| copyright December 2002 by Darren
In this essay, I wish to discuss the (un?)intentional consequences
of the Ashcroft Crusade on Terror. Racially based
hassles are the most obvious, but the problems go far deeper
than that. For a non-Muslim, the situation requires
much more extensive explanation. For the purpose of understanding
the situation, I will use some hypothetical analogies.
I also recommend the following resources.
Let's begin with the most obvious--the racially based security
measures. This front line defense in the war on terror
actively ignores two important facts: the majority of Muslims
are not of Arabic descent, and therefore racial profiling isn't
only morally objectionable, but obviously ineffective.
Second, although the vast majority of the terrorists who took
control of the planes on 9/11 were Saudis, Saudi Arabians are
not subjected to the kind of security scrutiny that Somalis,
Pakistanis and Palestinians are. Again, this is unfair,
immoral, and subversive to the stated goal of stopping terrorism.
Americans tend to be extremely unaware of these two facts.
John Ashcroft is either unaware of these facts, or he does not
really want to stop terrorism. His decisions have created
a world wide crusade against dark skinned Muslims. Meanwhile,
the largest racial group within Islam is Southeast Asian. Now
many white Americans and Europeans like the Jamaican/British
Shoe
Bomber Richard Reid and The American
Taliban John Walker Lindh are Muslims who have shown that
hatred for America is not limited to Pakistanis, Egyptians,
Syrians and Iranians.
Another important aspect of the Ashcroft Crusade of fear is
an indirect attack on the practice of Islam. It is very
interesting and disturbing to ask the question as to whether
this attack is intentional or not. Even if it is accidental,
it is indeed a fact that Islam has been greatly impeded.
The loudmouth windbags on AM talk radio would shout foul, I'm
sure, so let me support my statement.
Islamic religious practice is, without the slightest doubt,
more intensive, frequent, visible and widespread than is Christian
religious practice even in the most devout mainstream Christian
communities. Most Christians think this relaxation of
the mandates of religiosity is an improvement.
It is certainly more convenient that women don't have to wear
veils like the Pilgrims once did. It is certainly more convenient
that God doesn't require frequent prayer and devotion, or confession
as was the case with the Pilgrims and the Medieval Catholics.
Surely, a few Christians are a bit jealous of the Muslim religious
fervor they are seeing now among these immigrants. I notice
more Christians saying grace in restaurants these days.
So, let me begin my argument upon the assumption that Christianity
does not have, at least at a statistical level, anywhere near
the scriptural or ritual devotion that Islam has. Consequently,
for a Christian to understand my argument, you must pretend
for just a moment that your religion is so pervasive in your
life that you memorize and musically recite the Epistles of
St. Paul in Greek, and that you pray five times a day after
performing an extensive ritual ablution in a bathroom that doesn't
provide you proper facilities to do so. In the context
of this basic reality of Islam, let us look now at the fundamental
devotional activities of Islam.
The religion of Islam is based on what are referred to as "The
Five Pillars". Along with these Five Pillars are
some other mandates that determine the lives and thoughts of
Muslims. We will examine all of these in this essay.
The first pillar of Islam is Shahadah, which is the
proclamation that there is only one God named Allah and Mohamed
is His messenger, and the Qur'an is his message. Most
Muslim scholars and theologians agree that the best way for
a Christian to understand the radical monotheism of Islam is
to understand the role of Jesus Christ as Logos as the
recited text of the Qur'an itself. For Christians,
the idea of God incarnate in Jesus defines the core or their
religion. For Muslims, the Qur'an (which means
"recite" in Arabic) is God revealed in the most direct
way possible. Christians do not see the Bible with the
same degree of sacredness, nor do Muslims view Prophet Mohammad
with the same degree of sacredness as the Christians attribute
to Christ.
Under the current Ashcroft Crusade, there has been no real
effect on the practice of this pillar. However, Islam
is not less proselytizing than Christianity. "Since
9/11" it has become very difficult for Muslims to actively
seek converts. Imagine if something happened so that Christians
were suddenly looked upon as subversive. It would be frightening
to preach the Gospel. Imagine a world where witnessing
to your faith was as dangerous as it would be for an Iraqi immigrant
to stand on a soapbox in downtown St. Cloud, Minnesota and preach
the Qur'an. This is obviously not Ashcroft's fault.
It is all of our fault, but we can see that Ashcroft has done
nothing at all to prevent this. Racists
in St. Cloud who are even now vandalizing Somali property.
