Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September-October 2002, pages 88-97

Activisms

Muslim-American Activism

FBI Director Mueller Addresses AMC Conventiongoers

Avid readers of The Washington Times may have come across a June 29 article by Jerry Seper entitled “FBI chief asks Muslim council’s anti-terror help.” According to Seper, as FBI director Robert S. Mueller III addressed the American Muslim Council’s (AMC) 11th National Convention, “protesters opposed to the detention by the Justice Department of Middle Eastern men in the wake of Sept. 11 attacks sought to disrupt the session.”

Those actually in attendance at the June 28 event, however, knew that the protesters were, in fact, supporters of Israel, and that they were, in fact, protesting Mueller’s willingness to speak to one of the nation’s most prominent Muslim-American organizations. At no point were post-9/11 detainees or their unfortunate circumstances even mentioned.

The Washington Times’ bold-faced lie, then, must be seen in its proper context—as part of an article that, like the AMC’s aforementioned unwelcome guests, sought to label the entire organization as one with “a history of supporting terrorist groups.”

To all appearances—and especially given the strong anti-terrorism message conveyed throughout the convention—this is simply untrue. As Mueller himself noted, “Persons associated with the organization have in the past made statements that indicate support for terrorism.” Those statements were made years ago, however, by exactly one AMC member who did not speak on behalf of the organization as a whole. Both before and during the event, Jewish protesters were attempting to punish the entire organization for the words of one individual. Thankfully, guilt-by-association was not reason enough to stop the FBI director from attending the event, or from opening his speech with a big thank you to America’s Muslims “for your efforts to detect terror pre- and post-9/11, which have merited public thanks and praise.”

Mueller cited examples of American Muslims “willing to quit their jobs and work for the FBI, to give something back to their country.” He condemned acts of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim discrimination, especially in response to 9/11, as being “not only reprehensible, but like terrorism they are acts against humanity.”

Referring to the controversy surrounding his visit, Mueller said his “reason for being here is simple: to continue our discussion.”

It is a discussion that needs continuing. “The more culturally fluent our agents are,” Mueller asserted, “the more courteous and respectful our agents will be.”

Unfortunately, in attempting to reach an understanding, it seems people sometimes go too far. Mueller related an incident in which FBI agents interviewed some Afghan women in their home without men present. Apparently, when the Afghan men found out, they complained to the FBI for breaching Islamic tradition. Mueller proudly related that agents met later with a group of Afghan men “to bridge the gap.”

What the FBI director didn’t realize was that the practice of forbidding women to interact with strange men is considered by many to be a misinterpretation of Islamic law. Mueller’s example, intended to demonstrate a greater understanding of Muslim culture, instead elicited grumbles from AMC members upset at what they considered a false representation of Islam.

This discrepancy aside, the only major point of contention during Mueller’s appearance came during the question-and-answer session, when the FBI director carefully avoided discussion of secret detainees, who are thought to be almost entirely of Arab or Muslim descent. Perhaps sensing the discomfort his response elicited, Mueller ended the session on a clear note: “As a last point,” he offered, “I just want to say that the FBI, CIA, etc. are out to seek terrorists. This war on terror is in no way a war on Islam. It is our understanding,” Mueller concluded, “that Islam is a religion of peace.”

—Nizar Wattad

PANA Seeks to Galvanize Pakistani-American Community

To protect and promote vital Pakistani-American interests in the United States, five major Pakistani-American organizations have joined together to form the national Pakistan American National Alliance (PANA). The new organization will create a unified action plan, speak with one voice and act collectively on behalf of the one million-strong American Pakistani community. PANA includes members of the Association of Pakistani Physicians of North America (APPNA), Council of Pakistan American Affairs (COPAA), Pakistan American Congress (PAC), Pakistan American Democratic Forum (PADF), and PAK-PAC.

Leaders of the Pakistani American organizations launched PANA after holdinng a tele-conference on May 22, 2002 to discuss the tense situation between Pakistan and India. They decided to commit to an all-out effort to prevent war between the two countries and step up publicity of Pakistan’s point of view. Expressing complete unanimity of views and a shared determination to help Pakistan, the leaders agreed on a common agenda.

The coalition was created at the initiative of Dr. Agha Saeed, chairman of the PADF Board, and PADF president Dr. Shabbir Safdar. Dr. Saeed is the founder of the PADF, a grassroots organization that was established in 1982 under the initial title of Pakistan Democratic Committee. PANA’s name was suggested by Dr. Nayyar Ali, executive director of COPAA.

The five organizations bring together many of the top political leaders and activists in the Pakistani-American community who have pledged to work together not only on the recent war crisis in South Asia, but also to build up the presence and influence of the Pakistani-American community. More importantly, their unified action plan can potentially galvanize the Pakistani-American community, expand grassroots activism, involve Pakistani-American activists in mainstream American politics, and provide a road map for independent but strategically linked activities.

