Muslims by the numbers

On Tuesday, May 22, Pew Research released a comprehensive survey of American Muslims, that covered cultural, social, religious, political, and other domains. I will leave the mundane out-of-context analysis to the fearmongers and apologists, but I would like to discuss some specific observations. See each quote from the survey below followed by my analysis.

"Interviews were conducted in English, Arabic, Urdu and Farsi."

This is not unimportant. I do believe, even over the phone, that conducting the discussion in one's native language, versus English, changes the dynamic and can have an effect on one's replies. It's a question of the mental state one adopts in given circumstances. I would be interested to see a re-sorted survey that took into account the language in which the survey was administered - my guess is that responses collected in Arabic, Urdu, or Farsi would indicate more tolerance of terrorism in the name of Islam as well as more negative attitudes toward the US.

"Muslim Americans hold liberal political views on questions about the size and scope of government. At the same time, however, they are socially conservative and supportive of a strong role for government in protecting morality."

This finding has somewhat disappointing implications for those of us forcefully arguing for a Republican outreach to American Muslims. The survey's finding that 70% of American Muslims favor a bigger government rebuts the conventional wisdom that the entrepreneurial nature of immigrant populations makes them a natural fit for the fiscally conservative approach that characterized the GOP (pre-W).

While the survey indicated that a position of discouraging homosexuality predominates, that was the only specific social issue explored. I find it disappointing that the survey did not seek detailed information on American Muslim disposition toward abortion, right-to-die, or stem-cell issues. So the data doesn't give Republicans of the "big-tent" persuasion much to work with. (continued...)

"23% say they converted to Islam. Nine-in-10 converts to Islam were born in the United States."

The survey further indicates that 40% of Muslim converts (or reverts, as Islam refers to them) are non-black. That means that more than 10% of Muslims in the United States are white Americans who converted. I found that very interesting.

"23% live in a household with at least one non-Muslim."

When we take African-American Muslims out of the equation, we find that 12% of Muslims in the US live with non-Muslims. Another interesting statistic that challenges conventional views about American followers of Islam.

"64% of Muslims from the Arab region say they are white, while 20% say they are some other or mixed race."

In my view, inhabitants of the Mediterranean zone and the Arabian Peninsula are members of the same race as Europeans. The anthropological record will back me up on that.

Given that "Arab" is a classification that encompasses a span of countries including Mauritania, Sudan, Somalia, and others, it seems that the Arab-American Muslims interviewed in this survey from nations like Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, etc. agree with me. The desire to push for minority non-white status is an ongoing debate in the Arab-American community.

"Just 40% of Muslim Americans say groups of Arabs carried out those attacks."

God protect us from stupid conspiracy theories. It would be nice to see this broken out by country of birth - I would bet that those from Arab countries registered even lower than 40%. I regret the intellectual laziness that dominates the Arab World and boils everything down to a ridiculous conspiracy theory. If Arabs took even half the extraordinary energy they waste dreaming up imaginary plots against them and channeled that creativity into more noble pursuits, imagine the possibilities...

I also would like to know why this question was phrased as "groups of Arabs" and not "groups of Muslims".

"39% have come to the U.S. since 1990."

I must admit, I found this a bit alarming. Even adjusting for new births, this means that the population of American Muslims has increased by more than half in only 2 decades. Granted, in raw numbers it's not a big jump, considering that Pew determined the total number of Muslims in the US to be only about 1.5 million, but immigration of any kind needs to be conducted in measured and sensible ways.

Naturally, I am not of the belief that America should be open only to white Europeans, but any incoming population with customs (or in this case, religion) that differs from the majority of Americans needs to be integrated smoothly. This is not without precedent. For perspective, Arab immigration accounted for less than 1% of the flood of people who entered the US in the early 2oth century (and 90%+ at that time were Christian) and the immigration quotas instituted in 1921 and 1924 were largely aimed to curtail the massive inflow of Italians.

"The poll reveals that Muslims in the United States reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries."

