By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
Like almost everyone, I was stunned to hear the news of Michael Jackson's sudden death on Thursday, June 25, 2009. The community around Georgia Avenue in Washington, DC was literally buzzing with the news. As I walked toward my apartment after a long day at the office, several people even stopped me on the street to ask if I had heard of Jackson's passing.
Somehow, the man-child who dominated the universe of popular music for nearly 40-years was someone who seemed to flirt with immortality. Michael Jackson, to hundreds of millions of people who celebrated him with a passion that bordered on worship, never grew old, and wasn't supposed to die. But now that are confronted with the reality that, at the age of 50, Jackson, is indeed, dead.
As the Qur'an teaches us, from God Almighty we come, and to Him, we shall (all) surely return.
As I contemplate on the life and death of Michael Jackson, described by another famous recording artist as "a major strand of our cultural DNA", a second Qur'anic truth resonates with me: there is no deity worthy of worship but the One Lord of Creation. How true these words must be for those of us who believe in God.
Yet we live embedded in a culture where the mass adulation that society pours out on athletes and performing artists approaches, and all too frequently crosses over into, the territory of idolatry.
Michael Jackson, for all of his obvious troubles and even moral ambiguities, was truly an "idol" for millions. His phenomenal talent as a child leading the legendary Jackson 5 had grown, over the years, into entertainment legend equaling that of Elvis Presley and the Beatles.
Our culture looked beyond his fixation with self-mutilation and his fascination with children; brushing them off as nothing more that the eccentricities of genius.
And when reports revealed that Jackson's $20 million annual income could not pay for his extreme spending habits, our culture brushed it off, and seemed prepared to pour more money into his gigantic pockets of self-indulgence; feeding his appetites and the legions of sycophants feeding off him.
As we come to terms with Jackson's untimely demise, a deeper question comes to mind: "When the music stops, who, or what do we actually worship? And what is the nature of our relationship with God if the objects of our adoration are nothing more than false deities?
I believe Michael Jackson was a mirror held up before society, and one that yielded a reflection of the shape and form of modern form of idol worship.
How often do we hear the word "idol" used in context with our celebration of mega-athletes and entertainers? And how is it that we collectively allow these "idols" to hover just above the moral judgments that we reserve for lesser mortals?
When a ballplayer injects steroids, or kills someone while driving under the influence of alcohol, or when an actor gets busted for drug possession at an airport, we say, "So sad", "Too bad", "It's so unfortunate". And within just a few short weeks, after the intervention of a few ultra-expensive lawyers and a team of public relations professionals, we place these "idols" right back in the temple of collective popular worship.
The world treated Jackson the same way.
His phenomenal talent trumped his need to carve away his face and bleach his skin to the point transmogrifying his African-American identity into a white death mask.
And the numerous allegations of his sexual relationships with minor children – one of which was "settled" out of court for a reputed payment of $10 million to the family of the boy who filed the lawsuit – dissolved in the brilliant light of his on-stage persona.
Even when Michael admitted to sleeping with children who were not his own, we winced and kept giving him props, love, and adoration; and yes, the fuel of nearly all idolatry - money.
But now the "King of Pop" is gone, and like all earthly kings who pass away, his soul must answer to the Celestial King of the Universe.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not complaining about Michael Jackson's phenomenal talents, fame, or earlier financial success.
In the final analysis (as once shared by another deceased icon, Tupac Shakur) only God can judge Michael Jackson.
Collectively, however, we can, and we must, judge ourselves for the celebrity worship that permeates modern culture, and ignores the need to give real help to our "famous" – and very human – brothers and sisters when they spin out of control.
I pause to mourn with the rest of those alarmed and saddened by the passing of Michael Jackson, and I offer my sincerest condolences to his family and loved ones.
But I must remind myself, and everyone, that the worship of celebrity, any celebrity, is both false and utterly destructive to the objects of worship and to those who bow down before them.
Let us honor great talent, but save worship for the Almighty God alone.
RELATED:
Michael Jackson Dead at 50 (LA Times June 26, 2009)
Sony Comments on the Passing of Michael Jackson (NY June 25, 2009)
Jackson's Legacy Remains Unsullied by Scandal (Arizona Republic, June 26, 2009)
Jermaine Jackson Press Conference on Michael Jackson's Death (June 25, 2009) (Closing comment in video: "May Allah be with him, Michael, always.")
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Friday, June 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Is "Blind Allegiance" Blinding the Democratic Party?
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) February 27, 2008 - The recent Democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama was advertised as the last slugfest before the critical primary elections in Texas and Ohio, and to some extent, it was exactly that. Both candidates came out swinging, with Senator Clinton clearly being the aggressor, taking shots at Obama on issues ranging from health care, to international trade, to their relative qualifications on issues of national security and international relations.
However, many Muslims probably took special notice of their exchange on the related topics of Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, and their uncritical support for the policies of the state of Israel.
Obama took a question from the debate moderator, one related to Minister Farrakhan's recent endorsement of the Obama candidacy. The junior senator from Illinois was quick to utter his repudiation of the Muslim leader, noting Minister Farrakhan's statements (from more than a decade ago), that were highly critical of Jews.
Obama went on to praise the support that his campaign receives from the Jewish community. He spoke of his denunciation of anti-Semitism in the African-American community, as well as his appreciation of Jewish contributions to the civil rights movement and his desire to revive the Black-Jewish alliance of the civil rights. He also declared that the security of Israel was "sacrosanct".
But this was not enough for Senator Clinton. She pushed Obama to go even further in his excoriation of the Minister, and demanded that he reject the Farrakhan "endorsement" out of hand. The segment then turned to Israel - with both candidates pledging their uncritical support for Jewish state.
It was a script that could have been written by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). And that is troubling.
My issue is certainly not the condemnation of anti-Semitism in any of its manifestations, whether in Europe, the American heartland, or in African-American or Muslim communities. The hatred of Jews, or any people is morally repugnant. And apparently by evoking the words and political endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, anti-Semitism, or the perception of it, became the "tar baby" of the debate, that the Obama candidacy was all too eager to distance itself from.
But the question about the Farrakhan endorsement of Senator Obama raises two issues: first, the suggestion that there is some linkage between Obama and Islam (a myth which Obama haters would love to hype), and the even bigger, and more insidious, implication that any implied criticism of the current U.S. political relationship with Israel is a disqualifier as far as the American presidency is concerned.
On the first point, it's absolutely true that Mr. Farrakhan is not exactly in the running for a humanitarian award from the Anti-Defamation League. Some of his past rhetoric regarding Jews has been thoroughly vetted and vehemently criticized by the Jewish community, and many others. But that does not mean that his preference for Senator Obama indicates that he has even the smallest influence on the Obama candidacy.
The second and more significant point, however, is the fact that both Clinton and Obama demonstrated, in this debate, their mutual towing of the policy line laid down by the one special interest that nobody talks about - namely, the American-Israeli lobby. This lobby, in the opinion of many, dominates the national political discourse related to the U.S. relationship with Israel, and in the final analysis, the policies that America chooses to pursue in the Middle East.
That is why, in my opinion, the personality of Minister Farrakhan, and his opinions about the American Jewish community, are presented to be more significant in a national debate than, say, the Israeli economic blockade of Gaza, or the continuous violations of international law committed by Israel in the Palestinian Territories.
The United Nations and the International Court of Justice routinely condemn these actions by Israel. But for all major party candidates, the people of Palestine are virtually invisible, and their human rights, are almost totally ignored.
This is the essence of "blind allegiance" to the dictates of Israel. It materially supports the continued occupation of the Palestinian Territory and the racial apartheid and discrimination that exists within Israel itself. But this blind allegiance is incompatible with the values of fairness, compassion, and respect for international law that America claims to believe in.
