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

by with One Comment CultureFeatured

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.

Shaming Shamima: An Unlikely Debate

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobal

Shamima Begum, to forgive or not to forgive? The request of this 19-year-old British Muslim to return to England after defecting to ISIS has sparked debate on the issues of remorse and culpability of minors for serious criminality. A martyr, a victim, a misguided youth, an accomplice to terrorism, a precedent for case law. Shamima has certainly divided opinion over how her wrongdoings should be viewed. Never in recent memory has a supporter of terrorism generated such controversy and even more surprisingly, sympathy.

Support from the public is undeniably linked to her young age. Shamima made her decision to join ISIS when she was 15 years old. A child beyond 10 years old committing any crime can still be tired and sentenced under British Law. Her decision to stay with ISIS continued past her turning 18 when she was fully capable as an adult to take criminal responsibility. Now at 19, her naivety is coincidental and unfortunate at best.

Let’s consider if this was a British boy who had been radicalized and fathered a child whilst part of ISIS. Would they be given sympathy for their regret? What we have here is a gender bias from both men and women on social media that no one is talking about. ‘She’s a victim’ ‘she was groomed’, ‘she’s traumatized.’ Were the teenage boys who defected to ISIS at the same age ever given victim status? Where was all this uproar for them? Two similar cases of British-Bangladeshi men were repatriated back to England only because of legal reasons, not on the basis of forgiveness. The same should apply to a female member of ISIS.

Having made the case that she is fully culpable for her actions, the question now is does the punishment fit the crime? The legal dilemmas here are more complex than many of us realize. Our (Head of ) Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, states his decision to revoke Shamima’s citizenship was in the interest of national security. Foreign terrorists and accomplices are also banned from entering the U.K. under the same principle. Opponents argue she has not been given a fair trial to be prosecuted and sentenced.

However, the statistics presented in Parliament last year revealed that only one in ten of all jihadists returning to the UK were prosecuted. The Director of the Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism, Nikita Malik, has expressed concern about British laws not being robust enough to allow for prosecution in these cases. The current legal framework prohibits much of the evidence collected on terrorists abroad being admissible to court. There is the very real possibility of Shamima being free on a technicality despite her openly saying she left to join ISIS. It is therefore unfair to label Sajid Javid’s decision as purely political, xenophobic or washing hands of responsibility. Risking miscarriage of justice really is at the expense of Britain’s security if Shamima (and subsequent cases) cannot be adequately prosecuted.

The debate has since shifted to the issue of her citizenship. The ‘bloodline’ law in Bangladesh means Shamima may be a citizen there by default because of her Bangladeshi mother. Bangladesh are in the process of disputing this with the Home Office, meaning the U.K. could have illegally rendered an individual stateless. Shamima also has the right to appeal the Home Office’s decision by proving the Home Secretary acted disproportionately.

One fact remains: she admits to joining ISIS. This in itself is the definition of proscription and is illegal under the Terrorism Act 2000. It is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. If she is accepted back into the U.K, she will be tried and sentenced in accordance with those laws. An indefinite/temporary ban from re-entering the U.K. may ironically be the more lenient punishment, all things considered. Quite simply put by Sajid Navid (Home Secretary), if you back terror, there must be severe consequences. 

Similar Read: God Save the King, the Demise of a Regime 

The Turkey Is Almost Done

by with No Comment Diversity & InclusionFeaturedPolitics

Democrats were hoping for a “blue wave” in this weeks Midterms elections. Though the “blue wave” failed to make shore for nationally followed races such as Beto in Texas, he lost by the thinnest of margin which is encouraging by any standard. The other nationally followed races for Governor in both Georgia and Florida are still too close to call and on the verge of a runoff election. Some Democrats were looking for more than a wave, rather a Tsunami. Polls regarding the approval of the Trump administration have been historically low, and the midterm elections were seen as the chance for said Democratic wave to begin the drowning of Trump’s influence through Congress, which would build momentum for a hopeful defeat of Trump in 2020. Though the wave wasn’t a big enough splash in certain places, the blue wave did swallow up enough seats to take over the House of Representatives.