Frankly, I do not care whether American Muslims paint a prettier picture than the mess that is the Muslim Community in Europe. What is important to me is that any immigrant or any citizen of the United States rejects violent ideology of any kind - and right now we have a minority that does not feel that way. Let's face it.

Just because the United States has not experienced the riots that engulfed France, started by disenchanted Muslim inhabitants there, does not mean that everything is honky-dory. We do have a problem and it is up to the American Muslim and Arab-American community to clean its/our own house, which is not made any easier when the rhetoric of fearmongers creates a reflexively defensive posture within the community.

On the topic of Muslims in Europe however, stay tuned to what commentator Mona el-Tahawy, who opines frequently on efforts to reform Islam, has to say. She recently told me:

"I'm writing about the formation of a new Centrist political party by Naser Khader, the Syrian born member of the Danish parliament. He was also the first Muslim parliamentarian in Denmark. Muslims might be better socially integrated in the U.S. but they're doing better politically in Europe. Khader is the head of a new political party that could very form a coalition with the government should early elections be called; there are two Muslim junior ministers in the Dutch government, etc."

"Nearly half of Muslims in the U.S. say they think of themselves first as Muslims, rather than as Americans."

This may seem shocking, but 42% of American Christians identify with their religion more than the US. The trend continues amongst the very religious - 70% of devout Muslims and 60% of devout Christians identify with their faith before their nation.

The shocking part though was the desire for many, particularly those of Arab background, to have it both ways. Only 15% of Arab-American Muslims identified themselves as Americans first, but double that number volunteered the answer "both" when presented the choice. Only 7% of American Christians offered that response.

"Very few Muslim Americans – just 1% – say that suicide bombings against civilian targets are often justified to defend Islam; an additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified in these circumstances."

Another 5% said "rarely justified" plus 9% who didn't know how to answer or refused to answer. Quite disappointing to say the least that only 78% of American Muslims think that suicide bombings against civilian targets are never justified, which of course is the only acceptable and - I would argue - the only proper Islamic response.

However, I would like to know how the answers might have differed if the question specified the location of the suicide bombings: in the US, in Europe, or in Israel - not because I view any life as less valuable than any other, I most certainly do not. But I have seen all too often that people living afar from conflicts to which they have emotional attachment tend to project their own visions of glory onto those who actually suffer.

Thus, war becomes like a biblical video game. Arabs will make absurd justifications for suicide bombing - "we don't have tanks and planes, so we must strap the bombs to our bodies". umm, who is we? A friend in Syria made this argument once, defending Palestinian suicide bombers. I pointed out to him how easy it was for him to glorify the Arab cause while his son spent his days at basketball practice and C++ programming classes. The IDF doesn't come through and shut down Mezzeh when a suicide bomber strikes in the West Bank, I told him, so how convenient for him to excuse repugnant tactics.

And I would bet that the same phenomenon likely applies in this country - I would like to hear honest answers from the survey's respondents: Is suicide bombing acceptable to defend Islam at a local shopping mall in Anytown, USA, or only on buses in West Jerusalem?

But this trend is not unique to Arabs and Muslims. Israeli citizens, who are by-and-large required to serve in their country's army, express disdain for the hawkishness of Jewish individuals in the US and elsewhere that have never lived in Israel nor done any military service on behalf of the Jewish state, but who advocate very harsh action against Palestinians. "It's easy to talk tough when you're not the one who has to do the dirty work," I have been told by Israeli colleagues. Checkpoints, curfews, home demolitions, as well as other brute and humiliating aspects of occupation sound just dandy when someone else is going door-to-door implementing them. The view is pretty good from Alan Dershowitz's podium.

"5% of Muslim Americans express even somewhat favorable opinions of al Qaeda."

1% said "very favorable" while the other 4% said "somewhat favorable". Based upon my own observations and interactions, it seems that there exists a certain admiration for Osama bin Laden amongst some Muslims because he is perceived to have stood up for Islam against American hegemony - even if there is obvious recognition that the tactics are unacceptable.