As Muslims participate in the political process in greater numbers that ever, we should recognize the importance of a plethora of important national questions, and not just the ones concerning U.S. policy in the Middle East. We must not judge candidates solely on this issue. But Senators Obama and Clinton must also recognize that their mutually blind allegiance to the dictates of the Jewish lobby is not, in the final analysis, good for the people of Palestine, Israel, or the United States of America.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) February 27, 2008 - The recent Democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama was advertised as the last slugfest before the critical primary elections in Texas and Ohio, and to some extent, it was exactly that. Both candidates came out swinging, with Senator Clinton clearly being the aggressor, taking shots at Obama on issues ranging from health care, to international trade, to their relative qualifications on issues of national security and international relations.
However, many Muslims probably took special notice of their exchange on the related topics of Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, and their uncritical support for the policies of the state of Israel.
Obama took a question from the debate moderator, one related to Minister Farrakhan's recent endorsement of the Obama candidacy. The junior senator from Illinois was quick to utter his repudiation of the Muslim leader, noting Minister Farrakhan's statements (from more than a decade ago), that were highly critical of Jews.
Obama went on to praise the support that his campaign receives from the Jewish community. He spoke of his denunciation of anti-Semitism in the African-American community, as well as his appreciation of Jewish contributions to the civil rights movement and his desire to revive the Black-Jewish alliance of the civil rights. He also declared that the security of Israel was "sacrosanct".
But this was not enough for Senator Clinton. She pushed Obama to go even further in his excoriation of the Minister, and demanded that he reject the Farrakhan "endorsement" out of hand. The segment then turned to Israel - with both candidates pledging their uncritical support for Jewish state.
It was a script that could have been written by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). And that is troubling.
My issue is certainly not the condemnation of anti-Semitism in any of its manifestations, whether in Europe, the American heartland, or in African-American or Muslim communities. The hatred of Jews, or any people is morally repugnant. And apparently by evoking the words and political endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, anti-Semitism, or the perception of it, became the "tar baby" of the debate, that the Obama candidacy was all too eager to distance itself from.
But the question about the Farrakhan endorsement of Senator Obama raises two issues: first, the suggestion that there is some linkage between Obama and Islam (a myth which Obama haters would love to hype), and the even bigger, and more insidious, implication that any implied criticism of the current U.S. political relationship with Israel is a disqualifier as far as the American presidency is concerned.
On the first point, it's absolutely true that Mr. Farrakhan is not exactly in the running for a humanitarian award from the Anti-Defamation League. Some of his past rhetoric regarding Jews has been thoroughly vetted and vehemently criticized by the Jewish community, and many others. But that does not mean that his preference for Senator Obama indicates that he has even the smallest influence on the Obama candidacy.
The second and more significant point, however, is the fact that both Clinton and Obama demonstrated, in this debate, their mutual towing of the policy line laid down by the one special interest that nobody talks about - namely, the American-Israeli lobby. This lobby, in the opinion of many, dominates the national political discourse related to the U.S. relationship with Israel, and in the final analysis, the policies that America chooses to pursue in the Middle East.
That is why, in my opinion, the personality of Minister Farrakhan, and his opinions about the American Jewish community, are presented to be more significant in a national debate than, say, the Israeli economic blockade of Gaza, or the continuous violations of international law committed by Israel in the Palestinian Territories.
The United Nations and the International Court of Justice routinely condemn these actions by Israel. But for all major party candidates, the people of Palestine are virtually invisible, and their human rights, are almost totally ignored.
This is the essence of "blind allegiance" to the dictates of Israel. It materially supports the continued occupation of the Palestinian Territory and the racial apartheid and discrimination that exists within Israel itself. But this blind allegiance is incompatible with the values of fairness, compassion, and respect for international law that America claims to believe in.
As Muslims participate in the political process in greater numbers that ever, we should recognize the importance of a plethora of important national questions, and not just the ones concerning U.S. policy in the Middle East. We must not judge candidates solely on this issue. But Senators Obama and Clinton must also recognize that their mutually blind allegiance to the dictates of the Jewish lobby is not, in the final analysis, good for the people of Palestine, Israel, or the United States of America.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Kenya, Muslims Can and Must Stand for Nonviolence and Justice for All
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Jan. 29, 2008 - The violence that now convulses through the East African nation of Kenya has gone, as they say, from bad to worse. It is now on the brink of catastrophe.
Since the results of the December 27, 2007 presidential election, announcing the re-election of President Mwai Kibaki by a thin margin - and some would say, a suspiciously thin one - members of the political opposition have condemned the result of the vote as fraudulent, and taken to the streets in angry protest.
But the political protests have been transmogrified into all-out ethnic warfare, pitting the largely Kikuyu supporters of President Kibaki against the minority ethnic Luo group identified with Mr. Raila Odinga (son of the famed dissident Oginga Odinga).
Despite the heroic efforts of former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to broker a peace agreement between these political antagonists, the level of violence in Kenya has reached horrific proportions.
At the present time, more than 800 individuals are known to have died, and some 255,000 persons have been made homeless. The most egregious example of this violence resulted in the torching of a church several weeks ago, where more than 50 people who sought refuge from the killing were burned alive.
Kenya may be a "tribal" nation, as the term is used to describe African ethnic groups, but it is also a nation with a significant (10%) Muslim population - and Muslims could play a very constructive role in returning the nation to peace, reconciliation, and sanity.
I remember that in 1994, the nation of Rwanda was engulfed in a horrific genocide in which some 800,000 members of the Tutsi ethnic group were murdered by Hutu extremists. The United Nations, and the world, largely looked on and turned their backs on the victims of this slaughter.
But what is largely unknown to the world, including the Muslim world, is the role that the tiny Rwandan Muslim community played in sheltering thousands of the largely Christian Tutsi victims of the genocide from the knives, clubs and guns of the (majority) Christian Hutu extremists who were killing them without mercy.
Muslim homes and mosques became havens of refuge for innocent women and children who would otherwise have been brutally killed in the orgy of ethnic hatred.
And today, as a result of this collective heroism, the religion of Islam is held in the highest esteem among all the people of Rwanda - Christian and Muslim alike - and large numbers of those Rwandans who formerly professed Christianity as their religion have reverted to Islam.
In Kenya, a different African nation with a very different history of ethnic co-existence, a new episode of mass violence has now erupted.
The violence has not yet reached the tipping point that categorizes violence as genocide, but it is careening out of control, and it threatens the stability and political integrity of a nation that has largely, throughout its history, avoided the catastrophe of tribal warfare.
The organized Muslim community in Kenya, with the help of Allah (Exalted and Glorified), can, and must, help stop the madness.
Muslims in Kenya can offer their homes and religious places of worship as sanctuaries for all who are fleeing the violence that is spreading throughout the nation just as they did in Rwanda.
As a community that transcends ethnic divisions, Kenyan Muslims are in a position to speak prophetic truth to both sides of this conflict, and to be a respected voice for reason and peace while striving to restore integrity to the fundamental political process of the nation.
I pray for the people of Kenya, and especially the victims of ethnic violence, in this deeply troubled time. And I pray that the Muslim community in Kenya, like Rwandan Muslims some 14 years ago, can, and will, rise up and contribute to the preservation of safety and security that is vital for all peoples, and nations, in our world.
Our Lord, it should be remembered, has not made us into different nations and tribes to hate each other, but rather, to know each other.
Note: MAS Freedom will periodically report on developments in the crisis in Kenya, and especially the Muslim response to the violence in that nation.
RELATED
Kenya Crisis Talks Begin Amid Mounting Violence
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Jan. 29, 2008 - The violence that now convulses through the East African nation of Kenya has gone, as they say, from bad to worse. It is now on the brink of catastrophe.
Since the results of the December 27, 2007 presidential election, announcing the re-election of President Mwai Kibaki by a thin margin - and some would say, a suspiciously thin one - members of the political opposition have condemned the result of the vote as fraudulent, and taken to the streets in angry protest.
But the political protests have been transmogrified into all-out ethnic warfare, pitting the largely Kikuyu supporters of President Kibaki against the minority ethnic Luo group identified with Mr. Raila Odinga (son of the famed dissident Oginga Odinga).
Despite the heroic efforts of former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to broker a peace agreement between these political antagonists, the level of violence in Kenya has reached horrific proportions.