Hailing it as an historic move, the Pakistani-American community across the nation has welcomed the formation of PANA. An editorial in the Pakistan Link declared that PANA will attend to the social and cultural issues touching on the lives of the Pakistanis in the United States. “It will make an earnest effort to blend values which could be truly representative of the best of both worlds,” the newspaper noted. “Arriving in the U.S. is not an achievement; survival is. And in the process the ‘melting pot’ experience does not have to be a wholly one-sided affair.”

The American Muslim Political Coordination Council, (AMPCC), a similar umbrella organization of major American Muslim political groups, on May 24 expressed its enthusiastic support for PANA.

PANA leaders will meet at the convention of the Islamic Society of North America in Washington, DC in September to discuss the coalition’s future strategy.

Immediately after its formation, PANA launched a nationwide campaign to send letters/faxes/e-mails/petitions to President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell urging them to use their influence to defuse the escalating tension between Pakistan and India.

—Abdus Sattar Ghazali

PANA’s Letter to Colin Powell: Help Solve Kashmir Issue

The Pakistan American National Alliance (PANA) on July 22, 2002, sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, prior to his July 27 and 28 visit to Pakistan and India. In the letter PANA pointed out that a durable peace in South Asia will not be possible unless the core dispute, Kashmir, is resolved between India and Pakistan. The letter also noted that U.S. interests in that part of the world are threatened by this issue.

PANA stressed that the situation between the two nuclear neighbors remains volatile, as over a million soldiers remain mobilized and deployed near the international border and line of control.

The letter pointed out that, if Kashmiris were loyal to and respected by India, then no amount of support by Pakistan could create an insurgency. Instead, it is the underlying brutality of New Delhi’s direct rule that has alienated the Kashmiri people.

“We need to emphasize that respect for both human rights and the right to self-determination is an American priority in Kashmir,” the writers added.

The letter, the first joint action of the new umbrella group, was signed by Dr. Muhammad Suleman, president, Association of Pakistani Physicians of North America (APPNA); Dr. Ahmed Ali, president, Council on Pakistani-American Affairs (COPAA); Dr. Nisar Chaudhry, president, Pakistani American Congress (PAC); Dr. Agha Saeed, chairman of the board, Pakistan American Democratic Forum (PADF) and Dr. Pervaiz Shah, president, PAK-PAC.

—Abdus Sattar Ghazali

Bahrain Hosts Dialogue on Islamic Contributions to Civilization

The Kingdom of Bahrain hosted a conference on May 30 in Manama to address current and historical aspects of Muslim civilization in the context of Western civilization. The Ministry of Information event was put together by “Discover Islam,” a non-profit, privately run information organization.

Sri Lankan Prof. Christy G. Weeramantry, former vice president of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, gave the keynote address. Setting the stage for the series of presentations, Weeramantry quoted H.G. Wells: “The future of humanity is a race between education and catastrophe.”

A dialogue of civilizations, Weeramantry said, means an appreciation of each other’s cultures and a common set of universally accepted principles. Once people can see beyond their own mono-cultural boxes, so to speak, they are rewarded with common elements and principles upon which all the world can agree.

Weeramantry noted that mankind’s various civilizations are all interlinked, with all cultures having contributed to the sum total of human achievement. He described the unique role Islamic culture has played through the ages. Islamic scholars preserved and advanced the knowledge of classical Greece. Islamic philosophers such as Averroes/Ibn Rushd resurrected Aristotle and Plato. The Jewish philosopher Maimonides and the Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas built heavily upon Averroes’ work. The Muslim ruler Harun al-Rashid was instrumental in gathering knowledge of Greece, India and China. Arab universities stimulated the formation of European institutions in Paris, Oxford and northern Italy, according to Weeramantry. Twelfth century Baghdad was reputed to have had a library of 700,000 volumes, while Cordova, Spain, had 400,000 to 600,000 books.

Egyptian-Canadian Prof. Jamal Badawi, who teaches management and religious studies at St. Mary’s University in Halifax, Canada, examined the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. He noted that Islam is a comprehensive way of life which is defined by the Qur’an and the teaching of the Prophet Muhammad. Westerners must judge Islam upon these sources, Dr. Badawi argued, not upon media misreporting stemming from half-truth and superficiality.

International law is a subject rich in Islamic contributions, the professor noted. Twelve centuries ago Islamic Law had built a legal system in multi-volume treatises no less developed than today’s international law. These laws covered matters such as war and peace, battlefield conduct, the sanctity of treaties, as well as the treatment of diplomats and prisoners of war.

