In Yemen, Activists Push for an End to the Marriage of Girl Children

In Yemen, Civil Society Challenges the Marriage of Underage Girls

Is a ten year old girl too young to marry? Apparently, in some religious circles in Yemen, the answer is "No".

But this week, hundreds of demonstrators converged on the capital of San'a to vigorously voice their support for proposed national legislation that would make the marriage of girl children in Yemen illegal.

In many conservative and agrarian societies, including majority-Muslim cultures, it is not uncommon for girl children to be forced into marriage, usually to adult men. The arrangements are made by families, and clearly, not on the
volition of the girls. These girls live as virtual chattel and sexual slaves to their new "husbands". Typically, they remain poor, uneducated, victimized by domestic violence, and extremely exploited.

It all comes down to the irrefutable truth that a 10 year old human being is not suitable as a wife.

Yet in Yemen, some conservative Muslim scholars are challenging the proposed ban on child marriages, claiming that those who would reject the "right" of 10 year old girls to marry are apostates-that is, people who deviate from Islam and the Hadith of Prophet Muhammad. Indeed, the label of apostasy can result, in some cultures, in the imposition of the death penalty on those who are found guilty of it.

It is certainly true that child marriage, like slavery, was an element in the culture of the early evolution of Islam. Girls would typically be given in marriage in their early teenage years, or even much younger. These actions are underpinned by centuries of gender inequality, the denial of the fundamental human rights of both females and children, and the notion that females were created by God to serve the interests and cater to the appetites of men.

But no more. We now live in the 21st century ( not the 7th), and females are rapidly reaching social parity with men. Children are recognized as human beings who have inalienable human rights. One of those rights is the right of a female child to not be subjected to forced marriage, or any form of sexual exploitation.

As Muslims, we should also recognize, as most of the world certainly does, that the social, economic, cultural, and yes-spiritual-health of a nation is inextricably connected to the health and equality of its girls and women. Girls must be educated, nurtured, protected, and loved. They are not ready to become wives at the age of ten.

The beauty of Islam is evident in the values of justice, piety, the seeking of intellectual enlightenment, and the moral development of human beings for the sake of our relationship with Almighty God, and the overall betterment of human society. Freeing young girls from the subservience and degradation of forces marriage is definitely a step that Yemen, and all Muslims, should both legislate and vigorously enforce. This is a law that would not only be good for the children of Yemen, but for the global Muslim Ummah as well.

Ibrahim Ramey

Will President Obama Stand Up to Bibi Netanyahu?

On Tuesday, March 23rd, President Barrack H. Obama will have a one-on-one meeting with the visiting Prime Minister of Israel. Already, the event is being touted as a kind of political heavyweight throw-down,underscored by tensions related to Israeli policies of occupation, and the planned erection of "Jewish-only" housing units in the traditional Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem.

Others of us hope, and pray, that there are two heavyweights in the ring today-and that one of them will stand up for international law and human rights.

Over the course of the last several weeks, prominent American politicians, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have taken a few soft swings at the Israeli Prime Minister over the planned construction of 1,600 exclusive Jewish housing units in East
Jerusalem. Some public media comments have characterized the criticisms as indicative of a 20 year "low point" in the bilateral Washington-Tel Aviv relationship.

But Secretary Clinton, in an obvious attempt to send a different signal, mentioned in her remarks to the AIPAC banquet crowd last Monday that the relationship between the two governments is "secure". And now, it iss up to President Obama to remind the Israeli Prime Minister that the relationship is not.

Of course, it's important to frame the issues of contention is a way that is absolutely unambiguous. No one is talking about proposed break in diplomatic relationship between the two nations, or a denial of any of the fundamental human rights of the people of Israel to live in peace and security.

But what President Obama must put on the table for his discussion with Netanyahu is the categorical American rejection of land theft, ethnic cleansing, and certainly, the inhumane Israeli embargo of the people of Gaza. The current flow of U.S. arms, technology, and money to Israel facilitates Israel's ability to commit these actions, including the Gaza embargo that was characterized earlier this week by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon as "unsustainable" and causing" unacceptable suffering of human beings".

But what if-and I imagine this will be the case-President Obama faces an intransigent Israeli Prime Minister? Well, there is another big card our president's hand that he should be prepared to play-and that is the suspension of U.S. military assistance to Israel until there is a freeze on illegal settlements, and full Israeli compliance with human rights laws pertaining to not only the populations in the West Bank and Gaza, but to the Arab Christian and Muslim population of the State of Israel.

