Muslims Are Here to Stay: A Reply to Brian Fischer and the American Family Association
I've heard some bizarre, offensive, and wacky things said about Muslims in America, but the recent comments from Brian Fischer, the Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association, just about takes the cake: it seems as if Mr. Fischer is beneficent enough to feel that Muslims should be allowed to stay in America-but only if, as he says, we "renounce Islam, Allah, Mohammed, and the Koran (sic) so that "we can not only become good Christians, but true Americans".
Let me see if I have this right. Mr. Fischer thinks that Muslims must renounce our faith in order to become "good" Americans, although, last I heard, neither Christianity nor faith were requisite requirements for citizenship.
But it gets even deeper. Mr Fischer is quoted as saying that "the current objective of Muslim activists is to create a brand new Islamic state-meaning a state like New Jersey of Montana." Not California or Florida, Mr. Fischer? We're not demanding some sunshine and beachfront property as part of the deal?
It would be convenient to dismiss this latest rant as the product of a depraved, xenophobic mind. But that would be wrong, because a great deal of Evangelical Christians in America do listen to the pronouncements and opinions of the American Family Association, and presumably, their Director of Issues Analysis carries some clout in the formulation of the group's policies. So when a large Christian organization claims that Muslims must "convert" in order to be "allowed" to stay in America, Muslims-and anyone with a modicum of respect for religious freedom and pluralism-should wake up and take serious notice.
As a 16th-generation American citizen of African ancestry who accepted Islam in 1993, I might know a few things that Mr. Fischer and his friend seem not to be aware of: First, that Muslim are an authentic part of America, and that our roots in this nation go back even before the arrival of Muslim captives from Africa in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Second, that there is no "un-American" religion, and that Muslims have the legal and moral right to practice our religion freely, and without hindrance. And third, that peaceful religious co-existence and the mutual respect of religious differences are values that reflect the best of this society, and ones that are shared by a great majority of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others who make up the diverse mosaic of the American religious landscape.
There is no litmus test for the proper religious identity of a "good" American. But there certainly is a litmus test for xenophobic ignorance and intolerance, and sadly, Brian Fischer and company seems to fail it miserably. And if Mr. Fischer is looking for religious fanatics who threaten domestic tranquility in this nation, he might want to start with the nearly 1,000 identified American militia and racial supremacist groups-made up mostly of white, Christian men-who defy the legitimate authority of the U.S. government, and in some cases, take up arms or plot to attack it.
So, if it's all the same to you, Mr. Fischer, I think that I'll stay right here in the land of my birth. After all, my ancestors-all 16 generations of them-contributed both slave labor and underpaid labor to build this society, and in some cases, they fought fought to defend the best of this nation. The the current population of more than eight million Muslims in America includes some of the most brilliant and dedicated men and women who carry on that tradition of service to our diverse and plural nation. And we don't need the permission of anyone to be here. We will be here, with full belief in the Creator of the universe (Allah, Most Exalted and Glorified), His messenger Muhammad, and the sacred, revealed text of the Holy Qur'an.
The American Family Association may not want Muslims to be here. But while some men plan against Muslims, God plans for us to not only be present in this nation, but to thrive, serve, and lead here as well.
And God Almighty is the best of planners.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
One Cheer for the Nuclear Posture review-But Much More is Needed!
President Barack Obama's much-anticipated review on the future strategic role of nuclear weapons in the U.S. war arsenal, and in U.S. military planning, has finally been released. There is something in it for everyone, and some movement in a progressive direction. But there are still things that will need to be done if the United States, and the world, will ever achieve a state of the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons that President Obama has articulated as a goal.
The Nuclear Posture Review does state that the United States will become less reliant on strategic nuclear weapons for possible deployment against non-nuclear weapons states, even in the event of chemical and biological weapons attacks on the United States. This means, for example, that there will be no immediate funding for a new generation of smaller, "tactical" nuclear weapons like the B-61 "Bunker Buster" bombs that were contemplated for use against hardened underground targets in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Further, there will be cuts in the overall U.S. nuclear arsenal, with corresponding reductions in the stockpile of Russian weapons (and, as I understanding, the de-alerting of some U.S. and Russian delivery systems, this reducing the danger of an accidental launch of these weapons.
But before any of us get caught up in false euphoria, there are some major issues that have not been resolved.