In the age of YouTube and satellite TV, the appeal to Muslims - particularly young ones - of Bin Laden's style of speaking and presentation needs to be taken into account and understood. Technology has enabled his self-assured yet soft-spoken manner to project a much-undeserved aura of righteousness that has clearly poisoned minds, even here in the US. There needs to be a counterweight.

"Younger Muslim Americans are both much more religiously observant and more accepting of Islamic extremism than are older Muslim Americans."

The survey further reveals that 60% of American Muslims under 30 tend to think of themselves first as Muslims, not Americans - and 15% of them say that suicide bombings can be often or sometimes justified in the defense of Islam - only 69% say never. That is a disturbing trend that conjures up images of the disgruntled London subway bombers - middle class kids who expressed their discontentment with society in a deadly way.

These are malleable minds looking for answers and they need to be reached with a message that will steer them away from those who advocate murder or terrorizing others. The survey also notes that the American-born generation, unlike their parents who are largely sick of the integration of religion and politics in their home countries, "express overwhelming support for the notion that mosques should express their views on social and political matters."

Thus, the survey indicates the need for massive outreach with a positive Islamic message of devotion yet integration - through internet and satellite means, as well as face-to-face interactions in mosques.

"By nearly two-to-one (63%-32%), Muslim Americans do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society."

Again, that mean still seem too low for comfort, but it actually matched the corresponding question of devout Christians almost exactly: 62%-29%.

"43% say that Muslim immigrants arriving in the U.S. should mostly adopt American customs and ways of life, though a significant minority (26%) thinks that new immigrants should try to remain distinct."

I was not able to find an exactly comparable question on a corresponding survey, but I would be curious to know what Latino immigrants would have to say about the assimilation process.

In conclusion, I am reminded of the remarks of Malek Akkad, the son of the late, great Mustapha Akkad, when his father was honored at the Arab American Institute's Kahlil Gibran Awards gala in 2006. The elder Akkad, killed with his daughter during a suicide bombing of a wedding in Jordan in 2005, was a noted Hollywood director and Syrian-American, who created the film "The Message" about the events of early Islam.

Malek quoted his father as saying, "I am more free to practice Islam in America than anywhere else." After reading through this informative (if imperfect) Pew survey, I would not be surprised if most American Muslims agreed.

continue reading "Muslims by the numbers..."

Questions 67 & 68

Following up on the pachyderm madrasa report card from 2 weeks ago, here are some questions that I'd love to hear Brit Hume, the moderator of tonight's Republican debate on Fox News, ask the 10 prospective GOP presidential nominees:

1. Do you have any American Muslims working on your campaign?
2. Every year of his presidency, President Bush has invited American Muslim leaders to the White House for an iftar, a dinner marking the end of the fasting period of Ramadan. If elected, do you intend to honor this precedent, which would mean that Islamic prayers would be recited in the White House?
3. Will your administration continue to promote democracy in the Middle East, even if it means that extremists hostile to the United States could be legitimately elected, as we have seen in Palestine and Lebanon?
4. Two-part question: a) What percentage of the violence in Iraq is due to foreign fighters? and b) How many soldiers would it take to seal Iraq's borders? (extra credit for a good talib who computes answer b as a percentage and compares it with answer a.)
5. Follow-up to question 4: how many soliders would it take to seal the US-Mexico border? Is this more or less than the number of troops in Iraq?

Of course, I will present the 2nd marking period madrasa report card after the debate.

note - Ron Paul has an advantage on this quiz, since he is probably the only one of the 10 candidates who reads Chronicles (my article in the June issue, which arrived today, answered questions 4 & 5).

continue reading "Questions 67 & 68..."

Pachyderm madrasa

Anyone interested in learning about Islam need look no further than the fountainheads of Semitic history (and by Semitic, I mean Semitic) that populate my party's current 10-ring presidential circus. A perfect example is last week's primary debate, held at the Ronald Reagan Library in California.