At the present time, more than 800 individuals are known to have died, and some 255,000 persons have been made homeless. The most egregious example of this violence resulted in the torching of a church several weeks ago, where more than 50 people who sought refuge from the killing were burned alive.
Kenya may be a "tribal" nation, as the term is used to describe African ethnic groups, but it is also a nation with a significant (10%) Muslim population - and Muslims could play a very constructive role in returning the nation to peace, reconciliation, and sanity.
I remember that in 1994, the nation of Rwanda was engulfed in a horrific genocide in which some 800,000 members of the Tutsi ethnic group were murdered by Hutu extremists. The United Nations, and the world, largely looked on and turned their backs on the victims of this slaughter.
But what is largely unknown to the world, including the Muslim world, is the role that the tiny Rwandan Muslim community played in sheltering thousands of the largely Christian Tutsi victims of the genocide from the knives, clubs and guns of the (majority) Christian Hutu extremists who were killing them without mercy.
Muslim homes and mosques became havens of refuge for innocent women and children who would otherwise have been brutally killed in the orgy of ethnic hatred.
And today, as a result of this collective heroism, the religion of Islam is held in the highest esteem among all the people of Rwanda - Christian and Muslim alike - and large numbers of those Rwandans who formerly professed Christianity as their religion have reverted to Islam.
In Kenya, a different African nation with a very different history of ethnic co-existence, a new episode of mass violence has now erupted.
The violence has not yet reached the tipping point that categorizes violence as genocide, but it is careening out of control, and it threatens the stability and political integrity of a nation that has largely, throughout its history, avoided the catastrophe of tribal warfare.
The organized Muslim community in Kenya, with the help of Allah (Exalted and Glorified), can, and must, help stop the madness.
Muslims in Kenya can offer their homes and religious places of worship as sanctuaries for all who are fleeing the violence that is spreading throughout the nation just as they did in Rwanda.
As a community that transcends ethnic divisions, Kenyan Muslims are in a position to speak prophetic truth to both sides of this conflict, and to be a respected voice for reason and peace while striving to restore integrity to the fundamental political process of the nation.
I pray for the people of Kenya, and especially the victims of ethnic violence, in this deeply troubled time. And I pray that the Muslim community in Kenya, like Rwandan Muslims some 14 years ago, can, and will, rise up and contribute to the preservation of safety and security that is vital for all peoples, and nations, in our world.
Our Lord, it should be remembered, has not made us into different nations and tribes to hate each other, but rather, to know each other.
Note: MAS Freedom will periodically report on developments in the crisis in Kenya, and especially the Muslim response to the violence in that nation.
RELATED
Kenya Crisis Talks Begin Amid Mounting Violence
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The Assassination of Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto: A Terrible Day for Pakistan and for Islam
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Dec. 27, 2007 - I am struggling to find words to express my grief and outrage after hearing the news of the murder of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto earlier today in Pakistan.
Regardless of one's political sentiments, or support for any of the factions struggling for political supremacy in that nation, the killing of Mrs. Bhutto is a tragic blow to democratic rule in Pakistan.
And, make no mistake about it, while the identities of the culprits are not known at this time, one thing is a virtual certainty: they are Muslims.
Sadly, the phenomenon of Muslims killing other Muslims is not shocking news for a world drenched in sensational, mass violence; and the people of Pakistan are certainly no strangers to political intrigue or fratricide. But with Pakistan - the world's second most populous majority-Muslim nation - at the crossroads of political change, and with the promise of that change being electoral, and nonviolent - the consequences of this killing are both profound and immense.
Benazir Bhutto, to be sure, had both staunch supporters and vehement enemies, among them being Muslims who categorically rejected the idea of a woman possibly, once again, becoming the leader of their nation.
There were also numerous Pakistanis, of all ideological persuasions, who viewed Bhutto's previous terms of leadership with deep disfavor.
But the idea of political assassination as a legitimate expression of dissent is un-categorically haram.
For those of us who claim al-Islam as our way of life and call ourselves Muslim, murder is unlawful, and an abomination in the eyes of our Creator.
Now is not the time to deconstruct and interrogate the legacy of Benazir Bhutto's past terms as a Prime Minister of Pakistan. Nor should we speculate on who is responsible for her murder, or for the deaths of scores of her supporters in the suicide bombing and shooting that claimed her life.
We must recognize that the violent authoritarian and repressive government of Pakistan has created a climate of hostility and hatred that made the murder of Mrs. Bhutto not only likely, but perhaps inevitable.
The unconditional U.S. political support for the Musharraf dictatorship, coupled with massive American economic and military support, added fuel to the fire of extremism that ultimately claimed her life.
And now, as we offer our condolences to the family of Benazir Bhutto and the people of Pakistan, we must pray for an end to the cancer of violence that has affected our Ummah, as we diligently work for the restoration of peace and democratic values that are vital to our collective survival.
RELATED:
Benazir Bhutto Killed in Attack
Pakistani former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated in a suicide attack.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Dec. 27, 2007 - I am struggling to find words to express my grief and outrage after hearing the news of the murder of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto earlier today in Pakistan.
Regardless of one's political sentiments, or support for any of the factions struggling for political supremacy in that nation, the killing of Mrs. Bhutto is a tragic blow to democratic rule in Pakistan.
And, make no mistake about it, while the identities of the culprits are not known at this time, one thing is a virtual certainty: they are Muslims.
Sadly, the phenomenon of Muslims killing other Muslims is not shocking news for a world drenched in sensational, mass violence; and the people of Pakistan are certainly no strangers to political intrigue or fratricide. But with Pakistan - the world's second most populous majority-Muslim nation - at the crossroads of political change, and with the promise of that change being electoral, and nonviolent - the consequences of this killing are both profound and immense.
Benazir Bhutto, to be sure, had both staunch supporters and vehement enemies, among them being Muslims who categorically rejected the idea of a woman possibly, once again, becoming the leader of their nation.
There were also numerous Pakistanis, of all ideological persuasions, who viewed Bhutto's previous terms of leadership with deep disfavor.
But the idea of political assassination as a legitimate expression of dissent is un-categorically haram.
For those of us who claim al-Islam as our way of life and call ourselves Muslim, murder is unlawful, and an abomination in the eyes of our Creator.
Now is not the time to deconstruct and interrogate the legacy of Benazir Bhutto's past terms as a Prime Minister of Pakistan. Nor should we speculate on who is responsible for her murder, or for the deaths of scores of her supporters in the suicide bombing and shooting that claimed her life.
We must recognize that the violent authoritarian and repressive government of Pakistan has created a climate of hostility and hatred that made the murder of Mrs. Bhutto not only likely, but perhaps inevitable.
The unconditional U.S. political support for the Musharraf dictatorship, coupled with massive American economic and military support, added fuel to the fire of extremism that ultimately claimed her life.
And now, as we offer our condolences to the family of Benazir Bhutto and the people of Pakistan, we must pray for an end to the cancer of violence that has affected our Ummah, as we diligently work for the restoration of peace and democratic values that are vital to our collective survival.
RELATED:
Benazir Bhutto Killed in Attack
Pakistani former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated in a suicide attack.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Who Is To Blame for Our Messed Up and Violent World?
By Ibrahim M. Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
For some time now, I've taken the position that we, as Muslims, must take collective responsibility for the actions of those who profess Islam. In my humble opinion, this is what our beloved Qur'an instructs us to do when we are told to be "witnesses for justice, even when we are witnesses against ourselves".
But some misguided people believe that this internal self-examination is tantamount to admitting that either (1) all Muslims are unjust, or (2) that Muslims are apologists for injustice, or (3) that Islam, itself, is the locus of evil in the modern world.
None of these things are true.
In response to one a recent blog critic otherwise known as 'Pundita', who slammed my essay on the "Teddy Bear" incident in Sudan, accusing me of not knowing "whay year we'in today" - I have written the following response.
