Arab" or "Palestinian" coterminous with "Terrorist". Simply allowing a Muslim to run for political office is, for these people, tantamount to an assault on democracy itself. Some of them have even made a cottage industry out of their not-so-thinly veiled attacks on Muslim leaders and Muslim organizations, accusing everyone ( and their mothers) with all sorts of sinister associations and nefarious anti-American motives, all without the tiniest shred of evidence. They make slander and character defamation their personal tickets to front row seats on the platform of false patriotism.
But their problem, in this case, is simply that Rima Barakat Sinclair is no wannabe Osama bin Laden, or undercover enemy of the American people. She is simply a person who wishes to serve her community as an elected official (and a Republican at that), and she has absolutely no connections with anti-American rhetoric or violence.
To reject her politics, or even to personally dislike her, is fine. But the slanderous attacks against her, and against Palestinians, exposed the crude underbelly of the racism and anti-Muslim xenophobia that some persons, sadly, still wear as a badge of honor.
If the officials of the Colorado Republican party repudiate this sort of slander, then they should say so, in public, and declare that racism has no place in their party. I would call on their presumed presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, to make a similar statement.
Many persons, including Denver Post columnist Steve Laudeman, believe that Rima Barakat Sinclair would make an effective state legislator. That is certainly for the voters to determine. But the final determination of her ability to serve in elected office should be made on the merits of her qualifications and her ideals – not because of her ethnic or religious identity.
The true "cockroaches" in the Colorado political world, as it turns out, are not people of Palestinian ancestry – they are those who spew vile, racist and bigoted speech contrary to the best ideals of a free, fair, and democratic society.
Related:
Muslim Candidate Seeks Detente With Own Party
By Bill Johnson, Rocky Mountain News – Friday, May 2, 2008
It's not because of her political ideology, or opinions about matters that concern the taxpayers and voters of the 6th Assembly District in Colorado – where she is running for a seat in the Colorado House of Representatives as a Republican party candidate in a heavily Democratic district – on the contrary – Rima Barakat Sinclair is under siege because her nationality and faith.
Sinclair, 48, is a Muslim of Palestinian ancestry (originally from Amman, Jordan), sworn in as a U.S. citizen in July 1998. She is also an accomplished, educated woman of character and integrity, in addition to being a translator and successful businessperson with an excellent reputation for serving her community.
However, despite her accomplishments, Sinclair has been targeted by a Republican counter-part petitioning to qualify for the primary ballot alongside her, for the most vile and amazingly xenophobic excoriation imaginable: she has been called a "terror apologist", an "Islamist", and a person "waging jihad dressed up as a Republican candidate" – simply because of her faith.
But the vilification doesn't stop there. It has extended to outright racial attacks on the Palestinian people.
One critic even stated that "many in the Palestinian land movement are like cockroaches and light (sic) when confronted with the truth they scurry away and hide. Clearly Ms. Barakat is a Palestinian cockroach."
It's certainly permissible, and even expected, for individuals to express their public disdain for certain political ideas and positions expressed by candidates for public office. That's an expression of our precious rights of free speech and freedom of political expression.
But to call someone a terrorist or, God forbid, a cockroach, isn't political criticism. It is raw, unvarnished slander and racism. It does not pretend to try to discern the real political beliefs of Rima Barakat Sinclair. And it has no place in American politics, or for that matter, in America , period.
It is fashionable now, in some political quarters to make "Arab" or "Palestinian" coterminous with "Terrorist". Simply allowing a Muslim to run for political office is, for these people, tantamount to an assault on democracy itself. Some of them have even made a cottage industry out of their not-so-thinly veiled attacks on Muslim leaders and Muslim organizations, accusing everyone ( and their mothers) with all sorts of sinister associations and nefarious anti-American motives, all without the tiniest shred of evidence. They make slander and character defamation their personal tickets to front row seats on the platform of false patriotism.
But their problem, in this case, is simply that Rima Barakat Sinclair is no wannabe Osama bin Laden, or undercover enemy of the American people. She is simply a person who wishes to serve her community as an elected official (and a Republican at that), and she has absolutely no connections with anti-American rhetoric or violence.
To reject her politics, or even to personally dislike her, is fine. But the slanderous attacks against her, and against Palestinians, exposed the crude underbelly of the racism and anti-Muslim xenophobia that some persons, sadly, still wear as a badge of honor.
If the officials of the Colorado Republican party repudiate this sort of slander, then they should say so, in public, and declare that racism has no place in their party. I would call on their presumed presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, to make a similar statement.
Many persons, including Denver Post columnist Steve Laudeman, believe that Rima Barakat Sinclair would make an effective state legislator. That is certainly for the voters to determine. But the final determination of her ability to serve in elected office should be made on the merits of her qualifications and her ideals – not because of her ethnic or religious identity.
The true "cockroaches" in the Colorado political world, as it turns out, are not people of Palestinian ancestry – they are those who spew vile, racist and bigoted speech contrary to the best ideals of a free, fair, and democratic society.
Related:
Muslim Candidate Seeks Detente With Own Party
By Bill Johnson, Rocky Mountain News – Friday, May 2, 2008
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Reflections on the 40th Anniversary of the King Assassination
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) April 4, 2008 – In a digital world that changes every millisecond, 40-years is a very long time. But an event that changed the course of a nation–in fact, the world–is worth remembering, even if it is regarded by many as 'ancient' history.
That event, of course, is the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., which occurred, now 40-years ago, in Memphis, Tennessee on April 4, 1968. The popular memory of the significance of the non-violent movement for civil rights in the United States has dimmed over the years, but the anniversary of the Dr. King's assassination, like the commemoration of his January birthday, is a major time for national reflection and nostalgia.
But is this time of reflection also a time for renewed action? Should we be assessing where this nation has moved, since 1968, in the struggle for equality?
We've had commemorations and speeches and government commissions galore. We've created thousands of streets and avenues that bear the name of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We've created parks, and malls–monuments and parades, and even retail sales days on the commemoration of Dr. King's birthday.
However, the nation is still lacking a genuine, uncompromised commitment to both economic and political justice in America, not only for the African-American community that formed the core of the Kingian movement, but increasingly for Muslims, Latinos, and poor people of all descriptions who have been written out of the script in the American dream that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. so compellingly articulated in his life and work.
I'm sure that Dr. King, were he still alive, would celebrate the candidacy of Barack Obama as an indication of real change in the racial status quo. But I am equally certain that he would be appalled about all of the following:
• Dr. King would be enraged that Dr. Sami Al-Arian, a respected teacher and leader, is on the 33rd day of a hunger strike in a North Carolina prison. Dr. Al-Arian, like Dr. King, has a dream of an America that does not prosecute and convict men and women who are innocent of criminal charges.