First, the U.S. government has not ended there is the persistent, and wasteful, funding of the tens of billions of dollars spent on the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure in the form of the research and development laboratories in Los Alamos, New Mexico, Livermore, California, and other research and development centers in the United States. Additional billions are spent to maintain the aging nuclear weapons stockpile, and for the vast security apparatus needed to hopefully keep the weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
This $ 54 billion dollar expense (2009) to U.S. taxpayers is evident of the continued influence of the nuclear war establishment on the national defense budget, even when new policy directives call for a diminished role for the U.S. nuclear weapons "deterrent".
A second problematic issue is the fact that the Nuclear Posture Review doesn't address the issue of U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in foreign nations. Where are these weapons actually located? And does their foreign-base deployment increase real security for this nation, or jeopardize that security in an increasingly volatile and violent world? On April 6th, for example, CBS radio News reported that "hundreds" of such weapons are located in Turkey, under joint Turkish-U.S. command and control.
But why is Turkey being used as a forward base for American nuclear arms?
But the most dangerous condition that remains in our world is the fact that, if the United States continues to develop new generations of nukes, even "smaller" ones-while threatening nations like Iran and North Korea over their respective nuclear development programs ( and ignoring the 200 or more Israeli warheads), there will be very little incentive for other countries to honor the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which comes under review later this Spring. Making strategic arsenal reductions is a positive development. But the acid test of President Obama's articulated vision of a nuclear-free world will be an American pledge to not only end the development of new nuclear weapons ( and their launch systems), but a commitment to honor the spirit of Article Six of the NPT and support the formulation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention that will compel all nations, as a principle of international law, to begin the process of creating a verifiable, universal abolition of nuclear all weapons.
The President deserves some accolades for moving the nation and the world in the right direction. It is important to reduce strategic nuclear forces, even if tactical nukes still abound. But the nuclear weapons "Hawks" and the corporations that profit so handsomely from manufacturing these weapons of mass annihilation, are still enormously powerful influences on the foreign and military policies of the United States.
The Muslim American Society Freedom (MAS Freedom) advocates for nuclear abolition as one of the twelve points in our 2008-2012 Legislative Agenda. Millions of other people throughout the world are ready for a world without these terrible weapons. We can only hope, and work for, the moral and political popular authority that will make future U.S. policy reviews real steps toward nuclear abolition.
Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey is also a founding member of the U.S. Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
The Nuclear Posture Review does state that the United States will become less reliant on strategic nuclear weapons for possible deployment against non-nuclear weapons states, even in the event of chemical and biological weapons attacks on the United States. This means, for example, that there will be no immediate funding for a new generation of smaller, "tactical" nuclear weapons like the B-61 "Bunker Buster" bombs that were contemplated for use against hardened underground targets in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Further, there will be cuts in the overall U.S. nuclear arsenal, with corresponding reductions in the stockpile of Russian weapons (and, as I understanding, the de-alerting of some U.S. and Russian delivery systems, this reducing the danger of an accidental launch of these weapons.
But before any of us get caught up in false euphoria, there are some major issues that have not been resolved.
First, the U.S. government has not ended there is the persistent, and wasteful, funding of the tens of billions of dollars spent on the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure in the form of the research and development laboratories in Los Alamos, New Mexico, Livermore, California, and other research and development centers in the United States. Additional billions are spent to maintain the aging nuclear weapons stockpile, and for the vast security apparatus needed to hopefully keep the weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
This $ 54 billion dollar expense (2009) to U.S. taxpayers is evident of the continued influence of the nuclear war establishment on the national defense budget, even when new policy directives call for a diminished role for the U.S. nuclear weapons "deterrent".
A second problematic issue is the fact that the Nuclear Posture Review doesn't address the issue of U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in foreign nations. Where are these weapons actually located? And does their foreign-base deployment increase real security for this nation, or jeopardize that security in an increasingly volatile and violent world? On April 6th, for example, CBS radio News reported that "hundreds" of such weapons are located in Turkey, under joint Turkish-U.S. command and control.
But why is Turkey being used as a forward base for American nuclear arms?
But the most dangerous condition that remains in our world is the fact that, if the United States continues to develop new generations of nukes, even "smaller" ones-while threatening nations like Iran and North Korea over their respective nuclear development programs ( and ignoring the 200 or more Israeli warheads), there will be very little incentive for other countries to honor the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which comes under review later this Spring. Making strategic arsenal reductions is a positive development. But the acid test of President Obama's articulated vision of a nuclear-free world will be an American pledge to not only end the development of new nuclear weapons ( and their launch systems), but a commitment to honor the spirit of Article Six of the NPT and support the formulation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention that will compel all nations, as a principle of international law, to begin the process of creating a verifiable, universal abolition of nuclear all weapons.