I am frankly amazed at the extent to which Arabic and Islamic vocabulary has been imported into the Republican lexicon, though not surprised at the misapplication of the terminology (fyi - madrasa means "school", quite literally), and naturally disheartened by the lack of outreach to the Arab-American community whose advice would make these talking points far more impactful, not to mention accurate. But who needs us when you've got neoconservative think tanks, so noted for hiring staff with conservative credentials and demonstrated commitment to the Republican Party? (continued...)

The most bizarre quote of the debate belongs to Tom "take out their holy sites" Tancredo, whose bumbling performance was by far the least polished. Responding to a question about whether or not he would help an Israeli effort to bomb Iran, he said:

"There are two kinds of Irans that we are going to have to deal with here: one headed by a gentleman who believes that he is going to be responsible for the coming of the 12th imam and a guy with a bomb, that should put us in the position of saying that anything we can do to stop that is imperative."

The 12th imam, wow. Tancredo is a good talib and gets extra credit. He refers to the Shiite belief that the mahdi (the 12th imam) will emerge from nearly 12 centuries of hiding just before the Day of Judgement, a belief that Ahmadinejad holds in great esteem.

Dazzled as I am by Tancredo's citation, it remains unclear to me exactly what he meant to say - is he suggesting that the United States has to do anything to prevent Shiite Islamic beliefs from influencing the form of government in Iran or who gets elected there? That in and of itself is really not our business - it reflects the reality of Iranian culture and religion that American political, economic, diplomatic, and military tools are not going to change, whether we like it or not. [insert standard "monsters to destroy" argument here]

As far as the "guy with the bomb" is concerned, which "guy" is Tancredo talking about? I do share the same reservations and distaste for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he is not the "guy with the bomb". Tempting as it is to refer to him as a dictator, and as appealing as that might be in a Republican primary, Iran's political balance of power is unfortunately more complicated than a debate-ready sound byte can contain. Short answer: constitutionally speaking, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, only the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, can declare war and take military action, not President Ahmadinejad. Stopping this from happening, as well as the advent of a nuclear Iran, will require more than minor presidential candidates showing off Islamic vocabulary in an attempt to stand out in a 10-man debate.

Then there was Mitt Romney, who must be a karaoke superstar judging by his expertise in memorizing the "lyrics" from his website, listed in the issues section under the title "Defeating the Jihadists":

"The jihadists are waging a global war against the United States and Western governments generally with the ambition of replacing legitimate governments with a caliphate."

Compare that to the debate, in which he said:

"This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and Al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate. They ultimately want to bring down the United States of America."

Frankly, I do admire Romney's consistency, it shows professionalism - some candidates don't even know what talking points their campaigns communicate. However, I'd like to hear Romney's view on the fact that democratic elections in the Middle East in the past few years have quite legally, and under US-sanctioned balloting, increased the political clout of Hezbollah (Lebanon), Hamas (Palestine), and the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt).

As far as caliphates go, I think the use of this term is rather melodramatic on Romney's part - the average Republican voter is already convinced that "Islamofascists" want to take over the world and thus no display no emotional resistance to that concept. Putting his message in the historical context of the caliphs will therefore add little value to its appeal with the target audience, other than to obscure the impact with alien vocabulary.

Rudy Giuliani was reasonably steady when asked to explain the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite:

"The difference is the descendant of Mohammed. The Sunnis believe that Mohammed -- the caliphate should be selected, and the Shiites believe that it should be by descent. And then of course there was a slaughter of Shiites in the early part of the history of Islam, and it has infected a lot of the history of Islam, which is really very unfortunate."

Giuliani refers to the death of Hussein, the son of Ali (from whom is drawn the line of descent mentioned by Giuliani), commemorated in the holiday of Ashoura (which is marked in the Senegalese tamkharit by crossdressing on the holiday's eve). Giuliani's answer was considerably better informed than Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis, a Virginia Republican who heads a House intelligence subcommittee that oversees the C.I.A.'s performance in recruiting Muslim spies. Her answer to the Giuliani question:

"Do I...You know, I should...It's a difference in their fundamental religious beliefs. The Sunni are more radical than the Shia. Or vice versa."