• Dr. King would be appalled at the status of the U.S. war in Iraq, which has killed 4,000 U.S. military personnel and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, while costing hundreds of billions in U.S. citizen tax dollars.
• He would make common cause with the political prisoners in Guantanamo, and the thousands more in the world in places like Egypt.
• Dr. King would be in solidarity with Spanish-speaking immigrants–both documented and undocumented–who are confronted with xenophobic town resolutions and an organized attempt to criminalize and even dehumanize their very existence in America–despite their indispensable contribution to the economic bedrock of the nation.
The questions and issues of "civil rights" have changed dramatically from the binary black-white paradigm of Dr. King's time. The demographic face of the United States has changed, too. But the forces of racism, economic injustice, and militarism–the "evil triplets" that Dr. King spoke of in his speech at Riverside Church on April 4, 1967–are still deeply institutionalized in the fabric of the country.
Muslims, like others, are stakeholders in the vision that Dr. King gave his life for. That is a vision of an America that is just, equal, and committed to human rights and human equality. But the reality on April 4, 2008, is that we live in a nation that tortures some of its prisoners, and gives material support for others who commit these crimes in other countries.
The dramatic events of the recent mortgage melt-down were a wake-up call about the economic perils confronting more and more poor and working-class people in the country. And they should also say to us that the work of Dr. King's movement is largely unfinished.
We don't need more monuments, or empty rhetoric about dreams. What we need–and what our community must be prepared to struggle and sacrifice for–is a genuine movement for human rights, peace, and the economic change required to wage–and win–a real struggle for justice.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) April 4, 2008 – In a digital world that changes every millisecond, 40-years is a very long time. But an event that changed the course of a nation–in fact, the world–is worth remembering, even if it is regarded by many as 'ancient' history.
That event, of course, is the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., which occurred, now 40-years ago, in Memphis, Tennessee on April 4, 1968. The popular memory of the significance of the non-violent movement for civil rights in the United States has dimmed over the years, but the anniversary of the Dr. King's assassination, like the commemoration of his January birthday, is a major time for national reflection and nostalgia.
But is this time of reflection also a time for renewed action? Should we be assessing where this nation has moved, since 1968, in the struggle for equality?
We've had commemorations and speeches and government commissions galore. We've created thousands of streets and avenues that bear the name of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We've created parks, and malls–monuments and parades, and even retail sales days on the commemoration of Dr. King's birthday.
However, the nation is still lacking a genuine, uncompromised commitment to both economic and political justice in America, not only for the African-American community that formed the core of the Kingian movement, but increasingly for Muslims, Latinos, and poor people of all descriptions who have been written out of the script in the American dream that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. so compellingly articulated in his life and work.
I'm sure that Dr. King, were he still alive, would celebrate the candidacy of Barack Obama as an indication of real change in the racial status quo. But I am equally certain that he would be appalled about all of the following:
• Dr. King would be enraged that Dr. Sami Al-Arian, a respected teacher and leader, is on the 33rd day of a hunger strike in a North Carolina prison. Dr. Al-Arian, like Dr. King, has a dream of an America that does not prosecute and convict men and women who are innocent of criminal charges.
• Dr. King would be appalled at the status of the U.S. war in Iraq, which has killed 4,000 U.S. military personnel and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, while costing hundreds of billions in U.S. citizen tax dollars.
• He would make common cause with the political prisoners in Guantanamo, and the thousands more in the world in places like Egypt.
• Dr. King would be in solidarity with Spanish-speaking immigrants–both documented and undocumented–who are confronted with xenophobic town resolutions and an organized attempt to criminalize and even dehumanize their very existence in America–despite their indispensable contribution to the economic bedrock of the nation.
The questions and issues of "civil rights" have changed dramatically from the binary black-white paradigm of Dr. King's time. The demographic face of the United States has changed, too. But the forces of racism, economic injustice, and militarism–the "evil triplets" that Dr. King spoke of in his speech at Riverside Church on April 4, 1967–are still deeply institutionalized in the fabric of the country.
Muslims, like others, are stakeholders in the vision that Dr. King gave his life for. That is a vision of an America that is just, equal, and committed to human rights and human equality. But the reality on April 4, 2008, is that we live in a nation that tortures some of its prisoners, and gives material support for others who commit these crimes in other countries.
The dramatic events of the recent mortgage melt-down were a wake-up call about the economic perils confronting more and more poor and working-class people in the country. And they should also say to us that the work of Dr. King's movement is largely unfinished.
We don't need more monuments, or empty rhetoric about dreams. What we need–and what our community must be prepared to struggle and sacrifice for–is a genuine movement for human rights, peace, and the economic change required to wage–and win–a real struggle for justice.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The Persistent Inconvenience of Black Rage
Barack Obama Tries to Navigate the Slippery Slope of Racism
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) March 20, 2008 — The 800 pound 'animal' in the world of political discourse has once again made its entrance—center stage in the 2008 electoral contest. The 'animal' being the issue of 'race', or more precisely, the reality (or perception) of racism in the context of America.
Racism is, to be sure, a loaded subject, both profound and deceptively simplistic, and one that many people in America—both white and people of color—would prefer to ignore, or at least marginalize. But when the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama's longtime pastor and spiritual mentor, raised the ante by speaking about racism in a provocative and bold way, the "race" thing became, once again, an inevitable part of the national conversation, and ultimately, in the contest for the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency.
What did Reverend Wright proclaim? Nothing, substantively, that most intelligent people would disagree with. Namely, he said that that Mr. Obama knows what it means to be Black in America while Senator Clinton does not. That is true enough, as I think even Senator Clinton (and her husband) would have to agree.
But Reverend Wright also said—in effect—that the violence of September 11th, 2001 had it's genesis in the misdeeds and oppressive measures of the U.S. government.
If anything, violence is both cyclical and dialectical. No matter who perpetrates violence, or for whatever false "ideals" it is committed, violence comes back to afflict the purveyor. This is a position that aligns with the truth articulated by both Malcolm X (the "chickens coming home to roost" statement after the 1963 Kennedy assassination), and the pronouncement by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1967, that America (in the time of the Vietnam war). was "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world."
It's one thing to discuss race in the context of old grievances and the deep wounds inflicted by historical white supremacy, both at the end of nooses and the more subtle variety—at the end of the employment line—but the grave offense of Reverend Wright was that he reminded us that this great nation is still at the epicenter of a system of global domination. And some people, despite relative position and material comfort, have not forgotten this.
September 11 and the Iraq destruction are elements of a much larger phenomenon, and an immense challenge for Senator/candidate Obama and the rest of us. Namely, how do we address the issue of racism in the framework of the much larger discussion about systemic oppression, and the crisis of the global capitalist system that, despite it's allure, continues to marginalize billions of the poorest (and disproportionately darkest) people on our planet?
