Abdul Malik Mujahid2013-05-25T21:05:45-04:00Abdul Malik Mujahidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=abdul-malik-mujahidCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Abdul Malik MujahidGood old fashioned elbow grease.Becoming a Welcoming Nation: It's Good for the Economy!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12301682012-01-25T16:22:46-05:002012-03-26T05:12:01-04:00Abdul Malik Mujahidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdul-malik-mujahid/
Kim was not the only one subject to the bad treatment. Hundreds and thousands of people go through this every day including diplomats, businessmen and journalists. The same week, former Indian President Abdul Kalam was frisked for explosives and humiliated by airport security in New York -- a violation of an established protocol. He was fully identified and this was not his first time either. A couple of years ago he went through the same problem.
Kim's nervousness is not unfounded. Seventy percent of mostly Western European travelers also showed extreme levels of anxiety saying when traveling to the United States; they fear U.S. immigration more than terrorists or criminals. It is then no wonder that travel from Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom has actually dropped during the last ten years. These three countries along with Canada and Mexico account for about 75 percent of all travelers to the United States.
This survey of European travelers also found that 66 percent were worried they would be detained for some minor blunder, such as wrongly filling out an official form or for being mistaken for a terrorist. Here is how what a frequent traveler to the United States stated in the Orlando Sentinel:
"We are citizens of a country regarded as one of the closest allies the U.S. has.
Yet on arrival we are treated like suspects in a criminal investigation and made to feel very unwelcome," said Ian Jeffrey, a British visitor who has been coming to the United States with his wife for 15 years.
President Obama would like "Made in America" to sell everywhere. He challenged America with references to China and products of other countries at the recent 19 Asian-Pacific nations summit in Hawaii. He also asked our nation to double our exports at his State of the Union address to the Congress early this year.
However, I am not sure about the president's diagnosis of why people do not visit the United States or why we are unable to export more:
"We've kind of taken for granted that people will want to come here, and we aren't out there trying to sell America and attract new businesses into America."
The world watches American movies, sings along to our songs and lines up for the latest iPad. We don't quite need to sell the American brand. It is already well established. Actually China and everyone else tries to follow our culture.
However, businessmen from across the globe call U.S. immigration and customs officials "arrogant, rude and unpredictable" according to the Financial Times. The same survey found that two-thirds of the respondents thought the United States is "the worst country in the world" in the way it treated foreign visitors at the border.
As the Chair of the Parliament of World Religions I encountered the same challenge. I was inviting a few globe-trotting business executives to the United States for a meeting of our international advisory board. I was shocked when some of them asked that the meeting be held either in London or Istanbul instead due to entry point concerns. We had to move our venue.
Global overseas travel grew 40 percent between 2000 and 2010, while overseas travel to the U.S. increased by only 1 percent according to the U.S. Department of Commerce data. Here is how an industry report describes it:
"During this 'lost decade,' our economy squandered an opportunity to gain $606 billion in total spending from 78 million additional visitors -- enough to support 467,000 more jobs annually."
Chinese diplomats and traders are more welcome in the markets and streets of the world than their American counterparts. Why can a country that cannot rival our Constitution, civil rights, freedom and democracy thrive and maintain a solid reputation on the international stage?
Yet, we should take heart in the fact that the lines seeking visas to China are much shorter than those for the United States. That is an indication that not only do we believe in our nation's dream, but people from all around the world do, too. When the same people who are afraid of the border process were asked about what they think of Americans, their response is overwhelmingly positive.
We just need to do be a bit more welcoming and respectful of our customers. Or perhaps we can learn from the competition. China does not bomb its customers. If we like the world to be our customers, we need to treat them with respect. This is what a mom and pop store does and this is what common sense commerce is all about.
I personally told State Department officials at an iftar hosted by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that if we continue to be a non-welcoming nation, London will replace Wall Street as the financial capital of the world. They had difficulty understanding my point, but unfortunately it did happen. While the British government is a partner in the war on terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan, they aggressively courted the fleeing capital from the United States.
We need to be firm but polite. Hostility and a bad attitude do not strengthen security. We should continue to remain firm in our visa process. However, it is possible to be firm in the process but friendly in attitude. It should not cost us a dime to smile and say, "Welcome to the United States."
If the maxim of "the first impression is the last impression" is correct, then the entry point immigration officer must have an even more welcoming personality. Let's keep smiling as we deal with the long line of people who are responding to brand America by visiting us. We should explain and apologize personally to thousands of those who are routinely detained on the daily basis at the border. I would even say that we should stock some milk for babies detained with their mothers for extended hours. Perhaps gurus from Customer Service in corporate America can teach our border security a thing or two.
Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, said it right:
"America is a great country. By sharing it with others we can boost our economy, create jobs and improve America's image abroad. But if we want more tourists, we have to start making them feel welcome and wanted."
