Success has a million fathers

One day after the Presidential Elections 2008, American civil rights activist, former U.S. congressman and mayor of Atlanta Andrew Young was on Comedy Central's Colbert Report. He made a mild joke about Obama not being black, but rather Afro-Asian-European-Latin in origin. Considering how diverse the Obama supporter are, and how they felt close to the President-Elect as if he were one of them, the joke was tasteful and meaningful.

But I bet he was not expecting who else will be claiming Obama as their own on Haaretz Online yesterday.

I had to laugh when I looked at the following articles next to each other.

Click on the title if you want to read the full article.

Khaled

Links

• Some Chicago Jews say Obama is actually the 'first Jewish president' - Haaretz

• Galilee Bedouin claim Obama as lost member of tribe - Haaretz

Voting as a religious duty for Muslims

Is voting a religious duty?
My simple answer to that is a resounding YES.
No matter whether your religion is a minority religion or a majority religion. Voting, to me, is like being asked to tell the truth, as you believe it is, in a court of law. If you are asked to testify, you are supposed to be there giving your testimony.
One of many concerns about the state of the Muslim communities that I lived in in the US, is that political activism, and even political participation, is looked at with some suspicion. There is always that cloud of uncertainty whether it is OK or not - religiously speaking.
Recently, a stupid email was circulated to many St. Louis Muslims by a fringe - and in my opinion, lunatic - group making a bold statement that voting is Haram, i.e., strongly prohibited on religious basis.
What a stupid idea, and what kind of a stupid group spreads an idea like that?
To my joy, the Friday sermon given my Imam Mihajuddin Ahmed in the Weidman Mosque a little over a week ago, brought the voting issue to the forefront in the largest weekly gathering of Muslims in St. Louis.
I do not have the transcript of the sermon, but from the many friends that attended it - and were euphoric about its content and message - the sermon highlighted that it is NOT religiously forbidden to vote. He actually encouraged Muslims to vote, stressing that they need to learn about all the issues, weigh both the likely benefits and possible harms - to both the Muslim community as well as the American society as a whole - resulting from the success of one or the other parties or candidates. Then, they need to vote their conscience. He also encouraged them NOT to be 'one-issue voters'.
It is difficult to overestimate the impact of statements like that by the most significant religious figure in St. Louis Muslim community.
Traditionally, many of the Friday sermons, shy away from 'iffy' subjects. I am happy that Imam Minhajuddin broke away from that tradition. I am praying that all those who are in a position of giving Friday sermons make similar efforts to awaken the spirit political participation, activism and volunteerism in the Muslim community. Muslim will not have a real impact in the USA until they are part of the political system.
As I mentioned to a group of friends in an email "one cannot be neutral in political elections. You may not agree with one side one hundred percent. But if you do not vote, you are automatically voting for the party or candidate that you think is more harmful."

Not voting for whom you think is the least harmful, is an automatic vote for the more harmful.

Do not kid yourself. There is not way to stay neutral. Whether you go to your voting precinct and cast a ballot or not, you are voting.
Khaled

'He's Not One of Us' - By Calvin Trillin, Deadline Peot of The Nation

I could not resist having this little poem posted here. I guess it is the complement of the previous posting about the 'Angry white man: He is one of us'. Only, this one is about Obama not being one of them.
This is copied from The Nation, a great liberal progressive publication.

'He's Not One of Us'

As John McCain's chances seem weakened or dead,
Republican rallies become mobs instead.
They have no civility left--not a shred.
They curse at Obama, their faces bright red:
"A traitor!" "A terrorist!" "Off with his head!"
"He's not one of us," Sarah Palin has said.
Lucky him.

By Calvin Trillin - from Then Nation, October 15, 2008

Khaled

"That angry white man - Yeah, he is one of us"

For me, the three presidential debates where totally devoid of new content. That is likely the case for many who followed the campaign closely for many months. It was, however, important as a window into the personalities of the candidates. It helped reinforce my impression of Obama as a thoughtful and decent person. You could frequently see it in his face when McCain deals one of his numerous low blows or tell one of his explicit lies. The look on Obama's face tells you he could respond in kind, but he feels better than to stoop that low.

