“Others May Doubt My Patriotism, But I Never Will” 

According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, patriotism is “love for or devotion to one’s country.” As an American Muslim female living in the United States, my patriotism is likely different from that of a typical American.

I was born in the United States to an immigrant father and an American mother. Three of my four grandparents are immigrants. My grandfather came to the United States to flee religious persecution in his home country. Although he was raised in a small village, his migration to the United States led him to pursue a college education and eventually end up as a professor with a Ph.D. His love for his country stems from the opportunities that his immigration afforded him, both religiously and professionally. Most immigrants in his situation feel similarly in their devotion to this country.

Being born and raised in the United States, my situation is slightly different. While the US was a second home for my grandparents, it’s the only home I have ever known. I can only call myself an American – I was born and raised here, and the only language I speak is English.

This past year’s presidential race changed the way I conceptualized patriotism. I have always been fairly aware of people who have racial, ethnic, and religious prejudices, but I always found solace in the idea that these people do not represent the majority. However, witnessing Trump’s presidential campaign forced me to reconsider. If someone who not only condoned but also promoted intolerance and bigotry gained traction with so many people, what did that say about my fellow American citizens? Regardless of whether or not he ended up becoming president, I no longer found solace knowing that many Americans supported him.

When Trump enacted a travel ban that prevented immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, it made me rethink my patriotic ideals. Yes, I still have the opportunity to practice my religion freely. But the man who is leading our nation explicitly stated that he wanted to find a way to ban Muslims from entering the very same country that I cherish for its religious freedom. He regularly equates Islam with terrorism, whether explicitly or implicitly. To think that the nearly half the country thought Trump would be fit to be leader of the free world was mind-blowing to me.  

Seeing people’s reactions to the ban; however, restored my faith in the citizens of the US. Several demonstrations were planned at our local airport and around the city as soon as the ban was enacted. Much to my surprise, the majority of people protesting were not Muslims or immigrants. They were concerned citizens who were not okay with Trump’s attempt to prevent an entire religious group from entering the “land of the free.” Several non-Muslim friends reached out to me that week. One of my friends texted me to say that he was sorry that there were people in this country who were intolerant enough to support these policies, apologizing on behalf of people he had never met. While I was comforted by the unconditional support, I was forced to make peace with the fact that there are still a significant number of people who will never accept me or my fellow Muslims as they accept others.

Perhaps naively, I have always believed that people who have racist and prejudiced beliefs cling to them out of ignorance. Yet, even if out of ignorance, those people elected a president who reflects many of the dark aspects of America – aspects that most of us would rather live without.

Do I love my country? Yes. Does my country love me? That’s more complicated. I am fully aware that a large portion of this country, including its leadership, will always view me as an outsider. But I am American born and bred. I love watching football, July 4th fireworks, and a good barbecue. I’ve never sung another national anthem, and I never will. Others may doubt my patriotism, but I never will. 

Similar Read: Patriotism Is A Dirty Word

This article was originally published on 4 July 2017.

Ilhan Omar… Anti-Semitism or Islamophobia?

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s recent remarks about Israel’s involvement in US affairs has sparked outrage in our government. In one of her statements to Congress, she said, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” Without ever attacking Jews or Judaism itself, she has been labelled as “anti-Semitic.” Pro-Israel lobbying groups quickly went up in arms to attack her, and multiple people have called for her to be removed from the Foreign Affairs Committee. President Trump even tweeted a response in which he called her comments reflective of a “dark day for Israel.” A picture of Omar has gone viral that depicts her in front of the burning buildings from 9/11.

Despite receiving an inordinate amount of criticism, Omar has not retracted her comments or stepped down from her position on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Plenty of Democrats have voiced their opinions against her, despite belonging to the same party. Several days after Omar’s remarks, a resolution was passed to denounce anti-Semitism and overall hate, which includes anti-Muslim rhetoric as well.

I recently spoke to someone who highlighted something I had never thought of before. When someone says something against Jews or Judaism, they are labelled as anti-Semitic. The use of the prefix “anti” indicates that the person who is committing the action is in the wrong. They are against something that they should not be against. When there is anti-Muslim rhetoric; however, it is most often labelled as Islamophobic. The suffix “phobia” implies that it is not necessarily wrong for someone to be against Islam. In fact, the use of this term categorizes Islam as something to be afraid of, like the dark or spiders. A person who is Islamophobic is seen as a good person who is rightly afraid of something, whereas an anti-Semite is a bad person who is against something good. The usage of these terms are not an accident, and it is clear that there are political associations with both words.