]]>Thank You, Steve Jobs, From a Muslim Innovatortag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9997182011-10-07T17:05:27-04:002011-12-07T05:12:01-05:00Abdul Malik Mujahidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdul-malik-mujahid/Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions, I noticed Apple's Macs all over the place. "Some people are trying to change the world!" I thought to myself. Here were individuals committed to engaging otherwise warring religious groups for the common good -- a revolutionary idea indeed. It was just those types of "crazies" who embraced Macintosh early on. I was one of them.
It was an Apple publicity campaign that included images of Einstein, Gandhi, Jim Henson and Muhammad Ali all stating: "Only those who are so crazy as to think they can change the world can truly change the world."
Steve, born Abdul Lateef Jandali, was the son of Abdul Fattah John Jandali, a Syrian Muslim, and Joanne Schieble, an American Christian mother whose conservative father refused to let them get married. So Steve was given up for adoption. As a school dropout, sometimes, the only full meal he had was at a Hari Krishna langar. Later he converted to Buddhism. And many wonder why he would walk around without shoes at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA.
In the United States, where diversity is becoming as American as apple pie, Steve Jobs' story must be inspiring to all who believe in our nation's future and its contribution to humanity. While our country was going downhill because of wars and the economy, Apple was rising to become the number one company in the world, giving clues to America of what needs to be done to turn things around for all of us.
Our lives have multiple influences. One major influence which helped shape quite a bit of what I do is Steve Jobs and his company, Apple.
Thanks to Steve, Sound Vision, a not-for-profit I founded and lead, was featured on the science and technology page of Newsweek in the early 1990s. Then, ABC News covered it on its prime time evening news because in those days, everyone was talking about the wonders of multimedia, but hardly anyone was using it to develop programs. Sound Vision was able to do that thanks to Apple. That was why Newsweek put our story on the science and technology page instead of the religion page, despite the fact that our product was focused on teaching Muslim kids how to read the Quran in Arabic.
That program may not have been conceived if it were not for Steve Jobs' Macintosh. I remember sitting on my prayer rug, contemplating after fajr, the pre-dawn Islamic prayer, when I noticed my Mac on my desk. The whole idea of a product came right then and there because only the Mac computer could produce hyperlinks in those days. Only a Mac could write Arabic and other non-English languages at that time, or record and play sound, or link sound, graphics and text together without requiring complex hardware or programming skills. These are the things which we now take for granted on all computers.
The idea was born in a few seconds. I test implemented it the same day all by myself while I had never taken a computer class in my life or opened a manual. A prototype was completed in a week while neither my team nor I held programming degrees. In a few months, it was ready. We then waited years for PCs to catch up to the same capability.
That one multimedia Quran program sustained Sound Vision for more than a decade. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have learned to read the Quran throughout the world with Al-Qari, including the guy who started Aljazeerah English. A Saudi University had Al-Qari installed (pirated copies) on all its computers, to teach the students how to read the Islamic holy book in Arabic.
The same simple implementation of linking text, graphics, voice, video, etc., eventually became second nature as we all clicked on the web through our computers and PDAs.
I thank God for the idea and thank Steve for enabling me to do it. As Prophet Muhammad has said, one cannot be grateful to God unless he or she is thankful to people.
Thank you Steve for thinking out of the box and keeping it simple, inspiring creativity.
I will keep following your advice of "Stay hungry. Stay foolish," while I submit myself to the Greatness of my Lord Who created us all.]]>Muslims Are More Peaceful Than Their Neighborstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9562672011-09-12T19:40:51-04:002011-11-12T05:12:02-05:00Abdul Malik Mujahidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdul-malik-mujahid/
It seems that the preachers of peace have fallen short.
Although both the Quran and the Bible contain the commandment that killing one innocent human being is like killing the whole of humanity, a large number of Americans believe it is justifiable to intentionally attack civilians. But more non-Muslim-Americans say that compared to Muslim Americans. There are multiple surveys that substantiate this point. The first time I noticed this was in 2007.
Public Opinion Surveys
A World Public Opinion (WPO) survey done in collaboration at that time with the University of Maryland reported that 51 percent of Americans believe "bombings and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified," while only 13 percent of American Muslims hold a similar view, with a full 81 percent saying violence against civilians is never justified.
A recent Gallup survey (2011) asks the same question separately -- first for a "military attacks against civilians" and then "individuals and small groups attacking civilians." Muslim Americans came out as the staunchest opponents of both overwhelmingly as compared to their neighbors.
In response to military attacks against civilians, 78 percent of Muslim Americans said such attacks are never justified as compared to 39 percent of Christians and 43 percent of Jews. Only 21 percent Muslim Americans approve of it "sometimes" as compared to 58 percent of Christians and 52 percent of Jews.
Eighty-nine percent of Muslim Americans surveyed by Gallup rejected violent individual attacks on civilians as compared to 71 percent of Christians and 75 percent of Jews. Muslims are the least likely to justify attacks on civilians. Only 11 percent of Muslims justified that sometimes such attacks are acceptable as compared to 27 percent of Christians and 22 percent of Jews.
The same is true when it comes to opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Muslim Americans are way ahead in their opposition to wars as compared to their neighbors.