What makes Obama skittish about this issue is not the vehement, fiery sermonizing of his mentor, but the fact that racial discontent and rage are not convenient issues for his large base of white supporters to really deal with. White privilege isn't a popular dinnertime conversation topic in Boise or Allentown (or, I imagine, most of America). And his call for trans-racial "unity", while emotionally appealing to many folks, is not underpinned by an analysis of what the people of America should, in the global sense, truly be uniting for, or against.
Yes, we can be civil and courteous and respectful, across the color line, but a Democratic Party leader—of even the most liberal stripe—would be hard-pressed to articulate the true depth of the structural reasons for the rage: diminishing environmental protection, persistent and growing poverty, failed life support systems, internecine violence, and a host of other ills that are disproportionately inflicted not only on Black people in America, but by-and-large, on people of color throughout the world.
Mr. Obama's repudiation of his pastor was simply an unfortunate example of a gifted (and agile) politician attempting to save his base of White support in the face of an inconvenient Black challenge to racism.
It's true that Reverend Wright's language was not the most polite and conciliatory speech imaginable. But his anger is authentic, and his words ring true. A genuine anti-racist conversation (and movement) in America is needed, and needed badly. But the conversation must not tiptoe around the inconvenience of a deep structural analysis of racism, or the persistent alienation and real suffering of people like Reverend Wright who march at the forefront of anti-racist and anti-oppression activism.
There is certainly a great deal of good in America that must not be ignored in this issue. And Senator Obama is right in his assertion that progress has been made, and that the nation is not static and unchanged in racial matters.
Black rage is always an inconvenient truth to White folks, as well as those who need, for various reasons, to appease them.
But rather than back-peddling away from the issue, or trying to shift it into some fluffy, innocuous race-speak that offends no one, Mr. Obama should continue to face the issue of race head on, and use his powerful charisma and popular appeal to help America navigate the deep and turbulent waters of a real, and long overdue, national discourse on both racism and poverty.
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) March 20, 2008 — The 800 pound 'animal' in the world of political discourse has once again made its entrance—center stage in the 2008 electoral contest. The 'animal' being the issue of 'race', or more precisely, the reality (or perception) of racism in the context of America.
Racism is, to be sure, a loaded subject, both profound and deceptively simplistic, and one that many people in America—both white and people of color—would prefer to ignore, or at least marginalize. But when the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama's longtime pastor and spiritual mentor, raised the ante by speaking about racism in a provocative and bold way, the "race" thing became, once again, an inevitable part of the national conversation, and ultimately, in the contest for the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency.
What did Reverend Wright proclaim? Nothing, substantively, that most intelligent people would disagree with. Namely, he said that that Mr. Obama knows what it means to be Black in America while Senator Clinton does not. That is true enough, as I think even Senator Clinton (and her husband) would have to agree.
But Reverend Wright also said—in effect—that the violence of September 11th, 2001 had it's genesis in the misdeeds and oppressive measures of the U.S. government.
If anything, violence is both cyclical and dialectical. No matter who perpetrates violence, or for whatever false "ideals" it is committed, violence comes back to afflict the purveyor. This is a position that aligns with the truth articulated by both Malcolm X (the "chickens coming home to roost" statement after the 1963 Kennedy assassination), and the pronouncement by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1967, that America (in the time of the Vietnam war). was "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world."
It's one thing to discuss race in the context of old grievances and the deep wounds inflicted by historical white supremacy, both at the end of nooses and the more subtle variety—at the end of the employment line—but the grave offense of Reverend Wright was that he reminded us that this great nation is still at the epicenter of a system of global domination. And some people, despite relative position and material comfort, have not forgotten this.
September 11 and the Iraq destruction are elements of a much larger phenomenon, and an immense challenge for Senator/candidate Obama and the rest of us. Namely, how do we address the issue of racism in the framework of the much larger discussion about systemic oppression, and the crisis of the global capitalist system that, despite it's allure, continues to marginalize billions of the poorest (and disproportionately darkest) people on our planet?
What makes Obama skittish about this issue is not the vehement, fiery sermonizing of his mentor, but the fact that racial discontent and rage are not convenient issues for his large base of white supporters to really deal with. White privilege isn't a popular dinnertime conversation topic in Boise or Allentown (or, I imagine, most of America). And his call for trans-racial "unity", while emotionally appealing to many folks, is not underpinned by an analysis of what the people of America should, in the global sense, truly be uniting for, or against.
Yes, we can be civil and courteous and respectful, across the color line, but a Democratic Party leader—of even the most liberal stripe—would be hard-pressed to articulate the true depth of the structural reasons for the rage: diminishing environmental protection, persistent and growing poverty, failed life support systems, internecine violence, and a host of other ills that are disproportionately inflicted not only on Black people in America, but by-and-large, on people of color throughout the world.
Mr. Obama's repudiation of his pastor was simply an unfortunate example of a gifted (and agile) politician attempting to save his base of White support in the face of an inconvenient Black challenge to racism.
It's true that Reverend Wright's language was not the most polite and conciliatory speech imaginable. But his anger is authentic, and his words ring true. A genuine anti-racist conversation (and movement) in America is needed, and needed badly. But the conversation must not tiptoe around the inconvenience of a deep structural analysis of racism, or the persistent alienation and real suffering of people like Reverend Wright who march at the forefront of anti-racist and anti-oppression activism.
There is certainly a great deal of good in America that must not be ignored in this issue. And Senator Obama is right in his assertion that progress has been made, and that the nation is not static and unchanged in racial matters.
Black rage is always an inconvenient truth to White folks, as well as those who need, for various reasons, to appease them.
But rather than back-peddling away from the issue, or trying to shift it into some fluffy, innocuous race-speak that offends no one, Mr. Obama should continue to face the issue of race head on, and use his powerful charisma and popular appeal to help America navigate the deep and turbulent waters of a real, and long overdue, national discourse on both racism and poverty.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
After 5 Years, the Tragedy Continues
From the Desk of Ibrahim-Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) March 18, 2008 — The conundrum of American primary politics, American Idol worship, and the fall from grace of the former Governor of New York, may have shifted the market-based media focus from the story, but for those who may otherwise be unaware, March 19, 2008 marks the fifth anniversary of the most recent U.S. invasion of Iraq - yet another tragic date in U.S. history that will live in infamy.
What, exactly, has been the cost of the U.S. adventure in Iraq? We are now careening to the number of 4,000 American combat deaths and 40,000 seriously wounded troops. Many of the wounded have been abandoned by their government to a fate of permanent disability and mental distress from the psychological wounds of combat. But this number is dwarfed by the devastation suffered by the Iraqis themselves: 650,000 to one million dead; 400,000 persons displaced from their homes; and the bitter reality of a raging sectarian civil war that has left the nation terrorized and divided.