Ilhan Omar brought to light an important matter concerning our country’s undying loyalty to a foreign nation, yet she was attacked for doing so. The U.N. recently found that Israel intentionally shot children, journalists, and the disabled during protests in Gaza; yet, we see more outrage when someone questions our national loyalty than the murder of innocent people. It is clear that there is a major issue with the way that the US blindly supports Israel and its policies, and I hope that Ilhan Omar will not be the last one to call attention to this problem.

Similar Read: Ideas Make This Country Great

MUSLIM “RE-EDUCATION” CAMPS?

Think about a group of people who were persecuted, tortured, and put into internment camps for no other reason besides their religion. The first thing that probably comes to mind is the Jews during the Holocaust – something that happened in history and will never occur again. However, there are people in 2018 who are being subjected to some of the same horrors that those people faced during World War II.

The Uyghur Muslims are a group of Muslims who live in a territory occupied by China. They have their own flag, culture, and language that separates them from the rest of China. Over the past several years, they have been persecuted by China’s government for their religion (China’s Muslim population is approximately 1.7%). Most recently, the Chinese government has detained hundreds of thousands of Uyghur Muslims and held them in internment camps, or as they call to them, “re-education” camps. They justify their actions by claiming that it is an effort to prevent terrorism fueled by religious extremism. Muslims in these camps are being brainwashed and forced to watch propaganda. They’re also being forced to participate in activities and renounce their faith and culture and pledge allegiance to the Chinese Communist Party. They’re children are often separated from their parents and put into state-run orphanages. These camps have also been referred to as “hospitals” since China views religious beliefs as a form of mental illness that must be cured. 

We have seen this happen before. When the colonizers came to North America, they forced the native people into camps in an attempt to “re-educated” them by stripping away their language, culture, and customs in an effort to control them. The Nazis forced Jews into concentration camps where they tortured an entire group for no reason other than their religion. Today, we see it happening again, and it is clear that the world’s promise of “never again” has once again been broken. 

One can only imagine the outcry if this was happening again similar to the atrocities during World War II. It seems that the same heinous behavior taking place towards Muslims in an age of readily accessible information cannot even get basic media coverage. This isn’t the first time a massacre towards Muslims has been largely ignored. The 1995 genocide in Srebrenica is still unbeknownst to most people, where more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys were murdered for their religion and the rest of the world stood by in silence (the UN declared the city a safe haven for Muslims before the massacre occurred). 

“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” 

INSECURE MASCULINITY UNCHECKED?

Inequality between men and women exists in many aspects of daily life. Whether it’s the wage gap or general double standards, there are women who face sexism regularly. Serena Williams, one of the best tennis players of all time, was held to a double standard this weekend when she was penalized for arguing with the umpire. Multiple notable male tennis players weighed in, saying that they had said far worse to umpires and not been penalized.

I would argue that she was not only held to a double standard because she is a female playing the sport, but she was likely also a victim of the umpire’s insecure masculinity. For male umpires to accept yelling or arguing from another male is one thing; for a male umpire to be called out by a strong female like Serena Williams is probably a large blow to his ego. Whether or not this is the only reason, it definitely could have been a factor. Serena also dealt with “dress code” issues when the French Open recently announced that they would not allow her to wear a catsuit that was inspired by the Black Panther, and more importantly designed to prevent blood clots.

Regardless of the obstacles she has faced, Serena will be remembered as one of the best tennis players of all time, not just one of the best female tennis players. Perhaps more female umpires could help to reduce issues like this in the future.

You Can’t “Uninvite” Us, We Weren’t Coming

The Philadelphia Eagles, like any professional sports team that wins a World Championship, were invited to the White House to celebrate their accomplishment. As a team with vocal players like Malcolm Jenkins and Chris Long, it came as no surprise that many of them chose not to attend the event, scheduled for today. When President Trump was made aware of the low team attendance that was expected, despite the fact that several Eagles publicly stating that they wouldn’t attend shortly after winning the Super Bowl, he “rescinded” his invitation citing the Eagles’ dislike of the NFL’s new national anthem policy.