However, when the Pew survey first came out in 2007, it did not provide any relief for Muslim Americans from Islamophobic media frenzy. Most reporters used it as an opportunity to fan hatred against Muslim Americans, focusing on the smaller number of Muslim Americans who justified attacks on civilians without comparing it to Christian Americans, who did the same even in a larger numbers.
Right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin proclaimed in the National Review that the poll "should be a wake-up call." Mark Steyn said it demonstrated the existence in America of "a huge comfort zone for the jihad to operate in," and on CNN, Anderson Cooper was horrified -- just horrified -- that "so many" American Muslims would support such violence.
Well, I was also horrified myself until I checked what our neighbors are saying about intentionally targeting civilians. As a peacemaker, I will only be satisfied fully when all Muslims and people of other faiths oppose killing civilians fully, whether that is by a military or a terrorist group. But these statistics do offer me comparative relief.
FBI Evidence
The same evidence of a peaceful Muslim community was provided by Michael E. Rolince, former FBI Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, D.C. Field Office. He said the FBI conducted about 500,000 interviews without finding a single lead which could have helped the agency prevent the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
That number means that almost 40 percent of all Muslim households in the United States were probably touched by this investigation. Here is what this presidential award recipient with 30 years of counterterrorism and counterintelligence experience said on Dec. 17, 2005, one month after his retirement, at the Muslim Public Affairs Committee's annual convention in a panel titled, "Muslim Americans & Law Enforcement Partnership" (Here is an mp3 of his speech. His statement appears in the Q & A section):
"We conducted about a half a million interviews post 9/11 relative to the attacks of 9/11, and this is important because your community gets painted as not doing enough and you could have helped. I'm not aware -- and I know 9/11 about as well as anybody in the FBI knows 9/11 and that's not bragging that's just the reality -- I'm not aware of any single person in your community who, had they stepped forward, could have provided a clue to help us get out in front of this. The reality of that attack is that 19 people came here with what they needed. They spoke the language well enough to order meals and rent cars and hotel rooms. They had money coming in from overseas. Four people knew how to fly planes and 15 others were willing to be the muscle. They didn't need any witting help from anyone to do what they did. And thus far, and I'm not saying this is conclusive because 10 years from now someone might find something that changes it, we've not found a sitting single witting individual in your community, and that's a fact that gets overlooked because you get painted and that's why I'm so committed and remain committed to projects like this because what we are in the business of is facts and the truth."
Anxiety about Muslim Americans is at an all-time high thanks to a well-funded campaign of Islamophobia.
Rand Corporation Findings
A 2010 Rand Corporation report rightfully states that "The volume of domestic terrorist activity was much greater in the 1970s than it is today. It is important to note that Rand is mostly a Defense Department-funded think-tank. This report has a whole section called "The 1970s Saw Greater Terrorist Violence." The report asserts that, "Thus far, there has been no sustained jihadist terrorist campaign in the United States." And one possible reason for this, according to this Rand report, is, "The local Muslim community rejected al Qaeda's appeals and actively intervened to dissuade those with radical tendencies from violence."
I have presented here three types of evidence: multiple public opinion surveys proving that Muslim Americans are more peaceful than their neighbors, the conclusions of a top cop from the FBI that 500,000 interviews by Muslims did not yield a single piece of evidence that Muslim Americans had anything to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and a Rand corporation report that states that the terrorist threat in the U.S. is far lower than it was in the 1970s.
I hope that the American media and public policy leaders will become partners in reframing the conversation when it comes to domestic threats in the face of this overwhelming evidence. ]]>Sharia and the Lives of Muslim Americanstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8809752011-06-26T22:14:13-04:002011-08-26T05:12:01-04:00Abdul Malik Mujahidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdul-malik-mujahid/
When Muslims begin anything they say, "in the name of God." -- that is sharia. When they greet each other, they smile and say, "Assalamu Alaikum" (peace be with you) -- that is sharia.
Similarly, when Muslims take short breaks five times a day to pray, this is another example of practicing sharia. Prayer is normally the second chapter in almost all books about sharia.
sharia does not present a comprehensive list of pure foods and drinks, although it prohibits ten or twelve things and declares everything else to be Halal or lawful to consume. If Muslims cannot find Halal food, they often eat vegetarian or kosher food. This is all sharia.
When you see a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf and a loose dress, or a Muslim man with a head covering or beard, they are likely following sharia manners of dress.
When in a marriage sermon you hear the Quran recited about piety, loyalty to each other, and God's advice for clear communication between spouses, that is a sharia wedding.
Muslims often avoid taking out mortgages due to the sharia prohibition on Riba (usury/interest). This has led to the establishment of the worldwide Islamic financial industry and Dow Jones Islamic Market Indexes. The latter select companies that don't deal in weapons, pornography, gambling, tobacco, or alcohol, etc. These investments are similar to 30 other "faith-based" investment options, like the Catholic Values Index. These are examples of the practice of sharia in the realm of business.
All of the above are real-life examples of the totality of sharia as practiced by the observant among the close to six million Muslims in America and the 3,000 formal Muslim congregations in America. Muslim Americans include doctors, entrepreneurs, professors, cab drivers, and the geek fixing your computer. Their service to their communities is also an example of practicing sharia.
