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.
Friday, August 22, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