The second pillar of Islam is Salaat,
or prayer five times a day. Again, we cannot assert
that Ashcroft has done anything to impede it. In fact,
at my job in urban Minneapolis, I see about 50-100 Muslims perform
Salaat up to three times during my day at work. I share
the bathrooms with them--bathrooms that have no facilities for
washing feet, or with toilets that blasphemously face Mecca.
(description of traditional
wudu, or ablution ritual) Talk radio junkies will
scream "Look, the bleeding heart liberal wants government
programs to pay for foot baths for terrorists and demonic heathens!"
Besides the simple fact that Muslims are not terrorists or demonic
heathens, what I want to point out is that there are in fact
Muslims here among us and many do indeed wash their feet in
our bathrooms. Without proper facilities, it is unsanitary
and inconvenient for them and for us. But, they manage,
and they never seem to complain or even mention it. They
quietly go about their faith, while incredulous Americans wait
impatiently for the tiny, elevated sinks for one person.
Then, it's off to the designated spot where they hide so that
Christians and other non-muslims don't stare at them too much as they bow their heads
to the floor, and pray in Arabic. I don't think a Christian
here could ever understand the fear and humiliation of performing
salaat among a majority of kafirs (infidels).
It is nothing at all like the discomfort of saying grace in
public. Do you suppose that if some element of danger, fear,
inconvenience, and bathroom hassles were involved in their worship
that Christians would do as Muslims do, and bravely continue
their devotions? I highly doubt it.
The third pillar of Islam is Zakat,
which is basically a very broadly defined notion
of charity, similar to the Christian notion of Agape
in I Corinthians (usually translated as charity).
It isn't quite the same thing as tithing, because
that goes as an offering or "dues" to
their Church. Zakat is most commonly
understood in terms of sharing one's wealth with
the needy and oppressed. Islam has a
powerfully socialist conscience that is visible
in less intense form in the New Testament as well.
However, as the anti-tax, anti-welfare, pro-rich
Republican party has merged with the most conservative
and devout Christians, this concept has been completely
lost, and replaced with the voodoo economics of
"trickle down" or "supply side."
In common language, good Christian Republicans embrace
socialism to subsidize the ultra wealthy through
military spending and tax breaks targeted at the
upper tax brackets with the idea that these fat
cats will spend that money and share it rather than
amass it in off-shore secret banks. For more on
this topic, refer to the Evil-Doers
section of this web site, and the "Picking
Winners and Losers" diatribe.
At the same time, they
block and destroy every attempt to create socialist
programs to help the poor directly--something
that Muslims take very, very seriously.
For Muslims, Zakat takes the same form that charity
usually has in Christianity: helping poor and oppressed brethren
in other countries. Bear in mind that on a broad and deep
level Muslims apply this mandate to charity. The few Christians
who do invest in foreign charity often invest money in missionary
outreach to Russia, China, or even to Catholic countries like
Mexico, Guatemala, Venezuela, etc. In the case of China
and Soviet Russia, there is often a direct conflict between
the desires of the missionaries and the desires of the governments
of those countries.
In the post 9/11 world, Zakat is being impeded more
than any other of the basic practices of Islam. One of
the most important tactics of the international war on terror
has been a close scrutiny of Muslim charities and networks for
sending money abroad. Clearly, money is an excellent way
to track down terrorists. However, the early
over-reaction and severe treatment of especially Somali money-wiring
businesses had a powerful effect on Zakat.
Besides the fact that many of these charities and businesses
were actually destroyed or at least temporarily frozen, there
has been a chilling effect on Muslims who are all afraid
of being accused of supporting terrorists. The
story of the Rabih Haddad is also a good example.
In order to understand this better, think for a moment about
this scenario. Imagine that China suddenly has a wave
of Christian suicide bombers protesting the draconian religious
oppression of the Chinese government. China then mounts
an international campaign to stop terror. Part of their
campaign would involve cutting funding of Christian charities
and missionary outreach into their country, and even into
other countries like Africa and Latin America. Next, imagine
that the Chinese have enough political and military power to
determine that certain American Chinese Christians are supporting
these terrorists with training and bomb-making materials.
Imagine that some of these people are non-Chinese too.
China would be justified in trying to arrest these people.
After a wave of arrests and shutdowns of numerous missionary
groups and charities, Christians would suddenly feel afraid
to donate money for international charity. Thinking
of the brutal treatment of Muslims in the MIddle East at the
hands of Americans and Israelis, it's not a stretch to compare
this to the feelings Americans would have if the Chinese started
arresting American Christians for supporting terrorism there.
The fourth pillar of Islam is fasting during the month of Ramadan.
Clearly, Ashcroft's Crusade has little impact on this practice,
so I will pass to the next one.