For the record, I do, indeed, know what year it is, and what you mischaracterize as the "self-pity" of the title of my essay was actually meant to convey that Muslims should not "bear" the identification of involvement with injustice, which certainly characterized the actions of the Sudanese government in this issue.
Muslims do, indeed, need to collectively uphold human rights and democracy; as do the Chinese government, the ZANU-PF party of Robert Mugabe, Hindu fundamentalists, North Korean Stalinists, Burmese militarists, Russian nationalists, Christian fundamentalists (and their Israeli allies who have institutionalized the occupation and theft of Palestinian land), and many, many others.
This indictment doesn't even begin to examine the ongoing structural and environmental violence of an out-of-control system of consumption that drives the global poor into more poverty and desperation (Ghandi, I believe, taught us that poverty is the most extreme form of violence).
The world is full of injustice. Blood is on many, many hands.
Muslims are certainly guilty of our share of it, and we are certainly collectively responsible for overturning injustice and establishing a universal respect for human rights and individual dignity.
But not all of the unjust villains are Muslims, and I would suggest that you, yourself, look at what year it is, and how many other parties in our violent and divided world are complicit in the abominations and oppressions that you singularly heap on Muslims and "Islamists".
For some time now, I've taken the position that we, as Muslims, must take collective responsibility for the actions of those who profess Islam. In my humble opinion, this is what our beloved Qur'an instructs us to do when we are told to be "witnesses for justice, even when we are witnesses against ourselves".
But some misguided people believe that this internal self-examination is tantamount to admitting that either (1) all Muslims are unjust, or (2) that Muslims are apologists for injustice, or (3) that Islam, itself, is the locus of evil in the modern world.
None of these things are true.
In response to one a recent blog critic otherwise known as 'Pundita', who slammed my essay on the "Teddy Bear" incident in Sudan, accusing me of not knowing "whay year we'in today" - I have written the following response.
For the record, I do, indeed, know what year it is, and what you mischaracterize as the "self-pity" of the title of my essay was actually meant to convey that Muslims should not "bear" the identification of involvement with injustice, which certainly characterized the actions of the Sudanese government in this issue.
Muslims do, indeed, need to collectively uphold human rights and democracy; as do the Chinese government, the ZANU-PF party of Robert Mugabe, Hindu fundamentalists, North Korean Stalinists, Burmese militarists, Russian nationalists, Christian fundamentalists (and their Israeli allies who have institutionalized the occupation and theft of Palestinian land), and many, many others.
This indictment doesn't even begin to examine the ongoing structural and environmental violence of an out-of-control system of consumption that drives the global poor into more poverty and desperation (Ghandi, I believe, taught us that poverty is the most extreme form of violence).
The world is full of injustice. Blood is on many, many hands.
Muslims are certainly guilty of our share of it, and we are certainly collectively responsible for overturning injustice and establishing a universal respect for human rights and individual dignity.
But not all of the unjust villains are Muslims, and I would suggest that you, yourself, look at what year it is, and how many other parties in our violent and divided world are complicit in the abominations and oppressions that you singularly heap on Muslims and "Islamists".
Friday, November 30, 2007
The 'Teddy Teacher' Incident...More Than Muslims Can Bear
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
UPDATE: BBC News - Dec. 3, 2007
Teddy Row Teacher To Be Released
WASHINGTON, DC (MASNET) Nov. 30, 2007 - As the world knows by now, a British secondary school teacher in Khartoum, Sudan was arrested by Sudanese authorities for allegedly defaming the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Unto Him) when, as part of a class project at the Unity School, a stuffed toy bear was named Muhammad. The name was voted on by the entire class, apparently not to refer to the Prophet of Islam, but in honor of a male classmate.
The teacher, Gillian Gibbons, was then reported to authorities by another faculty member and subsequently charged with blasphemy and promoting religious hatred. The initial, possible penalty faced by Gibbons was one year imprisonment and 50 lashes; which was, at the time of this writing, reduced to 15-days jail time and deportation.
News sources report that some 600 demonstrators congregated in Khartoum to protest the alleged defamation of Prophet Muhammad. Some were reported to have called for the execution of the teacher.
Lets review: the naming of a stuffed, toy bear after a boy in a classroom in Sudan has been transformed into a major international incident; a teacher has been incarcerated; a few zealots have called for her severe punishment; and the governments of the United Kingdom and Sudan are now embroiled in a major spat.
This incident is perfect for fueling the rhetoric of Islamophobes and Islamic extremists alike, and selling tabloid newspapers.
But it's also a matter that has serious repercussions, not only for Muslims in Sudan, but for the global Muslim community as well.
Why should we be concerned about a single teacher and a Teddy Bear? The emerging truth of the matter is that the school children themselves, and not their teacher, chose to name the toy bear. That alone should have been enough to exonerate Ms. Gibbons, and bring the matter to a swift (and innocuous) conclusion, however, the current climate of mutual distrust and animosity between many people in the "West" and the Muslim world, has grown into something so pervasive that an 'incident' such as this has erupted into a major incident.
There are people in the Muslim world - particularly in the aftermath of last year's Danish cartoon incident - who believe that Muslims should vigilantly defend their faith and Prophet against defamation. And we should. But we should be collectively judicious in judging if, and when, the defamation of our faith actually occurs.
I seriously doubt that Ms. Gibbons acted in an intentionally disrespectful way toward Islam and Prophet Muhammad. She should not have been punished, and she is owed a serious apology by the state and people of Sudan.
Then, there is the issue of what the people of Sudan should really be concerned about.
Given the ongoing crisis in Darfur, the disintegration of the North-South unity government, armed insurrection in eastern Sudan, and the Herculean task of rebuilding the nation after a horrific 20-year civil war, I would humbly submit that the Sudanese government, and its people, might want to invest their energy in responding to issues much more important than the naming of a toy.
I trust that Ms. Gibbons will be freed by the authorities in Khartoum, although I expect that her teaching experience in Sudan will come to an abrupt, and unhappy, conclusion given the news of her pending deportation.
It is my sincere hope that responsible parties on both sides of the issue will use this incident as an opportunity to examine the danger of over-reaction, on the part of some Muslims, to unintentional offenses. Likewise, people in the Christian world should not use such events to mischaracterize or stereotype all Muslims as extremists.
It's all too much for the Muslim world to bear.
RELATED
Sudan Demo Over Jailed UK Teacher
Case History
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
UPDATE: BBC News - Dec. 3, 2007
Teddy Row Teacher To Be Released
WASHINGTON, DC (MASNET) Nov. 30, 2007 - As the world knows by now, a British secondary school teacher in Khartoum, Sudan was arrested by Sudanese authorities for allegedly defaming the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Unto Him) when, as part of a class project at the Unity School, a stuffed toy bear was named Muhammad. The name was voted on by the entire class, apparently not to refer to the Prophet of Islam, but in honor of a male classmate.
The teacher, Gillian Gibbons, was then reported to authorities by another faculty member and subsequently charged with blasphemy and promoting religious hatred. The initial, possible penalty faced by Gibbons was one year imprisonment and 50 lashes; which was, at the time of this writing, reduced to 15-days jail time and deportation.
News sources report that some 600 demonstrators congregated in Khartoum to protest the alleged defamation of Prophet Muhammad. Some were reported to have called for the execution of the teacher.
Lets review: the naming of a stuffed, toy bear after a boy in a classroom in Sudan has been transformed into a major international incident; a teacher has been incarcerated; a few zealots have called for her severe punishment; and the governments of the United Kingdom and Sudan are now embroiled in a major spat.
This incident is perfect for fueling the rhetoric of Islamophobes and Islamic extremists alike, and selling tabloid newspapers.
But it's also a matter that has serious repercussions, not only for Muslims in Sudan, but for the global Muslim community as well.
Why should we be concerned about a single teacher and a Teddy Bear? The emerging truth of the matter is that the school children themselves, and not their teacher, chose to name the toy bear. That alone should have been enough to exonerate Ms. Gibbons, and bring the matter to a swift (and innocuous) conclusion, however, the current climate of mutual distrust and animosity between many people in the "West" and the Muslim world, has grown into something so pervasive that an 'incident' such as this has erupted into a major incident.