The sharia That Muslim Americans Don't Practice
There are parts of sharia that Muslim Americans don't implement in their daily lives.
Since Muslims ran a civilization for over a thousand years, they naturally developed a body of laws to deal with governing society. These laws deal with issues ranging from fighting neighborhood crime to international laws of war and peace.
Muslim Americans don't practice these laws since they deal with the realm of government and state. sharia emphasizes that the rule of law in a society must be implemented by the state. It considers vigilantism a major crime and a sin. Therefore, sharia prohibits Muslims from practicing this part of Islam on an individual basis.
The Quran, like the Old Testament, is not limited to only the Ten Commandments, all of which except for the commandment to keep the Sabbath are to be found in parallel statements in the Quran. Like the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy), it ordains punishments for serious crimes. Unfortunately, it is this penal law that many people wrongly think is exclusively sharia. This is incorrect.
It is true that Islamic criminal law has been at times implemented harshly, and even wrongly, by some Muslims. Such an application of Islamic criminal law is void of God's mercy, which is considered His primary attribute in Islam. However, those nations or groups that do this do not speak for all Muslims, nor do they speak for the prophet of mercy, Prophet Muhammad, who would turn his face away when a person confessed his or her crimes. This was to give them room for repentance and forgiveness.
About five countries among the 56 Muslim nations worldwide implement Islamic criminal laws. Virtually none of them implement sharia in its totality in all spheres of life. Their laws are a combination of local custom and precedent in that particular country, as well as remnants of laws brought by European colonial powers that ruled those countries.
The primary purpose of sharia is to preserve life and order in society, not to incarcerate and punish. However, many in the Muslim world who are sick and tired of corruption and injustice demand that the criminal laws of Islam be implemented in their countries. However, this is not what Muslims in America are demanding. Their practice of sharia is limited to the personal sphere.
Sharia Is Neither One Nor Static
Sharia is not one monolithic body or a codified book of comprehensive law.
Sharia is based on the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, but not all of sharia is God's word. A good part of sharia is made up of human contributions. There are literally hundreds and thousands of books written in the last 1,400 years, in multiple languages in places as diverse as Timbuktu in Africa to Bukhara in Central Asia, with millions of opinions, judicial reviews, etc. on various issues. Together, they form the body of sharia.
Sharia Continues To Evolve
A recent development, for example, is a sharia discipline called Islamic Economics and Finance. It now commands a trillion dollar market, thousands of scholarly works, graduate programs, and the establishment of sharia boards at hundreds of Muslim and non-Muslim owned banks. This exercise in sharia is essentially a human contribution of the last 50 years, aiming to offer Muslims guidance on how to invest and conduct their financial transactions in a modern economy in line with their principles as believers.
Throughout history, Islam has cherished debates. An important early Islamic debate that continues today was between traditionalists and rationalists over whether the universal principles of God's law were to be known by revelation or reason or both. These debates have resulted in dozens of schools of thought in Islam.
Is Sharia A Threat To America?
When some American pundits call sharia, "a growing threat to the United States," Muslim Americans wonder what in the world are they talking about. sharia is overwhelmingly concerned with personal religious observance, not with constitutions and laws. All observant Muslims practice sharia. Defining sharia as a threat, therefore, is the same thing as saying that all observant Muslims are a threat.
Unfortunately, three U.S. states have passed anti-sharia laws, and 18 others are actively considering bills against sharia. Some politicians are now looking to pass a federal law against sharia. Anti-sharia bills are a part of a well-funded campaign of fear-mongering and intolerance, not unlike previous campaigns in America against Catholics and Jews.
To understand sharia is to understand Islam. Criminalizing sharia will criminalize the practice of Islam in America.
Sharia mandates that Muslims respect the law of the land. It is also against sharia to impose sharia on anyone. Muslim Americans are subject to the same laws and constitution as any other American.
Sharia is in some ways similar to the Jewish halacha law or Catholic Canon Law, with similar historic roots but far less complex. Unlike Jewish Halacha law which is practiced in Jewish American courts called Beth Din, there is no Muslim court system in the United States, nor is the Muslim community demanding this. ]]>Coptic Christians Are Neighborstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8057142011-01-07T14:26:28-05:002011-05-25T18:25:24-04:00Abdul Malik Mujahidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdul-malik-mujahid/
"Muslims are not only obligated not to harm Christians, but to protect and defend them and their places of worship," said Imam Ahmed Al Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, in response to the attack.
Tense relations between people of different faiths are not limited to this horrific incident. Nor are they reserved to Egypt. Around the world, we are witnessing deadly extremism as well as intense conflict, whether the weapons are hateful words or bombs and guns.
Too often, religion is misused as an instrument for division and injustice. This betrays the very ideals and teachings that lie at the heart of each of the world's great traditions. Religious and spiritual traditions shape the lives of billions around the world in wise and wonderful ways. They offer a platform for community building, not only within individual faiths, but across faiths as well.