President Bush was less divisive when pontificating about Sunnis and Shiites in this year's State of the Union address:

"The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. Whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale."

Yes to 1 and 3, these extremists do want to kill Americans and gain weapons, but as demonstrated, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood don't want to kill democracy in the Middle East, they want to use democracy in the Middle East to legitimize their objectives. When are my fellow Republicans going to realize this?

On the other hand, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback wins the "compassionate conservative" (whatever that means) award for the evening, for recognizing the existence of so-called "moderate Muslim regimes".

"I think you have to remember that while we're in a war on terrorism, there are a number of people that are with us, that work with us around the world, and also in the Islamic world. We're partnering with a number of moderate Muslim regimes.

And that's something I think we need to convey into the Muslim world as well, that these are groups -- the Al Qaida group, the militant Islamic fascists -- they're trying to unseat moderate Muslim regimes. And I think we need to engage those regimes -- regimes in Pakistan, regimes in Egypt -- as long as we also confront those regimes, like in Iran, that are the lead."

I wonder how Brownback and his colleagues would view a secular regime that felt a threat from Islamic fundamentalists, and responded by killing 20,000+ people, some of them potential sympathizers.

On that note, one of the candidates who has advocated engaging "Syria and Iran", former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, made hay by connecting terrorist ideology with the pro-life movement:

"This life issue is not insignificant. It's not small. It separates us from the Islamic fascists who would strap a bomb to the belly of their child and blow them up. We don't do that in this country."

Certainly, there does exist a "culture of death" within the Islamic World that needs to be increasingly tackled from within by religious leaders on proper Islamic grounds which forbid suicide under any circumstances. Syria's Grand Mufti Ahmad Hassoun, for example, has publicly condemned "honor killings" and called them "unislamic". On the other hand, some Muslims advance the argument that suicide bombing is not suicide and is therefore justified, which is ludicrous.

Critics of Huckabee's statement would say that school shootings like the recent one at Virginia Tech demonstrate America's own "culture of death" and therefore we have no right to pass judgement. I do not think that the two are comparable. In the Middle East, suicide bombers are glorified in propaganda as "martyrs", or shaheed - whether or not this matches the actual sentiments of the people is open to debate. Our media coverage of the school shootings, by comparison, sensationalizes these murders and their disaffected sociopathic perpetrators in a different and only slightly less repugnant way. I personally find it disgusting how Cho Seung-Hui was treated to front-page coverage (in The Record, for example), with a huge photo of him holding 2 guns under the caption: "I did it. I had to do it." In our society, however, sorrow for the victims far outweighs sympathy for the killer.

Finally, Guiliani closed out the circus:

"In the 1990s, we were on defense in dealing with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. When you had this debate last week and all the Democrats were up here, I never remember the words 'Islamic fundamentalist terrorism' being spoken by any of them. And I heard it a lot tonight."

Let me be clear, this threat is real and we need to deal with it. Arab-Americans need to deal with it. As patriotic citizens, we need to help elected officials deal with it.

But campaign talk is cheap. It does not inspire me with confidence when my party's candidates flatter themselves by peppering their vocabulary with the words jihadist, caliphate, etc. and memorize Daniel Pipes' talking points, but then employ the knowledge they have gained in a simplistic fashion merely to pander to a a Republican base largely fearful of Islam, whose introduction to that religion was unfortunately made on September 11, 2001.

In future debates, I would be interested to hear each Republican hopeful respond the question:

"One of the components of the wider War on Terror is a battle within Islam between moderate and extremist elements. Given that, can each candidate say whether or not he has any American Muslims working in his campaign, and whether he would continue President Bush's 'public diplomacy' effort to increase dialogue between the United States and the Islamic World?"

continue reading "Pachyderm madrasa..."