As for McCain, his demeanor was consistent throughout the three 'games'. He is mean-spirited, disrespectful, and can hardly hide his total disgust and despise for Obama. But moreover, he came across as lacking the spark of intelligence and acumen that his opponent had plenty of.
He has one super power, I have to admit. And that is his unlimited capacity for eye-rolling.

One thing that I did not feel while watching McCain was that he was a racist. After all, he adopted a non-white child. And I have great respect for people who cross the race line to make a family, either by marriage, or by adoption.
I thought of him as 'angry man', not as 'angry white man'. The title of this posting was in part inspired by the PostPartisan piece by Harold Meyerson on the Washington Post website. Meyerson did not accuse McCain directly of playing the race card, but the title resonated with me because minutes before reading Meyerson's piece, I was watching a disturbing YouTube video that a friend sent me (see below).
Like the debates, the video clips are devoid of new content. Actually they are devoid to any factual content, old or new. But they are loaded with the emotions of hateful ignorant people.
Hate and ignorance seem to be a consistent feature of Republican gatherings these days. It makes me feel pity on the few Republicans that truly have a vision based on knowledge and ideology for the economy, or government in general. Some of them are still their, and I am sure they feel lost and very very lonely in the midst of their own party.
The racism showing in the words of the crowd heading towards a Republican Party event cannot be missed. It is explicit and it is vulgar. I am not sure if the hate and anger demonstrated by many Republicans in general towards Obama can be explained by anything other than racism compounded the inability of those individuals to fathom how 'that one' who belongs to 'an inferior group' in their eyes, would capture the respect, imagination, and the admiration of billions around the world , and more importantly inspires and captures the hearts of the majority of the American people.
It is as if they are scared to death that the fantasy of supremacy that they thrive on is falling apart.
In the first clip, an apparently normal-looking woman states that Obama is a terrorist because it is 'in his blood line'. Another one re-enforced the idea by wisely adding 'just look at his middle name'.
----

----
In the video clip below, a child says about Obama, 'you need gloves to touch him'.
A child said that. God only knows what the children of those people are being taught at home. I just pray that I would not come across a group of them in a dark alley in the future.
----

----
In the Palin-McCain rallies, the 'family-value parading, God-fearing, church-going' Republicans do not have a problem calling their opponent who has more than half the country solidly behind him, ‘a terrorist’, 'off with his head', and 'kill him'.
He terrorizes them. He threatens their ‘race-centered’ way of life.
"A black President? What is next? Think of them as equals? No way".
Assuming that McCain is not a racist himself, he sure knows that this 'unspoken' issue may be his only chance to win the White House. He does not utter the ugly words himself, but he does not move a finger to put the fire out. He just enjoys the support.
And for his target audience - like the ones in the video clips - McCain may have no charm, no new ideas, no consistent message and very bad temper - but all of that would not matter.
I can hear them say " He is an angry white man - Yeah, he is one of us".
And he will get their votes.

Khaled

See Also:

• A Rage No One Should Be Stoking- Washinton Post Opinions Box
  

An idiot for a clergyman: Arnold Conrad's 'god' versus 'hindu, buddah or alla'

Check this weird (and scary) clip from a man of God !!!



This idiot (Arnold Conrad) painted himself in a corner. If Obama wins, that may be taken as one of the following:

• a. Conrad's God is weaker that the 'other gods'
• b. Conrad's God does not really like McCain and his supporters at all
• c. Conrad and his followers have no god that will listen to them.

The idiot, Conrad, does not even realize that 'Hindu' is not a name of Hinduism deity.
And, for a Christian clergy to violate so many commandment of his own faith in less than a couple of minutes (e.g., using God's name in vain, and not trying the Lord, your God) tells us how desperate idiots like him, and his supporters, are.
It also goes to show how much sane people from any faith should be scared to death of whichever political or religious ideology that produces people like this person and his followers (such as this idiot in the picture below, From BrettMarty.com).


This, unfortunately, is not the only time something like that happened. Many of you may still remember how one of our own [Lt] generals, William Boykin, (paid by your and my tax money) told his audience - and I am paraphrasing - that the the war on terrorism would show that 'our [Christian] God is bigger than their God'. If you are not scared yet by the words of zealots like this one, it may help scare you to know that Boykin was in 2003 our appointed deputy undersecretary of (no kidding) Defense for Intelligence!!!!!!!!!.