The recent U.S. troop "surge" has been a useful diversion for the proponents of the war, who now claim some hollow "victory" because of ephemeral military gains in the combat operations against Al-Qaeda and other assorted armed insurgents. But the fundamental contradictions and divisions in the country remain. And Iraq, for all the horrors of it's own history of dictatorship and war, is a far more dangerous and oppressive place that it was under the rule of Saddam.
In the meanwhile, the Iraq war has not only divided U.S. citizens, it has also consolidated world opinion against this nation in a way that no one could have anticipated five years ago. Blatant torture of Iraqi captives, attacks on the civil liberties of Muslim individuals, institutions, and charities in America, and countless violations of both domestic and international law have become the hallmark of the arrogant and recalcitrant regime in Washington that continues the prosecution of the war.
But the conflict in Iraq has also resulted in countless casualties at home, measured in increased domestic violence, family disintegration, alcoholism, and drug abuse suffered by returning U.S. combatants.
War, in every case, results in the massive transfer of wealth from one social class to another. The war in Iraq is no different.
But what is different is the reality of the naked ambition of the global energy and arms oligarchies that have feasted on the $1.2 trillion dollars spent by American taxpayers on the war to date. This violence continues, despite the deepening economic crisis in the nation and the devastation of the national social infrastructure.
In Washington, DC, activists from 40 states plan to gather to mark this tragic anniversary, and in some cases, to engage in non-violent direct action in opposition of the war in Iraq. We must continue to press for the demand to end the war, even if the Democratic Congress lacks the will to oppose the Bush regime's war machine.
The popular tide of resistance to the war will—and must—continue, until the war is ended, and the massive damage to both the United States and to the people of Iraq is fully repaired.
For more information about upcoming events and gatherings, please visit:
http:/www.5YearsTooMany.org
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) March 18, 2008 — The conundrum of American primary politics, American Idol worship, and the fall from grace of the former Governor of New York, may have shifted the market-based media focus from the story, but for those who may otherwise be unaware, March 19, 2008 marks the fifth anniversary of the most recent U.S. invasion of Iraq - yet another tragic date in U.S. history that will live in infamy.
What, exactly, has been the cost of the U.S. adventure in Iraq? We are now careening to the number of 4,000 American combat deaths and 40,000 seriously wounded troops. Many of the wounded have been abandoned by their government to a fate of permanent disability and mental distress from the psychological wounds of combat. But this number is dwarfed by the devastation suffered by the Iraqis themselves: 650,000 to one million dead; 400,000 persons displaced from their homes; and the bitter reality of a raging sectarian civil war that has left the nation terrorized and divided.
The recent U.S. troop "surge" has been a useful diversion for the proponents of the war, who now claim some hollow "victory" because of ephemeral military gains in the combat operations against Al-Qaeda and other assorted armed insurgents. But the fundamental contradictions and divisions in the country remain. And Iraq, for all the horrors of it's own history of dictatorship and war, is a far more dangerous and oppressive place that it was under the rule of Saddam.
In the meanwhile, the Iraq war has not only divided U.S. citizens, it has also consolidated world opinion against this nation in a way that no one could have anticipated five years ago. Blatant torture of Iraqi captives, attacks on the civil liberties of Muslim individuals, institutions, and charities in America, and countless violations of both domestic and international law have become the hallmark of the arrogant and recalcitrant regime in Washington that continues the prosecution of the war.
But the conflict in Iraq has also resulted in countless casualties at home, measured in increased domestic violence, family disintegration, alcoholism, and drug abuse suffered by returning U.S. combatants.
War, in every case, results in the massive transfer of wealth from one social class to another. The war in Iraq is no different.
But what is different is the reality of the naked ambition of the global energy and arms oligarchies that have feasted on the $1.2 trillion dollars spent by American taxpayers on the war to date. This violence continues, despite the deepening economic crisis in the nation and the devastation of the national social infrastructure.
In Washington, DC, activists from 40 states plan to gather to mark this tragic anniversary, and in some cases, to engage in non-violent direct action in opposition of the war in Iraq. We must continue to press for the demand to end the war, even if the Democratic Congress lacks the will to oppose the Bush regime's war machine.
The popular tide of resistance to the war will—and must—continue, until the war is ended, and the massive damage to both the United States and to the people of Iraq is fully repaired.
For more information about upcoming events and gatherings, please visit:
http:/www.5YearsTooMany.org
Friday, March 7, 2008
In Palestine, Murder Will Bring Neither Freedom Nor Justice
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) March 7, 2008 — On March 6, 2008, the world received news of yet another tragedy in the ongoing conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. In an apparent act of revenge, armed Palestinians infiltrated a Rabbinical school in Jerusalem and attacked a group of teenage Jewish students, leaving eight of them dead. They were not combatants, and the act did not take place in self-defense or in the heat of combat.
Most of the world, especially in Israel, was stunned and horrified by the killings. But in Gaza, at least according to news reports, people were jubilant in their celebration of the deaths.
Should Muslims in the United States also feel a sense of joy and vindication? No. We must recognize the attack for what it was: an act of murder. And we must now ask ourselves the difficult question of how we, as activists in support of the people of Gaza and Palestine, can go forward in the wake of an act of senseless brutality that could threaten to derail some significant support for the cause of ending the occupation and respecting the human rights of the people in Gaza and the West Bank.
Sadly, acts of deliberate murder are hardly rare in the context of this part of the world. I remember, a few years ago, the act of murder in a mosque in the West Bank that left nearly 30 Muslim worshippers murdered by a fanatic named Baruch Goldstein. The Muslim world, and most people of conscience, were enraged. Yet some extremists in Israel not only celebrated the killings, but actually made Goldstein (who was killed after the attack), a cult hero among some ultra-Zionists.
But murder, by whomever, is simply a crime against humanity and against the Almighty. And the killing of Jewish students in Jerusalem was exactly that kind of abomination.
The pursuit of liberation is a human response to oppression, and one that is common to all oppressed people, in all periods of history. But there is a moral and practical, distinction between legitimate political struggle on one hand, and acts of criminal revenge on the other.
As Muslims, we believe that struggle against oppression, and self-defense, are not only legitimate, but also required. The killing of innocent people, on the other hand, is morally repugnant—and Haram.
I hope that the Palestinian leadership, and especially Hamas, will recognize that the celebration of these murders will only serve to further isolate them, and make it more difficult for them to claim some moral high-ground in the eyes of world opinion. I also hope that they will consider that activists throughout the world, who support the rights of the people of Gaza, must now labor under yet another burden of suspicion, and even outright rejection, by opponents who are all too anxious to equate the Palestinian cause with savagery and terrorism. Further, it obliterates, in the consciousness of many, the nonviolent responses to the occupation that would ultimately be more effective as instruments of liberation vs. sensational and counter-productive acts of killing and mayhem.