The President deserves some accolades for moving the nation and the world in the right direction. It is important to reduce strategic nuclear forces, even if tactical nukes still abound. But the nuclear weapons "Hawks" and the corporations that profit so handsomely from manufacturing these weapons of mass annihilation, are still enormously powerful influences on the foreign and military policies of the United States.
The Muslim American Society Freedom (MAS Freedom) advocates for nuclear abolition as one of the twelve points in our 2008-2012 Legislative Agenda. Millions of other people throughout the world are ready for a world without these terrible weapons. We can only hope, and work for, the moral and political popular authority that will make future U.S. policy reviews real steps toward nuclear abolition.
Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey is also a founding member of the U.S. Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Thursday, April 1, 2010
An April Day That I Truly Wish To See
An April Day That I Truly Wish To See
No illegal Israeli settlements?
No blockade of the people of Gaza?
And $19.19 sent to you from the State of Israel?
April Fool!
I'm playing a little on a really clever message that was sent today from the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation, centered around the fact that U.S. taxpayers will send, per capita, $19.19 this year in foreign assistance to Israel. Much of it goes to underwrite the policies that build and maintain illegal settlements in the Palestinian Territory, and otherwise continue the Israeli policies that deny the fundamental human rights of the Palestinian people.
Of course, it's April Fool's Day, the the release is meant in jest. But the continued oppression of the people of Palestine isn't funny at all.
It is also hardly funny that systematic human rights violations committed by Israel are paid for, in part, by money that you and I send to the United States government in the form of taxes. Our elected officials make a big deal-as they should-about the conduct of governments that brutalize, oppress, and otherwise beat down their citizens. But in the case of the Palestinian people, U.S. money is complicit in perpetrating the crimes that other nations are condemned for.
The good news, however, is that there is a rising tide of opposition- from the United Nations to the European Union to faith-based activists from all of the Abrahamic traditions- to the unchecked colonial policies of the Jewish State. It may be convenient to label Muslim critics of Israel as "anti-Semitic", but the canard is harder to stick on the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the head of the European Union.
And as for the tax money we send to support the occupation: It would be sweet if we got that $19.19 back as a rebate, and then sent it on the the let Gaza Live campaign created by MAS Freedom to support efforts to end the embargo of Gaza.
When that embargo ends-and it most certainly will- I will rejoice with the people of Gaza, and all of Palestine.
And that's no joke.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
How Should Rebels Rebel? Truth, Terror, and the Tragedy in Moscow
I am still not quite recovered from the shock of the horrific bombing of two Moscow subway
trains on March 29th, which killed at least 38 people and left scores more maimed and seriously
injured. Preliminary reports, while not complete or definitive, seem to suggest that the
attacks were carried out by two women bombers who might have been affiliated with separatist/
nationalist rebels in the North Caucasus region of Russia. The translation: the bloody conflict
between Russia and the majority Muslim territory of Chechnya is far from over.
Some "experts" have suggested that the bombings were done in retaliation for Russian
attacks on known Chechnyan nationalist leaders, or perhaps for the ongoing warfare between
the Chechnyan nationalist forces and Russia. Despite the perception that the Russian army
was victorious over the rebels, and that the rebellion has ended, the Moscow bombings would
suggest that the bitter warfare continues.
But we are left with the question of how a struggle for independence ( or autonomy) should-and should not-be carried out. And all of this now brings to mind the 19 years of bloodshed since the declaration of Chechnyan independence in 1991, which led to the deaths of some 15,000 Russian troops and perhaps 300,000 or more Muslim civilians in the territory.
My first response is that the slaughter of innocent civilians is simply unacceptable, whether for Muslims or for any human beings engaged in conflict. The consequence of the killings in Moscow will only be bad-bad for Muslims who will feel the iron fist of retaliation from Russia, and even worse for the prospects of an eventual resolution of the conflict itself. This renewed cycle of violence is likely to leave Russia more violently militarized, and thirsty for revenge, while innocent Muslims in the North Caucasus will suffer even more.
But my second response is even more pessimistic, because it involves the calculation that the political aims of the parties responsible for the carnage now cannot be heard over the din of the explosions and the cries for vengeance. from the Russian people.The people slaughtered on those trains in Moscow were not combatants. They were, most likely, ordinary working people, like the ones who ride Metro trains anywhere in the world. It is not definitely known that the attackers were Muslims, but the Russian and the international press have already branded them already as "Islamic terrorists".
The likely outcome of this will simply been more virulent hatred of Muslims in Russia, and more intransigence from Moscow on the question of peace and autonomy for the Muslim-majority areas in the old Soviet empire.