حقاً قام في افريقيا

As I have mentioned before, I have been enjoying attending the Maronite church here in Dakar, and this Passion season was the first time I experienced Holy Week in a rite other than the Melkite one. May God forgive me.

Palm Sunday, or شعنينة, demonstrated once again how "les Libano-Syriens" here have retained a strong attachment to their origins. As is customary, everyone showed up, especially the children, in their finest clothes. Shanineh has always been a bit of a day to show off, if I dare say.

On "Sad Friday" I also had the opportunity to attend. The place was packed - I got the feeling that this service has a particularly high profile each year. A Senegalese Minister was in attendance (cannot remember which Ministry), plus the Ambassador of Lebanon (and several other diplomats from that country), the Russian Ambassador, and the Romanian Ambassador. A high ranking Catholic clergyman from the Diocese of Dakar also played a prominent role in the service.

The highlight though, I must say, was a wonderful rendition of the Melkite hymn "al-yom uliqa" by a, male cantor (a difference from the version by Sister Marie Keyrouz) with the lights turned off.

Unfortunately for me, I misread the schedule and thus missed the midnight mass for Easter Sunday. No hajmeh this year!
continue reading "حقاً قام في افريقيا..."

La dakaroise de l'Ashoura et des Maronites

Today is the Islamic holiday of Ashoura, which commemorates the death of the Imam Hussein at Karbala in Iraq (which I visited in 2003, although because of security concerns was not able to approach the mosque in which he is enshrined) in the year 680. Hussein, like his brother Hassan, was the son of Mohammed's daughter Fatima, and their father was Mohammed's cousin Ali (entombed at Najaf).

Without getting into a long dissertation about Shiite devotion to Ali and the rest of his descendants, suffice it to say that Ashoura holds great and somber significance to Shiite Muslims. In the Islamic world on the whole, however, its commemoration spans a continuum. On the far right, you have penitential types who express their distress over Hussein's martyrdom by flagellating themselves. Ouch. Somewhere in the middle, you have less dramatic individuals who consider the day one of reflection and sadness, analogous I suppose to Good Friday for Christians (or Sad Friday as it is called in Arabic, I dare say more fittingly) or Yom Kippur for Jews.

Then, on the left wing, you have what I witnessed last night here in Dakar. In Senegal, whose natives do not practice Shia Islam, the holiday is called Tamkharit (much like Eid al-Adha, celebrated at the end of the annual Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, is called Tabaski – as depicted in this advertisement for end-of-the-year bank loans from French financial giant Société Générale, oh-so-piously posted on the back of a bus). On the eve of Ashoura, Senegalese children dress up (girls like boys and boys like girls), and a customary dish of couscous is prepared. It's a grand ol' time.

No wonder that some of my Lebanese friends here, Shiites who trace their origins to the village of Qana (known first and foremost as the site of Christ's first miracle and secondly as the target of deadly Israeli bombardments both in 1996 and 2006) have been mumbling and grumbling for the past several days (par exemple: il faut respecter le prophète, et il faut respecter sa famille!!!). For them, it is inappropriate to be joyfully celebrating the death of a saintly figure, depicted in this tapestry which marks Hussein's travels in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Arabia – my friend was keen to show this to me because Aleppo is marked on the map.

This is my first time witnessing Ashoura in a country with a Muslim majority, so it is unclear to me how it is "celebrated" elsewhere. Any instructive comments on that would be welcome.

Now, switching gears for a moment, but still discussing the Lebanese community here in Dakar, I attended once again a Maronite mass this past Sunday. I was amazed. Considering just how francophone Senegal is, and how indoctrinated in the French system were the Syrians who first came here, the mass was totally Arabized (allowing of course for the Qadishat, the consecration, and the other obligatory bits in Syriac/Aramaic). I mean, I've been to Maronite masses in Mount Lebanon that were more francophone than this one – here even the homily was in Arabic! Furthermore, there are some outstanding vocalists amongst the congregation. A real treat.

