Standing With Muslim Youth-And Against Extremism

Five Muslim-American youth from Virginia, who traveled to Pakistan in 2009 and allegedly met with representatives of banned organizations, were convicted in a Pakistani court on June 23rd of conspiracy against the state, and funding a terrorist organization.

The youth-Ahmed Abdullah Minall, Aman Hassan Yemer, Waqur Khan, Umer Farooq, and Ramy Zamzam- all come from the northern Virginia area. They receive sentences of 10 years at hard labor in a Pakistani prison. None of them have previous histories of criminal activity or had expressed intentions, while in America, or any desire to support armed anti-American resistance activities while in Pakistan.

Prior to their sentencing, the young men claimed that they were victims of torture while in Pakistani custody and that the evidence presented against them in court by the prosecutors in the case had been fabricated.

But while these convictions were met with great concern and sadness from the Muslim-American community, they raise another serious issue: impressionable Muslim young men being swayed by the allure of militant anti-American “Jihadis”, and the consequence, for the young people, for their families, and most of all, for the entire Muslim community, are nothing short of disastrous.

There is evidence that these convictions will be appealed to a higher court in Pakistan, and many Muslims in the United States are hopeful that these young people will eventually be found innocent of these extremely serious charges. And, in fact, the U.S. wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan are opposed by a sizable portion of the Muslim population in this nation.

But many Muslim leaders also know that young men who struggle with feelings of alienation from American foreign policy, or who oppose the U.S. government collaboration with the Israeli occupation of Palestine, might be tempted into the kind of naive adventurism that would lead them to leave America and seek common cause with extremist groups.

MAS Freedom does support the right of appeal for the young men convicted in Pakistan, and we hope that all the relevant facts in their case will be brought to light. We are well aware that in the current political climate of “anti-terrorism” zeal, innocent people have been, and continue to be, unjustly accused of conspiracy against the U.S. government, or in this case, an American ally.

Now, at this critical moment in Muslim American history, we need to stand with our youth, and help them resist the temptation to take any actions that will only likely result in their imprisonment, or their death. Muslims do have legitimate issues that must be heard. But we should advocate for the political and social empowerment of our community, and especially of our youth, in ways that are both consistent with the morality of our faith and our adherence to the laws of the land.

All of us should pray and hope for the best for the five young Muslim men convicted in Pakistan. But we must also work seriously to implement the MAS vision of our “Straight Path” program that challenges injustice effectively, and without the possibility of the terrible consequences of unnecessary death or imprisonment that all too often lie at the end of those fateful, and fruitless, collaborations with the “enemies” of America.

U.S. Power Must Do the Right Thing for Gaza, Israel, and Humanity

As Israel continues to play plays the role of the playground bully in Gaza, the United States government is left to struggle with a profound political dilemma: should America keep arming and financing a nation that is rapidly becoming an international pariah, or should the United States demand a radical change in
Israeli policy and risk the extreme antagonism and backlash from the massive, and well-funded, pro-Israel lobby and political/media machinery?

There is, without a doubt, a price to be paid for doing the right thing and pressing for an end to the economic strangulation of Gaza. But the political calculus facing the Obama administration should also recognize that there are some major benefits in taking a different line with Tel Aviv on the question f the Gaza embargo.

1. Pressing to end the embargo would strengthen. America's image and prestige in the Muslim world. Remember how President Obama declared last June in his famous Cairo speech that American is not, and would never be, at war with Islam? Well, here's the perfect way to prove it. Muslims across the globe, and across the entire political spectrum, detest the Israeli treatment of Palestinians in general,and the people of Gaza specifically. If America truly cares about protecting the human rights of the downtrodden throughout the world, here is the one most politically salient one way to demonstrate it.

2. Stopping the embargo also protects the people of Gaza from the rise of armed extremists even more "radical" than Hamas. Despite their 'terrorist" designation by the State Department, Hamas is actually an elected government in Gaza that faces a rising challenge from smaller formations that are anxious to unleash even more rocket attacks and suicide missions against Israel. Those groups have not yet attracted a huge following in Gaza. But just last Summer, some 21 members of a radical group were killed by Hamas security forces in an attempt to create an Islamic "Caliphate" in Southern Gaza. Some observers foresee a scenario in which Hamas will, at some point, be unable to prevent even more armed retaliations against Israel.