Khaled

"Why do Muslims vote Democrat?"

[This post is also published on the St. Louis Post Dispatch Civil Religion Blog]

A reader (Centrist) commented on my first posting asking 2 questions. I answered the first question last week. The second question was as follows:
"... why do Muslims vote Democrat. The Democrats support abortion on demand and gay marriage, two things that the Muslim religion is so opposed to."
I do not know how accurate it is to generalize in absolute terms that Muslims vote Democrat. But judging from my immediate circles, I would say a lot of them vote that way. I am aware of at least few Muslims that are hard-core republicans who are active in the party, and are fund raising for it. I admit, they are in the minority among the Muslims I know. As for those Muslims who vote Democrat, they do it for predominantly the same reasons that non-Muslim vote Democrat.
Social justice and collective social responsibility has been a pillar concept of the Muslim community since the birth of Islam. The Qur'an stresses that the wealth is a trust to some of us from God, but for the benefit of those who need help "... and spend on others out of that which He has made you trustees for, those of you who have attained to faith and who spend freely [in God's cause] shall have a great reward."(Chapter 57:7). The Qur'an does also repeatedly link true piety to generosity in spending of the most cherished of possessions: "... truly pious is he who believes in God, and the Last Day; and the angels, and revelation, and the prophets; and spends his substance - however much he himself may cherish it - upon his near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer, and the beggars, and for the freeing of human beings from bondage ..."(Chapter 2:177). Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, told the early Muslims that "the believers are like one body; if a part of it is sick or ailing, the rest of the body shall respond with aches and fever", and that "Not of us are those who sleep on a full stomach, knowing that their neighbors are hungry", bringing to the forefront of the believers' conscience the collective responsibility of the society towards its weakest and least fortunate elements. Omar, the second of the early civil leaders following the Prophet, established 'The house of treasury' where Alms (Zakat in Arabic), and charity (Sadaka in Arabic) revenues were distributed to the poor, the needy, for freeing men and women who were in bondage, and as pension for the elderly who are unable to to earn a living, Muslims or non-Muslim alike. My point is that social justice and essential elements of a welfare state where the underprivileged are entitled to basic services and care provided by the state was an early and central part of the Muslim conscience.
As for health care, as early as the first century after the Prophet's death, public hospitals were established and sponsored by the consecutive Islamic governments. From the very beginnings of Islam, commercial monopoly has been demonized and the the universal right of all community members to access natural resources (typify by water and grazing land - two major livelihood essentials in Bedouin desert life) were established.
Very few people in the US would dispute that these early practices of Muslim communities are closer to Democratic Party principles than to Republican Party principles. It is no wonder then that a significant portion of American Muslims, despite their relative affluence, would feel more aligned with the message of the Democratic party, thus they vote Democrat.
Islamic attitudes toward abortion are definitely more flexible than the strict 'pro-lifers'. In Islam, the physical and emotional welfare of the mother takes precedence over that of the fetus, even though I know of no Muslims who would give a blanket approval to the 'abortion on demand' mentioned by the reader Centrist. However, I personally think the 'abortion on demand' statement is an emotionally-loaded, and inaccurate way to describe the attitude of most Democrats, many of whom are practicing Christians.
As far as the gay marriage issue, I am opposed to it, and so are almost all my Muslim friends and acquaintances. But we are also opposed to many other issues such as unjust 'preemptive' wars, strengthening corporations at the expense of the individuals, attrition of civil right, unchecked executive powers, and last but not least, denying health care to several million American children because it costs a small fraction of what we spent in one day saving a failing big Wall Street firm.
Most of my Muslim friends are Democrats, and in addition to the economic and social justice causes, it was a lot more obvious to us that the Democratic party is more inclusive, more diverse and less elitist than the Republican Party. Most of us are not 'one-issue' voters, and we choose a party to run a country not to lead us to Heaven.
Despite all this, and as I mentioned early on, some Muslims still vote Republican albeit in minute numbers that are dwindling by the minute. But would that surprise any one seeing how Republican presidential candidates were after the likes of Pat Robertson and John Hagee?
Khaled