Such a stand would have major political risks, to be sure, given the power of the pro-Israel lobby and their incorrigible support of the Jewish state. But there is another element of the political equation that President Obama should consider: there is also a rising voice of American Jewish opposition to the policies of Israeli occupation and the settlements, as well as the Gaza blockade. He, and AIPAC, should both realize that there is no absolute AIPAC monopoly on Jewish American opinion in the matter of uncritical support of Zionist ambitions.

What the American president, and government, must confront is the question of whether they are willing to be on the right side of both international law and morality, or on the side of convenient pro-Zionist politics. If the long-term goal of all (reasonable) parties is the creation of a state of mutual justice, security, and non-belligerence , the U.S must be prepared to use its enormous political weight to stop the policies-on both sides-that impede progress.

Arguably, Israel's security would be enhanced if both the embargo of Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank were both to end, along with the end to the illegal settlements on the West Bank. These actions could no longer be used as a pretext for the sporadic attacks made against Israeli civilians coming from Gaza And the US could then offer (interim) security guarantees to the satisfaction of both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership, until a final two-state solution could be hammered out.

Is this an ambition, and even risky, push-back on Netanyahu from the U.S. government? Yes. But it pales in comparison to the danger of continued damage to the United States, especially in the Muslim world, as a result of continuous U.S. support for Israel's policies of occupation and ethnic expulsion.

For the sake of real peace and justice for both Israel and Palestine, let's hope that President Obama has his gloves on-and does a gut check-when he climbs into the political ring with Benjamin Netanyahu.

A "Post-racial" America? Not at the University of California

There are some people who have, since the election of a Black American president, promoted the notion that we now live in a "post-racial" historical epoch that evidences the decline of race and ethnicity in the construction of the American social reality. But apparently, that optimistic message has yet to reach the campus of the University of California in San Diego.

UCSD has witnessed recent incidents that point out the fact that racism is alive, and even thriving, at the university. On February 25th, a noose-symbolic of the lynching of African-Americans-was discovered on a book shelf at the main library of the university. This outrage prompted a group of irate students to stage a four hour sit-in demonstration at the office of the President of the University on the following day.

But not to be outdone, anonymous students at the university then held an off-campus "Compton Picnic", full of ugly racial satire and even uglier racial epithets, in which students were asked to come dressed in "ghetto" attire and eat watermelon-all to demonstrate
their disdain for African-Americans and for the celebration of Black History Month.

These incidents, added to the detention of Muslim student demonstrators earlier in February at the University of California campus in Irvine, have both exacerbated racial and ethic tensions throughout the University of California system, and cast light on the under-representation of Black students throughout the system.

At UCSD, for example, incoming Black freshmen represent less than 2 percent of the class of 2013, even though African-Americans make up more than 10% of the area population. For some in the "majority" community, this level of diversity is acceptable, since the USCD is touted as a "research" campus (translation: Blacks are expected to matriculate elsewhere, where "lower" academic standards prevail).

However, the incidents on and around the UCSD campus reflect hard-core racist attitudes that simply cannot be dismissed as insensitive pranks or demonstrations of bad taste.

Arguably, the national climate of race relations is still troubling, and reflective of deep sentiments of both racism ( in the examples of the noose and the "Compton Picnic" incidents), and Islamic xenophobia at UC-Irvine. Some students apparently feel that it is safe to display openly racist and hateful sentiments. Others, perhaps, feel the same way about people of color but are a little more circumspect about expressing themselves so openly.

Racist demonstrations that are tantamount to cross burnings underscore the need for a deeper examination of the need for real pluralism and a a more open discourse on racism in America. And the unfortunate incidents on these two prestigious University of California campuses underscore the reality that racism still festers in American society.

Just as students challenged racial segregation in the 1960's, they must rise up and organize to challenge it again in its most ugly, recent manifestations.

Ibrahim Ramey

African American History is Muslim History, Too

Black History Month is celebrated in February, and it is a time to honor the numerous contributions that people of African ancestry have made, and continue to make, for the advancement of society.

But Black history is also the history of Islam in North America.