3. Using U.S. power responsibly is an affirmation of the rule of international law over the paranoia of settler colonialism. Israeli claims that the interception of the Gaza- bound aid vessels( in international waters) was done in self-defense is, of course, bogus: motorized wheel chairs and text books aren't weapons. But the imposition of collective punishment by Israel on the civilian population of Gaza is, indeed, a violation of international law, under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Compelling Israel to stop would be a signal that the United States stands for the rule of international law, even when that rule puts the USA at odds with an ally.

4. A positive United States intervention in the Gaza boycott could be the catalyst for the growing nonviolent response, in both Palestine and Israel, to the conditions on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank. This might seem to be far-fetched, but what if U.S. naval vessels were to accompany future humanitarian aid flotillas,and "pre-inspect" the vessels to guarantee to Israel that they were not transporting weapons? I doubt that Israeli commandos would try to intercept American naval ships. And this action would send a overwhelmingly positive message to the global community. It would also serve to create more political space for the evolution of a different, non-violent possibility for the people of both Palestine and Israel.

The current United States position of arming Israel to the teeth and tacitly supporting Israeli settler colonialism and the immoral, and illegal, economic blockade of the people of Gaza (and all of Palestine) serves the rational interests of no one-not the people of Palestine, not the people of Israel, and certainly, not the people of the United States of America.

Indeed, it is possible ( I am ever the optimist ) that Palestinians and Israelis can co-exist in peace, with guarantees for the security and human rights for both national communities. all. But in order for this to ever happen, America must abandon its unilateral support for the Israeli actions that make peace and reconciliation virtually impossible, and that drive more Palestinians into the no-win position of endless, futile military confrontation with the Israeli war machine.

People of conscience and integrity, from Nobel Peace Prize winners Desmond Tutu and Mairead Corrigan Maguire to Pope Benedict XVI, to the Secretary General of the United Nations, have called for Israel to end to the Gaza embargo. The European Union has done the same. None of them are anti-Semites or "Jew-haters".

Now, what is required, much more than the call for "caution" and "investigation", in the courage for the United States to break free from the pro-Israel lobby and do the right thing for international law, for peace, and ultimately, for all of humanity. AIPAC does not represent the Jewish people or, frankly, the real interests of the people of Israel.

The time for American political equivocation is over. The voices of suffering people are calling for the United States to stand with oppressed and suffering people for the sake of justice and peace. Are you listening, President Obama?

Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey

A Sad and Tragic Memorial Day: May 31st, 2010

A Sad and Tragic Memorial Day: May 31st, 2010

I had planned, sometime last week, to write an essay for a different kind of Memorial
Day: a day that would commemorate not just American soldiers who have died in combat, but the countless civilian victims of American militarism as well.

It would have been a tribute to the unnamed Filipino, Vietnamese, Central American, Iraqi, Afghan, Somali, and other people who have died because American weapons, American proxy governments, American-equipped mercenaries, and American economic interests were responsible for killing them. It would have been, in my own voice, a witness against war itself, and a tribute to the lives of non-combatants who now constitute the great majority of victims of armed conflicts around the globe.

It would have been a call for a different kind of tribute-a tribute to those killed in war, regardless of nationality or faith or cause.

But the tragedy of the horrendous Israeli attack this morning on the civilians in the Free Gaza flotilla compels me to say more: that killing is not only a by-product of the U.S. war system, but a result of the spread of that system throughout the world.

Even though American fingers were not on the triggers of the Israeli weapons that killed the Free Gaza activists, the military power ad political cover provided to Israel by the United States is material factor in what Israel does in Gaza, and i all of Palestine.

The billion of dollars in military assistance that American has committed to back Israel was, without a doubt, an integral part of this assault, just as U.S.incendiary munitions and helicopter guns were strategically used by Israel to kill Palestinian civilians in the 2008-2009 war in Gaza.

Indeed, the government and military of Israel can continue their policies of economic warfare, occupation, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian areas because they have the backing of the world's greatest-and only-military superpower. We should all know this, and realize the complicity of the American people in maintaining a system that results in the killing of these-ans so many other-innocent people. There is nothing honorable about imperialism or colonial conquest.

The argument could be made that others in the world commit acts of brutality and murder against the innocent. That is indeed true. But that is no excuse for what is done by America, directly or though proxies., in the name of "democracy", or "freedom", or even the security of what is called our "national interests". The only "national interest" worth defending is universal peace and justice. What happened on the high seas to the activists aboard those ships was a crime.