The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions traces its roots to the first parliament that took place in Chicago almost 120 years ago. From the start, its aim has been to cultivate harmony among the world's religious and spiritual communities. As well, the Council aims to foster their engagement with the world and its guiding institutions to achieve a just, peaceful, and sustainable world.
Over the years, the interfaith movement has initiated dialogues and nurtured relationships between people of varying faiths. In doing so, it has provided a framework for expressing many visions of a just, peaceful and sustainable future. In the process, religious and spiritual communities have discovered a shared commitment to ethical principles and engaged in seeking the common good.
This modern interfaith movement is taking root all across the world. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has established his own interfaith foundation; Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has found interfaith dialogue a crucial aspect of living in an interdependent world; last August, when a few Christian homes were attacked in Pakistan, the leader of the most conservative Islamic party in Karachi stood with Christians and Hindus protesting against this crime; when the Coptic Church was attacked on January 1, Sheikh Ahmed El-Tayeb, head of Al Azhar, visited the Coptic Orthodox Pope Shenouda III to express his solidarity. Students at Al-Azhar University also organized a protest rally in solidarity with Egyptian Copts.
These are just some ways that religious and spiritual communities around the world are working together for greater harmony. They don't make the news headlines, since change for the good takes years and years of hard work, cooperation, exchange, trust-building, and community-building. In contrast, a car bombing takes just seconds to quickly put more than a dent in such cooperative relations.
Yet, an ongoing commitment to the ideal of interreligious and spiritual harmony cannot and is not shaken by incidents like the January 1 bombing in Egypt. On the contrary, they can and should strengthen our resolve and commitment to work together at a more serious level.
Religions can and have lived together for centuries in various parts of the world, despite years of conflict -- whether it was Christians, Muslims, and Jews in Spain or Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Sikhs, and Muslims in India. America is our latest, beautiful example of interreligious harmony and coexistence. We are a nation in which faith communities, despite continuing problems and tension, can generally live and work together free of communal violence and instability.
The question of why there are increased attacks on Christians is a legitimate one, which requires a separate discussion about war-terrorism nexus. War continues to produce evil justifications by violent extremists for attacking Christian neighbors. This connection is evident since Al-Qaeda in Iraq had threatened Egyptian Christians recently by publishing a list of churches in Egypt on their website.
Muslim countries have a responsibility to protect their minorities, as do all other countries. No international conflict, no "clash of civilizations" thesis, no thought of a million dead Iraqis or the civilians killed by American drones in Pakistan, the occupation of Palestine or Afghanistan lessens this responsibility. That conversation is independent of the rights of neighbors to freely practice their faith and pursue their lives.
This is where the interfaith movement must continue to strengthen itself to connect neighbor with neighbor as individuals, not as objects of some distant foreign policy.
We must learn the forgotten lessons of being your brother's keeper. And we must also learn from Prophet Muhammad, who said: "None of you has faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself."
]]>Haiti Needs 100 Helicopters, the Miracle Workers of Disaster Relieftag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.4248252010-01-15T12:18:11-05:002011-05-25T15:15:20-04:00Abdul Malik Mujahidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdul-malik-mujahid/
Helicopters go where there are no roads and the terrain is difficult to maneuver. But the 19 helicopters, which have just arrived, are not enough. Haiti needs 100 helicopters to save lives as these critical hours slip away.
The US military, government and private sector all have plenty of helicopters. Can Americans demand that our politicians and corporate leaders send their helicopters to Haiti as soon as possible?
There are hardly any functioning roads in Haiti right now. There is literally no administration. But the wandering injured are all over the country.
Their lives may be saved if they can quickly access medical and surgical help. But they have already started dying from non-life-threatening injuries.
When the October 8, 2005 earthquake hit Kashmir, Pakistan, I led a small team of volunteers to complete just one specific task: persuade our government to send more US helicopters to airlift aid to victims in the inaccessible disaster zone.
It was then a young first-time Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who played a critical role in getting more helicopters to Pakistan to save lives.
Helicopters were the miracle workers in Kashmir when roads and terrain did not allow aid to reach different areas.
As I see the photos coming from Haiti every morning, I sit crying in helplessness and lamenting the fact that our governments have not learned, despite years of offering worldwide disaster relief, how to save more lives quickly and efficiently.
The problem of supplying relief to Haiti is exactly similar to that of Kashmir. It is one of logistics.
All affected areas can be divided into 100 zones. Each zone can be assigned a helicopter and a surgical and medical team, which bring personnel and supplies in from the neighboring countries. They can also take the injured back to their hospitals in the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Cuba and Puerto Rico.
Once the injured are assisted, these same helicopters will be needed to bring in supplies to the same points from sea freighters, which will start arriving there in a week. This is what Haiti needs before one can get heavy equipment to clear the roads and rebuild them.
In the case of Kashmir, Pakistan, too many lives were lost in the first critical week as not many helicopters were available.
It took several days after the earthquake in Kashmir, Pakistan in 2005 for the government to show up.
It was almost a week before any aid arrived in Ache Indonesia after the 2004 Tsunami.