Over the last decade, I have had the privilege of addressing a number of audiences throughout the United States about the significant presence of Muslims in the tapestry of American history. However, that presence did not begin, as many people believe, with the trans-Atlantic slave trade: Muslim navigators piloted two of the three ships than carried the explorer Christopher Columbus to the "New" (for Europeans, at least) world in 1492.

But African Muslims were here before that. In fact, long before that. In his seminal book "They Came Before Columbus", the late historian Dr. Ivan Van Sertima presented conclusive evidence that proved the presence of African Muslims in the Americas more than a century before the Columbus voyage. There is evidence that, in the year 1310 of the Common Era, some 200 trans-oceanic vessels left the Muslim Empire of Mali and landed in what is now Mexico. Archeological evidence, including statues and other artifacts, indicates that these African Muslim visitors came in peace, and established peaceful trading relationships with the indigenous peoples living in the Western Hemisphere.

More recently in the United States ( as well as in the Caribbean and Central and South America), enslaved African Muslims (estimated to be some 20% of those kidnapped from the Continent) landed in the West, where the barbaric conditions of chattel slavery made the practice of Islam extremely difficult. But again, there are historical narratives that chronicle the existence of individual Africans and even small communities that continued to adhere to Islamic practices. Some of them, like the legendary Prince Abdul Rahman who was captured in West Africa and transported to America in 1788, were highly educated and literate people who could read and write the Arabic language (among others), and recite the Holy Qur'an from memory. Through great intelligence and perseverance, some actually won their freedom from captivity.

My dear friend Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, mentioned these facts in his Kutba of February 19th, two days before the commemoration of the 45th anniversary of the martyrdom of perhaps America's most renown Muslim activist and freedom fighter, El Hajj Malik El Shabazz-better known to many throughout the world as Malcolm X.

The depth and richness of Black history could never be captured in a brief essay. But I do hope that many Muslims in America, including those from the Arab and South Asian nations, might take some time to explore the rich confluence of Islam and the presence of Black people in America.

Every day-and not just the month of February-should be a time to realize that the Muslim identity in this part of the world is not only indigenous, but older than the foundation of the nation itself.

Ibrahim Ramey

Yerrorism, Redefined

Terrorism, Redefined

WASHINGTON, DC (MASNET) Feb. 20, 2010 - When nearly 200 Internal Revenue Service workers in Austin, Texas reported for work last Thursday, most of them were probably not expecting the experience of being attacked by an airplane that intentionally crashed into their workplace. But that is exactly what happened when Joseph Stack, a mild-mannered and seemingly innocuous engineer, piloted his Cessna aircraft and, in apparent rage, flew it into the downtown office building that housed the IRS office in the city-after setting his own house afire and writing a rambling screed condemning that most American of organizations.

By God's grace, only two persons, including Stack, were killed in the attack, while several others were critically injured. But what is interesting about the media characterizations of the incident is the absence of the word "terrorism" in describing the action.

We are left to wonder: what is Mr. Stack were an Arab Muslim, and not a middle-class Caucasian? What if Islamic literature were found in the remnants of his burned-out house? And what if he attended a local mosque?

Despite the (thankful) absence of massive casualties, the media view of the event should give us all some food for thought. Since "terrorism" is generally defined as violent attacks perpetrated against non-combatants that are motivated by political grievances, it would seem logically that Stack-who had major personal beef with the tax system-might have been, logically, called a terrorist. But he will not be.

And that brings me to my second point. Muslims who merely view pro-Jihadist websites, or who travel to places where violence is part of the social currency of resistance, are routinely surveyed, arrested, and even convicted of "conspiracy" against the State. They don't have to crash planes into buildings ( as the 9-11 criminals did): they are suspect, and convicted in the court of public opinion, not for what they do, but because of the fear of what people assume they might harbor within themselves.

Will the FBI send an investigation team to the late Mr. Stack's church? Or will they monitor his travel and telephone call records or put his widow in an interrogation cell and pump her for information about their associates?

Probably not. Because while murder is an evil no matter who commits it, collective guilt by association seems to be, sadly, something that some groups of people must worry about more than others. Criminality and violence may come in all social identities, but the labeling of acts of violence is an editorial decision.

As a Muslim, I am sorry about the tragedy of Joseph Stack's terrorist attack in Austin, Texas. And equally, for the sake of so many of my coreligionists, I am thankful that he cannot be associated in any way with Islam.

Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey