“Attack ISIS, Not Linda Sarsour”

by with No Comment FeaturedGen Z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0tr0CFik2k&feature=youtu.be

Over the weekend, Linda Sarsour, the Palestinian Muslim-American organizer of the women’s march, gave a speech in which she used the word ‘Jihad’. And the Internet exploded.

Right-wing media outlets seized the opportunity to make it seem as if her speech was proof of Muslim-Americans attempting to foment ‘Jihad’ against the US and Donald Trump. Even prominent liberal figures attempted to distance themselves from Linda. However, anyone who took the time to actually read the text or listen to her speech could clearly see that her use of the word ‘Jihad’ was being completely and sometimes purposely misconstrued. It is clear that what she was talking about had nothing to do with the use of violence. She was giving a speech about speaking truth to power.

This type of reaction to the simple use of a word is absolutely ridiculous and blatantly Islamophobia. Such a reaction is essentially saying that Muslims cannot use a certain term in their religion because it makes people uncomfortable. Some pundits defended Sarsour; yet, they still criticized her word choice.

There are two important points that need to be made. First, she was quoting a hadith- a prophetic saying. So those asking her to “think about her word choice” are essentially asking her to change the wording of her religion to suit the needs of others. Second, Western analysts are continuously saying that moderate Muslims should “take back Islam” from extremists. I’m not even sure what that means, because when a moderate Muslim who is an outspoken civil rights activist like Linda uses the word ‘Jihad’, those same analysts turn against her.

Saying Muslims should stay away from words like ‘Jihad’ is to suggest that Muslims should stay away from all controversial topics. The word ‘Jihad’ means to struggle and is most often used to denote an internal moral struggle. It’s a word that has been appropriated by extremists and bigots. It’s also important to note that the only group that interprets the word ‘Jihad’ to exclusively mean terrorism is ISIS and their affiliates. That does not mean its meaning has changed nor does it mean that Muslims should shy away from using the word. Any argument to the contrary plays right into the hands of bigots and extremists, and further perpetuates Islamophobia.

 

Ideas Make This Country Great

by with 2 Comments Diversity & InclusionFeaturedGen Z

As a Muslim-American, I spend a decent amount of time thinking about patriotism. This has become increasingly so as some far right politicians and “conservative media outlets” seem to be intent on suggesting that my citizenship and my religion are incompatible. So what does it mean to be a patriot? Does it mean blind support of everything the United States does? Does it mean that anything the government does, especially anything it does abroad, I have to support? Does not doing so make me unpatriotic?

My answer to all the above is no. American patriotism extends far past borders, political affiliations, and current administrations. It has nothing to do with any specific policy objective, and it has even less to do with politics. It is not nationalism. It is idealism.

Ideas make this country great. Concepts like diversity and pluralism. Values like freedom and liberty. The rights guaranteed to us in the constitution. Being a patriot means standing by these values; no matter the circumstance, no matter the time period, and regardless of what may be politically expedient.

Patriotism has nothing to do with unconditional support of the government. In fact, I would argue that unconditional support of anything is toxic, and unconditional support of the government is almost certainly unpatriotic. When the NSA violates the constitutional right to privacy and the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches by conducting warrantless domestic surveillance it is unpatriotic to be unopposed. Thinly veiled attempts at retroactive justification by appealing to issues of National Security aren’t patriotic. They’re hypocritical and contrary to the ideals that this country was founded on. As Benjamin Franklin famously wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

To make this more contemporaneous, when Donald Trump proposes a completely un-American Muslim Ban we can’t allow silence to take the guise of patriotism. Silence is not patriotism. Unconditional support is not patriotism. Standing up for American values is patriotism, regardless of who is in office and what their policies entail.

Kushner’s Miserable Peace Prospects

by with No Comment FeaturedGen ZPolitics

Last week I saw a headline that read “Kushner’s First Foray into MidEast Peace Reveals Challenges Ahead.” Wow. Breaking News: Trump’s son-In-Law finds out Middle East peace is hard. What a shocker.

It continues to amaze me that Jared Kushner, the real estate-heir whose only real qualifications are being born into the right family and marrying well, has such an immense policy portfolio. In fact, Jared Kushner is responsible for so much of the Trump Administration’s agenda that CNN has jokingly referred to him as “Trump’s Secretary of Everything.” When you consider all the policy areas that Mr. Kushner is probably the least equipped to handle, foreign policy is definitely in the top two (healthcare reform is arguably the other as it increasingly seems that no one in the Trump administration understands or cares how the American healthcare system works). Yet, somehow with no diplomatic experience, no background in the region’s complicated political history, and no evidence that he has a substantive grasp of geopolitics, the 36-year-old is one of the Administration’s defacto lead diplomats and is somehow in charge of brokering Middle East Peace.  (And he’s the subject of the ever-widening federal investigation, but that’s a topic for another piece.)

The headline quoted above might actually be a little generous to Kushner. His trip to the Middle East to meet with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and advisors didn’t just reveal challenges. It seems to have failed miserably. Kushner met with Abbas in Ramallah as part of the Trump Administration’s efforts to jumpstart peace negotiations that have been stalled since the assault on the Gaza Strip in 2014. He then proceeded to accost Abbas for not condemning an attack on Israeli soldiers, and according to Palestinian officials, merely listed Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s demands “and acted like Netanyahu’s advisors instead of a fair arbiter.”

“Greatly disappointed”, “tense”, and “furious” are just some of the buzzwords appearing in Arab and Israeli newspapers regarding the meeting. If the Trump Administration can’t get both sides to see them as a neutral party then peace talks are DOA. Perhaps putting someone with actual experience and knowledge of the conflict might be a step in the right direction.