So this is yet another Memorial Day. But rather than waive the colors of a flag that facilitates and orchestrates the killing of non-combatants-as all armies kill non-combatants-I will choose to remember and honor the unnamed millions of human beings who have died in wars that they took no part in starting, or prosecuting.

The most recent of these victims are the 20 or so peaceful activists killed by Israeli forces, in international waters, aboard ships filled with cargo to help make the lives of the people of Gaza a little brighter.

My Speech at the International Conference for a Nuclear-Free, Peaceful, Just and Sustainable World

In the Name of God, Most Beneficent, Most Merciful:

Friends, distinguished delegates, members of the international activist community, and leaders in the global struggle for the abolition of all nuclear weapons:

It is a great honor for me to stand before you today, as a person of faith and an advocate of nonviolence and disarmament, and to share with you some of my ideas about the relationship between the global movement for nuclear abolition and the central message of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

We have heard this great message, and we come from communities around the globe, to gather here. We are veterans of the direct actions at nuclear weapons test sites, and at the military bases from which these engines of mass killings might be launched. We have assembled to shut down the laboratories involved in senseless and immoral research to maintain the nuclear danger for the sake of paychecks for scientists, and more profit from the altar of the god of militarism that they serve.

I am aware, as are all of you, that a little more than 43 years ago, Dr. King stood at the pulpit of this very church to articulate his opposition to the U.S. war in Indochina. His prophetic words were heard then by many, some of whom wished that his message could have been limited to the realm of the fight for racial justice.

War has not yet been abolished, any more that economic injustice and racial oppression have ceased to exist over the last four decades of human history. But as I witness the sight of you-hundreds of my fellow abolitionists and nonviolent workers for the abolition of nuclear weapons- I am reminded that we are not here simply among each other; We, the living, are joined by a cloud of prophetic witnesses:

The lives of the hundreds of thousands of incinerated human beings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are here with us.

The untold victims of the horrors of radiation poisoning in the world

The generations of indigenous communities that are scarred and wounded from contaminated water, soil, and air are with us;

The children of Pakistan and India, and even Russia and China and the United States condemned to lives of brutal poverty and neglect because of the twisted priorities of militarism and the insanity of a continued arms race, are with us.

And the enormous spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr. is with us as well.

We call to mind the words of our nation's most noble Apostle of Peace that we are, indeed, bound together inextricably in a garment of mutual destiny. Never before, in the history of human life on this planet, have so many billions of souls been inter-connected in a common destiny because of the single, transcendent threat of global annihilation posed by the intentional or accidental detonation of atomic weapons.

And indeed, it is more true now than it has ever been that our choice, as inhabitants of this fragile planet, is not the choice of violence versus nonviolence, but that of nonviolence versus nonexistence.

But while the moral imperative for abolition remains unchanged in the 42 years since the assassination of Dr. King, it behooves us to consider both how the specific nature of that threat has changed, and how the challenges facing us as a global abolition community have changed as well.

The old bipolar world of Dr. King's lifetime, dominated by Soviet and U.S. power has been radically transformed by the disintegration of the Soviet Union, by the addition of new nation states to the nuclear weapons club, and by the proliferation of new generations of tactical nukes and the real, and growing, threat of the possession of these weapons by terrorists.

These complex new relationships and changing geopolitical realities require the same steadfast commitment to our unchanging vision of a world made safer from the threat of nuclear war. But these new challenges also compel us to re-examine our forms of organization and the way in which we convey our essential message to the world.

We acknowledge that the NPT was a major and positive step in the direction of the eventual abolition of all weapons, and that the evolving body of international law plays a central role in what must become a different, and more hopeful, future for our species and our planet.

Dr. King was aware of the need for new laws to govern the conduct of individuals and nations and the nations of the world, but changing laws, while necessary, is never sufficient. What was necessary for Dr. King and Mahatma Gandhi, and what is taught by great living moral teachers like the Dalai Llama and Daisaku Ikeda, , is nothing less that the moral re-education of global civilization itself, rooted in the great tradition of nonviolence.

The prize that we must continue to keep our eyes on is nothing less that the a compete spiritual transformation of the human community, and one that must be led not by governments or changing international agreements, but by civil society itself. And WE are that civil society!