As I have said in a previous essay, it's long past time to end the violence, and the killing, in Israel and Palestine. We mourn the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians, especially in Gaza.
But now, we should also mourn the killing of the Jewish students in Jerusalem, and call for the respect for human life as a core value for both sides of this conflict. I, as a Muslim in America, offer my condolences to the families and communities of the young people who were killed in this act of violence.
The struggle for freedom has no room for the murder of innocent people. It is not acceptable in the modern world.
An eye-for-an-eye, as Dr. King reminded us, will simply make both Palestinians and Israelis blind.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) March 7, 2008 — On March 6, 2008, the world received news of yet another tragedy in the ongoing conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. In an apparent act of revenge, armed Palestinians infiltrated a Rabbinical school in Jerusalem and attacked a group of teenage Jewish students, leaving eight of them dead. They were not combatants, and the act did not take place in self-defense or in the heat of combat.
Most of the world, especially in Israel, was stunned and horrified by the killings. But in Gaza, at least according to news reports, people were jubilant in their celebration of the deaths.
Should Muslims in the United States also feel a sense of joy and vindication? No. We must recognize the attack for what it was: an act of murder. And we must now ask ourselves the difficult question of how we, as activists in support of the people of Gaza and Palestine, can go forward in the wake of an act of senseless brutality that could threaten to derail some significant support for the cause of ending the occupation and respecting the human rights of the people in Gaza and the West Bank.
Sadly, acts of deliberate murder are hardly rare in the context of this part of the world. I remember, a few years ago, the act of murder in a mosque in the West Bank that left nearly 30 Muslim worshippers murdered by a fanatic named Baruch Goldstein. The Muslim world, and most people of conscience, were enraged. Yet some extremists in Israel not only celebrated the killings, but actually made Goldstein (who was killed after the attack), a cult hero among some ultra-Zionists.
But murder, by whomever, is simply a crime against humanity and against the Almighty. And the killing of Jewish students in Jerusalem was exactly that kind of abomination.
The pursuit of liberation is a human response to oppression, and one that is common to all oppressed people, in all periods of history. But there is a moral and practical, distinction between legitimate political struggle on one hand, and acts of criminal revenge on the other.
As Muslims, we believe that struggle against oppression, and self-defense, are not only legitimate, but also required. The killing of innocent people, on the other hand, is morally repugnant—and Haram.
I hope that the Palestinian leadership, and especially Hamas, will recognize that the celebration of these murders will only serve to further isolate them, and make it more difficult for them to claim some moral high-ground in the eyes of world opinion. I also hope that they will consider that activists throughout the world, who support the rights of the people of Gaza, must now labor under yet another burden of suspicion, and even outright rejection, by opponents who are all too anxious to equate the Palestinian cause with savagery and terrorism. Further, it obliterates, in the consciousness of many, the nonviolent responses to the occupation that would ultimately be more effective as instruments of liberation vs. sensational and counter-productive acts of killing and mayhem.
As I have said in a previous essay, it's long past time to end the violence, and the killing, in Israel and Palestine. We mourn the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians, especially in Gaza.
But now, we should also mourn the killing of the Jewish students in Jerusalem, and call for the respect for human life as a core value for both sides of this conflict. I, as a Muslim in America, offer my condolences to the families and communities of the young people who were killed in this act of violence.
The struggle for freedom has no room for the murder of innocent people. It is not acceptable in the modern world.
An eye-for-an-eye, as Dr. King reminded us, will simply make both Palestinians and Israelis blind.
Monday, March 3, 2008
A Dangerous, Deadly Escalation of U.S. War on Somalia
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey, MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) March 3, 2008 - The Pentagon announced today that the U.S. launched a missile strike against a target in the little town of Dobley, Somalia, located some 140 miles from the southern port city of Kismayu.
According to reports, this attack was launched against a group of Islamic leaders in the town, including Shaykh Hassan Turki. The men, who are members of the Islamic Courts, were thought to be in Dobley to mediate a conflict between members of their militia and a militia loyal to the U.S.-installed regime in Mogadishu. There were conflicting reports on the damage done by the missiles; one account from a local official claimed that six persons were killed, while another reported that only three individuals had been wounded. Whatever the body count might be, it is clear that the United States has again attacked a nation with whom it is not at war - the fourth such attack by the U.S. military in the past 14-months.
There has been comparatively little media focus on Somalia subsequent to the U.S.-backed Ethiopian troops success in driving the Islamic Courts from power in Mogadishu last year, while installing to power the same Somali warlords who had utterly destroyed the country in the civil war of the 1990's. The Islamic Courts Movement had the backing of much of the Somali population, and they were, by most accounts, successful in restoring some order and justice to the civil society.
However, because they are an Islamic movement, The Islamic Courts are opposed by the Unites States - even though they are clearly a better alternative than the thugs and gangsters installed by the U.S. and kept in power by a rapacious Ethiopian occupation force.
The Pentagon characterized the aerial attack as a "precision" strike against a known "terrorist" target. The rhetoric from the American government, in this case, is similar to the claim of "precision" strikes against targets in Gaza, that ended up killing far more innocent civilians than combatants.
The effect, however, is not the killing of "terrorists"', but the terrorization of a civilian population already devastated by internecine violence and the collapse of virtually all social infrastructure that would ordinarily serve to sustain 'normalcy' - this, coming in the wake of the horrific aftermath of the Ethiopian invasion and the countless killings and rapes committed by Ethiopian troops in Mogadishu.
American bombs and missiles will not bring order and justice to the situation in Somalia.
Ethiopia is a poor and oppressed nation in its own right, fighting, ironically, its own internal insurgency. It has no business in Somalia. And the United States has no business bombing Somalia under the pretext of hunting "terrorist" targets.
The task of restoring peace, stability and order to Somalia is a formidable one, that will require the antagonistic parties to work out their own arrangements for demilitarizing the conflict and providing safety for its citizens. The killing in Somalia must stop. But to insure that it does, the United States must stop military attacks and cease it’s support for a foreign occupation army in Somalia.
The Islamic Courts are not the enemy of the people of Somalia, and they must not be regarded as the enemy of the U.S. government or the people of the Unites States.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) March 3, 2008 - The Pentagon announced today that the U.S. launched a missile strike against a target in the little town of Dobley, Somalia, located some 140 miles from the southern port city of Kismayu.