Let us not waste time and lose more lives in this year's first and most devastating disaster. Let us urgently push our government to help our neighbors in Haiti with efficiency and effectiveness.
Please contact your Senator and Congressperson today with just one demand: send 100 helicopters to Haiti before we lose countless more lives. ]]>Assassinations, Peace and State Violence in India and Pakistantag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3440852009-11-04T10:42:03-05:002011-05-25T14:30:27-04:00Abdul Malik Mujahidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdul-malik-mujahid/
That was twenty five years ago on October 31, 1984, when the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was gunned down by two of her Sikh bodyguards, Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, to avenge the attack by Indian military on the Harmandir Sahib, the Golden Temple, the holiest shrine of Sikhs which resulted in killing a thousand Sikhs.
She was neither the first nor the last Gandhi to be assassinated. She was also not the only South Asian leader to be assassinated.
Rajiv Gandhi, who became Prime Minister of India after his mother's assassination, himself was slain by a Hindu female suicide bomber in 1991. She was a member of Tamil Tiger. Initially Tamil Tiger received funding, weapons, and training in India from the government of Indira Gandhi.
Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on December 27, 2007 in Pakistan. Ironically, Taliban accused of her assassination were organized with her government's active patronage.
The Sikh rebellion was started in the late seventies by Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, whom Sanjay Gandhi, the other son of Indira Gandhi, had actively promoted in order to weaken the Sikh's Akali party for the benefit of the Congress party.
As Indians mark the death anniversary of Indira Gandhi, Sikhs renew their call for justice, and Pakistan bleeds with terrorism, it is important to reflect how justice, reconciliation and forgiveness can allow humanity to move forward and how its absence can continue to harm people.
Any state, as the most organized power, has more responsibility to be a patient actor. Instead of taking a short-term view, insisting to establish the writ of the state, it needs to take a longer view of issues and think of long-term consequence of its strategies. Unfortunately, states sometime behave in a tribal mode of retaliation and revenge.
If Indira Gandhi in the Golden Temple, Amritsar and Pervez Musharraf in Lal Masjid, Islamabad, had taken an approach of patiently waiting instead of storming the houses of worship with fire power, the bloody outcomes and even bloodier consequences could have been avoided.
1,000 Sikhs died at the invasion of Golden Temple, 4,000 more Sikhs were murdered by Hindu mobs in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi's assassination and 10,000 more Sikh male "disappeared" in the Indian anti-terrorism war.
Death counts are rising in Pakistan as military battles continue, making millions refugees, in the Northern areas while the suicide bombers target Pakistani cities. Survivors of Lal Masjid had promised this outcome.
If the Indian and Pakistani governments had stayed away from the tactical use of extremists against their political rivals they would not have inadvertently contributed to the acceleration of violence. Indira Gandhi created and nourished Bhindranwale among Sikhs and trained Tamil Tigers against Sri Lanka whereas Bhutto created Taliban. Gandhi and Bhutto both played a role in their own unfortunate demise by accelerating extremism and violence.
One lesser-known government actor, Asfandiyar Wali Khan, on the other hand, behaved differently, establishing a peaceful negotiated path in Pakistan's conflict with its Taliban. He is the Chief Minister of Pakistan's North-West-Frontier Province where the war is being waged against the Pakistani Taliban. He is a grandson of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a follower of Gandhi in his movement for non-violence. This left-leaning secular politician reached an agreement with Maulana Sufi Muhammad to end the insurgency in the area. The Pakistani Parliament unanimously approved their peace deal early this year. However, the Pakistani government with active and public pressure from the United States, went on establishing the "writ of state" which continues to devastate life throughout Pakistan.
State should also learn to differentiate between individual acts and collective responsibility.
A sort of collective punishment was imposed upon the whole Sikh community when Indira Gandhi was killed by her Sikh bodyguards. Police and army stood by in Delhi allowing extremist Hindu gangs roamed around in hijacked public transportation, as women were Sikh gang-raped and their homes and properties were destroyed. The Nanavati Commission reported that the state and politicians had been heavily involved.
Twenty five years have passed since, but no action has been taken against any politicians and officers involved. State allowance or tolerance of extremist violence perpetuates the same behavior.
The State repeated its behavior in Godhra, Gujarat in 2002 when thousands of Muslims were systematically killed and women gang raped. Narendra Modi, the chief minister and the chief architect of this Gujarat genocide against the Gujarati Muslims, still is in power.
Industrious Sikhs, who turned Punjab into a model of agricultural efficiency, making India self-sufficient in wheat, are still asking for justice as they carried out demonstrations and a strike this week.
In the absence of justice and reconciliation, Akal Takhat, Amritsar, the highest Sikh religious authority, sort of a Sikh Vatican, in 2008 honored the assassins of Indira Gandhi by declaring them martyrs of Sikhism.
Justice, forgiveness, compromise and reconciliation remain important tools at the hands of Indian State as well as Pakistani State.