There are, no doubt, legitimate grievances that Muslim peoples have with the Russian Federation, and the issues have not been resolved in the least. But in my opinion, the way forward to justice, however justice is imagined, does not go through the path of terrorism and the murder of non-combatants. This is a lesson that the great Mahatma Ghandi taught the entire world, but sadly, it is a lesson that most of the world has forgotten.
Nonviolent direct action in the pursuit of justice is morally legitimate, and in the final analysis,
the best way for a righteous cause to win. Terrorism, which is contrary to the laws of God and all human rights norms, is not.
I am still not quite recovered from the shock of the horrific bombing of two Moscow subway
trains on March 29th, which killed at least 38 people and left scores more maimed and seriously
injured. Preliminary reports, while not complete or definitive, seem to suggest that the
attacks were carried out by two women bombers who might have been affiliated with separatist/
nationalist rebels in the North Caucasus region of Russia. The translation: the bloody conflict
between Russia and the majority Muslim territory of Chechnya is far from over.
Some "experts" have suggested that the bombings were done in retaliation for Russian
attacks on known Chechnyan nationalist leaders, or perhaps for the ongoing warfare between
the Chechnyan nationalist forces and Russia. Despite the perception that the Russian army
was victorious over the rebels, and that the rebellion has ended, the Moscow bombings would
suggest that the bitter warfare continues.
But we are left with the question of how a struggle for independence ( or autonomy) should-and should not-be carried out. And all of this now brings to mind the 19 years of bloodshed since the declaration of Chechnyan independence in 1991, which led to the deaths of some 15,000 Russian troops and perhaps 300,000 or more Muslim civilians in the territory.
My first response is that the slaughter of innocent civilians is simply unacceptable, whether for Muslims or for any human beings engaged in conflict. The consequence of the killings in Moscow will only be bad-bad for Muslims who will feel the iron fist of retaliation from Russia, and even worse for the prospects of an eventual resolution of the conflict itself. This renewed cycle of violence is likely to leave Russia more violently militarized, and thirsty for revenge, while innocent Muslims in the North Caucasus will suffer even more.
But my second response is even more pessimistic, because it involves the calculation that the political aims of the parties responsible for the carnage now cannot be heard over the din of the explosions and the cries for vengeance. from the Russian people.The people slaughtered on those trains in Moscow were not combatants. They were, most likely, ordinary working people, like the ones who ride Metro trains anywhere in the world. It is not definitely known that the attackers were Muslims, but the Russian and the international press have already branded them already as "Islamic terrorists".
The likely outcome of this will simply been more virulent hatred of Muslims in Russia, and more intransigence from Moscow on the question of peace and autonomy for the Muslim-majority areas in the old Soviet empire.
There are, no doubt, legitimate grievances that Muslim peoples have with the Russian Federation, and the issues have not been resolved in the least. But in my opinion, the way forward to justice, however justice is imagined, does not go through the path of terrorism and the murder of non-combatants. This is a lesson that the great Mahatma Ghandi taught the entire world, but sadly, it is a lesson that most of the world has forgotten.
Nonviolent direct action in the pursuit of justice is morally legitimate, and in the final analysis,
the best way for a righteous cause to win. Terrorism, which is contrary to the laws of God and all human rights norms, is not.
Monday, March 29, 2010
The "Other" Homegrown Terrorism-And The One You Should REALLY Be Afraid Of
The "Other" Homegrown Terrorism-And the One You Should Be REALLY Afraid Of
They carry guns. They scoff at the authority of their government.They are willing to
commit acts of violence kill in the name of an extreme religious ideology.
But are they Muslims? No. They are fundamentalist Christians who are armed, trained, and ready to carry out the most terrible of missions as "Christian warriors" under the command of "General Jesus". And they are incorrigibly opposed to Muslims, whom they believe to be the "Anti-Christ".
On March 28th, a band of nine of these soldiers for Jesus were arrested by federal authorities
in three separate raids in Oho, Michigan, and Illinois. A day later they were charged with conspiracy to kill police officers, although, not yet, conspiracy to murder Muslims.
But while one might be tempted to dismiss these Hutarees, as they call themselves ( the name means "Christian Warriors" in some undetermined language) as a few kooks with paramilitary fantasies, they are far from marginal, or alone: they represent just one fringe element among some 932 groups in America identified as extremists by the Southern Poverty law Center. And the ultra-Right is growing at an alarming rate: in 2009 alone, some 363 new groups of extremists came into existence in America, fueled in part by the election of a Black president
(whom most of these people consider to be not even a real American citizen) and the
changing demographic reality that is making Caucasian Americans a shrinking majority population.