[I have put together in the past a more detailed Essay on Social Justice in Islam with more documentation of Quranic verses on the subject. It is available on line at: http://muslimdreamer.blogspot.com/2008/01/islam-and-social-justice.html]

Tags: American Muslims, elections, Islam, Politics, social justice

This November, I'm voting Christian - Bradley Burston

"The United States has been in church for nearly a year, now, preached to, proselytized, evangelized, testified to by one presidential candidate after another. It seems to be working, on me at least. I've come to a decision. I'm going to vote for a Christian. "
---

"I am not about to demand that my candidate be the most consistent of church-goers. My candidate need not believe in Church theology or politics. This is what I want from my candidate: Emulate Jesus. Heal. Be a true Christian. Act to heal a country which is wounded and cleft to its core.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew 5:44) "

Click here to read the full article in Haaretz.

A ‘Holy’ constitution: Part one

This is a follow up on a previous post that presented Mike Huckabee’s idea for a ‘Bible-inspired’ constitution for the US. A comment from ‘anonymous’ agreed with Huckabee suggesting that the US is a Christian Nation.

Is America a Christian nation?

A nation with Christian majority: yes; a Christian Nation: NO.

The notion of the US being a Christian Nation is just an illusion in the minds of hyper-religious individuals, living in a circle of like-minded people, who are totally oblivious to the real world, and how diverse it is.

Most Americans are part of a religious group for predominantly social and cultural purposes. Religion forms only a minor part of the daily drive and behavior of a large number of Americans. Recite the Ten Commandments, and the Sermon on the Mount, then take a good look around you. Does this look like a society that makes God’s words a part of its everyday life?

Within American Christians there is a lot of diversity, and beyond few core theological ideas (e.g., Divinity of Christ and Trinity) there are not many governance and legal concepts that a majority of Christians agree upon. Abortion, gay rights, war, social justice, immigration, definition of marriage, right to end life, welfare, healthcare, education, tax code, etc, are all issues that testify to the political diversity of American Christians. I know that some hard-core Christian conservatives will say all these divisions and social problems are modern, and are probably caused by ‘liberals and their godless agendas’, but one need only to remind them that deeply religious American Christians fought on both sides of the battles over ending slavery, suffrage movement and racial civil right. One each side were devoted Christians who believed that God’s words were in total agreement of what they were fighting for.

Is a ‘Holy’ Constitution even a viable idea?

Adherence to one ‘political’ interpretation of the Bible puts anyone at odds with as many American Christians as it would with non-Christians. Most American Christians may not even be comfortable having their own faith ‘codified and integrated in a political framework’. They believe because this is what they want to do, not because it is the law of the land. From a personal experience, and regardless of their religious affiliation, the majority of people would rather live in a ‘godless’ society that gives them the freedom to believe in God their own way, than to live in a Holy-book ruled society that forces them to believe in God in a way that is even slightly different from what they are personally comfortable with.

Our founding fathers lived at a time when less religious diversity existed in America, and there could have been less resistance to including some faith-based articles in the constitution, but they did not go that route. They appreciated that, in the long run, a faith-based constitution would end up more divisive than having full separation between church and state. Practically, I think they probably would not have been able to agree on any single faith-base constitutional article either.

If we were stuck with a religious constitution, that constitution would have been like a yoyo, swinging from one extreme to another every 20-30 years. Could you imagine the people of fifties and sixties abiding by the constitution that the Prohibitionists lived by? Can the ‘Huckabees’ of our time honor and respect the constitution that the hippies lived by?

The constitution would have lost the ‘semi-sacred’ status that binds Americans around it today. Constitutional disputes would have not been settled in the Supreme Court but in bloody battle fields all over this country. A holy constitution would have repeatedly split Americans into two nations, one believing in ‘the Biblical constitution de jour’, and another nation that has a constitution like our current one. Bloodshed would have been inevitable. And as we have learned from the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and from modern day fundamentalist fanatics here and overseas, defending the word of God gets ‘the soldiers of God’ a little bit too excited. After all, they are always at peace with what they inflict on us because they only want us to see the light; they only want to save our souls. The arrogance that comes from thinking that only you know what God wants, leads one to believe they know what is good for every body else.