Islamic principles formed rules for international trade and the safe conduct of traders, Dr. Badawi continued. The “good faith” principle so vital to Muslim life was also the basis for international treaties, industrial relations, property trusteeship, the notion of sharing and caring, and for the right of privacy.

Dr. Badawi noted that relations with non-Muslims are commonly hampered by several errors:

• Outright mistranslation of Islamic terms or texts. For example, kafir means “covering up the truth,” not “infidel”; waliyah means “protector,” not “friend”; jihad means “struggle against personal wrongdoing or against social oppression,” and not “holy war.”

• Mistaking an exception for a general rule. In Islam, for example, fighting is commanded under strictly defined conditions, and is considered something hateful. It is not a means of aggression and ongoing militancy so as to conquer the world for a particular religious community.

• Disregarding the historical context of a verse, or its “occasion of revelation.” For example, fighting was commanded in order to break oppression, after other means had failed.

• The “cut-and-paste” approach, whereby a subtopic is separated from its topic. For example, since the Qur’an gives many instructive examples of Jews’ disobedience to their own prophets, Muslims are portrayed by current commentators as being sworn enemies of Jews.

Dr. Badawi mentioned numerous subjects in which superficial quoting of Islamic sources were used to prove false ideas about Islam. He concluded by observing that it is time to stop talking about the clash of civilizations and to promote dialogue among its members.

Georgetown University Professor of Religion, International Affairs and Islamic Studies John L. Esposito examined why American foreign policy often looks more like a war against aspects of the Muslim world than a war against global terrorism.

Some political commentators quote passages of the Qur’an to argue that Islam is particularly militant and that Islam wishes to dominate the world, Esposito said. Some Christian Right spokesmen, like Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham, contribute to the idea that something is radically wrong with Islam and that Islam has an inherent conflict with non-Muslims. Americans have had only bad experience of Islam and Muslims through their news media, Dr. Esposito explained.

The traumatic effect of 9/11 upon the American psyche is something totally new to them, he added, and members of the American government have used this event politically, with the result that people have become paranoid about potential terrorist attacks.

Although Americans have been forced to realize the existence of a deep anti-American sentiment abroad, Dr. Esposito said, they don’t yet realize how extensive it is in Latin America and Africa, as well as the Middle East. They don’t understand that most Americans are seen as arrogant, forcing their ways upon other people, and attempting to manipulate other governments. The world has noted that Americans often violate their own lofty principles of self-determination, religious freedom and human rights—especially in regard to Arabs and Muslims.

Dr. Esposito concluded that, since Muslims believe in Abraham, Moses and Jesus as their prophets, along with Muhammad, Muslims must make the effort to understand the Judaic-Christian tradition, just as Jews and Christians must come to understand Islam. This must lead to pluralism—not simply tolerating people one doesn’t like. And pluralism, he stated, means accepting others as equal human beings.

Ahmed von Denffer of the German Muslim League discussed “A European Muslim’s Perspective.” The current dialogue between European and Muslim civilizations unfortunately was a case in which Muslims were expected to accept a secular approach, he noted, and, as a result, this conversation had long been a one-way imposition of values, or a “cultural imperialism.”

From his background in social anthropology, von Denffer emphasized the distinction between “culture” and “civilization.” He described culture as everything and anything that human beings may do to influence their environment and shape their living conditions, while civilization is a specific form of culture within a moral framework. Current dialogue actually takes place between cultures, not civilizations, he argued, since self-interests have replaced God-given standards of justice and compassion.

A high percentage of non-Muslim German youths do not believe in God, von Denffer said, suggesting that Muslims in Germany perhaps could have a major role to play in returning German society to God-given standards of justice and compassion. He concluded by saying that until morals and ethics are returned to a culture, that society does not deserve to be termed a civilization.

Neal Robinson, professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Wales in Lampeter, United Kingdom, discussed “Islam, Religious Pluralism and Secularism.” He began by noting the widespread occurrence of violence and counter-violence against hated minority communities. As a remedy, he suggested defending “secularity”—not to be confused with materialist “secularism.”

To make a case for religious pluralism in a multi-religion society, Professor Robinson quoted from Surah al-Ma`idah: “Had God so wished, He could have made mankind a single community. However, in order to test you in what He has given you, He did not do so. Therefore compete with one another in good works, for to God is your ultimate return, all of you. And He will make it clear to you what you disagree about.”

While the Muslim dhimmi system historically worked well in protecting the rights of non-Muslims in a Muslim land, Professor Robinson said, Christian countries have had no such system, so minority Muslims throughout the world today can only hope to gain equal rights within the majority community.

Videotapes of the above presentations, as well as of numerous other visiting guest speakers, are available from “Discover Islam,” P.O. Box 10910, Manama, Bahrain.

—Muhammed Zuhair