According to reports, this attack was launched against a group of Islamic leaders in the town, including Shaykh Hassan Turki. The men, who are members of the Islamic Courts, were thought to be in Dobley to mediate a conflict between members of their militia and a militia loyal to the U.S.-installed regime in Mogadishu. There were conflicting reports on the damage done by the missiles; one account from a local official claimed that six persons were killed, while another reported that only three individuals had been wounded. Whatever the body count might be, it is clear that the United States has again attacked a nation with whom it is not at war - the fourth such attack by the U.S. military in the past 14-months.
There has been comparatively little media focus on Somalia subsequent to the U.S.-backed Ethiopian troops success in driving the Islamic Courts from power in Mogadishu last year, while installing to power the same Somali warlords who had utterly destroyed the country in the civil war of the 1990's. The Islamic Courts Movement had the backing of much of the Somali population, and they were, by most accounts, successful in restoring some order and justice to the civil society.
However, because they are an Islamic movement, The Islamic Courts are opposed by the Unites States - even though they are clearly a better alternative than the thugs and gangsters installed by the U.S. and kept in power by a rapacious Ethiopian occupation force.
The Pentagon characterized the aerial attack as a "precision" strike against a known "terrorist" target. The rhetoric from the American government, in this case, is similar to the claim of "precision" strikes against targets in Gaza, that ended up killing far more innocent civilians than combatants.
The effect, however, is not the killing of "terrorists"', but the terrorization of a civilian population already devastated by internecine violence and the collapse of virtually all social infrastructure that would ordinarily serve to sustain 'normalcy' - this, coming in the wake of the horrific aftermath of the Ethiopian invasion and the countless killings and rapes committed by Ethiopian troops in Mogadishu.
American bombs and missiles will not bring order and justice to the situation in Somalia.
Ethiopia is a poor and oppressed nation in its own right, fighting, ironically, its own internal insurgency. It has no business in Somalia. And the United States has no business bombing Somalia under the pretext of hunting "terrorist" targets.
The task of restoring peace, stability and order to Somalia is a formidable one, that will require the antagonistic parties to work out their own arrangements for demilitarizing the conflict and providing safety for its citizens. The killing in Somalia must stop. But to insure that it does, the United States must stop military attacks and cease it’s support for a foreign occupation army in Somalia.
The Islamic Courts are not the enemy of the people of Somalia, and they must not be regarded as the enemy of the U.S. government or the people of the Unites States.
Friday, February 29, 2008
A Salute to African American-and Islamic-History
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey, MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) February 29, 2008 - Today marks the culmination of African-American History Month. Founded by the great scholar Carter G. Woodson in the early 1930's, this month commemorates the celebration of the history and achievements of people of African ancestry in the United States.
But to an increasing community, it is also a recognition of the fact that the history of Black people in America has a significant Islamic component.
A few days ago, I attended an event at the U.S. Capitol that hosted a museum display called 'Collections and Stories of American Muslims'. The curator of this dazzling visual historical display, Brother Amir Muhammad, explained that the chronology of the Muslim presence in the "New World" did not begin with the trans-Atlantic slave trade, where some 25 percent of enslaved Africans were Muslim captives. Indeed, African explorers, from as early as 1312 C.E., established contact with indigenous American (Indian) communities.
One such African Muslim explorer, named Estebanico, is believed to be have set foot on what is now called New Mexico and Arizona in the year 1527.
The millions of captured African Muslims in America also have a rich and compelling historical narrative. The 'Collections and Stories of American Muslims' exhibit also features the names of Muslims included in the first U.S. census in 1790, and copies of the manuscript of a Holy Qur’an from early 18th century America.
African-American Muslims fought in both the American Revolution and the Civil War.
And numerous graveyards from early America feature tombstones embellished with the one raised finger, signifying the declaration of faith in the one deity (Allah).
One enslaved Muslim, a Fulani African prince and military commander named Abdul Rahman Ibrahima born in 1762, is featured in the remarkable documentary movie called "Prince Among Slaves". Abdul Rahman, who was literate in the Arabic language, was captured by slave traders and transported to Natchez, Mississippi, where he was forced to labor on a cotton plantation. But never abandoning his faith, he was able (by Allah’s mercy) to eventually secure his freedom from bondage. He and his Christian wife were able to return to Africa before his death in 1829.
Historical developments in American Islamic communities and movements of the late 19 and early 20th centuries are also included in the collection.
The facts and nuances of Muslim history in America are numerous, and profound. But as more historical data and artifacts become known to the public, it is clear that the Muslim presence in the United States predates the establishment of the American republic itself.
The Muslim community in America is heir to a deep, complex, and fascinating history. It is certainly a history worth exploring, and one that we should be thinking about in the other eleven months of the year as well.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) February 29, 2008 - Today marks the culmination of African-American History Month. Founded by the great scholar Carter G. Woodson in the early 1930's, this month commemorates the celebration of the history and achievements of people of African ancestry in the United States.
But to an increasing community, it is also a recognition of the fact that the history of Black people in America has a significant Islamic component.
A few days ago, I attended an event at the U.S. Capitol that hosted a museum display called 'Collections and Stories of American Muslims'. The curator of this dazzling visual historical display, Brother Amir Muhammad, explained that the chronology of the Muslim presence in the "New World" did not begin with the trans-Atlantic slave trade, where some 25 percent of enslaved Africans were Muslim captives. Indeed, African explorers, from as early as 1312 C.E., established contact with indigenous American (Indian) communities.
One such African Muslim explorer, named Estebanico, is believed to be have set foot on what is now called New Mexico and Arizona in the year 1527.
The millions of captured African Muslims in America also have a rich and compelling historical narrative. The 'Collections and Stories of American Muslims' exhibit also features the names of Muslims included in the first U.S. census in 1790, and copies of the manuscript of a Holy Qur’an from early 18th century America.
African-American Muslims fought in both the American Revolution and the Civil War.
And numerous graveyards from early America feature tombstones embellished with the one raised finger, signifying the declaration of faith in the one deity (Allah).
One enslaved Muslim, a Fulani African prince and military commander named Abdul Rahman Ibrahima born in 1762, is featured in the remarkable documentary movie called "Prince Among Slaves". Abdul Rahman, who was literate in the Arabic language, was captured by slave traders and transported to Natchez, Mississippi, where he was forced to labor on a cotton plantation. But never abandoning his faith, he was able (by Allah’s mercy) to eventually secure his freedom from bondage. He and his Christian wife were able to return to Africa before his death in 1829.
Historical developments in American Islamic communities and movements of the late 19 and early 20th centuries are also included in the collection.
The facts and nuances of Muslim history in America are numerous, and profound. But as more historical data and artifacts become known to the public, it is clear that the Muslim presence in the United States predates the establishment of the American republic itself.