There are people in the Muslim world - particularly in the aftermath of last year's Danish cartoon incident - who believe that Muslims should vigilantly defend their faith and Prophet against defamation. And we should. But we should be collectively judicious in judging if, and when, the defamation of our faith actually occurs.
I seriously doubt that Ms. Gibbons acted in an intentionally disrespectful way toward Islam and Prophet Muhammad. She should not have been punished, and she is owed a serious apology by the state and people of Sudan.
Then, there is the issue of what the people of Sudan should really be concerned about.
Given the ongoing crisis in Darfur, the disintegration of the North-South unity government, armed insurrection in eastern Sudan, and the Herculean task of rebuilding the nation after a horrific 20-year civil war, I would humbly submit that the Sudanese government, and its people, might want to invest their energy in responding to issues much more important than the naming of a toy.
I trust that Ms. Gibbons will be freed by the authorities in Khartoum, although I expect that her teaching experience in Sudan will come to an abrupt, and unhappy, conclusion given the news of her pending deportation.
It is my sincere hope that responsible parties on both sides of the issue will use this incident as an opportunity to examine the danger of over-reaction, on the part of some Muslims, to unintentional offenses. Likewise, people in the Christian world should not use such events to mischaracterize or stereotype all Muslims as extremists.
It's all too much for the Muslim world to bear.
RELATED
Sudan Demo Over Jailed UK Teacher
Case History
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Remembering September 11 Envisioning September 12 and Beyond
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) September 11, 2007 - Like almost all of us, I have a vivid recall of September 11, 2001. A great deal changed for me, and for all of us, on that infamous day six years ago.
I remember my fatigue, and relief, when my flight from Durban, South Africa landed at Kennedy Airport, a little less than an hour before the World Trade Center was incinerated.
I recall, too, seeing the burning buildings that were visible from the Major Deegan Expressway in New York City, and later, arriving in Rockland County just before the highways, and almost the entire New York City region, went into shut-down, and later; war-mode.
The nearly 3,000 innocent victims of the 9/11 tragedy were simply a prelude for the bigger carnage that followed – a carnage, and war that continues today.
Like most of us in the Muslim American community, this terrible day marked a pivotal point in U.S. history. Our communities were both vehemently attacked and valiantly defended by numerous interfaith and ethical allies who refused to blanket us with the stigma of collective guilt.
Over 500 incidents of reactionary violence against innocent Muslims were recorded, and some 1,500 Muslim "suspects" were rounded up for interrogation and arrest by U.S. security forces - although all of them were exonerated from guilt.
But while "flying while Muslim" (or Muslima) became, and still is, a very precarious adventure for many of us, the deeper and more permanent attacks on Muslim leadership and Muslim institutions remains an ongoing challenge for Ummati Muhammad here in America.
The essential infrastructure of our collective community remains vulnerable to financial and legal maneuverings designed to limit, if not silence, our collective demand for freedom and respect for our civil rights.
Muslims in visible leadership positions, even when exonerated by jury trials, are re-tried by judicial ideologues who believe that even when Muslims are innocent, they must be guilty of something that merits their incarceration.
Even our charitable assistance for the victims of occupation and colonialism in Palestine is regarded by some as prima facie evidence of some Muslim conspiracy and wrongdoing - even though this great nation, itself, was born in a struggle against colonialism and occupation some 231 years ago.
Yet, despite all of this, I believe that the collective cup is not half-empty. In fact, it is more than half-full.
I believe that the Muslim community has made solid and significant gains across the nation over the past six-years, sometimes in the face of formidable opponents, and even some who would like to obliterate our very existence in America.
Mosques, neighborhood centers, youth programs, and other institutions continue to be built, and yet, despite the open and underhanded opposition of others, we remain deeply committed to both community service and interfaith dialogue.
And Islam continues to grow.
But perhaps the most noticeable and solid achievement in the last six years is the growth, and consolidation, of real Muslim presence and power in the political realm.
We have now (Alhamdulillah!) our first elected member of Congress, numerous mayors and local elected officials, and new respect throughout the country for a growing community of civic-minded voters.
We are making a significant impact on the national electoral scene, and this impact will not be diminished.
As I travel throughout the MAS national network, I am impressed with the dedication and deep, spiritual impact of our members, and especially our youth, who continue to build, teach, serve, and pray, despite the power of those who oppose us.
And so, on this solemn day and as we enter into the blessed season of Ramadan, I am certain that, just as Allah (SWT) will test us as believers, that He will not abandon us, or let us be unsuccessful in our collective struggle for freedom, justice, and ultimately a nation and a world that is better for all.
Our work here at MAS is invigorated, and becoming even greater as a result of the challenges that confront Muslims today, and tomorrow.
Today is September 11th - and our struggles are ever present - but we must also hold fast to the hope that, on September 12, and each day thereafter, we will continue to flourish as a community.
Muslims have a great deal to contribute to this nation, and to the future of humanity - these contributions will continue, insha'Allah.
Peace, justice, and success to you all.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) September 11, 2007 - Like almost all of us, I have a vivid recall of September 11, 2001. A great deal changed for me, and for all of us, on that infamous day six years ago.
I remember my fatigue, and relief, when my flight from Durban, South Africa landed at Kennedy Airport, a little less than an hour before the World Trade Center was incinerated.
I recall, too, seeing the burning buildings that were visible from the Major Deegan Expressway in New York City, and later, arriving in Rockland County just before the highways, and almost the entire New York City region, went into shut-down, and later; war-mode.
The nearly 3,000 innocent victims of the 9/11 tragedy were simply a prelude for the bigger carnage that followed – a carnage, and war that continues today.
Like most of us in the Muslim American community, this terrible day marked a pivotal point in U.S. history. Our communities were both vehemently attacked and valiantly defended by numerous interfaith and ethical allies who refused to blanket us with the stigma of collective guilt.
Over 500 incidents of reactionary violence against innocent Muslims were recorded, and some 1,500 Muslim "suspects" were rounded up for interrogation and arrest by U.S. security forces - although all of them were exonerated from guilt.
But while "flying while Muslim" (or Muslima) became, and still is, a very precarious adventure for many of us, the deeper and more permanent attacks on Muslim leadership and Muslim institutions remains an ongoing challenge for Ummati Muhammad here in America.
The essential infrastructure of our collective community remains vulnerable to financial and legal maneuverings designed to limit, if not silence, our collective demand for freedom and respect for our civil rights.
Muslims in visible leadership positions, even when exonerated by jury trials, are re-tried by judicial ideologues who believe that even when Muslims are innocent, they must be guilty of something that merits their incarceration.
Even our charitable assistance for the victims of occupation and colonialism in Palestine is regarded by some as prima facie evidence of some Muslim conspiracy and wrongdoing - even though this great nation, itself, was born in a struggle against colonialism and occupation some 231 years ago.
Yet, despite all of this, I believe that the collective cup is not half-empty. In fact, it is more than half-full.
I believe that the Muslim community has made solid and significant gains across the nation over the past six-years, sometimes in the face of formidable opponents, and even some who would like to obliterate our very existence in America.
Mosques, neighborhood centers, youth programs, and other institutions continue to be built, and yet, despite the open and underhanded opposition of others, we remain deeply committed to both community service and interfaith dialogue.
And Islam continues to grow.
But perhaps the most noticeable and solid achievement in the last six years is the growth, and consolidation, of real Muslim presence and power in the political realm.
We have now (Alhamdulillah!) our first elected member of Congress, numerous mayors and local elected officials, and new respect throughout the country for a growing community of civic-minded voters.
We are making a significant impact on the national electoral scene, and this impact will not be diminished.
As I travel throughout the MAS national network, I am impressed with the dedication and deep, spiritual impact of our members, and especially our youth, who continue to build, teach, serve, and pray, despite the power of those who oppose us.