Both countries continue to face armed insurgencies. While a good part of Northern areas of Pakistan are under Taliban insurgencies, a good part of eastern and central India remains under armed Naxalite influence. State has an option to keep on fighting militarily, losing its soldiers, risking civilian casualties-fueling new insurgents and continued collective punishment. This path has not stopped the Naxalite insurgency in India which has been going on for the last 40 years.
Nor will Pakistan achieve military success following a similar path.
Maybe I am naïve thinking that patience, negotiation, and reconciliation can deliver. But some "naïve people" in South Africa did themselves some good when they chose to stop the armed struggle and instead sought reconciliation choosing the forgiving path of Truth commission over vengeful actions.
If it worked in South Africa, it can work in India and Pakistan as well.]]>Engaging American Muslims Will Give a Far Better Message to the Muslim World than Speechestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.2091172009-05-30T12:13:59-04:002011-05-25T13:25:21-04:00Abdul Malik Mujahidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdul-malik-mujahid/engaging Muslims at home first.
He has been reaching out to Muslims since he took office. He mentioned Muslims in his inauguration speech; he gave his first interview as President to an Arab broadcaster instead of a U.S. television network; he visited Turkey in his first 100 days and appointed a special envoy, who is more balanced than his predecessors, to deal with the Israel-Palestine issue; he also promised to speak to the Muslim world from a Muslim capital.
Although these are excellent first steps, it is critical that the President engage Muslims at home first. He must remember that he represents us, too.
President Obama could begin by making his address to Muslims worldwide from a mosque on American soil. Why not Masjid Al-Fatir, the mosque in the President's Hyde Park neighborhood in Chicago? Muhammad Ali, the former world heavyweight boxing champion, built this house of worship. Ali is an American Muslim respected throughout the Muslim world. President Obama visited churches and synagogues in the U.S. during his election campaign, but not a mosque. This was most likely because of Islamophobia, which created a climate where he felt it necessary to keep a distance from American Muslims.
American Muslims are grateful for the steps President Obama has taken to lessen hostilities abroad. He banned torture, ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the CIA's secret interrogation centers.
The last presidential administration treated American Muslims as virtual enemies of the state, discouraged our civic involvement and suppressed our voices. We were isolated and essentially shunned. In this new era of change, however, it is vital to U.S. interests to engage American Muslims as partners in building relationships with the Muslim world. This is not only a matter of respect, but one of common interests.
American Muslims are a global village made up of diverse communities of African-Americans and immigrants from many nations. Among Muslims, they are one of the largest groups of highly educated professionals in the world.
Tens of thousands are physicians and surgeons. Others serve in higher education. Many proudly serve in the U.S. military. I personally know of at least six Muslims in Chicago who played critical roles in key Muslim governments. Many are directly connected with the ruling elites of the countries of their birth.
Part of the change that American Muslims hope for is to be valued as an asset by their country rather than viewed as suspects. We long for a president who will welcome our voices and our public service. Nearly 3,000 prayer locations, mosques and Islamic centers serve an estimated six million Muslims in the United States. We invite our president to stand with us publicly and vigorously in the struggle against Islamophobia - the bigotry he tasted during his campaign and that we experience daily.
Muslims are not looking for handouts. We're simply striving for equal opportunity and inclusiveness. That will give a far better message to the Muslim world than speeches.
The choice of a U.S. mosque for the President's address would affirm what he stated at his inauguration: that Muslims are part of the fabric of our nation. More importantly, it would acknowledge that the key to repairing relations between America and the Muslim world are those who know both best: American Muslims.]]>My Memorial Day Reflectionstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.2088892009-05-29T13:57:46-04:002011-05-25T13:25:21-04:00Abdul Malik Mujahidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdul-malik-mujahid/
And I am in a moment of remembrance.
I don't know much about the World Wars except through history books and can only relate to them in a distant way.
But I know of soldiers in Afghanistan, and other places.
I am thinking right now of the professional football player who was killed in combat in Afghanistan, about how honest and truthful he was.
He heard the call, that the country needed him and he silently left the ball game to respond to the call of his nation.
An honest, straight person, he did what he thought he must do.
This memorial day he has been on my mind since morning. Thank you President Obama for this moment of reflection on this Memorial Day.
I have shut down my TV and am thinking about him.
No, not the way his death came about, not the way it was reported or misreported.
None of that. I am thinking of his character. An honest person who scarified his career, his life.
Tillman, a 28-year-old young man with a bright future ahead of him, turned down a contract offer of $3.6 million from the Cardinals to enlist in the U.S. Army.
That is a sense of duty. The sense of responsibility this Tillman had was unique.
How many of us can turn down money for a higher cause? How many of us will leave a life of comfort and go for some thing which has substantial risks and dangers?
Although I am neither a soldier nor a politician, somehow I always think of Tillman.
I am against war, but this soldier remains in my heart. I guess I feel a connection to him.
I just wish some brave talented people sacrifice their millions and take bold decisions to become honorable politicians who are willing to sacrifice for peace, strive to save lives instead of killing around just because we can.