The Muslim community in America is heir to a deep, complex, and fascinating history. It is certainly a history worth exploring, and one that we should be thinking about in the other eleven months of the year as well.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Is "Blind Allegiance" Blinding the Democratic Party?
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) February 27, 2008 - The recent Democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama was advertised as the last slugfest before the critical primary elections in Texas and Ohio, and to some extent, it was exactly that. Both candidates came out swinging, with Senator Clinton clearly being the aggressor, taking shots at Obama on issues ranging from health care, to international trade, to their relative qualifications on issues of national security and international relations.
However, many Muslims probably took special notice of their exchange on the related topics of Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, and their uncritical support for the policies of the state of Israel.
Obama took a question from the debate moderator, one related to Minister Farrakhan's recent endorsement of the Obama candidacy. The junior senator from Illinois was quick to utter his repudiation of the Muslim leader, noting Minister Farrakhan's statements (from more than a decade ago), that were highly critical of Jews.
Obama went on to praise the support that his campaign receives from the Jewish community. He spoke of his denunciation of anti-Semitism in the African-American community, as well as his appreciation of Jewish contributions to the civil rights movement and his desire to revive the Black-Jewish alliance of the civil rights. He also declared that the security of Israel was "sacrosanct".
But this was not enough for Senator Clinton. She pushed Obama to go even further in his excoriation of the Minister, and demanded that he reject the Farrakhan "endorsement" out of hand. The segment then turned to Israel - with both candidates pledging their uncritical support for Jewish state.
It was a script that could have been written by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). And that is troubling.
My issue is certainly not the condemnation of anti-Semitism in any of its manifestations, whether in Europe, the American heartland, or in African-American or Muslim communities. The hatred of Jews, or any people is morally repugnant. And apparently by evoking the words and political endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, anti-Semitism, or the perception of it, became the "tar baby" of the debate, that the Obama candidacy was all too eager to distance itself from.
But the question about the Farrakhan endorsement of Senator Obama raises two issues: first, the suggestion that there is some linkage between Obama and Islam (a myth which Obama haters would love to hype), and the even bigger, and more insidious, implication that any implied criticism of the current U.S. political relationship with Israel is a disqualifier as far as the American presidency is concerned.
On the first point, it's absolutely true that Mr. Farrakhan is not exactly in the running for a humanitarian award from the Anti-Defamation League. Some of his past rhetoric regarding Jews has been thoroughly vetted and vehemently criticized by the Jewish community, and many others. But that does not mean that his preference for Senator Obama indicates that he has even the smallest influence on the Obama candidacy.
The second and more significant point, however, is the fact that both Clinton and Obama demonstrated, in this debate, their mutual towing of the policy line laid down by the one special interest that nobody talks about - namely, the American-Israeli lobby. This lobby, in the opinion of many, dominates the national political discourse related to the U.S. relationship with Israel, and in the final analysis, the policies that America chooses to pursue in the Middle East.
That is why, in my opinion, the personality of Minister Farrakhan, and his opinions about the American Jewish community, are presented to be more significant in a national debate than, say, the Israeli economic blockade of Gaza, or the continuous violations of international law committed by Israel in the Palestinian Territories.
The United Nations and the International Court of Justice routinely condemn these actions by Israel. But for all major party candidates, the people of Palestine are virtually invisible, and their human rights, are almost totally ignored.
This is the essence of "blind allegiance" to the dictates of Israel. It materially supports the continued occupation of the Palestinian Territory and the racial apartheid and discrimination that exists within Israel itself. But this blind allegiance is incompatible with the values of fairness, compassion, and respect for international law that America claims to believe in.
As Muslims participate in the political process in greater numbers that ever, we should recognize the importance of a plethora of important national questions, and not just the ones concerning U.S. policy in the Middle East. We must not judge candidates solely on this issue. But Senators Obama and Clinton must also recognize that their mutually blind allegiance to the dictates of the Jewish lobby is not, in the final analysis, good for the people of Palestine, Israel, or the United States of America.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) February 27, 2008 - The recent Democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama was advertised as the last slugfest before the critical primary elections in Texas and Ohio, and to some extent, it was exactly that. Both candidates came out swinging, with Senator Clinton clearly being the aggressor, taking shots at Obama on issues ranging from health care, to international trade, to their relative qualifications on issues of national security and international relations.
However, many Muslims probably took special notice of their exchange on the related topics of Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, and their uncritical support for the policies of the state of Israel.
Obama took a question from the debate moderator, one related to Minister Farrakhan's recent endorsement of the Obama candidacy. The junior senator from Illinois was quick to utter his repudiation of the Muslim leader, noting Minister Farrakhan's statements (from more than a decade ago), that were highly critical of Jews.
Obama went on to praise the support that his campaign receives from the Jewish community. He spoke of his denunciation of anti-Semitism in the African-American community, as well as his appreciation of Jewish contributions to the civil rights movement and his desire to revive the Black-Jewish alliance of the civil rights. He also declared that the security of Israel was "sacrosanct".
But this was not enough for Senator Clinton. She pushed Obama to go even further in his excoriation of the Minister, and demanded that he reject the Farrakhan "endorsement" out of hand. The segment then turned to Israel - with both candidates pledging their uncritical support for Jewish state.
It was a script that could have been written by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). And that is troubling.
My issue is certainly not the condemnation of anti-Semitism in any of its manifestations, whether in Europe, the American heartland, or in African-American or Muslim communities. The hatred of Jews, or any people is morally repugnant. And apparently by evoking the words and political endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, anti-Semitism, or the perception of it, became the "tar baby" of the debate, that the Obama candidacy was all too eager to distance itself from.
But the question about the Farrakhan endorsement of Senator Obama raises two issues: first, the suggestion that there is some linkage between Obama and Islam (a myth which Obama haters would love to hype), and the even bigger, and more insidious, implication that any implied criticism of the current U.S. political relationship with Israel is a disqualifier as far as the American presidency is concerned.
On the first point, it's absolutely true that Mr. Farrakhan is not exactly in the running for a humanitarian award from the Anti-Defamation League. Some of his past rhetoric regarding Jews has been thoroughly vetted and vehemently criticized by the Jewish community, and many others. But that does not mean that his preference for Senator Obama indicates that he has even the smallest influence on the Obama candidacy.
The second and more significant point, however, is the fact that both Clinton and Obama demonstrated, in this debate, their mutual towing of the policy line laid down by the one special interest that nobody talks about - namely, the American-Israeli lobby. This lobby, in the opinion of many, dominates the national political discourse related to the U.S. relationship with Israel, and in the final analysis, the policies that America chooses to pursue in the Middle East.