So a Tsunami didn’t happen, but historic waves did make landfall, and the waves were dominated by women. Surfing to shore were the following:

Two Muslim women to Congress, both equally being the first to do so.

The first Native American woman to Congress…

The first lesbian mother to Congress… 

The youngest woman ever elected to Congress… 

The first Black woman ever elected as the Attorney General of New York… 

Also, the first every openly gay man was elected Governor of Colorado.

In my opinion, that’s a splash to be proud of. 

In addition to people, major progress was made nationwide regarding policies. Marijuana is now legal in Michigan, and medically legal in Utah and Missouri. The unsung victory from the midterm elections was without question Amendment 4 passing in Florida, which now grants voting rights to nearly 1.5 million Floridians who were former felons. (I’ll stress that importance in a little bit.) 

Twenty years ago (1998), there was no such thing as legalized Marijuana, and gay marriage was still illegal! We now have an openly gay Governor and legal Marijuana of any usage in ten states. That’s important.

Here in Texas, Hillary Clinton lost by 9% to Trump in the 2016 Presidential election. Two years later, Beto O’ Rourke lost by less than 3% to the well-funded incumbent in Republican Senator Ted Cruz (in the largest red state in the country). The fact that Beto realistically only had a punchers chance against Cruz and almost come away with a victory, is a victory. Here’s why the “moral victories” in Texas are a sign of possible change. For Republicans, big states in which they depend on like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, can have blue tendencies. Not Texas. Texas is counted on to hold down the GOP fort, due to its 38 electoral votes, second to only California’s 55. The next pure red states with as many electoral votes are Georgia with 16, North Carolina with 15, and Arizona, Indiana, Tennessee each with 11. I think it’s important to note that the unaspiring candidate in Hillary Clinton only lost by nine points in Texas with very little effort in campaigning, and Beto who actually campaigned barely lost. Such improvement in only two years should awaken the Democrat brass to start putting more money and effort into Texas for maybe not a blue wave, but a good ole Texas blue twister to stir things up. 

The way Andrew Gillum destroyed his Republican opponent Ron DeSantis, sparred with Trump via twitter, performed extremely well in the gubernatorial debates, and considering the changes in demographics… Gillium should have won by double digits. Gillum is down by less than .5 percent, which means they’re likely headed towards a recount. Is it not a fair assumption that the 1.5 million formerly convicted felons who just had their voting rights restored could’ve helped him out? 

I know Democrats and Progressives didn’t win every seat they wanted to; however, the numbers are increasing in the right direction in this nation. It’s like hearing “still not done” being yelled by grandma in the kitchen on Thanksgiving regarding the Turkey and her famous side dishes you’ve been patiently waiting for all day. The food isn’t done but you can smell how close it is. You can even see the plates coming out the cabinet. And that’s okay, long as you stay in your chair and don’t get up. No one can take your spot and you’ll be sure to get first dibs on whatever you. 

The Day After: 2018 Midterm Elections

by with No Comment FeaturedGen ZPolitics

Two years ago I wrote a piece on the day following the 2016 presidential election. I was full of emotions that day—sad, angry, confused, frustrated, devastated, scared, and most of all, hopeless—and I needed to express them somehow. Two years later I’m here again to write a new version of my post-Election Day thoughts. This piece, however, will not be nearly as emotionally charged as the original. I have a lot of feelings about last night’s election, but above all else this time I feel hopeful.

​I want to start by talking about Election Day itself. One question that often gets asked is why Election Day is not a national holiday. I believe it should be. People are missing out on the opportunity to vote because they have to go to work or class. I also believe that on Election Day, all public transportation should be free. All people should have fair and equal access to voting and I believe that includes free transportation to get to the polls. Uber and Lyft have already implemented free rides to polling places on election day, so public transportation should be doing the same in order to ensure that everyone has a chance to vote. If we want to continue the pattern of growing voter turnout, we need to make sure that everyone has equal opportunity and access.