But will federal agents infiltrate the churches that these Hutrees attend? Will they take their pastors into custody and interrogate them about their theological views concerning the Bible and Jesus? Will their friends and non-Hutaree family members, have their homes invaded and ransacked? Not likely. Because Christian reactionary extremism, whether armed or not, is not
taken as a serious threat to national security.
Muslims, though, certainly know what it is like to suffer the outrage of collective suspicion, and even collective punishment, for violent actions done in the name of Islam. Even when responsible Muslim organizations condemn extremism and violence, there are those-even in "respectable" political circles-who are quick to assign some conspiratorial blame to the entire community for the violent actions of a few. But despite nearly 1,000 such extremist groups that profess opposition to the policies and even the authority of the State, the Christian majority is not examined under the microscope of law enforcement.
Will prominent Christian pastors like Franklin Graham or T.D. Jakes feel compelled to appear on FOX News to explain that conservative Christians are not blood-thirsty gun nuts with racist motivations, or that Christians actually love the government even if a Black President leads it? No. Because the rules that collectively apply to Muslims do not apply to them, even when some of "them" are part of a reactionary, armed, and hateful fringe element.
Remember that, just a week ago, the "Tea Party" crowd converged on the House of Representatives and called African-American Congressmen "Niggers" while spitting on them. Well, the militia boys are worse, because they will spit out the verbal abuse while threatening to use their guns if the need arises for armed "self defense".
Conservative Christians are not compelled to apologize for the behavior of a minority of armed Christian extremists. The American Muslim community, long excoriated by the press and spied on by the national security apparatus, simply demands the same level of respect, and freedom from the odious stigma of collective guilt that Christians enjoy as a fundamental right.
Ibrahim Ramey
They carry guns. They scoff at the authority of their government.They are willing to
commit acts of violence kill in the name of an extreme religious ideology.
But are they Muslims? No. They are fundamentalist Christians who are armed, trained, and ready to carry out the most terrible of missions as "Christian warriors" under the command of "General Jesus". And they are incorrigibly opposed to Muslims, whom they believe to be the "Anti-Christ".
On March 28th, a band of nine of these soldiers for Jesus were arrested by federal authorities
in three separate raids in Oho, Michigan, and Illinois. A day later they were charged with conspiracy to kill police officers, although, not yet, conspiracy to murder Muslims.
But while one might be tempted to dismiss these Hutarees, as they call themselves ( the name means "Christian Warriors" in some undetermined language) as a few kooks with paramilitary fantasies, they are far from marginal, or alone: they represent just one fringe element among some 932 groups in America identified as extremists by the Southern Poverty law Center. And the ultra-Right is growing at an alarming rate: in 2009 alone, some 363 new groups of extremists came into existence in America, fueled in part by the election of a Black president
(whom most of these people consider to be not even a real American citizen) and the
changing demographic reality that is making Caucasian Americans a shrinking majority population.
But will federal agents infiltrate the churches that these Hutrees attend? Will they take their pastors into custody and interrogate them about their theological views concerning the Bible and Jesus? Will their friends and non-Hutaree family members, have their homes invaded and ransacked? Not likely. Because Christian reactionary extremism, whether armed or not, is not
taken as a serious threat to national security.
Muslims, though, certainly know what it is like to suffer the outrage of collective suspicion, and even collective punishment, for violent actions done in the name of Islam. Even when responsible Muslim organizations condemn extremism and violence, there are those-even in "respectable" political circles-who are quick to assign some conspiratorial blame to the entire community for the violent actions of a few. But despite nearly 1,000 such extremist groups that profess opposition to the policies and even the authority of the State, the Christian majority is not examined under the microscope of law enforcement.
Will prominent Christian pastors like Franklin Graham or T.D. Jakes feel compelled to appear on FOX News to explain that conservative Christians are not blood-thirsty gun nuts with racist motivations, or that Christians actually love the government even if a Black President leads it? No. Because the rules that collectively apply to Muslims do not apply to them, even when some of "them" are part of a reactionary, armed, and hateful fringe element.
Remember that, just a week ago, the "Tea Party" crowd converged on the House of Representatives and called African-American Congressmen "Niggers" while spitting on them. Well, the militia boys are worse, because they will spit out the verbal abuse while threatening to use their guns if the need arises for armed "self defense".
Conservative Christians are not compelled to apologize for the behavior of a minority of armed Christian extremists. The American Muslim community, long excoriated by the press and spied on by the national security apparatus, simply demands the same level of respect, and freedom from the odious stigma of collective guilt that Christians enjoy as a fundamental right.
Ibrahim Ramey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