That is why, in my opinion, the personality of Minister Farrakhan, and his opinions about the American Jewish community, are presented to be more significant in a national debate than, say, the Israeli economic blockade of Gaza, or the continuous violations of international law committed by Israel in the Palestinian Territories.
The United Nations and the International Court of Justice routinely condemn these actions by Israel. But for all major party candidates, the people of Palestine are virtually invisible, and their human rights, are almost totally ignored.
This is the essence of "blind allegiance" to the dictates of Israel. It materially supports the continued occupation of the Palestinian Territory and the racial apartheid and discrimination that exists within Israel itself. But this blind allegiance is incompatible with the values of fairness, compassion, and respect for international law that America claims to believe in.
As Muslims participate in the political process in greater numbers that ever, we should recognize the importance of a plethora of important national questions, and not just the ones concerning U.S. policy in the Middle East. We must not judge candidates solely on this issue. But Senators Obama and Clinton must also recognize that their mutually blind allegiance to the dictates of the Jewish lobby is not, in the final analysis, good for the people of Palestine, Israel, or the United States of America.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Whose "Change" Glass Has More Water?
Observations from the Democratic Party Primary Elections
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) February 20, 2008 - I’ll start with the obvious: she's a superbly intelligent woman, phenomenally driven to succeed, extremely aggressive, and politically savvy to the maximum. She knows the issues. She's been elected twice to the United States Senate.
Hillary Clinton is a serious woman who wants to be elected president - in a serious way.
However, and this is just my opinion, her ambition has turned into more than a little desperation, and even belligerence, in the face of the electoral tidal wave that is on the verge of capsizing her presidential dream boat.
That wave, of course, is Barack Obama.
As I write this short essay, Senator Obama, on February 19, won the Democratic primary elections in Wisconsin and his native state of Hawaii. That makes ten straight primary election victories for him, with the huge battleground states of Texas and Pennsylvania looming in the immediate future.
Most political pundits now openly say that Senator Clinton must win one, if not both, of these primary elections if she expects to win her party's nomination for the presidency.
Clearly, huge numbers of new voters have been energized by this heavyweight political slugfest between two worthy opponents. That, for me, is all good.
But what is not all good is the rhetoric from Senator Clinton, and her surrogates, suggesting that she is tested and true, and that Obama is devoid of political substance and somehow "over his head' in this race leading up to, arguably, the most important American presidential election in the last 50 years.
Does Senator Clinton bring many decades of elected public service to the contest? Has she served in a presidential cabinet? Has she directed a significant corporation or not-for-profit organization?
No. What she brings to this contest is the same thing that her rival brings; namely, loads of intelligence, confidence, relentless ambition, and tons of campaign contributions.
But I suspect that, with all of her acumen and attributes, if her name were Hillary Rodham Smith, and she did not happen to be the highly visible spouse of a popular, two-term former president, her race for the Democratic party nomination would be non-existent.
Senator Obama, a relative newcomer to the cauldron of national politics, has offered promises of change on the campaign trail. And while he might lack decades of experience in elected office, he brings an apparent willingness to challenge the old social class configuration and policies that form the bedrock of the mess that currently calls itself a national government.
Like Senator Clinton, if he is elected, his initiatives will be challenged by the powers that be. But also, like Senator Clinton, he will surround himself with smart, able people who just might help him engineer the political changes that many people in America seem to be demaning.
If Hillary had arrived on stage with loads of personal political success or experience, independent of her family relationship with Bill Clinton's administration, then her derisive dismissal of Obama’s "empty rhetoric" for change might have struck a more responsive chord within me.
But she runs an almost imperial campaign, supported by the illusion that she served as a former co-president of the United States of America.
It might be wise for Senator Clinton to stop throwing stones at the glass house of Obama's relative lack of experience, or the rhetorical emptiness of his promise to "change" America. Her own record of public service might suggest that she really doesn't have the rocks, or the slingshot, for that kind of personal assault against her rival.
* This essay should not be construed as an endorsement of any candidate by the writer or by MAS Freedom.
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) February 20, 2008 - I’ll start with the obvious: she's a superbly intelligent woman, phenomenally driven to succeed, extremely aggressive, and politically savvy to the maximum. She knows the issues. She's been elected twice to the United States Senate.
Hillary Clinton is a serious woman who wants to be elected president - in a serious way.
However, and this is just my opinion, her ambition has turned into more than a little desperation, and even belligerence, in the face of the electoral tidal wave that is on the verge of capsizing her presidential dream boat.
That wave, of course, is Barack Obama.
As I write this short essay, Senator Obama, on February 19, won the Democratic primary elections in Wisconsin and his native state of Hawaii. That makes ten straight primary election victories for him, with the huge battleground states of Texas and Pennsylvania looming in the immediate future.
Most political pundits now openly say that Senator Clinton must win one, if not both, of these primary elections if she expects to win her party's nomination for the presidency.
Clearly, huge numbers of new voters have been energized by this heavyweight political slugfest between two worthy opponents. That, for me, is all good.
But what is not all good is the rhetoric from Senator Clinton, and her surrogates, suggesting that she is tested and true, and that Obama is devoid of political substance and somehow "over his head' in this race leading up to, arguably, the most important American presidential election in the last 50 years.
Does Senator Clinton bring many decades of elected public service to the contest? Has she served in a presidential cabinet? Has she directed a significant corporation or not-for-profit organization?
No. What she brings to this contest is the same thing that her rival brings; namely, loads of intelligence, confidence, relentless ambition, and tons of campaign contributions.
But I suspect that, with all of her acumen and attributes, if her name were Hillary Rodham Smith, and she did not happen to be the highly visible spouse of a popular, two-term former president, her race for the Democratic party nomination would be non-existent.
Senator Obama, a relative newcomer to the cauldron of national politics, has offered promises of change on the campaign trail. And while he might lack decades of experience in elected office, he brings an apparent willingness to challenge the old social class configuration and policies that form the bedrock of the mess that currently calls itself a national government.
Like Senator Clinton, if he is elected, his initiatives will be challenged by the powers that be. But also, like Senator Clinton, he will surround himself with smart, able people who just might help him engineer the political changes that many people in America seem to be demaning.
If Hillary had arrived on stage with loads of personal political success or experience, independent of her family relationship with Bill Clinton's administration, then her derisive dismissal of Obama’s "empty rhetoric" for change might have struck a more responsive chord within me.
But she runs an almost imperial campaign, supported by the illusion that she served as a former co-president of the United States of America.
It might be wise for Senator Clinton to stop throwing stones at the glass house of Obama's relative lack of experience, or the rhetorical emptiness of his promise to "change" America. Her own record of public service might suggest that she really doesn't have the rocks, or the slingshot, for that kind of personal assault against her rival.
* This essay should not be construed as an endorsement of any candidate by the writer or by MAS Freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