And so, on this solemn day and as we enter into the blessed season of Ramadan, I am certain that, just as Allah (SWT) will test us as believers, that He will not abandon us, or let us be unsuccessful in our collective struggle for freedom, justice, and ultimately a nation and a world that is better for all.
Our work here at MAS is invigorated, and becoming even greater as a result of the challenges that confront Muslims today, and tomorrow.
Today is September 11th - and our struggles are ever present - but we must also hold fast to the hope that, on September 12, and each day thereafter, we will continue to flourish as a community.
Muslims have a great deal to contribute to this nation, and to the future of humanity - these contributions will continue, insha'Allah.
Peace, justice, and success to you all.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Goodbye, Mr. Gonzalez
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) August 29, 2007 - Alberto Gonzalez, to the surprise of virtually no one, has stepped down in shame from his position as Attorney General of the United States. Abandoned by core Republican supporters suffering from relentless attacks by congressional Democrats - including the real possibility of perjury charges in the wake of the questionable firings of numerous U.S. attorneys, Gonzales was perceived as another large albatross around the neck of a badly wounded, and largely discredited, Bush administration.
The most memorable failure of Mr. Gonzalez may well be the most recent one involving highly politicized terminations of good, respectable lawyers who did not apparently toe the administration's ideological line. But the more egregious forms of the attorney general's misconduct may have inflicted even deeper wounds on the body politic.
You will recall that, in the early days of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, Mr. Gonzalez was the most vehement supporter of the permissibility of physical abuse - otherwise known as torture - torture against both Iraqi prisoners and Guantanamo detainees. This put the government on the side that opposed both international law and common decency.
Then, there are the matters of both national security letters and the expansion of the role of the National Security Agency as a domestic center of espionage, directed against thousands of law-abiding citizens and U.S. residents. Under the watch of Mr. Gonzalez, the power of U.S. security agencies to monitor phone calls and internet messages was vastly expanded - and largely unchecked - all in the name of prosecuting the "war against terror".
Ironically, on the home front of protecting civil rights, Mr. Gonzalez was a colossal failure. The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department was dismantled to the point on virtual nonexistence, with experienced civil rights attorneys removed in favor of corporate lawyers, in the Bush loyalist mode, who had neither the experience nor the inclination to prosecute civil rights violations, or even to make the defense of civil rights a major priority of the one government agency charged with that responsibility. The result of all of this has been a well-publicized state of utter demoralization within the civil rights division.
Muslims, of course, certainly feel this shift away from the promotion and protection of equal justice under the law. We have, thanks to Gonzalez and company, experienced an unprecedented attack against Muslim charities, institutions, and vocal critics of war and injustice, all wrapped in the banner of anti-terrorism. Countless innocent people, and their families, suffer because of Mr. Gonzales and his warped sense of values.
But he has resigned. So the question remaining for Muslims, and progressive Americans is: what's next for us?
The simple answer is that the people of this nation must demand the appointment, and Senate ratification of a new Attorney General who demonstrates a respect for law and civil rights that have been woefully absent, so far, from the Bush administration. The attorney general must be the chief proponent of respect for law and equal protection under it. This value is completely at odds with the cronyism and good-ole-boy-business-as-usual operating style that placed Alberto Gonzalez in his position.
The United States Senate must be thorough and rigorous in its examination of the next nominee for Attorney General, who will serve during the critical period of the 2008 presidential election.
But more than this, we must insist that Alberto Gonzales is not let off the hook quite as easily as his resignation might suggest.
There is the matter of possible perjury in his testimony before the Senate concerning his previous conversations with then Attorney General John Ashcroft, on expansion of domestic surveillance activities on the part of the government.
Few people believe that Gonzalez told the truth about his true role in the U.S. attorney firings, which is only likely emerge when he is subpoenaed to testify, under oath, about this possible grave ethical violation.
The commitment of true justice under the law has suffered tremendously under President Bush and the individuals he has entrusted to lead the federal government. Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, and Alberto Gonzalez may be gone, but the enormous damage of their respective legacies is very much alive.
We continue to believe that a nation must be governed by law, and not the arbitrary abuse of power in pursuit of a narrow political agenda, and the chief protector of the law should be committed to this principle, too.
For the sake of the countless victims of government torture, illegal spying, and a host of other violations, and for the sake of a real respect for law and justice under it, we must demand that the next Attorney General be a vastly different person than the one that will be heading back to Texas in dishonor and disgrace.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) August 29, 2007 - Alberto Gonzalez, to the surprise of virtually no one, has stepped down in shame from his position as Attorney General of the United States. Abandoned by core Republican supporters suffering from relentless attacks by congressional Democrats - including the real possibility of perjury charges in the wake of the questionable firings of numerous U.S. attorneys, Gonzales was perceived as another large albatross around the neck of a badly wounded, and largely discredited, Bush administration.
The most memorable failure of Mr. Gonzalez may well be the most recent one involving highly politicized terminations of good, respectable lawyers who did not apparently toe the administration's ideological line. But the more egregious forms of the attorney general's misconduct may have inflicted even deeper wounds on the body politic.
You will recall that, in the early days of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, Mr. Gonzalez was the most vehement supporter of the permissibility of physical abuse - otherwise known as torture - torture against both Iraqi prisoners and Guantanamo detainees. This put the government on the side that opposed both international law and common decency.
Then, there are the matters of both national security letters and the expansion of the role of the National Security Agency as a domestic center of espionage, directed against thousands of law-abiding citizens and U.S. residents. Under the watch of Mr. Gonzalez, the power of U.S. security agencies to monitor phone calls and internet messages was vastly expanded - and largely unchecked - all in the name of prosecuting the "war against terror".
Ironically, on the home front of protecting civil rights, Mr. Gonzalez was a colossal failure. The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department was dismantled to the point on virtual nonexistence, with experienced civil rights attorneys removed in favor of corporate lawyers, in the Bush loyalist mode, who had neither the experience nor the inclination to prosecute civil rights violations, or even to make the defense of civil rights a major priority of the one government agency charged with that responsibility. The result of all of this has been a well-publicized state of utter demoralization within the civil rights division.
Muslims, of course, certainly feel this shift away from the promotion and protection of equal justice under the law. We have, thanks to Gonzalez and company, experienced an unprecedented attack against Muslim charities, institutions, and vocal critics of war and injustice, all wrapped in the banner of anti-terrorism. Countless innocent people, and their families, suffer because of Mr. Gonzales and his warped sense of values.
But he has resigned. So the question remaining for Muslims, and progressive Americans is: what's next for us?
The simple answer is that the people of this nation must demand the appointment, and Senate ratification of a new Attorney General who demonstrates a respect for law and civil rights that have been woefully absent, so far, from the Bush administration. The attorney general must be the chief proponent of respect for law and equal protection under it. This value is completely at odds with the cronyism and good-ole-boy-business-as-usual operating style that placed Alberto Gonzalez in his position.
The United States Senate must be thorough and rigorous in its examination of the next nominee for Attorney General, who will serve during the critical period of the 2008 presidential election.
But more than this, we must insist that Alberto Gonzales is not let off the hook quite as easily as his resignation might suggest.
There is the matter of possible perjury in his testimony before the Senate concerning his previous conversations with then Attorney General John Ashcroft, on expansion of domestic surveillance activities on the part of the government.
Few people believe that Gonzalez told the truth about his true role in the U.S. attorney firings, which is only likely emerge when he is subpoenaed to testify, under oath, about this possible grave ethical violation.
The commitment of true justice under the law has suffered tremendously under President Bush and the individuals he has entrusted to lead the federal government. Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, and Alberto Gonzalez may be gone, but the enormous damage of their respective legacies is very much alive.
We continue to believe that a nation must be governed by law, and not the arbitrary abuse of power in pursuit of a narrow political agenda, and the chief protector of the law should be committed to this principle, too.