On the whole, the devotion to their heritage and language shown by Syrians here (both Christian and Muslim) is extremely impressive, and frankly, puts to shame what I have witnessed amongst their counterparts in North America (my own family included), South America, and Europe. But that leads to a whole other discussion of assimilation and the factors affecting it, which I will get to another time...
continue reading "La dakaroise de l'Ashoura et des Maronites..."

Who should apologize?

All people of good conscience have a moral obligation to support what is righteous and condemn what is wrong. But who has a duty to apologize?

• Should every person of Arab descent feel the need to apologize for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001?

• Should every American citizen feel the need to apologize for US military misconduct, like that of Abu Ghraib?

• Should every Christian feel the need to apologize for the suffering of the Jewish people in past generations?

Simply as a member of the human race, I vigorously condemn all acts of terror, cruelty, discrimination, hatred, etc. But as someone who fits into each of the categories above - an American Christian of Arab descent - I do not feel it my duty to offer apologies for the malicious acts of others who simply share a label with me.

Not all Christians, Arabs, or Americans agree with me. Some of my counterparts have taken the responsibility upon themselves to offer apologies to the harmed parties.

Here are some examples worthy of discussion: (continued...)

First, an essay which appeared in the NY Post on the 5th anniversary of 9/11, written by an Arab-American named Emilio Karim Dabul. He writes:

"Five years after that awful day, it's time for all Arab-Americans, and Arabs around the world, to protest against Islamic fascism, to raise our voices - and, where necessary, our arms - against these tyrants until their plague of terror has been driven from the face of the earth forever."

On that point, I agree completely with Mr. Dabul. It is important for Arab-Americans to not only speak out against terrorism, but also actively work to eliminate it.

Where I think Dabul carries this too far, and where I disagree with him, is when he says:

"Arabs around the world, including Arab-Americans like myself, need to start holding our own culture accountable for the insane, violent actions that our extremists have perpetrated on the world at large.

Yes, our extremists and our culture."

Well, they are not "my" extremists. Whether they come to a timely death or spend their lives rotting in prison (hopefully), or whether they continue to roam free, they are not "my" extremists. They are my enemy and I have nothing to do with them, common label or not.

As for Arab culture, of course there are some elements badly in need of reform and change - I discuss these things with my Arab-American colleagues all the time. But a group of people who happen to share a label should not be assigned blame, internally or externally, for "insane violent actions...perpetrated on the world at large" on the part of its individual members.

Second, we have Marc Gopin, a Jewish rabbi and Professor at George Mason University in Virginia. I had the great pleasure of meeting him through my dear friend, Syrian reformer-extraordinaire Hind Kabawat. Dr. Gopin has embarked upon a courageous journey to bridge gaps between cultures and religions, and thanks to his partnership with Hind, he has visited Syria numerous times and has cultivated a friendship with Syria's Grand Mufti, Sheikh Ahmed Baderedin Hassoun.

After his most recent visit this summer, Dr. Gopin published a long and very moving article that touched upon political, religious, ethical matters, containing great wisdom. I urge everyone to read it, and re-read it several times to absorb Dr. Gopin's vision.

The document, however, relates one rather controversial encounter that took place during a Friday prayer service in an Aleppo mosque:

"The Mufti introduced someone on my right. He was tall and young, maybe in his late twenties. He was dressed in white from head to toe with a traditional coat and cap. Others there wore turbans, those who were senior Sheikhs. The Mufti told me the story of this young man, and he said it in very few words. 'He is Iraqi, he was in Abu Ghraib for eight months and then released without charge. His two brothers were also picked up and have never been heard from since. This young man also spent twenty-two days living in a coffin. The American soldiers would take him out at meal times and then shackle him back inside the coffin.'