The fifth pillar of Islam is the Haaj, which is the
pilgrimage to Mecca that each Muslim should make at least once
if it is possible. This is probably the most powerfully
attractive element of Islam. Muslims gather in mind boggling
large crowds to perform a series of traditional commemorative
rituals that unite them together--all races, all classes, all
ages. It is surely an impressive and beautiful part of
the Islamic experience. Outwardly, there is no interference
in this practice. However, because of the heightened international
security in the airlines, it is now frightening and difficult
for Muslims to book flights to Mecca. Again, for Christians
to understand this, we need an analogy. Imagine that because
of the aforementioned hypothetical Christian terrorism,
perhaps enhanced by apocalyptic beliefs about the Holy Land
that all Christians have difficulties traveling on airlines,
especially to Jerusalem. Actually, during the time leading
up to the year 2000, there was a dramatic increase in the surveillance
and arrest of doomsday Christians headed to Israel. The
FBI and Israeli intelligence worked hard to prevent wacko religious
fanatics from trying to bring about the end of the world at
the holy site of Megiddo.
Islam also includes some other devotional practices that are
not essential in the same way, but are important to varying
degrees for many Muslims. Probably the most visible of
these, and the source of the most ignorant reactions by even
the most liberal of feminists is hijab, the head scarf
or other form of veiling the head and sometimes the face of
women. Friends of mine who immigrated from Somalia tell
me that the hijab was not common until recently.
Rather than being an old-fashioned practice it is actually a
political statement made in the face of the perceived corruption
and brutality of the West. I am partly in agreement with
their opinion of American and European foreign policy in Muslim
countries, though I do have my reservations--refer to my essay
on fundamentalism in Christianity,
Islam and Judaism. The practice of veiling is increasing,
not decreasing, and it is definitely an act of defiance against
the sensuality, immorality and materialism of Western society.
It is not difficult to see that hijab is
not necessarily a manifestation of sexist oppression,
though the burqa of Afghanistan is clearly
a result of the most pigheaded sexism on the planet.
In defense of hijab, the typical dress of
Muslim women is not sexually provocative, hence
it does not place women in the automatic role of
sex object. It forces men to look at them
on more serious terms. It also allows for
a simpler lifestyle since it is not necessary to
spend hours primping hair. It also simplifies
the wardrobe, making clothing potentially less costly
and ostentatious. However, there are very
expensive fabrics and designs for Muslim women.
Furthermore, the outfit identifies women as Muslims
in such a way that Americans are forced to understand
that this country is not a Christian nation.
It also makes it easier for Muslims to identify
Muslim women, which demonstrates their courage in
the face of the current circumstances.
I find it rather humorous that Christians forget that the practice
of veiling Christian women was common in Christianity until
rather recently. Women seldom went out without covering
their hair until the Nineteenth Century, and even then it was
considered rather provocative. In Catholic Southern Europe,
the elderly women still wear veils. The puritanical
pilgrims were vigorous in their veiling of women and demanding
beards on men. In fact, one might hardly distinguish between
a Seventeenth Century Puritan woman and a rural Muslim woman
from Iraq. The practice began to disappear as Christianity
lost its hold on Western society. The motivation was not
less sexist and oppressive than the Muslim motivation.
Anyway, the feminists in America have already learned the value
of hijab and the educated women do not question it any
longer. Personally, I am impressed by the number of women
who are bravely wearing the head scarf here in America.
Surely, it is not an easy thing. Interestingly, the characteristic
skull cap of Muslim men is not nearly as common, indicating
a greater degree of fear on their part. But, that is not
surprising, given that Ashcroft's Crusade is directed against
Muslim men.
In conclusion, I hope that you can see a little
more clearly the situation of Muslims in America
and the rest of the world "ever since 9/11."
My intent is not to portray Islam as a poor, victimized
religion that does not deserve the close scrutiny
it is getting. Clearly in the wake of 9/11 it is
in our interest to be more aware. Yet, we must also
be aware that not every Muslim wants to fly an airplane
into a skyscraper. The vast majority of Muslims
were as shocked and offended by the 9/11 attacks
as anyone else on the planet. Don't forget that
after the attacks we had the sympathy of the whole
planet. A mere two years later, our government has
gone out of its way to anger and offend nearly every
one of those sympathetic individuals and nations.
In spite of the propaganda spewed by liars like
Michael Savage, there were even Palestinians who
brought flowers and condolences to the US Embassies
in the Israel/West Bank areas. (Footage of cheering
crowds was taken from another event and disgustingly
aired as contemporary.) My hope is to encourage
people to think more deeply about what is happening
here and around the world. Perhaps we should ask
ourselves why even now
Islam is growing faster than Christianity. |