For the sake of the countless victims of government torture, illegal spying, and a host of other violations, and for the sake of a real respect for law and justice under it, we must demand that the next Attorney General be a vastly different person than the one that will be heading back to Texas in dishonor and disgrace.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Arabic Language Education is NOT a Crime
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, DC (MASNET) Aug. 14, 2007 − A few days ago, I was invited to be a guest on one of the more notoriously anti-Muslim and anti-progressive programs on the FOX cable television news network. The scheduled September opening of the Khalil Gibran Academy in Brooklyn, New York was the topic of the five-minute segment. The academy is a dual Arabic-English language facility for some 60 elementary school children in a community with a substantial Arabic-speaking population.
The academy was established to facilitate the learning of both the Arabic language and Middle Eastern culture, the school, however, is not intended to be a facility for religious training or indoctrination, and it will be fully certified by, and accountable to, the New York City Board of Education.
Of course, I support multi-cultural education (I worked for the New York City Board of Education in the 1980's), and as a person who is bilingual in both English and Spanish, I believe that when children learn about other cultures and languages, they grow both intellectually and as future global citizens. That said, I found it of interest to learn that the Gibran Academy is under ferocious attack by some elements of the New York City community who consider Arabic language and educating students regarding Middle Eastern culture to be an open invitation for Islamic "extremism" and the indoctrination of children.
As the program segment commenced, the first question thrown at me was not about the Gibran school or its proposed curriculum; it was whether I, as an individual, support the Palestinian Intifada. After I responded in the affirmative, the program host then inferred that supporting the Palestinian people meant that I also approved of the killing of "innocent Jews". (Interestingly, the television program host didn't ask me my opinion about the overwhelming number of innocent Palestinians who have been, and are being, killed by Israel occupation forces.)
So what does the Israel-Palestine conflict have to do with Arabic language instruction in an American elementary school?
On the surface, perhaps nothing. But this type interviewing on a televised program is typical of the way mainstream media combines global politics, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Middle East, and the fear of Islam, to fuel opposition to the legitimate rights of Muslims and Arabic-speaking citizens in the United States.
The designated principal of the academy, Debbie Almontaser, is a respected, veteran New York City school teacher with a history of community leadership and deep involvement in interfaith dialogue. The proposed conflict resolution program for the Khalil Gibran Academy will be created by the Tannenbaum Center, one of America's most highly regarded interfaith institutions.
But none of this matters for the haters of the Muslim/Arabic community who equate the Arabic language and Islam with terrorism.
Since the plans were announced to open the school, there has been a relentless campaign to close it. Numerous letters have been sent to the New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and public school Chancellor Joel Klein, demanding that the academy not be allowed to open. Ms. Almontaser and other Muslim organizations and leaders associated with her, have been excoriated and slandered as being associated with violence and terrorism - all without any particle of evidence that these assertions are true.
It is not necessary for the Academy's opponents to bring any credible arguments against the school in their resolve to see that it does not open. It is only necessary for them to trade in a climate of fear and hatred towards Muslims in order to have any chance of success.
Sadly, the naysayers are one step closer in their campaign to stop the Academy from opening. Last Friday, Debbie Almontaser resigned as the Academy's principal-designate.
I'm sure Ms. Almontaser - an honorable woman whom I have personally met and spoken with - left her position only because she did not want unwarranted personal attacks to be a distraction from the struggle to open the school and serve the kids in her community.
Speaking the Arabic language in America is not a crime. And receiving school instruction in this language, or exploring the rich and diverse cultures associated with it, are not acts of subversion.
I am sure that the Khalil Gibran Academy will indeed open this Fall. It will be one of the most highly scrutinized elementary schools in America, but then again, it has nothing to hide.
I believe that it will become a beacon of learning for the children of Brooklyn.
But the school will remain open only if we are prepared to organize for the defense of rights of our children, our communities, and the integrity and value of cultural and religious diversity in the institutions of a nation that is, indeed, our nation, too.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, DC (MASNET) Aug. 14, 2007 − A few days ago, I was invited to be a guest on one of the more notoriously anti-Muslim and anti-progressive programs on the FOX cable television news network. The scheduled September opening of the Khalil Gibran Academy in Brooklyn, New York was the topic of the five-minute segment. The academy is a dual Arabic-English language facility for some 60 elementary school children in a community with a substantial Arabic-speaking population.
The academy was established to facilitate the learning of both the Arabic language and Middle Eastern culture, the school, however, is not intended to be a facility for religious training or indoctrination, and it will be fully certified by, and accountable to, the New York City Board of Education.
Of course, I support multi-cultural education (I worked for the New York City Board of Education in the 1980's), and as a person who is bilingual in both English and Spanish, I believe that when children learn about other cultures and languages, they grow both intellectually and as future global citizens. That said, I found it of interest to learn that the Gibran Academy is under ferocious attack by some elements of the New York City community who consider Arabic language and educating students regarding Middle Eastern culture to be an open invitation for Islamic "extremism" and the indoctrination of children.
As the program segment commenced, the first question thrown at me was not about the Gibran school or its proposed curriculum; it was whether I, as an individual, support the Palestinian Intifada. After I responded in the affirmative, the program host then inferred that supporting the Palestinian people meant that I also approved of the killing of "innocent Jews". (Interestingly, the television program host didn't ask me my opinion about the overwhelming number of innocent Palestinians who have been, and are being, killed by Israel occupation forces.)
So what does the Israel-Palestine conflict have to do with Arabic language instruction in an American elementary school?
On the surface, perhaps nothing. But this type interviewing on a televised program is typical of the way mainstream media combines global politics, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Middle East, and the fear of Islam, to fuel opposition to the legitimate rights of Muslims and Arabic-speaking citizens in the United States.
The designated principal of the academy, Debbie Almontaser, is a respected, veteran New York City school teacher with a history of community leadership and deep involvement in interfaith dialogue. The proposed conflict resolution program for the Khalil Gibran Academy will be created by the Tannenbaum Center, one of America's most highly regarded interfaith institutions.
But none of this matters for the haters of the Muslim/Arabic community who equate the Arabic language and Islam with terrorism.
Since the plans were announced to open the school, there has been a relentless campaign to close it. Numerous letters have been sent to the New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and public school Chancellor Joel Klein, demanding that the academy not be allowed to open. Ms. Almontaser and other Muslim organizations and leaders associated with her, have been excoriated and slandered as being associated with violence and terrorism - all without any particle of evidence that these assertions are true.
It is not necessary for the Academy's opponents to bring any credible arguments against the school in their resolve to see that it does not open. It is only necessary for them to trade in a climate of fear and hatred towards Muslims in order to have any chance of success.
Sadly, the naysayers are one step closer in their campaign to stop the Academy from opening. Last Friday, Debbie Almontaser resigned as the Academy's principal-designate.
I'm sure Ms. Almontaser - an honorable woman whom I have personally met and spoken with - left her position only because she did not want unwarranted personal attacks to be a distraction from the struggle to open the school and serve the kids in her community.
Speaking the Arabic language in America is not a crime. And receiving school instruction in this language, or exploring the rich and diverse cultures associated with it, are not acts of subversion.
I am sure that the Khalil Gibran Academy will indeed open this Fall. It will be one of the most highly scrutinized elementary schools in America, but then again, it has nothing to hide.
I believe that it will become a beacon of learning for the children of Brooklyn.
But the school will remain open only if we are prepared to organize for the defense of rights of our children, our communities, and the integrity and value of cultural and religious diversity in the institutions of a nation that is, indeed, our nation, too.
Wednesday, March 1, 2006
Another Look at the Iran Nuke Crisis: The Boys, Their Toys, and the Rest of Us
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
NEW YORK (LCNP) March 2006 - I'm probably not the only one to make this observation, but it does seem to me that the conflict over the Iranian nuclear policy is rooted, at least to some extent, in the male-centered, pseudo-phallic gamethink of "mine is bigger than yours" being played out, to possibly tragic consequences, by Presidents Ahmadinejad and Bush.
While issues of global security, terrorism, national sovereignty, and regional stability are thrown around by both parties as arguments against the other, all of this seems to be, in the final analysis, a geopolitical "pissing contest" between the Number One global imperial nuclear bully and the Third World upstart who wants to come onto the playground and get props for having the requisite technology to play in the big game.