I have to presume from what the Mufti said that the coffin was also his bathroom. When I heard this my heart began to pound hard and I began to breathe heavily, my hands trembling; I felt the need to get up from my seat but I did not...the Mufti went on speaking about other things and I did not hear anything that he was saying. I was looking at the young man from Abu Ghraib, and he at me, and I could not take my eyes off of him. He had an intense and serious look on his face, and pain, and also a curious kind of shame, but I did not feel any hatred coming from him. He looked as if he was concentrating in a painful way on something, and he did not avert his eyes from me...

I could not sit anymore. I broke decorum and I got up in the middle of the Mufti speaking and I walked across the hall to the young man. The interpreter followed. The Mufti stopped speaking, and all eyes turned toward the side of the room. I spoke to the young man quietly and I told him how deeply sorry I was for what had happened to him, and I apologized in the name of the American people. Then I held his arm, and then I embraced him. I held back the tears."

Now, this is a slightly different context than Mr. Dabul's newspaper editorial, being that it was an emotional encounter between 2 individuals. I suppose one could argue that Dr. Gopin, as an citizen of a democratic nation like the United States, ultimately holds responsibility for the actions of the American government and its military. However, a few isolated incidents of gross misconduct by American soldiers should be addressed by their commanders. If those in leadership positions fail to take corrective action, then the citizens have an obligation not to apologize, but to elect new leaders who will demand accountability and proper military conduct in the future.

As Dr. Gopin said, "We did not elect torture":

"Then the Mufti told them what I had done with the young man from Abu Ghraib, and this created quite a stir. I believe he said, 'He apologized, how can we not respond to this?' He also rebuked them and mentioned how rare it is that they apologize, meaning the Muslim world, when they do something wrong.

Then some commotion occurred at the front. Some members were saying things to the Mufti, and I asked what was going on. They said that people were objecting to his bringing me here. They said, 'He elected George Bush,' and, my voice trembling, I responded, 'We did not elect torture.' Then the Mufti put me together with the young man and said to his followers, 'Show the world what he have done here today,' and immediately ten or twenty people in the front rows took out their cell phones and began videotaping our group standing with the Mufti and the young man."

Some will resent Dr. Gopin's apology to that Iraqi from Abu Ghraib prison, but that does not change the incredible courage shown by his efforts to promote peace on a grassroots level, between Arabs and Americans, between Muslims, Christians, and Jews. I have nothing but respect for him.

Finally, we have Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican from Kansas who has his eyes on the White House.

Speaking to the Israeli Knesset in July 2004, Brownback stated:

"As a Christian, I deeply, deeply apologize for the pain and bloodshed and deafness to suffering that we have hoisted upon you and your ancestors. May this never, ever happen again!"

Again, who is we? I am a Christian, and I have never brought any pain or bloodshed to Jews. Of course I condemn the holocaust inflicted by the Nazis upon them, as well as Gypies, Catholics (1/3 of the priests in Nazi Germany were executed), and others - but I do not feel that it is my place to apologize for it.

Every individual is responsible for his or her own actions, not those of his or her race, or ancestors, or co-religionists. But those with pride in their nationality, citizenship, religion, and origin should feel an obligation to be proactive - to combat dishonorable behavior by their colleagues, in both word and deed - not just to be reactive and apologize after the transgressions have occurred.
continue reading "Who should apologize?..."

Immigration, Islam and terrorism

Scott Richert, the Executive Editor of Chronicles Magazine, a hard-hitting paleo-conservative journal which published my article on US-Syria relations in its October issue, recently commented on a black Muslim convert named Derrick Shareef, touching upon issues related to terrorism and immigration as they relate to Islam and Muslims in America. I disagreed with several of his assertions, which led to a fruitful discussion - I will highlight bits of it here.

First, Mr. Richert stated:

"I'll wager now that, when the next terrorist attack occurs on American soil, we'll find out that the perpetrators had already arrived—legally—before the end of 2006. Or, like Derrick Shareef, they will be native-born converts to Islam—whose conversion was made easier by the growing Muslim presence in the United States."

I then disputed his logic, because I don't believe "easier" is a relevant facto