What took place in the U.S. civil rights struggle, and what must continue to take place in our own work, is the passionate, relentless, and uncompromising struggle for the human soul, linked with the political and tactical wisdom that comes from our triumphs as well as our failures, and from recognizing which winds have shifted, and which continue to blow.

The social movement with which Dr. King is intimately connected is, of course, the movement for civil rights and racial equality in America. But that movement, in the most comprehensive and holistic sense, was a struggle that linked together an analysis of, and a response to, THREE forms of oppression: racism, economic class oppression, and militarism.

It is not possible to truncate King's analysis and conveniently pigeon-hole his vision into only one form of social protest, because all three of these evils are inseparable. And the lesson to all of us is clear: we cannot simply oppose nuclear weapons. We must be front-line activists in linking the issue of abolition to the broader issue of anti-militarism and opposition to the global war system itself, with a deep concern for racial and economic justice for the oppressed peoples of the earth.

Fear of a Brown Planet: Some Reflections On the New Immigration Law in Arizona

The announcement of Arizona's latest push against "illegal" immigrants really did take most of us by surprise. Sure, there are ongoing tensions about the issue of undocumented workers streaming across borders in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas...or arriving by other means in other parts of the United States.

Yet few people outside the state had a hint that Governor Jan Brewer would sign a bill that literally puts most Arizonans of Latino origin in a separate racial category under the most severe legal scrutiny that one could imagine.

Indeed, the new immigration laws make it practically mandatory for law enforcement officers in Arizona to stop people who "look" to be Latino/Latina and compel them to produce documentation proving their immigration status. And this doesn't just mean persons being arrested for the suspicion of committing crime. It means , literally, anyone who, based purely on their race/appearance, is suspected of possibly being in the USA without proper documentation. And if the papers aren't produced, the suspect faces a fine of up to $2,500, a jail sentence of six months, and in the worst case, deportation.

( I presume here-and this is a generalization-that people of 'European" phenotype are unlikely to be presumed targets of the law.

But Latino organizations, and their allies across the racial line, are not taking this lying down. Numerous organizations, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Council for La Raza, and the League of United Latin American Citizens, are staging press conferences, mass rallies and marches in opposition to the new law. Allied civil rights organizations like the National Action Network have announced plans to bring masses of "Freedom Walkers" to Arizona, and march in the streets-without proof of citizenship-in open, nonviolent defiance of Governor Brewer's edict.

Muslim organizations, too, are not remaining silent about the issue, and political alliances between Muslim and Latino civil rights formations are already starting to take on a new sense of urgency.

Further, the economic consequences of the enforcement of the new law are likely to be sticky: There is even talk now that the law will make it harder for Arizona to generate revenue from foreign trade in the Americas, or to entice tourists from the region who will, no doubt, feel much less welcome in the state because of their ethnic identities. There will certainly be court challenges to the legality of this new legislation. Moreover, Arizona-like South Carolina a few years ago-is not likely to be a prime location for conferences and conventions of organizations representing people of color.

And the numerous Latino police officers in the state may well start to feel like the African township police who were enlisted by racist South African security forces to become a first line of defense of Apartheid.against true Black freedom. Ironically, some of them, while out of uniform, are likely to get the same racist treatment from white cops that they will demonstrate to their own brothers and sisters suspected of being in the US illegally.

But the real backlash against this move may well be felt at the ballot box in November, when mobilized Latino voters, and their allies, are certain to show their response in November, 2010 to Governor Brewer and the state legislature.

America does need massive immigration reform. But there is widespread sentiment among many of us that this law is a divisive, unjust, and morally indefensible way to go about it. This legislation amounts to the equivalent of a "Pass" law reminiscent of racist South Africa-or the treatment of Arabs and Palestinians under Israeli occupation.

The political Right-wing may see this as a cheap way to mobilize anti-immigrant passion in America and crystallize that sentiment into another political rock to be hurled against the Obama administration. But the obverse side of the coin means that Latinos, and many others, will organize as well.

The Tea Party cry of "vote the scoundrels out" may well come back to haunt the architects of this perfidious piece of color-coded legislation, as it breathes new oxygen into the growing fire of Latino political power in Arizona, and across the nation.

Immigration reform by discrimination and ethnic intimidation may appeal to crude xenophobia and even racial prejudice. But this sort of legislation is absolutely not the way forward.

Ibrahim Ramey