Peace.]]>Why Do Afghans Have a Life Expectancy of Only 44 Years?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.2046262009-05-18T10:52:23-04:002011-05-25T13:25:21-04:00Abdul Malik Mujahidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdul-malik-mujahid/The Afghan Tragedy Continues After 30 Years
According to the CIA World Factbook, an Afghan's life expectancy is merely 44 years.
That's 20 to 30 years less than neighboring Pakistan and all other surrounding countries. It is just one result of the ongoing devastation in that country.
The war in Afghanistan did not start in 2001 with the US invasion. It began 30 years ago in December 1979, when the former Soviet Union invaded the country. The human toll of the conflict is staggering: more than a million Afghans have been killed and 3 million maimed.
Five million (one third of the pre-war population) were forced to leave their country and became refugees. There are still 3.1 million Afghan refugees today, making up 27 percent of the global refugee population. Most of them live in Pakistan. Another two million Afghans were displaced within the country. In the 1980s, one out of two refugees in the world was an Afghan.
Most Afghans alive today have seen nothing but war.
Daily life in Afghanistan is miserable. Only six percent have electricity in a country which gets as cold as Chicago in winter. Even in Kabul, the country's capital, electricity comes for only a few hours a day. Traditional wood heating is difficult since not much wood is left in Afghanistan after 30 years of wars and forest devastation. Over 1,000 people died because of cold weather last year.
"About two million state school students do not have access to safe drinking water and about 75 percent of these schools in Afghanistan do not have safe sanitation facilities," according to the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF).
The Taliban, which has lost its legitimacy due to its brutality, are sometimes remembered by Afghans as those who brought peace to Afghanistan.
Women continue to be the number one victims of the country's 30 years of warfare. According to Malalai Joya, an elected member of the Afghan Parliament and outspoken critic of warlords and war criminals in the government, "the propaganda to the world about liberating Afghanistan and women and fighting against terrorists are lies." In her speech accepting a human rights award in London, she said:
Our nation is still living under the shadow of war, crimes and brutalities of the fundamentalists, and women are the primary and silent sacrifice of this situation. Justice doesn't exist in Afghanistan. Every sector of life in Afghanistan today is a tragedy, from women's rights to security, law and order and domination of a drug mafia.
Almost two generations of Afghan children have grown up seeing nothing but war, bombing, homelessness and hunger. They are an easy target for those who want to play Afghans against each other, through money, drugs and guns.
Afghanistan was almost self-sufficient in food before the Soviet invasion in 1979. The leftist government had instituted many economic and social reforms. But the Soviets went in for the bait set up by the US to take revenge for the Vietnam War, as bragged about by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor. That was the beginning of the Afghan tragedy 30 years ago. Since then, the country has not seen a day of peace except for the brief brutal peace of Taliban era.
America trained, financed and equipped Afghan refugees to become Mujahideen to kill the Communist Soviets. Along the way, we created a cadre of fighters, including Osama bin Laden. Then, we supported and financed the Taliban and now we are trying to kill them as well.
In seven years of US occupation of Afghanistan, the government of Hamid Karzai and American influence have remained limited to Kabul and a few other smaller areas. Now it is not just the Americans, NATO and Pakistan which are playing their cards, but India, Russia and Iran also have increased embassy staff and active participation in carving a realm of power in Afghanistan.
If the British Empire in the 19th century could not succeed in occupying Afghanistan despite close to a century of war on and off, and the Soviets failed to do the same during the twentieth century, we cannot win either. Isn't it about time that we Americans in the 21st century rethink the "good war" in Afghanistan? After seven years of going nowhere, it is surely time for a new strategy.
Consider this: if the Soviets, with 120,000 troops at any given time (500,000 total) could not do it, how can we with only 60,000? An increase of 20,000 to 30,000 American soldiers is unlikely to achieve military victory.
And the Soviet Union was just across the border from Afghanistan, not tens of thousands of miles away as America is.
In Iraq which is half of the size of Afghanistan, the U.S. had more than 150,000 troops plus 190,000 contractors, killing one million people and destroying the whole infrastructure of the country.
Afghanistan has 16 percent more people than Iraq. It has a far more challenging military environment because two-thirds of Afghanistan is mountainous terrain suitable for guerrilla warfare unlike the flat plains of Iraq.
Most Afghans have been raised accustomed to war and hardship during the last three decades, unlike the comparatively more urbanized Iraqis.
That is the reason the outgoing commander of NATO-ISAF, General Dan McNeill, publicly requested anywhere between 100,000 and 400,000 more troops for the fight in Afghanistan.
President Obama has been right to pursue diplomacy with countries like Iran and for extending a hand to the Muslim world. However, he is dangerously wrong for pursuing the military path in Afghanistan. It is one that will only exacerbate terrorism, as well as further destroy a nation crippled by thirty years of war. It will lead to the deaths of more American soldiers. And I have no doubt that it will further lower the life expectancy of Afghans, those who continue to suffer the most.
Abdul Malik Mujahid is a Pakistani-American. He is an Imam in Chicago, President of Sound Vision, and serves as the vice chair for a Council for a Parliament of World Religions.]]>