If we did not have the wise founding father we had, we would have had a couple more centuries of bloody fighting and suffering and, finally, we would have had ended up exactly where we are today, with a great constitution that separates church and state. A religion-based constitution will self-destruct no matter what religion or holy book becomes the basis for that constitution.

Please spare us the suffering. God’s place is not in the Constitution. It is in our hearts. God gently steers us in the right direction, not coerce us on it. The path to salvation is a personal choice, not a national policy.

Khaled

Barack the non-Muslim

I went to Obama's headquarters and picked up a yard sign and a bumper sticker yesterday. In the old days, these were free, but now you have to pay. I'll be supportive of whomever gets the nomination, but Obama is my main man. I think that he has the best chance to heal this country and get past all the old fights that have grown so tiresome. I'll write more about Obama later, insha Allah.

But I wanted to bring up the issue of Barack's denouncement of emails that claim he is a closet Muslim. Apparently, these emails treat Barack as a Manchurian candidate who was brainwashed at a "madrassa" in Indonesia as a child. They also claim that Barack has a brother named Roy who is a Muslim (this is the first that I heard that).

The media loves this storyline. On CNN the other night, they had a big banner - Obama vehemently denies that he is a Muslim. And everyone in the media seems to equate being Muslim as being a pedophile or being a Communist (i.e., something to be loathed). It angers me greatly.

I have seen some Muslim bloggers tackle the issue. Sheila Musaji raised the issue a few weeks ago, wondering " Is the “M” word the new "N" word? And, is it “politically” correct to use it disparagingly. Was the “Muslim” word more insulting to Obama than using the “N” word would have been?" Umar Lee wrote a hypothetical response as to how he wished Barack would respond to the "Barack is a Muslim" meme. This apparently caused quite a stir when people thought it was Barack's real response.

Now, though, the issue of whether Muslims should be insulted that everyone is equating being a Muslim as something undesirable is coming to the fore. Garry Trudeau had a nice cartoon recently addressing the issue. And the Chicago Tribune's religion writer had a nice take on it on her blog:

The repeated and false claims that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is a closet Muslim have prompted the candidate to reiterate that he is a committed Christian.

But he stops short of saying that being Muslim wouldn’t be a bad thing. In addition to setting the record straight about his own faith, should Obama also give a shout-out to his Muslim brothers and sisters and defend Islam?

Some say that if Barack defends Islam, the Republican noise machine will use it as "proof" that he is in fact a closet Muslim. I wish he would stand together with Muslim Americans, but I have been through enough elections to be a bit more practical about these types of issues to focus on the bigger picture and that is to get Obama elected than to be upset over what is in essence, a minor point. I just ask myself, will Obama be better for the Muslims than Hillary or McCain or the others? I think that answer is very clearly yes.

‘Fixing’ the Constitution

Salaam and Peace to you all:

Over the past several months, the Republican presidential candidate Huckabee made several references to his idea regarding our American constitution. In a nut shell, the US constitution needs to be amended and repaired to in line with God’s word in the Bible [Read more about this].

[this video was added after initial posting date, for viewers convenience]

It is an interesting and thought provoking idea. After all, in a democratic country the majority has the final say on how the country is run. So, if he wins, and he gets support from the Congress, he can submit to the people of the USA a referendum to change the Constitution.

As a believer in God, that puts me, and many other Muslims, in a strange position. Should an American Muslim feel comfortable with a change in our constitution in a more 'Godly' direction? I know that some Muslim groups in the south showed support for public portrayal of the Ten Commandments in government offices 2 years ago. there is also some Muslims that support Huckabee [Click here for an example]. How would these Muslims feel about a ‘Bible-conforming’ constitution. Is that better than a ‘godless’ Constitution? Would it make any difference that Huckabee has less than friendly views of other religious beliefs, and some of his major advisors are definitely not Muslim-friendly [see this article] and some are downright contemptuous of Muslims [The Real Huckabee, The Nation, Issue 1/28/08].

Would it be even ‘democratic’ to change the Constitution in that direction?

khaled