I also believe that every state should have same-day voter registration. A lot of people miss out on the opportunity to vote because many states require registration to be completed weeks before Election Day. Allowing people to register through the day of the election gives more opportunity for people to be able to vote. Voting should be a quick and easy process that everyone should have access to. After speaking to a few first-time voters yesterday I realized the process of voting might not be intuitive to those who have never done it before. There should be someone available at all polls to assist first time voters and anyone else who might need help.

​When it comes to the results of yesterday’s election, I have a lot of mixed feelings. However, like I said before, the emotion I’m feeling most strongly is hopefulness. As a registered Democrat, I am overjoyed to see the flip of the House of Representatives. Although the Dems were not able to flip the Senate as well, I find some joy in other smaller victories. For example, record-breaking numbers of women were elected to the House. There were many firsts of this election as well. For example Sharice Davids, the first openly gay and Native American woman to be elected to Congress, Jared Polis, the first openly gay male Governor, and Ihan Omar, the first Muslim woman in Congress.

​Although we may not have come away with the “Blue Wave” that so many people were hoping for, I see the victories from this election as a step in the right direction. I feel very optimistic about our future and I hope we continue to make history going forward in our elections by pushing for more minority representation in out Congress.

The Pepsi Challenge (Political Opinions & Social Progress)

by with No Comment Diversity & InclusionSocial Issues

Opinions should be innocuous and a matter of preference, and that has not been the case with political opinions. They’ve become so polarizing, that they’ve halted the political progression of this nation. Something no opinion should do. 

Have you ever been to a restaurant and the waiter asks for your drink order and you say, “I’ll just have a Coke?” The waiter sometimes responds, “I’m sorry, we only have Pepsi products.” With the exception of very rare sticklers to Coke products, almost everyone will simply order a Pepsi without giving it much thought.  Why? Because while most people prefer either Coke or Pepsi, it doesn’t prohibit them from enjoying a nice cold fizzy drink if their favorite isn’t available. No one is going to leave a restaurant for the protest of Coke products when the restaurant only has Pepsi products. You like Coke over Pepsi or Pepsi over Coke, yet your opinion on the soda is inconsequential and you have no problem drinking the similar alternative.

The current US political climate has allowed people to have political stances, stances that are quite damaging under the guise of “opinions.” 

Even more dangerous, opinions have superseded actual facts.

From the revisionist historical narrative that the American Civil War was fought over “states rights” and not slavery to holding dear to the belief President Obama was a Muslim (as if that would have been a bad thing anyway), their opinions have become shields for bigotry, thus the extreme polarization of issues. 

Related: Diplomacy and War: Know the Difference

Recent news has been filled with such opinions of Black Lives Matter vs all lives matter… maintaining confederate statues vs removing confederate statues… and the latest debate… how do people feel about Colin Kaepernick and the NFL player protests. “Opinions” on these issues mentioned above, specifically from those who identify as Conservative/Trump base, unequivocally go against a cause or people that have been wronged. 

“That’s just my opinion” simply isn’t valid for wanting to uphold honoring public places for a treasonous faction like the Confederate States of America. That “opinion” fuels the opposition and it’s a shield for an appreciation of the Confederacy, which you know… attacked the United States to uphold slavery. 

Yes, it seems as if this article is a dig at Conservatives/Trump base. For starters, you catch on quick; and second, yes, you are correct. Conservatives have become entrenched on opinions that side with the wrongdoing of marginalized people. Liberal or Conservative extremism is bad; however, Conservative extremism seems to be furthering the political divide in this nation for their relentless defense of bigotry and being anti-social progress. 

I want to do my part with those burning their Nikes… worried about Hillary Clinton emails… and seeing the need to honor Generals of a nation that went to war with their countrymen and attempted to secede from the United States. I offer you all a Coke and a smile… and if you don’t yell, “It’s disrespectful to the flag,” I’ll even see if I can get you a Pepsi. 

“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.

Convenient Advocacy

by with No Comment CultureFeatured

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?