Related: Anthem Penalties: We Are Who We Thought They Were

In the White House statement, Trump again associated standing for the national anthem with patriotism and respect for the military. It is unclear whether he is just too narrow-minded to understand the full depth of the issue, or if he just doesn’t care and sees this matter as a win for his base. Either way, he conveniently ignores why the players were kneeling during the national anthem last season, which was in protest to social injustice and police brutality (not to mention that the Eagles’ players did stand for the anthem every game last season). While Trump likes to argue that these men do not care about their country, a strong argument could be made that they actually care more about their country than he does because they recognize injustice and are actively working to address it and make positive changes.

Trump has made it clear that he does not have the ability to understand things past their face value. The Eagles decision not to attend, prior to being “uninvited,” is a sign that they’re doing something right as a group, which has proven to be active in combating social injustice in America. I hope to see them continue to speak up and support causes they believe in, regardless of the bullying tactics that Trump uses to discourage positive discourse.

Subscribe for free to keep up with the debate. 

Protect This House [By Any Means Necessary]

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” – Desmond Tutu 

The recent scandal involving the repeated sexual abuse of more than 160 women at the hands of Larry Nassar is nothing short of appalling. He has been sentenced to 40-175 years in prison, in addition to a 60-year sentence that he is already serving for possessing child pornography. His actions are undeniably atrocious; however, such abuse at this level could not have occurred without the complicity of several people in high places. We cannot forget the institution and individuals and who were aware of this abuse and took deliberate action to ignore and conceal crucial information about not only Nassar’s sexual abuse, but other cases as well.

While he was employed at Michigan State, Nassar was reported several times to multiple individuals. In most cases, the victims were ignored or told to keep quiet. This wasn’t just gymnastics. Athletic administrators at Michigan State attempted to keep all sexual misconduct involving staff or student-athletes “in-house,” thus minimizing their paper trail and the potential for the media to publicize faults. There were numerous cases where their student-athletes were accused and convicted of sexual misconduct; but the athletic department withheld files, removed names, and took other actions to ensure that they were not portrayed in a negative light. As a result, the victims’ accusations were not addressed. Their athletic department made it clear that protecting the reputation of the program was their top priority, as well as their staff and athletes – not the victims and their safety.

[ESPN] Outside the Lines: Michigan State Secrets Extend Far Beyond Larry Nassar Case

Michigan State’s president and athletic director resigned shortly after much of this information came out. Since then, there have been talks of other administrators and coaches potentially being fired for knowing about the repeated abuse and not taking action.

While it is important to hold the perpetrators of the crimes accountable, it is also extremely important to punish those who were aware of these crimes and chose not to act. It is clear that victims were ignored by several members of the athletic and university administration over several decades. The administrators’ inexcusable lack of action allowed the abuse to continue and claim more victims. 

When compared to the incidents of massive abuse involving the athletic departments at Penn State and Baylor, it can be argued that Michigan State is at greater fault considering the number of administrators that knew and chose to do nothing. There were more Michigan State administrators and coaches aware of abuse, and there were clear and deliberate measures taken to hide vital information from essential personnel. There were calls for the death penalty in the cases of both Penn State and Baylor. Although neither program received such a sanction, I strongly believe it should be applied in this case.

What is the death penalty?

However, that probably won’t happen. Michigan State’s basketball team is currently ranked #2 in the country. As the NCAA Tournament (March Madness) gets closer and every analyst predicts them to make another Final Four under Coach Tom Izzo, it seems like the scandal and ongoing investigations get less and less coverage. That’s unfortunate for the victims and says a lot about and where our priorities lie as a society. [We’ve got work to do.]

Do you think Michigan State’s athletic department should receive the death penalty?

“1995: 8,000 Muslims Killed in U.N. Safe Haven”

This week marks the 22nd anniversary of the genocide in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, where 8,372 Muslim men were killed in an area that was designated as a U.N. “safe haven.” Most of their bodies were thrown into mass graves, and some of their bodies are still being discovered today. Countless women, many of whom were the wives and mothers of the men killed, were tortured and raped by Serbian soldiers. This genocide has been called the worst mass murder in Europe since World War II.