But for all the reasons that we know, it's a no-win situation for the people of Iran, the people of the Middle East, the people of the USA, and ultimately, all of humankind.
Why no-win? Because if Bush "wins" by forcing international sanctions (or God forbid, a US invasion) on Iran, Tehran's inevitable response will be resistance and counter-attack. Thousands, and even millions, of combatants and noncombatants on both sides would perish.
And if Mr. Ahmadinejad somehow wins by avoiding (at least in the short term) either United Nations sanctions or a US attack, he's still stuck with an environmentally dangerous technology, and (if he goes for the weapons option), an imminently target-able nation made vulnerable to attack from both the United States and Israel.
All this is typical of the binary, win-lose paradigm that men put on the table of virtually every conflict. But it is a dysfunctional way of thinking that places us all in grave danger.
Forget Tel Aviv's 200 or so nuclear warheads in the Dimona facility. Forget, even, the 8,000 thermonuclear weapons in the United States arsenal. The best way for Iran to neutralize these weapons in any form of retaliatory attack is not to give either nation the made-to-order pretext to use them.
Sure, there may be some cockeyed Strangelove-ian "prestige" in having the technology to process uranium ore into nuclear fuel or nuclear warheads. But it is the prestige of fools. The deadly effect of this technology -- even when atomic explosions don't happen -- is awesome legendary (ask the Shoshone indigenous people in Nevada, or the Marshall Islanders, about the impact of nuclear testing and nuclear waste storage on the cancer rates of children in those places).
Does the President of Iran know this? He should. He must. And he should know, too, that the enormous cultural prestige of the Persian people greatly exceeds any ephemeral glory that might come from Iran's capacity to join the dangerous, foolish, and unholy community of nuclear weapons states.
Others will have their nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Let them. Because, as a Muslim, President Ahmadinejad should know that the Qur'an of Islam exhorts believers to compete in acts of charity and goodness and mercy, and not acts that lead to mutually assured destruction. And in that light, I would invite both the Iranian and American presidents to see the 1980s movie War Games, and note the wise words of the WOPR war computer at the end of the film: "The only winning move ( in the nuclear war game) is not to play."
Nuclear weapons are, quintessentially, male weapons. They are manufactured, deployed, tested, and even used, in ways that virtually no mother could fathom. And if world leaders continue to have deep, foolishly phallic attachments to these most dangerous of boy toys, let them meet in some anonymous men's room somewhere on the planet and actually see who has what.
And while they're at it, they should agree that their own private ego/power/size games should remain their games, not to be played at the peril of the world.
I would suggest, as start, that both nations "disemploy" their nuclear R&D scientists and, in the Iranian case, have all of these bright men ( and possibly a few of their female colleagues) start turning the enormous solar power potential of the Iranian desert into renewable, non-polluting power for the people. The U.S could also "gift" appropriate solar technology to Iran as a gesture of international friendship and non-aggression.
Of course, the obvious security benefit to both nations is this: Iran would have no nuclear facilities to target. The United States would not be threatened by any WMDs that Iran could, theoretically, possess.
Then the empirical evidence of yet another nuclear threat directed against the West would be lessened. And the regime in Tehran could breathe a little easier, because the U.S. Marine Corps has never, to my knowledge, invaded a foreign nation because sunlight shines on it.
All this, of course, is predicated on a major shift of thinking toward nonviolence, renewable energy, and new priorities for Iran, but especially for the ruling elite of the U.S.A.
Women can offer, collectively, a great deal toward the building of a new, and better, global problem-solving model. And we all should support Iranian women in joining their sisters in the United States (and the United Kingdom) in building the relationships necessary to work this thing out.
Because if there is ever a need for a feminist understanding of international conflict resolution, it is, clearly, now.
NEW YORK (LCNP) March 2006 - I'm probably not the only one to make this observation, but it does seem to me that the conflict over the Iranian nuclear policy is rooted, at least to some extent, in the male-centered, pseudo-phallic gamethink of "mine is bigger than yours" being played out, to possibly tragic consequences, by Presidents Ahmadinejad and Bush.
While issues of global security, terrorism, national sovereignty, and regional stability are thrown around by both parties as arguments against the other, all of this seems to be, in the final analysis, a geopolitical "pissing contest" between the Number One global imperial nuclear bully and the Third World upstart who wants to come onto the playground and get props for having the requisite technology to play in the big game.
But for all the reasons that we know, it's a no-win situation for the people of Iran, the people of the Middle East, the people of the USA, and ultimately, all of humankind.
Why no-win? Because if Bush "wins" by forcing international sanctions (or God forbid, a US invasion) on Iran, Tehran's inevitable response will be resistance and counter-attack. Thousands, and even millions, of combatants and noncombatants on both sides would perish.
And if Mr. Ahmadinejad somehow wins by avoiding (at least in the short term) either United Nations sanctions or a US attack, he's still stuck with an environmentally dangerous technology, and (if he goes for the weapons option), an imminently target-able nation made vulnerable to attack from both the United States and Israel.
All this is typical of the binary, win-lose paradigm that men put on the table of virtually every conflict. But it is a dysfunctional way of thinking that places us all in grave danger.
Forget Tel Aviv's 200 or so nuclear warheads in the Dimona facility. Forget, even, the 8,000 thermonuclear weapons in the United States arsenal. The best way for Iran to neutralize these weapons in any form of retaliatory attack is not to give either nation the made-to-order pretext to use them.
Sure, there may be some cockeyed Strangelove-ian "prestige" in having the technology to process uranium ore into nuclear fuel or nuclear warheads. But it is the prestige of fools. The deadly effect of this technology -- even when atomic explosions don't happen -- is awesome legendary (ask the Shoshone indigenous people in Nevada, or the Marshall Islanders, about the impact of nuclear testing and nuclear waste storage on the cancer rates of children in those places).
Does the President of Iran know this? He should. He must. And he should know, too, that the enormous cultural prestige of the Persian people greatly exceeds any ephemeral glory that might come from Iran's capacity to join the dangerous, foolish, and unholy community of nuclear weapons states.
Others will have their nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Let them. Because, as a Muslim, President Ahmadinejad should know that the Qur'an of Islam exhorts believers to compete in acts of charity and goodness and mercy, and not acts that lead to mutually assured destruction. And in that light, I would invite both the Iranian and American presidents to see the 1980s movie War Games, and note the wise words of the WOPR war computer at the end of the film: "The only winning move ( in the nuclear war game) is not to play."
Nuclear weapons are, quintessentially, male weapons. They are manufactured, deployed, tested, and even used, in ways that virtually no mother could fathom. And if world leaders continue to have deep, foolishly phallic attachments to these most dangerous of boy toys, let them meet in some anonymous men's room somewhere on the planet and actually see who has what.
And while they're at it, they should agree that their own private ego/power/size games should remain their games, not to be played at the peril of the world.
I would suggest, as start, that both nations "disemploy" their nuclear R&D scientists and, in the Iranian case, have all of these bright men ( and possibly a few of their female colleagues) start turning the enormous solar power potential of the Iranian desert into renewable, non-polluting power for the people. The U.S could also "gift" appropriate solar technology to Iran as a gesture of international friendship and non-aggression.
Of course, the obvious security benefit to both nations is this: Iran would have no nuclear facilities to target. The United States would not be threatened by any WMDs that Iran could, theoretically, possess.
Then the empirical evidence of yet another nuclear threat directed against the West would be lessened. And the regime in Tehran could breathe a little easier, because the U.S. Marine Corps has never, to my knowledge, invaded a foreign nation because sunlight shines on it.
All this, of course, is predicated on a major shift of thinking toward nonviolence, renewable energy, and new priorities for Iran, but especially for the ruling elite of the U.S.A.
Women can offer, collectively, a great deal toward the building of a new, and better, global problem-solving model. And we all should support Iranian women in joining their sisters in the United States (and the United Kingdom) in building the relationships necessary to work this thing out.
Because if there is ever a need for a feminist understanding of international conflict resolution, it is, clearly, now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