My grandfather was born and raised in Bosnia, so as you can imagine, I heard about this massacre at a very young age. I recall learning about the Srebrenica massacre in high school, but it wasn’t called a massacre. My history textbook devoted just two sentences in a sidebar mentioning the massacre, and they referred to it as an “ethnic cleansing.” The word “cleansing” implies that the killing of 8,372 Muslims made Bosnia purer. I couldn’t help but think that if the victims were a group other than Muslims, the coverage and the historic context of this massacre may have been dramatically different.

Winston Churchill said, “History is written by the victors.” This was obvious to me considering that our history textbook devoted multiple sections to other genocides, notably the Holocaust. Are the numbers between the Holocaust and the Srebrenica genocide comparable? No. But both involved large groups of people being killed for no other reason besides their religion. The Holocaust is a well-known historic occurrence that almost everyone can recall learning about in school; yet, the Srebrenica genocide is something obscure-sounding that most people have never even heard of before.

Let’s switch gears and fast-forward to 2017. ISIS (or ISIL) is in the Middle East systematically massacring a minority religious group called the Yazidis (ISIS is responsible for killing many other people and groups of people, but their massacre of the Yazidis is the only one officially classified as a genocide by the U.N.). A minority group is being systematically killed for no other reason besides their religion. After the Holocaust, the world said, “NEVER AGAIN.” Fifty years later, the genocide at Srebrenica happened, and much of the world didn’t even know, let alone bat an eye. Twenty-two years later, in a world abundant with media outlets and 24-hour news cycles, much of the world doesn’t know about a genocide happening right in front of them. If we don’t know enough about our history to learn from it, how can we prevent it from happening again?

Convenient Advocacy

On June 20, 2017, a 17-year old Muslim girl named Nabra Hassanen was beaten to death in Northern Virginia after she left the mosque during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. She was walking with friends when she got into an argument with a driver, who later beat her to death with a baseball bat and threw her body into a pond. Most news outlets called this “an act of road rage,” not a hate crime, as people had initially speculated. As expected, this became a prominent news story in the Muslim community. Considering a large percentage of my social media contacts are Muslim, I saw this story being shared on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and other group chats. Understandably, people were upset that a Muslim teenager was killed in an everyday situation that could’ve easily been them or one of their relatives. Regardless of whether or not this was actually a hate crime, most Muslims were extremely concerned. A fellow Muslim was murdered unjustly, and there was outrage from much of the Muslim community.

Less than 24 hours after Nabra Hassanen was murdered, a pregnant African-American woman named Charleena Lyles was killed in Seattle, Washington by two white police officers. She had called the police because she suspected a burglary. Because Lyles wielded a knife when they arrived, the two officers shot and killed her in front of three of her young children. Lyles had been dealing with mental health issues prior to her murder. As expected, this became a hot topic in the African-American community. This is obviously not the first time an African-American civilian has been killed unjustly by a white law enforcement official, nor will it be the last. The African-American community I am connected with was understandably furious about Lyles’ murder, and many of them were vocal about her murder on social media. A fellow African-American was murdered unjustly, and there was outrage from much of the their community.

The murders of Nabra Hassanen and Charleena Lyles did not occur under the same circumstances, nor are their facts comparable. There are bigger questions to explore regarding both of them (i.e. defining a hate crime, mental health issues, etc.). But I found it extremely notable that the groups of outspoken advocates for Hassanen and Lyles, respectively, did not seem to overlap at all. The Muslims I know were speaking out about Hassanen’s murder, and the African-American people I know were speaking out about Lyles’ murder. It was rare to see a Muslim speaking out about Lyles or an African-American speaking out about Hassanen.

It makes logical sense that minority groups are concerned about issues that directly affect them and their communities. As a Muslim student, hearing about the murder of a Muslim student hits home because I could picture myself as Nabra Hassanen. In the same way, an African-American mother could probably see herself as Charleena Lyles. While the specific details of both murders do not align, there is a common thread: two people of minority groups were killed unjustly by members of a different group. Many people who spoke out on either incident claimed to be standing up for justice, but their advocacy is convenient for them. Convenient advocacy will not be effective when trying to engage in social reform. Dr. Martin Luther King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” As humans, can we really say we stand up for justice if we are only concerned about injustice in our own communities?